Bait - A Novel Blog

The problem with assimilation

2006-02-06T08:55:00.000-08:00

The problem with assimilation is, you always have to give something up. Think about it. As liberal as your friends and neighbors may be, as open-minded as your surroundings may be, the fact is that when you say, "Hey - I want to be part of your group," you say, "Hey - I'm willing to become like someone in your group." It's unavoidable. It's human nature. No group of people can come together as one, without each and every one of them parting with some aspect of their personality. It's just not possible. Whether it's conscious or unconscious, people innately tend to "mellow" themselves, when they find a group they want to belong to.

Because deep down inside, everyone believes there is some aspect of themself that others won't understand or be able to relate to. We all believe that there is something in us which will cause us to be rejected. We learned that when we were kids, and our parents made it very plain that certain sides of us were unacceptable -- even if they were, when we were kids, we perceived those parts to be central to who and what we were, and the quashing of that was a bittersweet form of oppression. You cannot grow up and be properly trained without some sort of oppression. I'm convinced of it. But the lesson is not that parents should laud and respect every aspect of their children's developing personalities. The lesson is that we should all learn the ins and outs of oppression, and figure out how best to deal with it in our own lives.

The thing of it is, oppression has its rewards. Like social prominence. Like a high-profile job. Probably one of the reasons I'll always struggle with the limelight is that the limelight has demands, as well as rewards... and one of the big demands is that you be a good example for others. Loren Stone -- Role Model for the New Queer. No, thanks. I mean, it's all very well and good to be recognized and respected for quality work, but what a trap fame and fortune can be. I'm innately inclined to adapt to my surroundings (whether out of self-preservation, or because I'm too lazy to go against the grain every single moment of my life -- especially in public). And if I drag myself out of my obscure cave and make myself known, I'll not be able to be fully and completely who and what I am. It's not that I'm ashamed of who and what I am -- far from it. There's just too much of me, to fit easily into other people's perceptions, and if I let it all hang out, so to speak, I'd spend all my time trying to negotiate the insecurities and thought requirements of the people around me.

People have a lot of thought requirements.

So, I lay low. I'm probably sounding like a real wuss... afraid to stand up for myself, afraid to be who and what I am, afraid to strike a blow for personal integrity and uniqueness and queerness and all, but that kind of role-model work is not my main focus. I just can't be friggin' bothered to elighten people about why I really *am* just as normal as others -- perhaps even more normal, since I allow myself to simply be who and what I am. I just don't have the time to negotiate people's perceptions, and while I admire people who are able to be out and loud about their differences... how taxing it can be, to constantly stand on a hill, waving your flag.

I've got books to write. I've got ideas to massage. I've got a new book in the works.

Yes, it's true. I've got a new one on the way. I may have mentioned it in a prior post, but now it's official. I started it last month (January) and made a lot ofo progress in Provincetown, overlooking the harbor. The first draft is done, and it incorporates some writing from some other work I did years ago, that was promised to be published by a little lesbian-feminist publishing house (which then subsequently backed away from the project, because they thought it was too radical and I hadn't taken enough writing workshops). What a bunch of bullshit. The real reason was, they were in financial trouble, and they needed to stick with the "lesbian mainstream". The tried and true. The fiscally viable, safe and sound kinds of books that lesbians love to buy and read.

They could have been honest with me and told me they just couldn't afford to take risks, but no - they had to put it on me. Whatever. Not that I'm bitter, or anything. It was probably for the best. The book they wanted me to turn the material into, was weak and flaccid and didn't have the kind of bite I wanted it to have. Plus, looking back now, it wasn't the kind of book I wanted to be my first public foray. It would have raised too many questions I wasn't prepared to answer.

I may publish the book myself, on down the line. We'll see. It was a very personal project, and a lot has changed, since I first wrote it back in the mid-1990's. I'll see if I can salvage anything.

One of the ways to salvage it, is to work the different pieces into subsequent works, which is essentially how "Bait" got started -- I took one of the short stories and turned it into a full-length novel. The short story is good, but the novel is even better. And in the illustrious practice of "content re-use", there's nothing to stop me from publishing both. I think I'm going to pull out the good stuff from that old collection, and publish it, just 'cause I can. Fuggit. I think I will.

It will be a good way to get my mojo going, while I work on the new novel. Because the new novel needs a lot of mojo, and the collection of shorts has a lot of it in there. Lots of moxie. Lots of drive. Lots of virility. What fun.

And while I'm working on those two, I can be thinking about the sequel to "Bait", which is in the works. I already know pretty much what's going to happen. I need to interject some surprises and not get stuck in a safe, comfortable groove, but I think I know where it's going. I think I have a handle on it.

Which could be the best thing, or the worst thing. I knew where I was going with "Bait" for months (even years) before I wrote it. And I don't think having that info in the back of my head hurt the plot or the style at all. If anything, I think it gave it more depth and substance and allowed me to "play" with the storyline a lot more. Structure doesn't have to be a *bad* thing -- it can be very freeing. Especially if you come from German stock, which I do. Having that structure in place, makes it possible to play and explore and find out what's there, depth-wise. Not having a clue what's going on, just makes me nuts. In all aspects of life.

I'm not controlling. I'm just very, very busy, and I'd rather spend my time figuring out the subtle details, than constantly having to re-structure my work and my orientation in life.

Yes, there's lots going on. I've got books in the works. I'm looking for a paying job. I'm spending an awful lot of time in the woods, while I'm not working... hiking the trails on the land around my home... exploring and climbing and crawling around... finding things as I go... enjoying the unseasonably warm weather, while I can. Soon enough, I'll be back at work, and I'll have to fit my writing into my greater work/marriage schedule. There's a household to be maintained, and that household is very demanding. In a good way, of course. For every demand, there's an ample reward. And I like rewards.

The wind is up in Provincetown

2006-01-20T06:47:00.000-08:00

The wind is up in Provincetown today, Wednesday, January 18th. It's really up. It woke up my beloved, who checked the weather channel, only to find it reporting 25 mph winds. These winds are more like gale force. They're shaking the whole building and rocking the table. My coffee wouldn't be sloshing about in my mug if the winds were only 25 mph.

Later today, we'll be leaving for the mainland again. It's been wonderful, being 50 miles out to sea for almost a week, but all good things must come to an end, I supposed.

Anway, it'll be good to get back and get crackin' on the material I wrote while we were here. I'm writing another book. Not the sequel to Bait (not just yet - the initial drafting is coming later this year), but another completely unrelated novel. A novel that I've been wanting to write for many years, but didn't quite know how. Now I know. So, I have begun.

In the past week and a half, I've written well over 100 pages. I don't want the book to be that long, but that's what I thougth about "Bait", and it ended up fairly hefty, by my standards, I'm doing everything in my power to keep the size down on this thing, butthe story will be told. The story will not be short-changed.

Can't say much about what it's about, just yet. Only that it's set in the suburbs of Boston, and it carries forward a long-standing theme that's recognized pretty universally. So far, so good. I believe it's all possible and it feels genuine.

Bait has only been out six months or so, now. Sales are still slow, but that's to be expected in this day of competing information. I don't feel a tremendous sense of urgency around doing a promotional blitz with "Bait". It's a timeless story, and it's one that won't lose its relevance, once we're out of this century. I really do believe the underlying concepts and tensions and dramas of Bait are central to the human condition, and just as Steinbeck or Hemingway or Stein or Sand have stood the test of time, I believe Bait will prove to be one of those kinds of books. Do I count myself among the immortals? Why not? Why bother, if you don't believe to the very core of your being, that your work has lasting merit? I just have to hope that others feel the same.

It all takes time. And if Bait is worth the effort of reading, it will find its place in the world. Sooner or later.

Keeping this blog is an odd thing for this writer. I know I need to do it, and it can really come in handy, and if I want to reach my audience more thoroughly, I need to keep this blog. But writing novels is such a different process, than blogging. And when I'm in novel-writing mode (which I very often am), the speed of blogging almost throws off my pace for fiction. Fiction, to me, is much more about introspection and letting it flow at a measured pace, whereas blogging to me is all about just getting something out there. Quickly. Post haste. Get it out there - get it out there - get it out there... people are watching, people are reading, if you want people to come back you've got to give them something new and fresh to come back to. Or they might not come back again.

There's an awful lot of pressure in that, for this writer.

So, I'm taking the pressure off, and I'll blog when I can. But I'm not making a huge deal out of it. I'll update when I can, when something comes to mind. Who knows -- I may find even more inclination to do it, once I take away the *requirement* that I do it.

Giving up might be the first step to becoming more fully engaged.

Bait - Lesbian Literature Outside Of the Gay Ghetto

2005-12-28T11:44:00.000-08:00

Or LLOOGG for short ;)

I was sitting around today, thinking about how Bait is different from a lot of other lesbian novels I've read. I think it's a very different book, indeed, than most of the lesbian literature I've read. Now, why is that? I puzzled and puzzled over that. (In fact, I've been puzzling about it, for some time, now.)

And what occurred to me was... the big reason that Bait is different from other lesbian novels I've read, is that it isn't set in the gay ghetto. It's not comprised primarily of gay and lesbian characters. It's not concerned only with gay themes. It's not only about a gay person, a lesbian person, a separatist person, living in her own little lesbian world with most of the sympathetic characters being queer. It's about a lesbian living her life in the midst of the world which doesn't have very much in common with her, and which begrudges her existence somewhat, but still allows her to live to see another day.

Okay, so it is set in a part of Center City, which I remember being very, very queer, and very much a ghetto. JD's friends are all queer as the day is long, and she leads a very marginal life, when it comes to the mainstream. But there's so much more to Bait, than the fact that JD (Jax) is queer. It's a major aspect of her personality, and it's what informs her decisions and shapes her life, but it's not the only driver behind the plot. Okay, so it's a primary driver, and it really mucks things up a great deal for everyone, but that part of her does it honestly. And frankly, I can't wholly blame her queerness for messing everything up. It's the inability of the world around her to deal with her queerness, that's the real problem.

Oy vey. Which is a nod to the Jews who are celebrating Chanukah this week. Greetings and hello and mazel tov! I have to say, I'm a little glad to come from the Christian tradition, where we only have one big day to give gifts. If I had to deal with 8 days, I think I'd lose it. That, and save all my vacation from work for the end of the year, every single year.

But back to the gay ghetto topic, while I'm blogging...

Back in the late 80's, early 90's, I lived in Center City Philadelphia, pretty much in the kind of neighborhood that's Jax'es locale. It was definitely the gay ghetto -- the video store across the street, Giovanni's Room on the corner, More Than Just Ice Cream around the block, Hepburn's a few doors down, and the breakfast/brunch/dinner place not far away. It was there, in that gay ghetto, that I first learned what it meant to be QUEER. I'm not talking about gay or lesbian, but queer. As in, you're so different, and you're so smack-dab in the middle of other people who are really different from the mainstream, that you have almost no relationship to "normal" people, and the usual definitions of what "normal" is, just don't apply. In those heady days, when I was relatively newly out and dating and looking around and usually tricked out in blue denim, black leather, and lots of shiny chains and baubbles (which I found go quite nicely together) when I wasn't dressed for work in a downtown law firm... and I was far, far away from my family, I was able to fully and completely be who and what I was, regardless of social stricture, regardless of disapproval (who would disapprove? we were all artistes and odd sorts!). I was actually on my own, for once in my life, and it was a freeing, intoxicating experience.

Sure, there were unfortunate occurrances -- like that woman I dated who slowly but surely lost her mind in front of me (chemical imbalance, combined with childhood abuse -- very sad)... like the woman who "stealth dated" me and claimed to have gone out with me, when I thought we'd only gone out to grab some ice cream as friends. And of course, it was no fun living around the corner of the crime scene, where the tranny was shot between the eyes. That was most unsettling and unpleasant.

But despite the mean streets and the hazards of Center City before it got all cleaned up (and all the dangerous elements moved to West Philly, from what I've heard -- I haven't been back since 1992, actually), the gay ghetto was just the most wonderful place someone like me could have lived, at that point in my life.

I mean, it was just tremendously freeing. I didn't really know anyone there, which was also freeing, since I wasn't burdened by the expectations and judgments of people close to me. I ran with some casual social circles, and I did make a few friendships, but I was much happier when I was on my own, all by my lonesome, renovating my amazingly spacious and old apartment (tho' I didn't do a very good job with those walls, sorry to say), making my life into what I wanted it to be, instead of what I was told it should be. I didn't have any lesbian thought police on my back about this or that. I didn't have any ACT UP folks in my face about things I did or said. I didn't have any connections to my past, that could have held me back. I didn't have a future in sight that I was afraid of screwing up. I didn't have any ties, all I had was the gay ghetto, where I was a perpetual stranger, and I loved it that way.

But ultimately I had to leave the ghetto. Because there had to be more to my life, than exploring and expressing my unique personality. I had to find a way to integrate into the rest of the world, no matter how hard I kicked and screamed and resisted. I had to do so, for the sake of making a living... for the sake of making a life. I couldn't go on forever, strolling around on Sunday afternoons in my jeans and leather, striking a pose. It was fun for a while, but now that's part of my past. A delightful, intoxicating source of memories and reminders of what it felt like to be truly free for the first time in my life. But a past-tense source, where I can't go too often, lest I get pulled into the jealous embrace of taxing nostalgia.

The same thing has happened with my writing, as well. Back in the day, when I was firmly entrenched in Center City, all my writing was about being gay, feeling gay, dealing with being and feeling gay, dealing with others' reactions to my being gay... the whole ghettoized works. I wrote a lot. An awful lot -- accent on "awful," as much as a lot. My writing wasn't the best that it could be, in large part because it was too insular, it relied on too narrow a cast of characters for its plotlines and drama and discussions. It was very-very-very queer literature, with plenty of sensuality and more than a little sex. It was very-very-very ghettoized, with an almost separatist focus on separateness from the world.

