Lois Lane or Mary Jane

He was her best friend in the entire world, but when it came to giving valid and significant relationship advice he always fell short.  Nonetheless he always threw himself out there to do it when the opportunity arose. And right now was no different.

"What?!?" she bristled not bothering to hide her irritation with the question.

"Are you Lois Lane or Mary Jane?"

She was no comic book ignorant. She knew her fair amount of mythos. "Mary Jane, as in Watson?"

"Yeah, Pete's woman."

Her brow crinkled. As comfortable as she was with the genre, she didn't think being able to refer to a fictitious character by his nick name was healthy.

"I know who she is. What does that have to do with me?"

He shrugged in that way that implied that it was obvious for anyone paying attention.  But the shrug was never the part to wait for, his explanations, no matter how farfetched, were usually money and quite entertaining.  She had told him years ago that he needed to record his rants and have them transcribed.  He'd make millions.

"All women can be divided equally and completely by one question.  Is she Lois Lane or is she Mary Jane." he paused dramatically.  It took a moment more before he acknowledged the obvious.  "It’s how I remember the question, try to ignore that they rhyme."

Despite herself she did crack a rather sheepish grin because he did know her very well. "Fundamentally impossible."  She finally sat next to him on the couch knowing that the words from her mouth would spurn an explanation that no one would want to stand for. "Do tell."

He took his time, as was his nature, before he imparted some of his well thought out and completely inane views on life, liberty, and love.  He stretched leisurely, snapping and cracking the joints in his shoulders, arms, and wrists in a fashion that made them pop one after the other like a shuffled card deck.  Then he settled back into the cushy sofa while taking a long theatrical breath.

"It’s quite simple really.  Think about Lois Lane, wholly irritating completely annoying and seemingly self-involved to a disturbing level.  And MJ is the girl next door, wholesome and sweet as apple pie. Nicest little girl you would ever want to meet.  On the surface.  Then you get to know them through their superhero mates."

"The real Lois Lane is a goody-two shoes cynic because she understands human nature.  She knows that not everyone has figured out what she has, which is that most things in this world we can take care of ourselves, and don’t need to be saved all the time. She knows right from wrong, and is always trying to reveal the truth regardless of what trouble that may bring."

Taking in her frown, he paused, and then shook his head. "Think about it, at no point in time does she ever get into trouble accept for when she's trying to do the right thing.  She's banging Superman, and he's the last dude she calls when she's in trouble.  Instead she hunkers down and sees what she can get done herself.  She's usually in way over her head, but she doesn't let that little fact stop her.  And before long old Supes says, hey I wonder what my lady's doing. There she is, in it up to her elbows, and still she hasn't relented.  He's pissed because she should know by now to come to him first, but he respects the fact that she won't to the point that he doesn't even give her a hard time about it.  Shrugs and says that's just Lois."

He holds up his contradiction hand, which is the right one.  He always raised it when he was about to embark on the counter argument.

"MJ though is different.  She's one of the sheep, the flock.  She thinks that regular people should depend on super heroes for everything.  So she's banging Spiderman with the unspoken understanding that she has priority. All hell breaks loose if she thinks for one minute that he is off saving someone else besides her when she's in trouble.  Regardless of whether or not she could've saved herself and maybe someone else couldn't. She's got small town girl issues so she's always jealous of Spidey's fame.  Trashing him for coming home all beat up, getting mad when his enemies come after her, worried about other women beating her out for his attention.  Let's be real, you're dating or married to a super hero, she should've known from point jump that this is the way it would be.  You either want him enough to let it not be an issue, or you want the issue enough to be with him."

Her frown was increasing because for once in his inane asinine uttering, he was actually making some sense. And like clouds parting the wisdom of realization and enlightenment fell on her.  With an eerie gleam in her eye, and a confidence in speech that she never possessed, she declared in an even unwavering voice.

"So what you're saying is that as women, we either want to be with someone because they respect who we are, or we want to be with them because they tolerate us for not respecting who we are?  As women we have to understand our own limitations and strengths and find a mate who understands and agrees that who we are isn't a terrible thing, but the only thing that they will ever accept from us.  Finally breaking free of the clingy woman, or ball-breaking bitch stereotypes.  Finally being accepted as an entity not defined by sex but sex being only a characteristic of the person as a whole."