Of course, being raised in a community that took seriously God's suggestion, 'Be ye separate', didn't help -- if anything, it fueled my inclination to ghettoize (which is another topic for another day). But that separateness blinded me to a lot of good material and food for thought that could have enriched my writing, but didn't. I was too busy being separate. I was too busy being queer.

Now, I find myself unable to cordon myself off from the rest of the crowd and treat myself as separate and apart from the rest of the world. The mainstream may still look at me askance, now and then, and I may (and do) often do the same to it. But we leave each other be, and I allow it to inform my character development. I can only hope the mainstream returns the favor. Or at least some of the other queers out there I've come across, who might get a kick out of a book like Bait.

Bait - A Novel for All Seasons

2005-12-28T11:33:00.000-08:00

Well, now the reason for the season of antagonism is newly over. No more fretting about the threat to Christmas from people who resent the use of the term "holidays"... even if we all do get a holiday from the season, regardless of our faith.

Makes me appreciate Thanksgiving all the more. Now there's a holiday I can get behind. Something ecumenical and religious only to the degree that people infuse it with that meaning. Gratitude and thanksgiving are able to be experienced by just about everyone, which makes it just good plain clean fun. Plus, there's food involved, and any holiday that centers around a very large meal of delightful dishes, is okay by me :)

Anyway, the controversy around Christmas makes me wonder if there would be controversy around Bait (assuming people find out about it, in due time, which I'm sure they will) for some of the same reasons. The "flattening of the Christian landscape" in J.D. Madigan's world, where the spiritual transcends the theological... and informs it as much as it challenges it... could well be considered an incendiary concept.

Well, incendiary is good -- especially when the weather is getting cold.

But I worry that perhaps there might be some sort of "Salman Rushdie Effect"... and I cannot get out of my head the memories of that author's struggle with fending off fundamentalist attacks from people who felt that he'd insulted their faith. Fundamentalists of any ilk, from where I'm sitting, are cut from the same cloth. I consider fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Jews and fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Pagans and fundamentalists of just about any ilk, to be far more similar to each other, than they are to the moderate members of their own faiths.

But, of course, it takes all kinds, and it's a little refreshing to realize there are still people in the world who care passionately about something -- enough to defend it rigorously and at their own expense. Granted, the lengths to which zealots will go, is disconcerting and often counter-productive to more moderate ends, but it's still refreshing to realize there are still people in the world who believe in something bigger than themselves and their own petty wishes and whims.

The Gospel According to Loren Stone - Puffing Up vs. Building Up

2005-12-18T08:55:00.000-08:00

"Knowlege puffs up, but love builds up. If any one imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know."
I. Cor. 8:1-2

There we have it. Whatever you think you know, you probably don't (at least Paul doesn't think you do), and that "knowledge" that you are so fond of, just puffs you up. But love builds up, so there is some redemption.

I've been thinking a lot about Paul and his letters to the Corinthians, lately. For some reason -- maybe it's the Christmas season -- Paul's message keeps coming through. Ironic, that at a time when the focus could/should be on Christ, my thoughts turn to Paul.

Then again, perhaps it makes perfect sense. After all, I consider the bulk of Christianity to be based far more on the words of Paul than on the words and works of Jesus, and if Christmas is the beginning of the Christian faith (versus the beginning of Christ's life), then it stands to reason that my thinking would be dominated by Paul and his words.

There are worse things to think on, than "love builds up" in these days of violence and conflagration. With everything that's going on in the world, these days, it's a little challenging to keep the focus on love and on building up. But over and over, I come across fine examples of just how Paul's statement holds true.

Take, for example, a certain drama that's engulfing a group of friends I socialize with. Several of these friends have become very close, to the point of two of them conducting what may or may not be extra-marital affairs. One of them says they have an "open marriage" so the sexual energy isn't a problem. The other, however, does not... and that marriage looks like it may be on its way out. It's very sad -- there are kids involved, and the way it all transpired has not sat right with this group of friends... but we've been at a loss about what to do with the information we had (or thought we had) about what was going on. I'm being a little cryptic, I know, but there's only so much I can say...

Anyway, there's been a lot of discussion amongst folks about what should be done. Do we tell the spouses of our concerns? Do we tell the folks who are doing the fooling around, that we don't approve? There's been a lot of speculation and conjecture about what's afoot, and some of the folks doing the conjecting have been in marriages that failed because of infidelity. It's a bit of a mess... but the thing that makes it the messiest, is that there's a whole lot of "knowledge" being discussed, but there's not a lot of love in action, building people up.

This is one of those times when the Apostle Paul could really come in handy. What he says about love building up, and people sticking together and giving one another the benefit of the doubt in community, could really come in handy. But Paul's words and wisdom are lost on this group of folks because they reject Christianity and have real issues with the Christian faith, due to experiences of oppression at the hands of Christians. If they could get past their hurt around the Christian church and open themselves to the ideas of Paul, then the group could conceivably be made stronger, rather than weaker.

But that's not really happening. Folks are caught up in what they think they know about the situation, they're judging like crazy, and they're taking their frustrations out on each other.

In the end, I know these folks will work it out. They're good people, and they know deep down inside what's right and good, and they'll do it.

For now, though, it would be helpful, if they had a bit of Pauline schooling under their belts.

Ousted minister loses appeal

2005-11-11T04:36:00.000-08:00

Ousted minister loses appeal: [Philadelpia Gay News] "Out Germantown minister Irene “Beth” Stroud was ordered Oct. 31 to put away her robes by the supreme court of the United Methodist Church for violating the denomination’s ban on “self-avowed practicing homosexual” clergy."

What can you say to something like this... It's really a shame for Beth Stroud to be defrocked, as it is for her congregation. The fact that coming out can cost you your job, is always disconcerting. And it's a grim reminder of what kind of world we (still) live in. As much as folks may say we've come a long way, we still have an awfully long way to go.

And the church does, too. This is just going to drive people farther apart, as far as I'm concerned. How can it not? The schism between the people who devote their lives to manifesting a version of reality they are comfortable with (at the expense of reality)... and the people who are committed to speaking the truth and expressing it in their lives (at the expense of the dreams that the idealists hold dear)... it's getting wider all the time.

It strikes me that this schism is at the heart of much religious controversy, today -- the idealists versus the realists. And the idealists keep winning, no matter how divorced their version of "perfection" is, from the facts of the world around them, because their drive is fuelled by so much fear and anxiety and the desperate need to flee the truth for the comfort of their ideals.

Meanwhile, the people who are trying to evolve the church and bring it "up to speed" in the modern world, are finding it tricky to confront people's visions of the ideal. The more the realists speak their truth and live with integrity, the more they aggravate the idealists, who react with intensity and violence... as though their very survival were being threatened. Because it is. They cannot function without their visions of perfection. And their devotion to the Apostle Paul's admonition -- "Be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect" -- is one of the mainstays of their very existence. If they aren't perfect, if they don't hold to their ideals, their godliness takes a hit. And for those committed -- heart, mind and soul -- to godliness, this is an unbearable situation. Anything which might threaten their entrance to Paradise is unbearable.

Those who live for their ideals have a tough time in this world, as it is. And they're used to fighting. So, when realists like Beth Stroud pop up in their midst and say, "Look, folks, I'm flying in the face of your ideals, and I'm fine with it. I'm even more comfortable with it, than I was when I was pretending to support your visions of perfection," well, that will never do.

Pity, that.

Taking a Break for a While

2005-09-21T17:19:00.000-07:00

So, Bait has been out since May, and I've got a new line on its sequel. I'm going to be taking a break from blogging (those of you who stop by frequently, noticed that I actually started takinga break a few months ago ;), so I can focus on my in-print writing.

Got a new line on another book. Will write more here... eventually... when there's something to report.

Peace, all
Loren

Guardian Unlimited Books | By genre | Rushdie should swap his crusading for novel writing

2005-09-21T12:54:00.000-07:00

Guardian Unlimited Books | By genre | Rushdie should swap his crusading for novel writing: "'In lending himself to the role of public figure, the novelist endangers his work; it risks being considered a mere appendage to his actions, to his declarations, to his statements of a position.' So argued the Czech novelist Milan Kundera, picking up the Jerusalem Prize for Literature in 1985."

Just what I've been thinking... But Giles Fraser makes a much better and more eloquent case than I have time to do, right now. Anyway, I'm a novelist, so it's not really for me to take sides for/against good taste in things religious, is it? <tongue firmly planted in cheek>

But seriously, folks, the piece by Mr. Fraser in Wednesday's Guardian says precisely what I've been thinking -- that my job as the author of Bait is not so much to take sides on either the queer or the Christian front, but to portray different sorts of people in unusual circumstances. The popular inclination of public figures like artists and writers and actors taking sides in politics and religion be damned (so to speak). I invoke the name of the good vicar of Putney, in stepping aside from the political debate around queers and Christians that's raging wild and hot these day.s

Another great review from Family and Friends Magazine

2005-08-28T12:33:00.000-07:00

Novel intertwines homosexuality, religion
Reviewed by Anita Moyt, Managing Editor, Family and Friends Magazine, Memphis, Tennessee (July Issue)

Bait is the story of Jax, a musician by night and a temp legal secretary by day, and the lesbian, for sure. She is a lover and “sometimes” girlfriend of Lil. She is also a sister, a daughter, a friend, and, in the not too distant future, a sister-in-law.

Where the major conflict occurs, and continues throughout her life, is between her life as a lesbian, and her life within her family -- fundamentalist, evangelical and consumed by the fact that they all have to repent their way into heaven every day.

And here's where Bait is different from other lesbian stories. Jax is a lesbian and Christian, from an early age. She is secure in her salvation and relationship with her Maker. And she is secure in her life and content with being gay, oh so gay. But her family isn't and have a quest to bring her back into the heterosexual fold, complete with a husband and family. Yet Jax, raised in this churchy family, can battle Scripture with the best of them.

She loves her family, especially her “near-twin” younger brother, who is now almost 40 and still waiting on God's perfect match. So how does she balance the two worlds? More than that, how does she deal with the fact that her brother has met that perfect someone and the angels sang but Jax realizes all is not right. Jax knows that familiar feeling and those familiar looks, but why from Jenn, this wonderful, near-perfect-in-her-brother's-eyes, Christian woman?

The author, Lauren Stone, has weaved a wonderful tapestry in Bait. The scripture, which easily could have been offensive or dry, was well worked into the color scheme. Stone goes way beyond telling you a story, and brings you into the dining room, into the park, into Jax's world, where you, too, can see, hear, smell, touch and even taste what is going on. And, more than that, the needlework, the plot twists, are exceptional. You just don't see it coming, even to the last page.

The Reviews Are In!

2005-08-28T11:52:00.000-07:00

QMediaReviews at http://www.qmediareviews.com/qmedia2_005.htm has some nice things to say about Bait:

Infuriating family dynamics and an irreconcilable clash of cultures serve as the foundation for Loren Stone’s substantial debut novel Bait. About the only thing butch lesbian Jax Madigan has in common with her über-devout, Evangelical Fundamentalist Christian brother is their taste in women and an unwavering faith in the validity and worthiness of their respective “lifestyles.” But when Danny finally meets a wholesome woman worthy of his affection – who just happens to be hiding a radical feminist past – he naively calls upon his sister to make Jenn feel like one of the family.

Steeped in theological arguments and astute social commentary, Bait is as much a story of a taboo love triangle as diametrically opposed ideologies. The prejudice and intolerance of the Madigan clan are no less vehement than that of Jax and her friends, although her family’s homophobia is shrouded in the noble crusade to save her wayward soul regardless of how demoralizing and hurtful their efforts. It is desire – whether carnal or spiritual – that drives them to act, in dramatically different ways, to fight for their beliefs even at each other’s expense.

I'll take it. I'm never one to turn down being called "astute."

It's very gratifying that they "get it," too.

What has happened to the queer press?

2005-07-08T19:36:00.000-07:00

Well, Bait has been out for about six weeks, now, and I'm working anew on generating interest about the story. I've been sending out press releases via e-mail and mail, and from the looks of things, the 2000's have not been kind to the queer press. I've gotten back a whole stack of letters marked "undeliverable" and I have to wonder, what the heck has happened to the queer press? Where did everybody go?!

I mean, when I first came out, the queer press was the first safe place I could turn for information about what it meant to be queer -- even before I came out, the queer press was present. Philadelphia had not one, but two, gay papers -- the PGN and "Au Courant" which were always liberally available in my queer neighborhood around 12th and Spruce. And those papers helped me come out, regardless of the abundance of naked men for whom I had no interest.

But now "Au Courant" is gone, and apparently so are a goodly portion of the queer papers to which I've sent my press releases. How can this be? Is all our work done? Have all the queers moved from Las Vegas and Boise? If not, we can hope they soon will, I supposed (Siegfried and Roy notwithstanding).

Can so much have changed, in the past 15 years, that we no longer need the queer press? Can it be possible that we have all the public access we need to images of people like us, people who remind us who we are, who show us the possibilities of being something very, very different, from what the mainstream prescribes and proscribes? Can it be, that the queer press is no longer the definitive authority on what it means to be queer, and popular culture (or lest cable t.v.) has taken over the important task of helping us define our identities, along with the rest of the less-queer world?

If so, I really don't know how I feel about this. I mean, queer television images are nice, and it's encouraging to see lesbians who are hot-hot-hot, and queer boys who aren't all straight-acting-and-looking. It's encouraging to see queer cinema on Sundance during June, and it's fun to speculate about the gay escapades of such-and-such a public figure. But the images are just that -- images. And in this very visual age, I worry that we're losing the ability to actually think about what those images mean, and to figure out if they're really what we want for ourselves.

The nice thing about the queer press is (was?) that it helped me sort things through in my head. In the privacy of my own thoughts, far from the madding crowd, at the point of origin, the words on printed queer pages jumped out at me to challenge me, to threaten me, to give me hope, to give me pause. There was a lot of parsing going on in my head, in the late 1980's and early 1990's. The parsing didn't happen in public with a camera running and a bunch of people watching and commenting and approving/disapproving. It happened in the quiet of my own mind, in the presence of the only person who could really know for sure who I was and what I wanted for my life -- my very own private self.

I miss that private aspect of coming to terms with my queerness. The gay 90's seemed to usher in a mad rush to go public, come out, be loud and proud, and make damned sure everyone around us knew for certain, whom we do and do not sleep with. But in the publicity rush and the headiness of popular acceptance, we've lost an aspect of queerness I have always respected as much as any out-loud-proud agent for social change: the private, silent process by which we come to terms with who we are, and what we stand for -- away from the lights, the camera, the action, and in the silent depths of our own hearts.

I miss those silent days. There were plenty of days of silent anguish, to be sure, and the isolation could get to be too much for anyone. But there were also plenty of days of silent exhilaration, of feeling like I/we were the only one(s) who truly understood a certain joke or look or way of moving, in ways that straights (bless their hearts) never could or would, no matter how hard they tried. There was a quiet dignity to my separateness, once upon a time, and even if that separateness sometimes put me at risk for getting my ass kicked by guys who thought I looked at their girlfriends "that way," still it gave me solace and protection from the brutal, clumsy, clueless mainstream world at large.

The silent communion I could find with a queer newspaper or newsletter, which talked about my little world and my daily reality, was a welcome respite from the clash and clamor of a world that didn't recognize me or understand me. But even now that I've been out for 15 years, my family loves and accepts me for who I am, my partner is fully welcomed into the family as one of our own, and my straight coworkers treat me with respect and congeniality, I am not entirely convinced that everything is right with the world. I have a hard time believing every last important aspect of who and what I am as a queer woman, a lesbian, a dyke, is fully grasped by everyone who wants to, or thinks they do. I also have a hard time believing that the people around me should understand and/or relate to every aspect of me. Somewhere, I like there to be some differentiation between myself and the rest of the world. Somehow, I like to know I'm still an individual in a homogeneous world.

For all the thrill of acceptance by a world that used to hate us, sometimes I'd settle for silent neglect. Neglect by the rest of the world, as I cozy up with my printed queer words.

All good things are wild and free

2005-07-08T18:18:00.000-07:00

Back again after a month away.

I've had quite a month, including a week-long celebration of my one-year anniversary of legal marriage to my Beloved, a handful of days spent at the Provincetown International Film Festival, lots of running around, picking up a new(er) car I bought before my vacation, turning 40, and being told that I'm no longer a "good fit" for my job and I need to "seek opportunities elsewhere."

Lots of changes, needless to say. The most unexpected, I think, is that I now own a car with less than 100,000 miles on it. That's never happened to me before. Then again, I've never turned 40 before, and I've never been told by a company which has profited nicely from my work for over eight years, that I'm just no good for them anymore. Well, not "no good" exactly. Just not cheap enough.

I wish I cOUld aTtribute it to SOmething tangible, bUt the Reasons they're giving me are quite logiCal and busINess-based, and they come "from above" so there's nothinG I can do to prevent it, and there's nO Friggin' sense in Fighting it, if I can't get a clear reaSon for wHy this is happening tO me - and a numbeR of other colleages of mINe. Oh, well, Guess I gotta find a new job...

Well, not that I didn't see it coming... the job thing, I mean. It seems that the older I get, the more cynical I get, and the more wary I am of anyone who promises to take good care of me, in return for my unflagging loyalty. Somehow, I just don't believe it, when a company tells me that in exchange for x-number of hours of my attention each day/week/year, they'll make my life sweet and comfortably feather my nest. It's all very well and good to get a paycheck, of course, but all their highly-touted "benefits" are pretty much useless to me. The supposed golden handcuffs, like a fully-paid MBA education (which I'm not likely to use) and discounted child care benefits (which I will probably never use) and all those consumer discounts (which I'm reluctant to use) are just lost on me. So, I suppose it's best that I go my own way and leave these ingrates in the dust.

I only wish I were at liberty to say who these people are and induct them into the Royal Order of the Ungrateful Wretch, but alas, I'm legally prohibited from making mention of them in writing (especially online) without legal compliance's approval. And we all know how well this sort of complaint would go over with the lawyers charged with defending the honor of _____.

So, it looks like I'm on my own again. They haven't given me a cut-off date/deadline. They're not going to chase me from the premises if I don't find something pronto. In that respect, I should be grateful. I think? But something about how this was done, just doesn't sit right with me. (More on this later, when I have more distance and better perspective...) I guess it's the Universe's way of reminding me who I am, after all. I'm a big indie gal, and I always have been, with a number of friends and acquaintances in the indie music biz, the indie film biz, the technical independent contractor biz... so it's about time I (re)joined their ranks back in the independent worker/freelancer biz. I was once a contractor. I've actually contracted, more than I've held down permanent jobs, so I know how it's done.

I'm not bitter. Not exactly. I haven't been unemployed long enough to be bitter, just yet. In fact, I'm not unemployed at all, which is helpful in these trying times. I'm an aggressive saver, so I have a safety net -- it's a little less nerve-wracking, than being sacked with only two weeks' pay in the bank. I'm a diligent planner and I've sacrificed a great deal over the years, to be able to bank some cash, so now I've got a back-up reserve, in case I don't find anything out there. I'm looking, and I'm hopeful. But so far, nothing concrete has emerged.

I've gone to one job interview, which was a little dismaying, since the company had just been acquired by a bigger company, and the bigger company has a lot of offshore workers. Tension and aggravation, and people viewing me as the enemy of their job and their dreams, because I'm showing up all fresh-faced(?) and cheery(?) just when their world is going to shit. I did not pursue that opportunity further. And I've been in touch with a lot of folks, all over the place, trying to dig up leads on work amongst people I used to work with. Only problem is, they're in similar straits -- or they're terrified they soon will be -- and the old (expensive and qualified) guard is being replaced by the new (cheap and you-get-what-you-pay-for) guard on the other side of the world.

Oh, fuck it. Who cares? I need to be independent, anyway. I think I'll write a book about this whole experience. Matter of fact, I decided to do just that, a while back. It's only a question of time and detail. And if I can't find different work by the end of the summer and they end up laying me and a whole bunch of my other coworkers off, as a lot of us suspect they will, then maybe I'll have time to focus on writing the book, instead of doing what I have done in the past: tending to my ungrateful employer's business, whilst impoverishing my personal life for a year to finish my blockbuster Queer-Christian drama, Bait.

I am so over the establishment, right about now. I must admit, they were kind to me, while I was useful to them. They made a whole lot of luxury possible in my life, and I've got the house and two cars (three, if you count the ancient Acura stabled in the garage by the woodpile) and fabulous debt to prove it. They made a standard of living possible for me, I never dreamed I'd enjoy, and in part because of the benefits and perks of working for the Forces of Darkness, I am typing this on a fine computer with a flat screen, and I'm safe and sound inside a very comfortable home in a lovely part of the world. It hasn't been all bad. But it's time it came to an end. It's time I struck out on my own, and even if I do continue to work with these folks whom I know so well (and I may do just that), it won't be as an employee who's at the mercy of their masters.

I have no problem making good money. I just need to be clear about just what's going on, and who's doing what, and what's really at stake (hint, not life and death, just some bean-counter's bottom line), each day I step through the door of the Masters of the Universe. They can rent me, but they can't own me. Not anymore.

Oh, no - does my willingness to do trade aboard the Deathstar make me a bad person? I don't think so. It makes me a pragmatic, realistic person. It makes me a solvent person who can pay all her bills on time. It makes me independent.

I've been giving a lot of thought to this whole "independence thing" over the past couple of weeks (it has no correlation with Independence Day, in case you were wondering in a fit of culturally-induced common-think). At first the shock of being told I wasn't quite as useful as I'd thought I was, threw me for a loop, and I cursed everything from the fecundity of the Indian population to the caricatures of greedy bastards in suits who danced in my head. Shock and denial, followed by rage and tears. Embarassing tears -- inappropriate and mortifying and uncontrollable tears in tricky social situations where I really needed to maintain my dignity -- to no avail. Horrible. It's been just horrible. (I hope this stage passes soon. I've had about enough of it, since I'm not a weepy type, and uncontrollable tears are just so... weepy.) My periodic public mortification was followed by an awful sinus infection which cut short a happy vacation to the seaside, and after a week of up-and-down fever and aches and misery and an uncooperative doctor who wanted very much to impress me with the fact that he was a doctor!!! I'm now on the front end of what promises to be a very relaxing and invigorating weekend.

There will be rain. Lots of rain. Thank the good Lord in heaven and all the earth-bound devas for that.

And I will think about independence... how I was planning on ditching this stupid job, anyway... and I was just hanging around thinking that I was needed and I had some weird sense of loyalty to these wretched ingrates... I will think about the microcosms and macrocosms of this paradigm and ponder anew what parallels this has with my publishing... I shall reinvigorate my commitment to my writing craft and my publishing techniques, and I shall not be daunted by the foolishness of a bottom line (whilst actually achieving the same thing as a large budget does, with a considerably smaller budget, thanks to print on demand, bless its heart)... I will bask in the glow of my days off, and they will be DAYS OFF, used for what I want to do -- blog and think and consider and whatever else I danged well please.

I've always been an independent sort, and now that my work situation is changing, it's now more true than ever before. I'm a Thoreauvian, indeed.

All good things are wild and free. - Henry David Thoreau

Of Form and Substance

2005-06-01T18:13:00.000-07:00

Now that Bait is out and making its rounds with its two covers, I've been giving a lot of thought to what makes a book great in my mind. I'm an avid reader, and I've been one, ever since I could sound out words in a sentence. My reading was most active, when I was younger -- and it turns out that it was a lot more "classic" than the reading I do today.

I started out reading classics like Treasure Island and Louisa May Alcott books, Robinson Crusoe and Alice in Wonderland and Peter Pan and all the children's classics. Interspersed with fiction, was research into nature and indigenous cultures and just about any culture I could learn about, period.

As I grew older, I took to reading other classic works of fiction -- I read a whole lot of Steinbeck and Hemingway and a bit of Faulkner, here and there. I read Samuel Butler and James Fenimore Cooper and Mark Twain and the Brontes and ... well, you get the point. I grew up immersed in good books, influenced not least of all by my parents, who were avid readers themselves and who kept pretty much above the pulp novel fray, with a preference for established American writers.

Now that I've gone on to reading social research, business theory, biographies of founding fathers (and mothers) and the great stream of news items which cascades through my life each day, I spend a lot less time with the classics. And it's been a long time, since I picked up a book -- and held onto it -- with great fervor and devotion, the way I used to. I used to gather favorite books about me like close friends (sometimes my only friends) and I used to feel great fondness for certain books in particular. I still do. But the books I hold most fondly are not ones I've read in the past 10 years.

What makes a book great? What endears it to my heart? The way people talk, today, it's the cover design that makes a book. I've spent a great deal of time immersed in cover creation... doing it myself, reading what others have done, looking at the results of their work online and in bookstores, studying what makes a cover great. And then there's the internal design, which has fascinated me over the years. My desk is often piled high with different examples of how different publishers have approached the internal layout of their books. I've sunk a fair amount of time into internal book layout, as well... what fonts work best in book format, how the first page of a chapter should be laid out, how the kerning and leading should flow, what the best format for front and back matter is...

And then there's the printing and the paper -- the most physical aspects of a book -- how the ink is absorbed into the paper, if the paper is acid-free, if the trim is smooth, if the cover is properly aligned, if the blues are full and the yellows and reds vibrated...

It's all very interesting, and it can be very consuming, if you're into that sort of thing, as I am.

But despite my tendency to approach books these days as a designer, rather than a reader, I have to admit that my favorite book of all time meets none of the requirements for current production excellence. It's A Moveable Feast by Ernest Hemingway. By today's standards, it might fail miserably in every category -- the production of the book leaves much to be desired, and the writing itself is not (by current standards) the most highly developed. The cover is a somewhat poorly printed, smudgy-looking replica of an oil painting of Paris'es Left Bank. The picture itself is dull, even somewhat maudlin, with various colors competing for attention, but none truly winning. The lettering on the spine is plain and uninteresting. And what's worse, the spine is cracked in places where I bent the book wide open to better read it. The back cover... well, I can't even remember what it says, although I'm sure it says something. And inside, it gets even worse. The paper is clearly not acid-free, and it has the smell of an old paperback -- musty and disintegrating, the ink going stale and fading in places. The paper is yellowing with age -- darker around the edges than in the middle, and starting to crack along the edges. And when I read the text, I can spot stylistic approaches that would never fly today.

By modern standards, this book fails on every level. But by my standards, it succeeds where so many others have failed. For ultimately, what A Moveable Feast offers me, is something that's rare and extremely difficult to find, these days -- a story that speaks to me as a writer and someone often at odds with the mainstream... a story that deals with one of my favorite subject matters: living overseas and devoting your life to your art... a story that, despite its stylistic challenges, nonetheless delivers true emotion and genuine feelings about what happens within its pages. I don't just pick up the book and read about Paris. I pick up the book and go to Paris. And while my adult perspective is a bit more jaded about Paris and the American expatriates of the early 1900's and I've got less of a shiny-clean attitude about who and what they were, still that part of me that likes the idea of sitting in a sidewalk cafe, sipping beverages and devoting one's life to one's artistic work thrills at the sense of picking up the book and reading it. Despite its dingy cover and fading ink and odiforous pages, still that book is my favorite book of all time.