He looked at her as if she had grown two heads.  "Where the hell did you get all that from?  I'm saying that women who seem like they are sweet usually aren't, and women that don't usually are.  Depending on who you are you either pull in a Superman or a Spiderman.  A guy that can really lay down the smack, or one that can take the smack."  He looked at her expectantly.  "Are you a woman that can pull a man that can deliver the smack, or just one that can take it?"

"Its not that simple," she countered. "While no one is as proficient at taking an ass-whopping as Spiderman is, Superman has been known to get it handed to him before he gets pissed off enough to do something about it. And when they get fed up they both lay down the smack.  Pretty efficiently.  So what does that say about their choice in women?"

This was a moment for posterity.  She had just once, for the first and probably only time, actually turned an argument of his against him.

He shook his head, with a self-effacing grin beginning to take hold. "Not a damn thing."

"Honestly I thought you were going to go with the whole,” she formed quotations in the air with her fingers, “Lois seems dumb as a stump while Mary Jane seems unnaturally intelligent for an actress, but the opposite for both is actually true,” end quotations in the air, “angle."

The blank stare confirmed that this was an avenue he had not considered, and in fact blew apart his whole theory.  "I hate telling you these things."

She smiled at him. "I'm going to stick with what I said so that I can give you credit for actually helping for once."  She patted his head endearingly. “I suggest you do the same.”  She popped up and started away. “It’s good advice for guys too, you either be with a woman who accepts that she’s not the only thing going on in your life, or is pissed because she isn’t, and is always lobbying for it.”

He continued to shake his head at her. “You know there is much to be said for not being so skilled at emasculation.”

She nodded. “I agree, be strong enough that your woman can’t.  Superman can handle a self-possessed woman and Spiderman can’t.”

He smiled at her then. “Lois Lane all the way.”

Blast from the Past - Redefining Romance circa June 2011

When I started writing romance novels it was because I wanted to try and establish some realistic and attainable ideas about love.  I enjoy the over the top romances as well as any other fan of the genre.  However I have grown up with certain expectations of people that are generally unfounded.  Romance novels ingrained that lovely fairytale aspect of idealized love that we all secretly crave.  That level of knowing another human being and that sense of safety, trust, assurance, and dedication. Often romance writers inadvertently imply that this can be attained through sex.  This is a pervasive theme of confusing sex with intimacy.  Which leads to confusing good sex with true love.  Most romances have a basis of physical attraction that leads to a permanent relationship.  The real world tells you that physical attraction doesn't even always lead to sex, less alone a deep and abiding love.  There are the extraordinary cases where circumstances have forced higher levels of intimacy in a short amount of time. Which I believe is what most romance novels are actually trying to shoot for with hit or miss results.

1 of my all-time favs

Please forgive me because I'm about to be sexual orientation biased to try and explain my perspective. When I first started reading romance novels as a teenager I remember the popular trend was that the woman, who was unaware of her beauty, was shown how lovely she is by the hero.  The hero usually has certain kinds of women interested in him.  Usually mean, unintelligent, vapid, women who are the peak of physical beauty for that time frame making the heroine feel like a sow's ear in comparison (this is actually a reference from one of the novels I read during that time). Despite that, the heroine usually trumps the other woman in every other way, and the man can't help but eventually notice leaving the she-beast of extraordinary physical beauty for the woman of impeccable manners and character.  The unfortunate reality is that this is a female fantasy, and thus why it is a basis of the formulation of these stories.  In the real world the most beautiful woman you know isn't usually a terrible person. If she is, the guy usually doesn't take the time to even notice any such thing. He ends up with the same kind of woman over and over again. Men very rarely leave women they are committed to in any regard. This speaks to a certain fantasy perspective for certain women. Male and female fantasies are not the same, and in many situations, have very little in common.  Despite the blurring of gender roles, as our society delves deeper and deeper into inequality this rift only widens.

There can be no equality between the standardized male and female egos because we aren't told the same stories, and society has tried to engrain different expectations based on gender. The female is to be focused on love, family, and home life.  The male power, status, and social mobility. These goals don't necessarily correspond and they aren't necessarily accurate for every person you meet. But for those that believe in this system of equity how can intimacy establish itself? While love and family is mutable because it is supposed to be a declaration of a woman’s happiness and acceptance by a male, status and social mobility are set with only certain types of relationships achieving idea male goals in such an unequal society.  This is not to say that members of both don't focus on aspects of all listed.  It is to declare that in these situations true love is not the goal, so intimacy becomes something that is in essence 'getting in the way' of these goals.