And it reminds me again, why I write. It reminds me again, why I do the things I do on paper. Some people write to get rich. Others write to be heard. I write to experience, and to pass along my experiences to others. The book doesn't have to be autobiographical, to be real. It doesn't have to be a memoir to be real. It doesn't even have to have any basis in recorded events to be real. What does need to be real, are the characters, the emotions they carry, the ways in which they react to one another, and the ways in which they experience their own lives. What needs to be real, is the truth of those people between the pages, and the ways in which they react to one another. It's about the story, it's about the drama that develops between everyone, it's about the "arc" (I've been watching a lot of movies, lately) that each character takes, and whether that arc makes sense, in the context of the others in the book.

Oh, never mind. What matters is the meat of the story (no offense to vegetarians). Perhaps analysis reveals the strenght of the structure of a novel, but I'm interested in flesh, not only bone. And I'm interested in the juicy bits that ripple with motion and wave in the hot glare of the sun. A Moveable Feast fails analysis, but it survives my gut reaction. And that is the kind of book I want to write.

Bait (and Switch?)

2005-05-18T05:51:00.000-07:00

Osprey Design has weighed in about my covers -- it's always great to get the feedback. I've given a great deal of thought to the different reactions people might have to the covers. Most of all, I've been concerned with the immediate knee-jerk reaction a very conservative and/or nudity-shy individual might have to the "flesh" cover. I think about how my grandparents would react to the covers... and I'm quite sure they would not approve ;)

Here's (part of) what I posted at www.baitbook.net:

When I was writing Bait, one of my main quandaries, from the start, was that the book involves two distinct kinds/groups of people, and that if there's going to be a readership for this book, the cover which speaks to one, might not speak to the other. No doubt about it, Bait deals with a controversial, provocative, and potentially volatile subject -- the conflict of a variety of interests in sex & religion & tradition & personal freedom & responsibility to one's family and faith... and more. I came to the conclusion that I frankly didn't feel like "neatening up" the cover for one group, at the expense of the other, and potentially watering it down for both groups. I'm sure there are excellent designers out there, who could do an excellent job of coming up with a "composite" cover. But the two different covers of this book really give the reader the first inkling of the conflict that takes place on the pages inside. In this case, you can judge a book by its cover(s), because the two distinct designs indicate the two distinct (and conflicting) kinds of people who take part in the drama of Bait.

This book bridges the gap beween ultra-conservative and ultra-radical, and it gives pretty much equal time to each side. There's no easy way to bring these disparate kinds of people together under one roof and get them to make themselves "acceptable" to one another, without each losing some aspect of their own essence. It wouldn't be truthful, and it wouldn't be fair. At some point, each needs to take a look at the other and simply tolerate them for what they are. And the same goes for book covers. If you don't like one, you can have the other. But the one you don't want, still gets to exist.

That being said, I decided to come up with two different covers for the same book. I'll let you decided for yourself, which cover you prefer.

Read on for more.

The business of publishing

2005-05-11T16:19:00.000-07:00

Now that Bait is actually out there and available to the world, my thoughts turn to promotional pushes. Going from publishing pushes to promotional pushes... all pushes of some kind...

My thoughts are taken up by the business of publishing. For much of the past couple of years, my mind has been fixated on telling a story, and telling it to the best of my ability. It's been an artistic endeavor, this telling, and it's been as sustaining as it's been demanding.

Now the story is told, and it's time to tell a different story -- this time an account about the real world, in as real a manner as possible. This is an artful endeavor, once which infuses my attitudes as a businessperson with the spirit of my writing self, and one which is no less creative, tho' money is involved.

I'm not sure how the idea got into people's heads that if you're an artist, money doesn't (or shouldn't) really play a part in your work. Perhaps it's because, for generations, even aeons, art has not been prized by everyday folks, and letters have been reserved for the upper classes -- those who could afford an education. Those who could afford to learn how to read and write. If you keep the general populace away from arts and letters, locking them behind bars of privileged education, then it seems logical that the arts would not be valued by those who a) don't have access to them and b) haven't had enough everyday exposure to them to develop an appreciation for them. So, no, if you don't have arts in the everyday for people, you don't have a lot of commerce flowing in and around the arts. You don't have people plunking down a few bucks for something that raises the spirit and invigorates the mind. Not if you don't have ready access to the arts for all.

But we live in a different day and age, than when Vincent Van Gogh was going mad from the ionization in the Midi air and slicing off his ear. We live in a different age, than when artists had to literally starve, in order to afford their paints, in order to paint their pictures, in order to gain an audience. We live in a different world, than when playwrights had to run around and suck up (literally or figuratively) to some patron who would support them in order for them to write and produce their plays. We live in a world, now, where more people than ever know how to read and write, where people can be exposed to art in public places on a regular basis, and where it is possible to find a money job that will pay your rent, whilst you spend your vacation days and weekends, honing the work of art or letters that's been near and dear to your soul, lo these many years.

I think we live in a very different era, than before, and as we've become more democratized, politically and socially and economically speaking, acceptance of our arts is greater than ever. With that acceptance and appreciation, comes the ability to make money with it -- from corporations which support artists with their corporate art collections. From open-mics at little coffee shops where you can trot out a poem you finally have right. From people who buy the chapbooks and comic books and paintings you carry with you to sell (or even give) to people you run into. From all the everyday folks who, 200 years ago, would have laughed you out of town for being an artist or a writer or somesuch.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and things are very, very grim. But I think of all the philanthropists and collectors and patrons out there who have a whole lot of money to spread around, and who make the arts a priority for funding. I think of all the kids in school who learn to draw and paint and play instruments and write stories and poems and who do all sorts of things that used to be considered frivolous wastes of time. I think about all my peers in high school -- children of farmers and plumbers and tool and die workers -- who sat beside me in art class, painting... pictures of Jimi Hendrix, likenesses of landscapes they found in a magazine, pictures of their fantastic imaginations... and I think, yes, we have become more familiar with art, and no, it's not just some foolishness that distracts us from "real work."

And because of that familiarity, I think people are more willing to spend money on art, on letters, on the things that matter to them, which lift their spirits and get them thinking. I think that people are more comfortable with sitting down and reading a book, than their grandparents probably were. We live in an age of unprecedented leisure, even if we do work horrendous hours, and we are -- at least in the United States -- still fond of a good story. Despite the internet, despite all those websites, there are still a lot of people who love a good book, and who spend the time they have on the train or the subway or the plane, reading.

That being said, I think that business and art are mixing better these days, than they have in recent centuries. The business of selling books is a big one, and the business of getting word about books out there, is equally massive. It's just amazing, how many real distribution channels there are for press releases and announcements... for articles about your content... for samples of your work... for entire copies of your work, period. It's almost staggering, how many newspapers exist to serve each and every distinct geographical region, not to mention all the magazines and newsletters that serve different segments of society, different groups, different demographics and organizations. Everybody, it seems, has a publishing platform, and everyone, it seems, uses theirs.

So, tremendous opportunity awaits, to get the word out about Bait -- a story of a family which has to figure out how best to be a family. A story of a sister who has to decide whether to be a sister or a friend or a rival. A story of a brother who just can't seem to help himself, when it comes to witnessing to a "lost world." A story of a woman who's an enigma -- a dangerous, intriguing, enticing enigma. There are plenty of people who could get something out of this book -- conservatives and progressives alike. Christians, atheists, pagans, Jews, even Muslims. And with two different versions of the cover, even people who object to racy graphics can have one that suits them. It's all wide open, now. It's all wide open. And breaking it open, is my current task at hand.

Bait Bookseller Discounts

2005-05-10T18:08:00.000-07:00

In order to support independent booksellers, Loren Stone is offering 30% off the retail price for booksellers who special order Bait for their customers. Even if you don't stock the book in-store, as a reseller, you can still receive a 30% discount on Bait, so there is some margin involved.

Bait, A Novel : Bookseller Discounts

While some bookstores expect a 40% minimum discount, it's just not practical or profitable, to offer that deep a discount for Bait. It's important that independents all make the effort to support one another, and meet each other half-way. And it's equally important, for established businesses to remain flexible and able to adapt to changing market needs and market conditions.

If we're going to survive as independents in an increasingly establishment-driven world (especially in the realm of the arts, which used to be a lot less respectable than it is today), we need to make concessions, here and there, to support one another.

I'll climb down from my soapbox, now, and get on with promotion and press release writing.

Spread the word -- Bait is available for purchase. And bookstores can receive 30% off the list price, when they order via www.baitbook.net, whether they stock the book, or not.

~LS~

News Flash!!! Bait is now available for purchase

2005-05-08T12:47:00.000-07:00

Bait is now available for purchase.

I haven't been posting much to the Baitblog, lately, because I've been so caught up in the final-final-final proofing of the book.

Finally, it's set -- you can order your copy at www.baitbook.net -- choose your cover, and if you've got a promo code, enter it in the appropriate space, and off you go.

Shipping takes about a week, depending on the method you choose. Printing takes several business days, and then it takes time to get from its point of origin to you.

Bait Details:
Trade Paperback: 364 pages
Published: May 8, 2005
Product Dimensions: 9.0 x 6.0 x 7/8 inches
List Price: $19.95

~LS~

Ya-ya Gotta Do What Ya-ya Gotta Do...

2005-04-26T13:39:00.000-07:00

Writer's Blog -- WritersWrite.com: "Rebecca Wells Overcomes Illness to Write Ya-Ya's in Bloom

Rebecca Wells, the bestselling author of Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood and Little Altars Everywhere, battled chronic illness for seven years before she was finally diagnosed with Lyme disease and babesiosis, a rare, debilitating tick-borne illness with symptoms similar to malaria. But she never let her illness interfere with her writing.

At her sickest, she was unable even to lift her hands, so she would lie in bed and dictate the book into a tape recorder. On better days, her husband, photographer Tom Schworer, would carry her to her computer, where she would work for 20 minutes at a time before stopping to rest. On her best days, she could write about four or five hours, less than half of her normal level.

In her bleakest moments, Wells said she drew inspiration from another esteemed Southern author, Flannery O'Connor, who wrote while suffering from lupus, a chronic autoimmune disease that eventually killed her. 'If ever there was a model to help me out here, it's Flannery,' Wells said."

And that is our lesson in commitment for the day.

~LS~

People are talking...

2005-04-24T06:19:00.000-07:00

Advocate.com | Exclusive | Between a rock and a gay place: "Her sister came out to her, and that was cool—except to their fundamentalist parents, who have since begun a relentless war to “cure” their daughter. What’s a supportive sister to do?"

Everytime I turn around, these days, it seems that folks are talking about the intersection of gays and fundamentalist/evangelical Christians. Here's a story by the straight sister of a lesbian who came out to her fundamentalist folks.

With all the talk about the "culture wars" raging in this country, let's not forget the folks who are somewhere in the middle...

It's official - the covers are in

2005-04-22T06:12:00.000-07:00

I've now completed final production on the two different covers for Bait -- one for the demur crowd (note: the one with the water) and one for the folks who don't mind stirring up a little controversy by reading something with a (somewhat) revealing picture of a woman on the cover (note: the one with the woman with the hands on her).

Here they are:

and

I've given a whole lot of thought to the treatments of each, weighing the pros and cons of putting a partially nude woman on the cover of the book. Looking around at books sold in other places by other people, I'm struck by the difference between what gets shown in the States, and what gets shown in, for example, Europe. Not long ago, I found a book listed on Amazon.de which show the exposed breast of a woman. Nicely done, and surprisingly bold.

It's interesting, what responses people have to pictures of flesh in public. When Marianne Williamson's book "A Woman's Worth" came out, it had the picture of a nude woman bending over, with part of her breast exposed -- and the publisher yanked the book, because of some sort of protest against "nudity". I wonder what folks will have to say about the "racy" cover I've selected for Bait...

I'm not sure what it is about the public display of women's breasts that works people into a state. Everytime you turn around, there's some mention of breasts, with reference to breast cancer. But if you show a healthy, attractive breast, you're censored? Not sure what that's about. Not to detract from the crusade against breast cancer -- but if we can talk to our hearts' content about diseased tissue, why in heaven's name can't we discuss -- and show -- healthy breasts? It just doesn't make sense (to someone who has breasts). Healthy breasts need equal time.

I was sorely, sorely tempted to just go with the "water cover" -- it says just about everything a cover needs to say, from where I'm sitting. It's neutral and not emotionally loaded, the way the picture of a woman's body with three hands on it can be. It's safe, and it conveys the central themes of the book -- desire, the lure of religion, the emotional depths of the drama, yadayadayada. It probably won't get me in trouble.

But the cover with the woman on it? That could raise a dust storm of protest. It's bold, it's out there, it's unconventional, and it might just get stopped at the Canadian border. Or it could really pique people's interest and make them want to buy it -- if only to find out just who those hands belong to... In some societies, it would probably be considered blasphemous, but in others, it would be considered blase. It's a toss-up. Do I play to the conservative, traditional crowd who don't believe much of anything should be shown in public, when it comes to women's bodies? Or do I play to the folks who are comfortable with the sight of women's bodies and don't make a huge cultural issue out of it? Decisions, decisions... the burqa brigade or the nude beach crowd?

I split the difference and created two separate covers, one for each. Because covers sell books (so I'm told), and I think a cover should communicate and convey, not alienate. The ideas in Bait are too important, from where I'm sitting, to chase people away, based on a racy cover alone. The story of Bait is about more than what appears on the outside of the book, and it's the kind of story that should be available to all -- and they should be able to read the book in public without attracting negative attention. (I can see my conservative friends riding to work, reading the "woman cover" Bait, fidgeting nervously, as people around them stare...) Or, if folks want to attract negative attention, they can buy the "woman cover" copy and ride around on the subway, reading it for all the world to see... In this case, people have a choice.

I think it's only fair.

Balance and reason and both sides of the story

2005-04-18T11:34:00.000-07:00

Thinking about the central theme(s) of Bait ... how people who love each other very much, tend to the welfare of each others' souls... and thinking about how separate and distinct the various viewpoints are, in this issue of queer/Christian intersection...

I keep trying to figure out, when it stopped being okay to disagree with one another. With the advent of the concept of political correctness, I think people started getting the idea that it might be a good idea to be considerate of others, when they talked about them. But what could have been a good idea in essence, turned into orthodoxy and censorship, and political correctness went from being something that could have improved us all, to being something that turned into a huge pain in the ass for people who just didn't know, anymore, how to say anything about anyone outside their own personal sphere.

Or maybe it was the 1980's, when politically it wasn't very cool to buck the status quo, and the neoconservative element really took off in this country. I remember so distinctly the many, many discussions (arguments?) I had with my conservative peers in the hallways of my high school... and being categorically ridiculed and denied my right to have my own opinion. We disagreed on many points, that's for sure. But our disagreements weren't the issue. The issue was, that I wasn't "allowed" to keep both my own unique opinion and my human dignity.

In all fairness, both sides of the "cultural wars" do a pretty lousy job of respecting each other's personhood and dignity. It's as though opinions -- and that's all they are, as far as I'm concerned, opinions -- are considered facts, with all sorts of research to back them up. What a lot of people seem to forget, is that for every "fact" established by research, there are fifty others which contradict it, and which are backed up by just as much research. And even scientific theories which are treated as law and ultimate reality, have a tendency to get overthrown every generation or so. People who object to 'cultural relativism' seem to lose sight of the fact that everything we do and are in life, is relative to where we come from, what we start out with, what we're given, what we earn... the whole nine yards of human experience. And people who object to fundamentalism seem to have dismissed the fact that sometimes there are absolutes in life, and sometimes you really have to take information literally, to make proper use of it.

Now, I'm not opposed to strong opinions and principles. I have a lot, myself. But frankly, I think we can all use a little more humility. I've heard a lot of arguments against agnosticism, and in this day and age of insecurity and change, the lure of absolutes can be irresistable. But when we throw away the possibility that we might be mistaken about what we believe, or we might not have all the facts, or we might be in need of more education, then we not only short-change our human experience, but we also deny others the right to be fallible.

For we are fallible, and even those who are supposed to not be, are human like us. Every age has its challenges and changes, and the human race adapts. Every age has its insecurities, and every generation learns to deal with them. But changing times demand flexibility and suppleness. They demand adaptability and skills a lot of us haven't even discovered yet. Each new day brings with it new opportunities, and the one thing that will let us survive the changes of our day, is a willingness to adapt, a willingness to learn, a willingness to grow along with the world around us. If we cannot bend, we will break. If we cannot adapt, we will become extinct. There's no harm or disgrace in admitting you could be wrong about things. My editorial thoughts could be wrong about everything. The chance of being wrong, shouldn't stop us from speaking our minds or living our truths or taking a chance on a new way of thinking, being, living, experiencing, loving.

Because even if we are wrong, in some ways, we're probably very right in others. There are a whole lot of grey areas out there, and there are a whole lot of questions that defy answering. The pursuit of truth holds its own rewards, but lest we forget, it is a pursuit, not an attainment. It's quite easy to say and think that we know what's what in the world, but if we're absolutely honest, we'll all say that there's a lot we don't know. There's a lot we need to learn.

So, let's learn what we need to learn -- about life, about each other, about the realm of human experience. Because ultimately that's what it's all about -- experience. At least, I think so. If it's otherwise, we'll find out.

Uniting the world, one intolerant religious leader at a time

2005-04-11T16:33:00.000-07:00

So, apparently fundamentalist leaders from Christianity, Judaism and Islam have come together in a press conference to condemn World Pride, a GLBT gathering in Jerusalem. The representatives from those three faiths had some very unappealing things to say about queer folk, and some of what they said bordered on threats. Read more at The Advocate at http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail.asp?id=15251.

Anyway, this is nothing new. It just highlights yet again what lengths people will go to, in order to preserve their hold on power. Because ultimately, the arguments people are having are not about sex -- that's just an easy way to invest insecure people in the debate -- they're about power. Who has it, who doesn't, who gets to be "on top" and who has to do what others tell them to, who gets to define what being a man is about, and what being a woman is about, and who does and does not qualify for grace and mercy.

It's not about sex, it's about tradition. Tradition and power. Or rather, a power structure that's been labelled as traditional, regardless of evidence to the contrary... that there have always been positively contributing gay people in societies around the world, that there are many instances of nature producing same-sex couples (pigeons, in particular... not to mention the male couple of mallards who have been nesting down the road from where some of my relatives live). The "traditions" that so many harp on, are human constructs which ultimately contradict the facts of nature. It's not about "protecting decent society," it's about imposing a very narrow definition of what is and is not allowed on a society that probably, in most cases, doesn't very much care (unless of course the kids start asking why Uncle Steven andUncle Rick wear wedding rings and only have one bed in their bedroom, and the parents haven't thought up a suitable response).

Read the Advocate article, and judge for yourself. Then visit the World Pride website (http://www.worldpride.net/) and see who's a greater menace to the peaceful preservation of the species.

But like I said, this is nothing new. And it brings up a valuable point -- namely, that queer folks offer the rest of the world a common rallying point around which they can come together and agree on at least one thing : that queers are weird, that we're abnormal, that we pose a threat to civilized society, and that we are definitely not the kind of people other "normal" folks feel comfortable around.

We have a strangely uniting quality, we queers. We offer fundamentalists, who would under most conditions be at each others' throats or lobbing grenades at one another, a point around which to rally and come together as one. And this press conference of intolerance, reminds me of an instance, back when I was working at a law firm in Philly, when I ventured into the kitchenette one morning to get my cup of coffee. Now understand, this law firm was about as segregated as you could get -- the white attorneys had very little to do with non-whites, who were usually working in the kitchen or other lowly menial tasks. And when their paths did cross, they didn't have much interaction. What could they say? Two very different worlds colliding... what to do?

Most of the time, they did nothing, and the white attorneys pretended the black kitchen staff didn't exist, till they left the room.

But on this one morning, I found a white attorney and a black kitchen worker laughing and talking together. They were having a grand time goofing on a late-night weekend comedy show that featured a male character (charicature) who was gay in the most stereotypical, nellified sense. (I had watched a skit with this character in once, then turned away and never returned. It really was an embarassing thing to watch, and I quit watching the whole show, entirely.) Anyway, this attorney and kitchen gal really had a great rapport going -- their differences were put aside for a few moments, while they had a great laugh at this charicature's expense. I didn't react, when I realized what they were talking about. There wouldn't have been a point. Anyway, I was outnumbered and I just wanted my cup of coffee.

So, this whole business about religious leaders uniting against queers feels familiar. Like the feel of the GOP unifying its more reluctant voters around banning same-sex marriage. Like the feel of frat boys picking on retards. Like the feel of the whole world going on about what great guys the pope and Ronald Reagan were, when they personally went out of their way to declare me and my kind "evil" and did everything in their power to make sure I was marginalized and institutioanlly discriminated against. Like the feel of the USA right about now, when bigotry is so eggregious, nobody wants to address it, because it is such a big ole mess, and people just want to get on with their happy, safe lives. And if you do stand up, you might just get shot -- or hauled off to prison for being a threat to civilized society.

Oh, hell, I don't know. If nothing else, we queers should be encouraged to live our lives freely and in the open. What would the right-wingers do, without us to remind them, just how normal and entitled they are?

Reading Questions are Now Up There

2005-04-10T16:52:00.000-07:00

Okay, so in my quest to come up with a bunch of clever questions for book clubs and reading groups to discuss when they meet to debate Bait (or should I say de-Bait?), I've crafted three different sets of questions -- one for a general audience, one for queer folks, and one for Christians.

I tried to keep to topics I thought would be interesting to each group, and I tried to address specific points of discussion I've heard, myself, in these different circles. If I've fallen short or my ignorance/one-sidedness is showing, have mercy. I'm still in the throes of final production of the book, and my brain is allocated in a variety of different ways/directions.

I tried not to give away any of the intrigue or secrets of the book, but tried to stick to the main points and themes I think are prominent. There are some I didn't call out -- the guilt/shame/repentance emotional trifecta -- because I don't want to reveal things ahead of time. But I think I've hit some of the major points.

If you've got ideas or feedback, by all means, let me know. I can always use the input.

New name for the protagonist

2005-03-27T18:00:00.000-08:00

Ok, I agree... having gotten some feedback from a previewer, I've decided to change the name of the protagonist from JC to JD -- something about naming a blasphemer and heretic "JC" didn't sit quite right.

After much discussion, I've assented, and I agree.

Hence, Jax Madigan is now JD, rather than JC.

Change is good.

First Chapter Preview of Bait Now Available Online

2005-03-25T10:08:00.000-08:00

Greetings -

A first chapter preview is now available at www.baitbook.net.

Look for the link on the right to "Bait-First Chapter Excerpt"

Or follow this link: http://www.baitbook.net/preview1.shtml

Enjoy!

As always, if you'd like to send me feedback on what you've read/thought so far, please email me at info@baitbook.net.

Cheers

~LS~

The Very Important Difference Between "Pennsylvania Dutch" and "Pennsylvania German"

2005-03-25T05:58:00.000-08:00

Praise be, I just found a great page that discusses the differences between "Pennsylvania Dutch" and "Pennsylvania German" -- believe it or not, there are some, and they're pretty important, especially with reference to Bait.

Writing about PA Dutch country, it's tempting to lump everyone together as a group, to take advantage of the general (mis)perception that being Dutch, as we now know it, has anything to do with being Pennsylvania Dutch. But, in fact, the concept of "PA Dutch" harks back to days gone by, before Germany, as we now know it, existed.

But the guide at About.com says it much better than I at : http://german.about.com/library/blgermyth07.htm and I recommend you pay him a visit to learn more.

One of the particulars I'd like to call out, especially, is the idea that not all people of PA German descent are technically PA Dutch. From the About.com site:
Not all Pennsylvania Germans are Amish. Although they are the best known group, the Amish make up only a small portion of the Pennsylvania Germans in the state. Other groups include the Mennonites, the Brethren, and sub-groups within each group, many of whom use cars and electricity.
The characters of Bait hail from the latter groups (without being specific about their denomination, which would get too complicated for a fun-to-read novel -- trust me, it gets hairy). They're offspring of the Germanic folks who settled in southeastern PA back in the 1700's and they still retain the spirit of their ancestors' pietist way of life -- that is, focusing on personal holiness, a close walk with God, and the determination to make up their own minds about spiritual matters (among other things).

Again, it gets a little hairy, when you start to get into details, so I won't. I'll let the characters in Bait speak for themselves.

Good news on Good Friday

2005-03-25T04:21:00.000-08:00

Well, we're moving right along with the book. Bait edits have now been completed, and the files are being prepped for the printer. I've identified two different covers for the book -- one for the out-loud-proud set who like the looks of a woman's body, and one for the more demure set, who prefer not to publicly read something with a cover that's quite so... well, blatant. Some people I know would be put off by sitting on the subway, openly reading a book with a picture of a woman's nakedness on the cover. Others I know, would welcome the opportunity.

So, I've split the difference and I'm creating two distinct covers - one for the queers, one for the Chrisitans.

After all, it's only fair to wrap a book in a cover that people can actually place in clear view of their social milieu of choice. In Europe, where the sight of a woman's bare breast does not incite federal legislative actions, I don't forsee there being any problem with my "racy" cover. Nor in the corners of the queer world where some folks still relish the sight of a revealing book cover on their bookshelves. But in the Christian arena, I think that releasing the book with only the "fun" cover would be courting disaster -- not only economic, but cultural, as well.

I'm thinking in particular back to the time when I was a kid, when my mother did a lot of reading about art and art techniques, and predictably the books she got had pictures of female nude sketches on the cover. It was art, after all. However, the conservative lady who lived down the street and liked to drop by unannounced, didn't have the same sort of regard for the female body. I'll never forget scrambling to hide Mom's sketch techniques book, when Esther (? I can't remember her real name), stopped by one morning.

Whew.

Anyway, Bait will be the same book, with a different look. Some might say I'm compromising my artistic integrity by caving into the censorship of religious sorts. I say, I'm widening my appeal and making the work more accessible (and publicly safe) for people who live in cultural environments with less visual latitude. After all, what's between the covers is identical. It's just the packaging that varies.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

It raises an interesting question, with regard to this kind of work -- and it goes deeper than just packaging. I'm wodering, namely, if a novel might a couple of different turns and be written in different ways, and yet tell the same story in both cases? Can big ideas be translated into a variety of socially molded forms of expression, and still remain essentially intact? I had toyed with the idea of producing two separate books with slightly different treatments of the content -- one that's more racy, another that's less explicit with the sexual "interchanges" going on. I could have done it, certainly, toning down the rough language and replacing the sex with abstract allusions, so that people like my relatives (especially my grandparents) could read it. I mean, I enjoy the racy stuff, but there are a whole bunch of people who would be put off by it, and would walk away from the greater, deeper issues entirely, if I went all-out with the explicit content. They would throw the baby out with the bath water, most likely, and refuse to consider the merits of Bait and its issues, on its own merits. And then where would we be?

I think there's more to a book full of ideas, than the ways one chooses to convey those ideas, and I actually do think it's possible to write different versions of the same novel to reach a broader audience, while keeping the spirit of the book (as opposed to the letter) intact. But that's no trivial thing. And in a way, it plays into the spirit of intolerance and cultural brittleness that tends to dog this country, these days. Certainly, you can convey the same ideas to a bunch of different people by different means, and certainly, you can maintain a certain integrity of thought in each case. But is it a good idea? That's the question.