When you research Erik Erikson's much debated stages of psychosocial development he devotes a brief but telling amount of narrative to stage 6 which is young adulthood.  This stage is called Intimacy vs. Isolation.  This stage is about discovering how to actually be involved in close personal relationships with other people.  This is not just about romantic relationships, this is about highly evolved ties with people who are not family in the traditional sense, but somehow in the course of knowing each other become so.  It is needful to note that part of this theory specifies that being sexually intimate with a person does not result in intimacy.  True intimacy is the desire and ability to share who you are with another person, and seek knowledge of the other person beyond what is visible.  The opposite of this is isolation which is a constant process of purging others from your life in fear of their identity compromising your own. The term opposite intimacy is distantiation, and it is the act of putting other people at an emotional or intellectual distance from the person that you are. It is relationship classism.  The results from this are self-absorption, inequality in relationships, and sometimes various forms of abuse i.e. physical, sexual, and most commonly emotional. The person suffering from this is cut off, and tends to have a negative view of people and relationships. They hold themselves above others to compensate.

It is fascinating that when you look up the term intimacy, the images are usually sexual with two people naked in each other's presence.  The definition is almost noncommittal in its self identification in explaining that it is the state of being intimate.  It goes on to explain that it is a close, familiar, and usually affectionate or loving relationship with another person or group.  The very lukewarm nature of the definition somehow makes it seem like a casual occurrence that happens frequently as opposed to in special situations.  The most interesting thing is how it is defined when in conjunction with a thing or subject.  There it is a close association with detailed knowledge and deep understanding of something. And I wonder why can't that be the definition of intimacy when applied to another person? Is it too hard to generate a detailed knowledge and deep understanding of another human being?  It seems to be the only thing that actually generates long lasting loving relationships.  One definition implies a begrudging tolerance due to being fond of something.  Almost like choosing chocolate over strawberry ice cream.  You don't mind strawberry, but you LOVE chocolate.  The other implies the investment of time, energy, and resources to maintain.  The difference in observing someone responding to you in a certain way, and actually KNOWING why they respond to you that way. Which one sounds more like a successful relationship to you?

Mars and Venus action

In this new age of perceived and computer designated compatibility an ugly trend is developing. People are choosing mates that fit the formula of who they would like to be perceived as instead of who is most likely inclined to understand them. Mostly because compatibility isn't about understanding or compromise anymore.  From what I can tell it has the complexity of ordering dinner.  I want a mate that is this religion, this race, this height, this weight, makes this much money, has this eye color, this hair color oh and likes babies. They are rating musical tastes as opposed to life philosophies. They are letting insecurity dictate what their mate's habits can and cannot be. The act of having sex and tolerating that person the rest of the time is replacing the actual meaning and content of intimacy. They are letting who the other person is be an extension of how they define themselves instead of accepting another fully functioning identity into their lives, and developing a deep knowledge and understanding of who they are. Now according to Erikson's stages of development it is because they have yet to establish an identity.  I don't necessarily agree.  I believe the fault lies in the socialization by peer groups, family units, and media.  Just think about the constant influences of advertising that insists on declaring desirable standards in males and females.  This categorizing and predeterminations are actually measures for choosing isolation over intimacy. People can't see the forest for the trees.

So every time a man says that he doesn't like women as smart as he is, it is a method of isolation.  Whenever a woman declares that a man is too effeminate for her, it is a method of isolation. It seems that all of our dating habits and trends accomplish the exact opposite of intimacy.  They instead try to redefine intimacy as something that can be quantified by personal preferences as opposed to being an entity of only itself.

Intimacy

My goal when I started writing romance was to try and regress this process and make falling in love less about sex and more about intimacy again.  I try to make my characters establish high emotional content before the first kiss even happens because without that, the first kiss means nothing. They are practically in love with one another before the first time they make love because they have been shown this capacity for care and intimacy the other can provide to them.  Without that it's just sex and there's nothing romantic to me about just having sex.  It’s the emotion behind it that moves it and gives it potency.  In a sex sells society where highly emotional and dedicated relationships seem to be looked down on, I think storytellers should be more dedicated to these ideas and not less.  It’s time for the lovers to take back romance.