It brings me around to the question of personalization and customization. An interesting trend has emerged, over the past 10 years, or so -- especially with regard to technology. For a long, long time, we bought and consumed items produced in cookie-cutter processes -- saving expenses based on economies of scale... standardizing the way people look, work, drive, live... lots of people wearing the same kinds of clothes, using the same kinds of appliances, driving the same kinds of cars, having the same kinds of jobs. Now, we're moving into a much more personalized and customized world, where everyone has their own flavor of such-and-such an item, their own version of such-and-such a computer or software program or house.

I've been watching the way intolerance has grown in this country, and I'm starting to think that it may have something to do with customization and personalization. For now, if we don't like something the way it is, we can have it tailored to our expectations and wishes. If we don't like how something works, we can tweak it. If we don't like how something looks, we can alter it. If we don't like how something sounds or feels, we can order and extension of the features that suits our tastes best. We never have to be inconvenienced with a one-size-fits-all approach, ever again. We never have to struggle with things that don't meet our expectations or our personal preferences.

That's all very well and good, but I have to wonder if there isn't a downside to having the world re-make itself to your specifications. Doesn't it make us just a little brittle, if we're not used to adjusting to life on life's terms? Doesn't it spoil us a little, to cater to our every wish and whim? Doesn't it make us a little less capable of living productively in a pluralistic society, where there will inevitably be people who do not share our same points of view, politics, and specific opinions? Isn't all this personalization taking a toll on our ability to tolerate?

It's a question, to which I haven't got the answer. All I know is, it would be really, really easy to create a different, tidier version of Bait that doesn't have harsh language, ungodly allusions, incendiary concepts, and explicity sexual imagery. It would be almost unbelievably easy, with the print-on-demand technology at my fingertips, to crank out a bunch of different versions of Bait -- mild, medium and spicy -- that suit different sorts of people's sensibilities and feed different sorts of agendas. It's a tempting thought, to remake the storyline to suit a broader, more conservative demographic, and it's a tempting idea, to be able to sell Bait freely, without provoking controversy that might offend and alienate a conservative consumer base.

But I think it would be less than honest. And I think it would be less than real. Taking out the "naughty bits" might make the book more palatable to the conservatives of the world, but to my thinking, it would make the book less consistent with reality -- namely, that there are different sorts of people in the world who have very different ideas about what constitutes "decency" and there are different sorts of ideas in the world that go directly against one another, but all have the equivalent right to exist and be heard. It would be unfair to the book, and it would be unfair to the reader, and ultimately, part of me thinks it would be unAmerican.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Publishing Pros and Cons

2005-03-15T07:30:00.000-08:00

Status Update -- final edits are in place for the first half of Bait and I'm now looking into various distribution options.

I'm publishing through Lulu.com, and I've been happy and pleased with their print quality, as well as the speed at which they fulfill. Lulu is POD (Print On Demand) and they only print books when they're ordered, which is a departure from the traditional way in which books are produced and sold.

The Traditional Way of Publishing

Author completes a manuscript.
Publisher agrees to publish the book and starts editing/production.
When the manuscript is ready to publish, the publisher ships it off to the printer for a mass printing (5,000 - 10,000 - or more, depending on the demand and/or author's reputation).
Publisher starts promotion of the work, several months out, sends bound galleys to reviewers and other possible promotional/outlet resources.
When the books arrive, they are shipped out to interested bookstores/-sellers.
Bookstores/-sellers start to sell and publisher starts to take orders (if they sell direct).
If the book doesn't sell, the remainders either a) are returned to the publisher for credit, or b) have their covers ripped off and returned to the publisher so the bookstore can get "credit for unsold inventory" and then sold without their front covers, or c) sit around in inventory, taking up space.

There are a number of problems with this system

Without knowing how many people will actually buy a book, thousands of copies are printed up front, requiring a significant outlay of funds, not to mention the use of much paper.
Inventory takes up valuable space for stocking before and after sales.
Remainder policies encourage fraud by booksellers.
Printing thousands of books up front diminishes a publisher's ability to adjust content, if need be. If a chance to do some co-op advertising with a related publisher arises, they can't just drop in the promo piece at the end of the book or add a coupon, or adjust the content in some other way. They'll have to wait for the next printing.

From where I'm sitting, POD offers far greater flexibility and adaptability for publishers who just want to put out books, rather than lock themselves into a set schedule for publication and promotion, and who don't want to raze forests on a hunch that a book will sell. POD allows a publisher to produce exactly as many books as they need, no more and no less, and with the quality of Lulu.com, there's precious littel trade-off.

I've looked into the various options for distribution, including Amazon and Ingram, but I've decided at this point to abstain from each. Here's why:

Amazon.com, despite its size, is not necessarily the "little guy's" friend. I've heard too many unfortunate tales of indie publishers being ripped off by people who found an e-book copy of their book and had it printed, then sold it for a song on Amazon. There are not many (enforced) checks and balances in place for sellers on Amazon, which makes it possible for publishers to be ripped off by unscrupulous types. Also, in conversations with an established small press, a while back, I was told that if Amazon doesn't have a book in stock, it can be listed as "out of print" which is not only false, but unfair.

Amazon.com, while it may be good for the big guys as an additional distribution channel, is not one of my choices.

Neither is Ingram. Here's why:

Once upon a time, there was more than one book distributor. Bookpeople was the name of another contender in the space, and my dealings with them in the early 1990's was quite positive, when I was publishing other works independently. However, Ingram was purchased by Barnes & Noble, and almost immediately thereafter (according to close friends who worked for B&N), the variety and availability of books from Ingram began to degrade. What's more, Bertelsmann, AG, a German company, owns both. So the idea of going independent would disappear as soon as I start to deal with Ingram and/or B&N.

Essentially, dealing with Ingram (or B&N for that matter) is the equivalent of dealing with Bertelsmann, AG, which (according to http://www.banned-books.com/bbarticle-merger.html)

is Europe's largest media mogul and the #3 media company in the world behind Time Warner and the Walt Disney Company. According to "The Industry Standard" company capsule, Bertelsmann has interests in more than 600 companies in more than 50 countries, including ownership interest in Random House Publishing, America Online (AOL), European TV, radio, magazine and newspaper publishing, and a 50% ownership in BarnesandNoble.com.

I'm an independent. That's all there is to it. I do not now want -- and do not plan -- to abandon my independence for the sake of increased profit (if, in fact, I can actually achieve that through the Bertelsmann entities and/or Amazon.com). Dealing with companies that big, as a publisher as small as me, puts me at a distinct disadvantage, and while they may make some effort to enable me to use their infrastructure to increase my profits, the bottom line is, I'd be just another property in their "stable" of resources, and a chunk of my take would always contribute to theirs.

After all, they're in business, like me. They're not charities. They're out to make money (like me). But unlike me, they're so big, it's literally impossible for them to fully and completely offer me all the freedom and the nimbleness of a small enterprise.

So, while folks might say, "You're crazy for not dealing with Amazon and/or Ingram!" I think it's a sound business decision. I want control in my own hands, not in theirs. I want to have the last word on how my books are sold and priced. Call me a control freak, but with all the energy and time and, well, life force, I've put into this project called Bait, I'm not prepared to chuck it all for the sake of a few more cents on the dollar -- if in fact I'll ever see it.

Progress, and (eventually) perfection

2005-03-10T19:43:00.000-08:00

Working my way through Bait, marking up as I go. It's amazing, what a few weeks away will do for your eyesight, but then, that's why I stepped away for a bit -- to let my type-addled vision settle down, so I indeed have "eyes to see".

Eyes I have, and coming back to this book after some time away, I'm amazed at the extent to which the characters hold up, even within the first three chapters alone. Clearly, I may be "kennel blind" with my characters equating to my children, but to me, their lives and their personalities make sense.

Especially within the context I grew up in.

Looking back on my days in Philadelphia... re-reading Bait takes me back to when I was living in Center City, just on the edge of South Philly, spending my weekdays working downtown and my weekends roaming the queer streets immediately surrounding my block. I was extremely fortunate to have found an apartment not far from Giovanni's Room and the women's bar Hepburn's... and let's not forget More Than Just Ice Cream! I went through a lot of changes in Philly, when I was there, and I was on my own -- for real -- for the first time, living there.

It's not anything I'm likely to forget. Though the past 20 years have dulled my memory somewhat. I'd like to think I remember the good parts from that time in my life, not just the trying ones.

There were lots of good parts, too. The Sisterspace Lesbian Feminist Weekend in the Poconos, populated, it seemed, by just about every Philadelphia-area baby butch. The weekly Amazon Country shows with Laney Goodman. The readings at Girlfriends Bookstore (not sure if they're still in business). The coffee houses at St. Mary's in the basement. The Lea Delaria performances at Hepburn's. The New Years Eve free-for-alls at Hepburn's. The readings at Giovanni's Room -- and even more vital to me at that time, the corners of Giovanni's Room where I could plop down and page through a book I wanted to get. I didn't have much money, at that time, but I spent what I could on books. Some good books, too.

What a heady time that was for me... the three years I spent in Center City were full of change and their own share of drama. But what I remember more than anything, was the quiet -- the long walks I took down Spruce and Pine Streets on summer Sunday mornings, the streets quiet, except for faint strains of classical music wafting from the Yuppie townhouses... well-outfitted professionals gearing up with their road racing bikes, heading out for their early-morning rides. The summer breeze on my face, before the day started to get hot... and the quiet and cool of the parks down closer to the river. I spent a fair amount of time, walking to and from the river... once I almost took a yachtsman up on his offer to head out for a day of sailing with him. I almost did it. I could have done it. Something sometimes tells me I should have done it. But the prospect of spending the day with a stranger out at sea... ummmm, maybe not.

In retrospect, I'm glad I didn't.

But I'm glad I had the chance to turn him down.

Back to the book... a few weeks ago, I read a quote by a Very Famous Author (whose name presently escapes me), about how he rewrites his manuscripts four or five times -- the first four times, the book sounds like someone else, but the fifth time, it sounds like him. I guess I'm in the same class, roughly (I can only hope my work stands the test of time as well as his has -- he was famous, that much I can remember). For I think I've (re)written Bait some five or six times, overall. It started back a few years ago, when I had an idea for a story... then it grew from an experiment, into an actual plot... then the plot fleshed out... and it got more realistic... and it became a viable entity. I think I've reworked the book, total, about six times. I know I have four complete manuscripts stashed up in my study, right now.

And I'm looking forward to having the last one finished off soon.

Finished, is right. Tidying up punctuation... cleaning up paragraphs that seemed fine 8 weeks ago... double-checking the Chicago Manual of Style... tightening up those pesky little gaps between words, that appear thanks to full justification of text... it's all part of the process. It's all part of it.

Now, to quit blogging and get back to work.

Bait - Update for March 9th

2005-03-09T08:13:00.000-08:00

Well, the proof copy has returned from the printer and I'm pleased with the quality. I've been spending a great deal of time looking at other books produced by major publishing houses, and I have to say, I like my product even better. The print is readily legible, the paper is good quality stock, and the cover will not curl with humidity changes, like many other trade paperbacks will.

Now, to run through the final edits, make sure all the punctuation and spelling is in order, make some minor adjustments that occurred to me over the past couple of weeks, and put this baby out into the world.

The past 6 weeks have been quite busy. Between digging out from the relentless New England winter, which seems to continue without end, lining up advertising, and doing all the administrative tasks which accompany a novel's publication, it's been a busy time. But a good one, no less.

I've also been dealing with technical issues -- getting my technology up to snuff, so I can publish as I please and not be held back by things like bandwidth. It's not cheap, but it's worth it. I consider the new PC and cable modem an investment, rather than an expense. Again, well worth it.

So, there's been some attention generated for Bait in the international press - I've got interest expressed from Australia, in particular. I'm planning an international press campaign, which is a whole lot easier now, than it was before there was e-mail. I can't imagine what it would cost me for surface mailings. Prohibitive.

But it's a whole new day, to be sure, and there's no reason on earth why anyone should have to languish in obscurity, if they know how to write a decent press release and use e-mail. Nowadays, we have no excuse for being isolated. There are too many ways around it.

And we have no excuse to not let the world know about our work. We really don't. The main prohibitive factor at work these days, I think, is information glut -- just getting lost in the shuffle of all that spam. But word of mouth is a powerful thing, and the secondary "marketing" of personal e-mail distribution lists can certainly play an important role in our quest to be known and read and seen.

But enough talk. Time for action. Time to build out my international mailing list.

Welcome to the family

2005-03-07T09:51:00.000-08:00

It was the middle of February, 2005, when Maya Keyes hit the news for having been tossed out of her house by her parents and villified as a "radical queer." Poor Maya. 19 years old and disowned by parents whom she'd supported in a political venture that she not only didn't believe in, but was also pitted against her.

From East Coast to West, she made the news:

It is a sad tale. Maya put off college to help her dad and she worked like crazy on his campaign, but when his bid for public office didn't work out, she ended up disowned, her college funds cut off, shoved aside like the embarassment she is to her parents. It's not like they didn't know -- according to what I've read, Maya's folks found a copy of "The Washington Blade" under her bed at the end of high school, so it's not like they didn't know she was queer. But someone has to pay for her father's failure, and in this day and age, queers are awfully easy targets, so Maya got the conservative cattle prod.

Maya's story is not unlike my own. I, too, was raised in fairly conservative surroundings, and I was told as a child not to look at lesbians, because two women walking down the street hand-in-hand was WRONG. I was raised in the life of the church, and I know what the conservative branches of Christianity say about people like me, and people like Maya Keyes. But what I've taken away from my experiences, is very different from what Maya apparently has. What I've learned from that way of life, is that sometimes two worlds cannot mix, and sometimes it's best just to let our differences exist, and step away in wary deference.