Gentle Rogue cover courtesy of:
http://dreaminginbooks.blogspot.com/2010/09/your-bossoms-and-ravishment-are-not.html

Mars and Venus action courtesy of:
http://www.mindreadersdictionary.com/what-should-i-do/intimacy/

Intimacy courtesy of:

http://christykrobinson.blogspot.com/2010/04/intimacy.html

Blog in Review Best of 2014 #2 9 Days - A Novella of Mythic Proportions

When I first started writing I knew I would delve into mythos because I find our myths and fairytales so fascinating.  They still have so much to offer on the nuances of human nature. One of the stories that has always fascinated me as many others is the tale of how Hades took himself a wife.. . literally.

 I'm a dark girl, literally and figuratively.  I'm always trying to dissect the so called bad guy, because I believe in there is the true answer to all of humanities ills. The first time I confronted the idea of reinventing this tale I thought to modernize it. That is woefully without though because of my misguided motivation. I was one of the believers of the hype.  I had painted Hades a villain that had the good fortune of his captive actually coming to love him. A little you know first edition Stockholm syndrome. I wanted to modernize it and have the human embodiments of the God and Goddess meet and he do it all proper like this time as they repent for their sins from the past. I felt Persephone deserved a proper courtship.

It took me a while of thinking in this way to understanding the math of all this just didn't add up the first time. Think about it. We aren't talking about a mortal woman.  As we all know mortal women got screwed coming and going in Greek mythology. If anyone deserves a happy ending tale its mostly someone like Cassandra. Persephone technically got hers. Yeah it had a rocky start but what if there are things that weren't told.  The desires of a woman not being adhered to by an overprotective mother seeing forever only a child. We're talking about a goddess, the daughter of Zeus and Demeter. Had she truly wanted to leave wouldn't it have been simpler?

I let the story simmer in the back of my head for months not sure how to do the story justice because there is no story.  Truly as many accounts place it, the story of what happens to Persephone is virtually unknown. What we are often told is the trials of Demeter and the suffering the world endured at the taking of Persephone.

As the story goes after the initial abduction of Persephone, Demeter roamed for 9 days looking for her child. On the 10th she was told by Hecate that she had been taken by Hades. Helios revealed that it was not an unsanctioned taking.  That her father Zeus had in fact given Persephone over to marriage to the dark lord of the underworld. The resulting tale speaks of a year of suffering as Demeter protested the absence of her child stricken to the Underworld.

While it would be customary to assume that it was the time spent with her husband in that year that made Persephone loose lipped when her mother's will was being considered, I would rather tell another story.

I would like to tell one that paints the Lord of the Underworld a little less dastardly.  Mostly because when compared to some of his siblings he actually kinda was less dastardly. He requested the marriage.  Zeus knowing Demeter was going to have a cow (its Demeter so that isn't just allegory [rimshot]) gave him one of his tried and true methods of girl getting. Just take her.

I realized that I would like to tell one where the Lord of the Underworld knew that he would have 9 days to woo his new bride for that was when it was agreed to that her whereabouts would be revealed to her mother. As they all knew Demeter would attempt to bring hell on earth with her to gain her beloved child back.

No matter how much lore you read the story remains the same.  The taking of Persephone is usually listed as a raping.  However there seemed to be no witnesses to an acutal rape, just of an abduction and her screams as she is being carted away on a golden chariot. I mean considering the time period, rape was just the assumed discourse because that's how gods rolled.

But the very interesting thing is that underworld activities were shrouded. There have never been many tales of who Hades actually is. Yet the method of how he acquired his wife and subsequent equal queen of the Underworld is one of the most prolific stories surrounding what I believe is the often very misunderstood lord of needful things such as death and the dead.

Thus 9 days.

Think of 9 days as the mythological version of 9 and a half weeks. A sheltered lovely child, a lord of darkness and the unveiling of who they both truly are.

I want this to feel like a tornado. A swift sweeping love story where no one was trying to fall in love, just trying to assert themselves in a difficult situation.  Which if we're honest, we love those best that make it necessary to do that.

Soon I will start this from day one.  I will write the first chapter titled 'The Abduction'. From there each day for the next 9 I will write another chapter and tell what happened on this day until all 9 days have past and we have a good sense that Seph (as I like to call her) ain't going anywhere.

I hope you'll choose to come with me ; )

Always w/love,

Sue