It's one thing to love your right-wing family. It's another to think you can challenge their dominant paradigm without some backlash of a very nasty kind.

Maya's story is a sad tale, yes, but perhaps sadder is the idea that Maya lent her assistance to a campaign which is antithetically opposed to her and "her kind". The simple fact of the matter is, when we lend our support to systems which seek to destroy us (and make no mistake, a lot of folks who thrive on intolerance, do), we participate in our own self-destruction. It's one thing to love your parents -- I love mine, probably as much as Maya loves hers. But I don't help them with their politics when their politics are direclty opposed to my well-being, even survival. And I don't think for a moment that I'm going to be able to alter their opinions or change their priorities by just being who I am and loving them.

In all fairness, Maya is 19, and I'm sure she had reasons for doing what she did. But this is a wake-up call for all of us, no matter what our sexual identity, race, gender, or economic status, that sometimes certain camps are best left alone. Those who do not serve us, who do not support us, should not receive our service or support in return. That goes for political powers, for employers, for all those people who hold power and use it against the very people who make it possible for them to have their power.

Proverbs 17:13 says, "If you return evil for good, evil shall come to your house and never depart from it."

I'd just as soon stay out of that house, myself.

So, what IS a German pietist?

2005-02-12T05:25:00.000-08:00

In my novel Bait, I do a lot of talking about "German Pietists." But not everyone knows what the term means. (I think even some of their descendants don't ;)

To understand German Pietism, it helps to first take a twirl through Google (or whatever other search engine you care to use) and then trot down Christian history memory lane.

According to the Christian History Timeline, the Pietist movement was founded in 1670 by Philip Jacob Spener, . . . a Lutheran Clergyman, who [began] teaching the necessity of the Christian life beginning with a conscious new birth. He began holding home Bible studies ("conventicles") for prayer, Bible reading, and study of the Sunday Sermon. These home Bible studies were called collegia pietatis ("associations of piety"). Thus was founded the German Pietist movement.

From there we proceed to the Worldwide Protestant Missions Movement of the 1600's and 1700's when August Hermann Francke (1663-1677) became a Pietist, traveled to the University of Halle (in Germany; founded in 1691) in 1692, and founded a ("born-again") Christian College as part of it. For doing this, he was thrown out of the University and town, met Philip Jacob Spener (founder of the Pietist movement) in person, returned to Halle and founded Christian schools and orphanages, "living on faith" (praying for needs and funds and asking only God, instead of asking people for them). Francke popularized Pietism, more than Spener himself had, making Halle the center of the movement. Francke's life of faith and Christian orphanage would inspire George Müller to likewise "live by faith" and found a Christian orphanage, some 200 years later. Francke also began sending missionaries out, even as far away as India.

German Pietism -- a life devoted to personal piety and being "born again" through Christian conversion took strong root in southeastern Pennsylvania. Especially notable was the example of Conrad Beissel, a "Dunker" who settled in Ephrata, PA, and founded his Cloister. Living separate from the world, Beissel and his followers lived under unique rules of religious community, and sought self-sufficiency in many ways (they brought their own printing press in-house to print their hyms, when the material published by Ben Franklin caught the critical eye of churchmen who considered Beissel's material "blasphemous"). You can still visit the Ephrata Cloister and hear performances of their music, which was unique for their time -- and all time, in fact.

German Pietism stemmed from, among other things, deep dissatisfaction with the direction the mainstream church was heading in Europe during the 1600's. Remember, this development came on the heels of the Inquisition, with its state-sanctioned persecution of religious "heretics", as well as the many ensuing years of persecution of Protestants, who were of various and sundry faiths (it makes for fascinating reading, if you don't mind the mind-boggling variety of faith-expressions amongst Christians of the Middle Ages and Renaissance). German Pietism offered a "back to basics" approach to Christianity, founded - among other things - on:

Free Personal Decision (to accept salvation)
Anti-Intellectualism
Inwardness / Subjectivity
Fruitbearing / Obedience
Faith and Works
Devotional Immediacy
Self-Examination
Equality before God
Nonconformity to the World
No Oath-Swearing
The Simple Life
Neighbor Love
Universal Salvation
Rejection of Infant Baptism
Rejection of Creedalism
Rejection of Sacramentalism
Gemeinde / Community
Nachfolge / Imitation

(from the Table of Contents of Vernard Eller's Kierkegaard and Radical Discipleship: A New Perspective which is a great place to start, if you want an in-depth introduction to the Brethren phenomenon)

That was about as radical as you could get, back in the 1600's. And when Germany (and Europe in general) proved inhospitable to their beliefs, they high-tailed it to the colonies in America. In 1683 the German pietist leader Franz Daniel Pastorius (1651-1720) led the first group of German settlers aboard the Concord. He established the community of Germantown, now part of Philadelphia. He was a learned lawyer, historian, linguist, poet and teacher. In 1688, together with three fellow citizens, Pastorius wrote the first protest against slavery. (from http://www.ulib.iupui.edu/kade/merrill/lesson2.html).

Now, over the years, although the communities have changed and people's forms of religious expression have changed, the roots of German Pietism are still strong in southeastern Pennsylvania. There are still many, many individuals who believe in keeping separate from the world ("being in the world, but not of it"), cultivating a deeply personal relationship with their faith, putting community and love of neighbors first, holding to an anti-intellectual stance on matters religious, and keeping alive their born-again identity through works as well as grace.

I sometimes joke that, in Lancaster County it doesn't matter if you're Lutheran or Methodist or Catholic -- everyone's a Mennonite. For although the outward variations of religious faith vary from church to church (and in fact many churches hold onto their "differentness" with great tenacity), the roots of German Pietism run deep and manifest themselves in countless ways across countless faith expressions. The spirit of the faith is very much alive, tho' the letter may change. Even those who are not regular church-goers share many of the same individualist traits of their forebears -- individual responsibility to the community, willingness to be chastised for infractions, dedication to doing what is deemed right and good, and refusal to be swayed by "the world" or at least the modern equivalent of "the world."

To more fully understand where such folks are coming from, and to better understand the underlying spirit of Bait, I strongly recommend you visit the links in this entry (and others) and read up more on this aspect of Christian expression. While some many not agree with the tenets, and others may find them outdated or quaint, still, the taproots of this outlook runs deep, and it cannot be dislodged by time, so long as the community remains faithful.

Can Gays and Christians Peacefully Co-Exist?

2005-02-02T05:25:00.000-08:00

I've been giving this a lot of thought over the past couple of years, as I've worked on my novel, Bait. Throwing fundamentalist (and evangelical) Christians together with a radical lesbian can make for fecund soil in which to sow seeds of inquiry -- not to mention a fun mix of ideologies and realities to explore. It's been enlightening. It's been discouraging. It's been infuriating. It's been mellowing.

What happens, when estranged family members come together at last, without having lost the reasons they were estranged, to begin with? That's the question I set out to answer, when I started writing Bait, about two years ago. I wanted to see what would happen, when I put a radical urban lesbian back in the midst of her conservative Christian family in Pennsylvania Dutch country, and introduced a desirable outsider to the mix. It's been quite a trip, writing the book, as characters have constantly surprised me with their versatility, their brittleness, their caring, and their self-centeredness. Like any people, they've managed to come together... and make a real mess of things. But then, that's the fun part.

It's almost as though the book has been writing itself. It's almost as though it wanted to be written. Now, of all times. Especially now. Against the backdrop of the current social and political climate, the themes of the book have become all the more real. When I started writing Bait, there was no national debate over gay marriage. There were no allegations against Spongebob or Buster. There was no government censorship of PBS (well, that last point may be up for debate among my public broadcasting peers ;). At least, there were no public letters being sent to them, getting them to knock of their tolerance, because a minority of parents would get tweaked over it.

I had no idea Bait would be so pertinent.

But with all the heady drama over Massachusetts gay marriage, last year, and now the self-declared political ascendancy of the Religious Right (apparently emboldened by the second term of the current white man in the white house), things are really heating up. And Bait matters. Now certain folks are really making a stink over the Spongebob and Buster's postcard home from the maple-sugaring lesbian lands of the north, and it's feels a lot more ugly than the Teletubby drama. The creepy thing is, it feels better planned than Falwell's comment about us queers being one of the reasons bin Laden attacked us. The Conservative Christian agenda was unpleasantly humorous before, with that Tinky Winky business . . . and it was outrageous with that post-September-11th remark about how queers and feminists (amongst other personae non grata in their minds) were the cause of the attack and will be the ruin of all God-fearing, upstanding Americans. But now it feels a lot more personal. Now it's much more political. Secretary of Education Spellings, has flexed her muscle for these mavens of exclusivity and shut down PBS (no credit to PBS for having caved under the ridiculous pressure). And they never give up with this campaign to outlaw gay marriage altogether. They just keep at us, like trickles of water through the Grand Canyon. Which concerns me, when I think about the Grand Canyon. (Tho' ironically, some of my most conservative Christian relatives don't believe the Grand Canyon was created by a river -- they think God made it that way, to begin with, oh, about 6,492 years ago, and he's placed geological "evidence" within arm's reach to tempt them away from their faith in Him -- I'm not kidding.)

It truly feels as though the walls are closing in, when it comes to queer/Christian relationships. On the one hand, you have a group who just want to be left alone and not imposed on, by a world which doesn't necessarily understand them. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, trans folk, often just wish to be left alone in the world, free to pursue the same liberties as others (who, I might add, also qualify as sexual deviants behind closed doors, simply by right of finding sexual satisfaction in ways other than the missionary position -- I watch late-night cable. I know what straight people do that would really piss off the Religious Right if they found out...) without the encumbrance of public prejudice, ridicule, or just getting our asses kicked.

And on the other hand, you have a group of folks who are so very, very convinced that they've got the market cornered on morality and the Right Way To Live, never mind that their interpretations of scriptures are based largely on hearsay from ministers who don't even know what the original passages of their precious anti-gay scriptures are really all about (their English translation is dead-wrong, but that doesn't seem to trouble them -- http://www.gaychristians.org has info on that you can research -- and they refer to no other authority than their personal relationship with their lord and savior Jesus Christ, and the fact that feeling saved makes them feel sanctified and all-powerful, which of course translates into incontrovertible authority to speak what they think is the word of God, spewing all sorts of divisevely impassioned rhetoric with impunity.

One group just wants to be left alone and allowed to have the same rights as those who were born with an inherent desire to couple with members of the opposite sex. The other group is bound and determined to drive the former group from their midst, simply because they're honest about who they are and what they desire in a human relationship. Simply because we're honest about what we desire in domestic and emotional -- as well as physical, sexual -- relationships. Somehow it doesn't seem balanced or fair.

I was watching an old re-run of Bill Maher's Broadway comedy routine last night on cable, and one of the things he said was (more or less), "At least our fundamentalists aren't dangerous..." It gave me pause to think -- he may have been saying that a couple of years ago, but I think he'd sing a different tune nowadays. Because our fundamentalists ARE dangerous. Their influence in government is endangering gays, with the "defense of marriage" initiatives, and now their inroads into education -- the last bastion of hope for this country. They have compromised the integrity of the current administration with their prejudice, they're dipping into our collective coffers, with their "faith-based initiaties", they're using our taxes -- ALL our taxes -- against us, siphoning off monies for their ministries, and supporting a war which is gutting the infrastructure of this country by diverting our -- OUR -- hard-earned money and resources, into a cause which half the people in this country (who are paying for it) don't agree with.

So, I have to say that Bill Maher's routine was somewhat inaccurate in that respect. There is danger in this movement which is turning public sentiment in a frighteningly fascist direction. And the sad fact is, the Fundamentalist camp will NOT peacefully co-exist with gays... or Muslims... or Jews... or anybody who doesn't buy into their theology. Jerry Falwell, himself, said "[We] will not adopt 'inclusive' policies to accept other religious teachings."

But don't be fooled. The Religious Right are NOT the only Christians in this country, and for every Fundamentalist who blames queers for 9-11, there are thousands who adhere to the message of Jesus without compromise or socially attractive excuse. It's easy to go along with the queer-hating crowd and buy into what your pastor or televangelist says, just because he says it. But there are also thousands-upon-thousands of Christians who are just as deeply committed to peace, social justice, equality, the safety and health of all peoples, regardless of creed or color or personal persuasions. There are hundreds upon thousands -- if not millions -- of Christians who do not agree with the divisiveness preached from the White House, who understand that there's a pile of stones always handy if you want to stone the next persona non grata, and who still remember what Jesus said, when people were lininig up to stone that adulteress -- a socially condemned "sexual deviant". For all the Fundie talk about Biblical justification for driving scapegoats beyond the city walls, a lot of Christians understand that Jesus actually did speak to situations similar we find ourselves in today -- and they step away from the pile of stones the "law" requires them to use against offenders. (See John 8:3-11 for an encouraging passage). They embrace the very people who Falwell and his ilk would love to see destroyed -- not by them, mind you, but by a government which does their bidding, much as the Roman Catholic church arranged for governments to officially do their bidding during the Inquisition, so their hands wouldn't be bloodied by their work.

The forces at work in the world today, have been at work in the world for a long, long time. And unfortunately, the people who are doing socially redemptive work and reaching out in love and acceptance -- whether they're queer or christian -- are often too busy doing the work, to go out and make a big noise and draw attention to themselves. They realize that actions speak louder than words, they take seriously the idea that blowing your horn distracts you from the work that needs to be done, and anyway, they're more interested in living their lives and doing the right thing, than running around and making sure everyone else knows they're doing so. This American country of ours is full to the brim of decent-hearted individuals who genuinely care about each other and aren't swayed by the hate rhetoric, but they're drowned out by the shouts of bullies and posers. Hate is not all we are capable of, as a nation. War is not the only worthwhile use of our precious resources. Discriminatory public policy borne out of personal confusion and insecurity, isn't the future of this country. Unity is.

Oh yes, we can get along. But we have to want to.

And that's what Bait is about.

New BaitBook.net website

2005-01-31T06:18:00.000-08:00

I'm getting a new Bait website up and running. The Loren Stone site is fine, but I really need some room to expand and focus solely on Bait. And of course, since it is its own entity, it should most definitely have its own space. So check out www.baitbook.net for recent updates. I just decided I'm not going to collect e-mail addresses for my mailing list. I have neither the time nor the inclination to assemble a contact list -- I may do a Yahoo group for the book, to keep people in the loop, but maintaining a list on my own server is not where I want to put my energies. Plus, the last thing you need, dear reader, is another piece of e-mail for your spam filter to block.

The manuscript is now off at the printers, being prepared for proofing. It takes a week or two to print and then deliver, and the waiting for the product to arrive is probably one of the more frustrating aspects of this process. But it gives me time to catch up on my blogging, which is key, because there's a lot to say and comment on, when it comes to the intersection of Queers and Christians -- especially these days.

It never ceases to amaze me, how potent this issue is . . . a way of life that is never commented upon in the Bible (oh, sure, there are those handful of quotes about how men shouldn't lay with men, but there's no comment at all about women being together, and there's no comment at all on living one's life as a non-heterosexual) has become pariah and such handy fodder for power-monopolizing hate-mongers. How did this happen? I'm not following.

More - much more - on that . . . later.

But for now, here in New England, we're finally above freezing, and the 3 feet of snow that's lying around, has started to shrink down to 2 feet. It's been an interesting month, this January, what with all the snowfall and the drama of the cold temperatures. It keeps us honest.

And it keeps us busy. All this snow has kept me out in my driveway, steering the snowblower up and down the asphalt, shovel nearby to break up the stubborn chunks, ice chipper handy to loosen the hazardous bits from around the doors. One thing about these cold temperatures, is that it almost guarantees that the temperature outside will be colder than the temps in your attic, and so we have houses everywhere with huge icicles hanging from the eves. Mine is no exception.

But now that February is on its way, and the temperatures are up, I have a reprieve. And now that the book is off at the printer, being prepped, I have time to blog. Editing for the past 6 months (while job and the domestic concerns and other activities demand my attention) has been painstaking and laborious, and it's great to have a breather, to just write freely... just blog to my heart's content. I'll send good thoughts to the printer, in hopes of the best copy quality possible, and ponder imponderables, whilst I wait.

It's all good.

Busy, busy, busy...

2005-01-25T13:14:00.000-08:00

Feeling separation anxiety about this blog... I've been so busy with work and the book and a multitude of other activities (like moving snow out of my driveway) that I haven't had any time at all for this blog.

But the work is going well. I'm still on target for May 1 publication, and I've been finding some good marketing resources.

Looking back at my notes from a year or two ago, when I was really gathering steam and starting to realize, "Hey, this book project looks like it's really going to happen," it amazes me just how much my attitude towards this book has changed. What started out as a somewhat mischievous "poke" at convention, has turned into an actual drama with actual characters, versus the somewhat two-dimensional carricatures I started out with.

Lucky for them. Lucky for me. Lucky for my readers.

Elfriede Jelinek wins the Nobel Prize for Literature

2005-01-10T07:42:00.001-08:00

It's slightly old news by now, but Elfriede Jelinek won the Nobel Prize for Literature, and that pleases me greatly. I've been happily reading her work online at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/elfriede/.

One of the things that makes me so happy, is that she's been saying -- and putting online -- much that I've been thinking, but haven't felt I could really say, because the prevailing attitudes in this country have been so pro-war and so anti-question-authority. For the record, I always question authority, but I've felt like I needed to be discrete about it, for the past 3-1/2 years in the USofA. An atmosphere of intolerance has just overwhelmed us all, and a lot of us progressives (some call us liberals, but I'm pretty stingy, myself), have been in hiding, for fear that we'd have the same fate as dark-skinned people with "al-" at the beginning of their last names, or Starhawk, who had her computer confiscated by people who considered her a threat. Given how antsy people have been since September 11, it's hard to know just how you'll be perceived by a hyper-alert populace. And when simply voicing your own opinions independent of the prevailing paradigm, is perceived as treasonous or dangerous or (heaven forbid) unpatriotic, who knows what you can say freely? Land of the free... perhaps. Home of the brave... well, sometimes...

Not that I'm here to challenge every single assumption that people blindly cling to, hoping against hope that if they ignore what they fear, it will all go away... Or am I? A lot -- if not most -- of our assumptions can use some handy challenging. And I do just that, with my very existence. I am, after all, queer, which means that I am categorically incapable of being categorized. I fly in the face of virtually every assumption people make about me -- not because I want to, or even choose to, but because there is much, much more to me, than any simple assumption can ever encompass, and therefore, no assumption will ever be able to accurately describe me.

If anyone wants to challenge me, they can go ahead and feel free. I haven't got every single answer to every single issue on the planet. All I've got are ideas and experience, and beyond that, I don't actually trust much else. If people have ideas of their own and a wealth of experience, then I believe they're entitled to every one of their opinions and theories. Because, in the end, I believe that's all of us ever have -- ideas and experience -- and if we're lucky and work hard, we'll have a lot of them.

Winter again...

2005-01-10T07:42:00.000-08:00

Winter has landed in New England. We've gotten socked, a bunch of weeks in a row, and it's back to snow removal as usual. I spent most of yesterday (Sunday) moving snow with multiple snowblowers of varying levels of capability. The really big one was the problem child -- it liked to take sudden turns on its own. If I'd had a pickup truck, I would have hauled my own handy snowblower to the other house. But alas, I don't (yet), so I was stuck using that beast. Still, I did feel awfully butch, behind the handle bars of that enormous machine, shifting into high gears, then reverse, then more high gears, as I ground my way through the foot or so of ice/snow mix.

Winter is upon us, and for the first time in a long time, I'm okay with it. Years ago, I lived not far from the Canadian border -- snow was on the ground from September till May -- so when the first snow flies before winter's official onset, I feel 18 again. Which is sometimes good, sometimes not so good. A little snow flew before Thanksgiving in my neck of the woods, but it didn't last. Now we're well past Thanksgiving, and I'm into winter. I actually feel better than I did when I was 18. Because now I have my own machinery and my own house and my own ways of doing things, which give me a good reason to be outside working away.

I don't want to be working outside all the time, tho'. Saturday, I spent inside, watching the snow, relieved that I'd have a great excuse to just bag on all my errands and write. Normally, my writing needs to compete with all the other things that I need to do outside -- yardwork (which I love, so it's not so bad), fixing and tending to things on the outside of the house which demand attention. Or tending to the people who fix for me, since I have "issues" with heights -- I sometimes forget I'm 20 feet off the ground and step off ladders, fall out of trees, do things which one should not do 20 feet up. I've never been seriously injured, but I've had enough reminders that perhaps I shouldn't use more than a step-ladder, so I have a handyman come and tend to the gutters, the roof, the holes in the soffits which aggressive gray squirrels chewed in them and -- now that I've had the trees limbed back so the gray squirrels can't get in -- the flying squirrels find mighty handy.

Growing up in southeastern Pennsylvania, where snow usually turns to rain and then ices up, we never had this amount of snow. Not like I experience now. Down in PA Dutch country, the temps are rarely far below freezing, so now that it's usually below freezing where I live, it all feels the same. Anything below 30 degees Fahrenheit, is just cold, from where I'm sitting. It's like reverse Eskimo -- they have something like 40(?) names for snow, because they're so familiar with all its various permutations. I, on the other hand, know cold or not-cold.

But over the years, I've gotten acclimated to snow -- living near the Canadian border... and now living in New England for about 10 years... snow is good. Especially when you're living out in the middle of nowhere and you depend on a well for your water, and snowfall has a direct impact on your water supply. I've never resented snowfall, since I became dependent on my well.

Perhaps we should all be on wells...

So, what's the book about?

2005-01-05T08:45:00.000-08:00

After posting a few blurbs on my blog, it occurred to me that I haven't really mentioned what Bait is about. It's a little tricky, blogging about something I can't talk about, just yet. The book is due out on May 1 -- Beltane for some, Mayday for others -- so I do want to discuss my work, but not in so much detail that I ruin the surprise(s).

And there are some surprises...

Anyway, my novel Bait is about an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian man, his radical lesbian-feminist sister, and the woman they both love... the woman who wants them both... the brother's betrothed, who turns out to be more of a ... shall we say... handful, than anyone bargained for. Things are not what they seem at first glance, as the characters find out, and Bait is about the lengths to which people will go, to find out the truth, to live their own truth, to hold others to their word, and to save the people they love the most, from the fate(s) they fear the most.

Ultimately, Bait is about love and loyalty -- how we express our devotion to the ones we care about most -- our God(s), our communities, our family, our friends, our loved ones, our most intimate confidantes -- in the face of a threatening world.

That's what it's about, in a nutshell. That's what it's all about, in my estimation.

QCC for days...

2005-01-04T13:30:00.000-08:00

Behold! Queers and Christians are everywhere! I was sitting around over my long New Years weekend (I took Friday off, and Monday was quiet at work, so it was as good as a 4-day weekend), and I happened to flip on the television, to find "The Congregation" (http://www.pbs.org/thecongregation/), the WETA production about the United Methodist church in Germantown, PA, whose lesbian minister, Beth Stroud, lost her minister credentials because she's a "self-avowed practicing homosexual".

It's a little eery, to be writing a book about this (fictional) subject matter, and have it be so front-and-center in the media. I was raised in a very counter-culture household (albeit Christian), and I'm not accustomed to being really in-tune with the mainstream... but everything that I'm thinking about these days, everything that I'm writing about (to the exclusion of all else) these days, the innermost thoughts that dominate my thinking and my free time -- every last little bit of free time -- seem to be playing out in living color on the living stage of life.

It is eery. But there's a big difference between where I'm at and what's going on in my mind, and how the rest of the world is dealing with this. Whereas everyone outside of my house seems quite happy to discuss Queer/Christian Conflict (I'll call it "QCC" for short from here on out, because my hands get tired) in an intellectual light, I just can't bring myself to approach it only from my head. For me, the issue of whom I love and how I choose to express that love in my life, has very little -- if anything -- to do with intellectual choices. Oh, certainly, I chose to live my life as a queer woman. I could have just stayed where I was before, married to that perfectly nice man and minding my manners, but I chose to step away from that man and that life and find something else which was much more authentic and true to who I was then, and am still. I did choose to be queer. But it was not a decision that my head alone made. It was a decision of body, of flesh, of passion, of essence. It was the kind of decision that cannot possibly be made with the head alone, and now having gaggles and pods and herds of intellectuals romping all over my reality and the intimate intricacies of the way I live my life (or the way they think I do), is a little disconcerting.

In fact, it seems to me that one of the core problems with the discussions taking place, and one of the big reasons we'll never, ever be able to overcome the QCC, is that people are arguing issues of the body with the mind. The mind, God love it, can never fully comprehend the realities of the body. The body boggles the mind, as any freshly pubescent male or female can attest. The body doesn't make any logical sense. It has its ways and its intentions and its reasons which the brain cannot begin to fathom... only observe and adapt to.

Because when we approach uncomfortable facets of life (and human sexuality is just that), armed only with what passes for reason, we run the risk of cutting our hearts out of the picture and dehumanizing both ourselves with cold and calculating intellectualizing... and dehumanizing others with dispassionate dismissal of their points of view. Some things can only be known through experience and the gut -- when we intellectualize too much over things like whether or not queers should be allowed to administer communion, we cut those pieces of our humanity out of the discussion. And the discussion becomes just another debate -- cold, dispassionate debate, run by certain rules of order. Clean and tidy and not at all messy. But not much fun, either.

So, that's why the deluge of QCC discussion is getting on my nerves. I mean, I'm glad that people are talking -- finally -- about this tender subject. And I'm glad that people like Beth Stroud (who looks like a cousin of mine -- a Pennsylvania girl, for sure!) are pushing the envelope and calling the people on the carpet who enforce rules that tear us apart, rather than bring us together. I'm glad that more people than ever can finally say "gay" without flinching. But I'll be a whole lot happier, when we can talk about issues of faith and gender choices with our hearts, as well as our heads.

And so it begins...

2004-12-30T13:45:00.000-08:00

I've been working away on my book Bait -- the story of an evangelical fundamentalist Christian man... his radical, alternative, lesbian-feminist sister... and the woman they both love -- the woman who wants them both. At this point, I'm about 3 months out from publication, and I look to be on-track. I've been doing a fair amount of online research about gay Christians (or, to be more inclusive, lgbt Christians)... radical feminists... queer social theory... conservative, evangelical Christianity... and all things family. It never ceases to amaze me, how a culture can pick up on a common theme and stick with it, month after month, year after year, until it's worked its way through every conceivable angle and every conceivable issue... only to realize there's still more to be uncovered.

Well, it passes the time.

And it amazes me, as well, how timely Bait is turning out to be. Queers and Christians and family drama, oh my! How in heaven's name, have I managed to pen a politically and culturally loaded tome?

Understand:

Bait wasn't originally intended as a political statement -- far from it; the story was always intended as just... well... a story.

And the story was never deliberately geared towards the American public drama and controversy around gays and marriage or gays and Christians or queers and fundamentalist evangelicals -- it just happened to unfold in the way it has, against a backdrop of controversy and dialogue, the likes of which haven't been seen on the Christian or queer landscape in quite some time. It just turned out that way...