Sergei

Clair was admiring her shoes in the mirror when she heard the loud insistent knocking on the door.  She jumped and then started over to it.  His knock wasn’t quite a cop-knocking because it wasn’t the pounding normally associated with cops, but it was only a few notches down from that.  Clair opened the door and there stood one of the most attractive men she had ever seen.  He certainly hadn’t looked this dapper when they had first met. 

Sergei stood on the other side of the door with a single rose held against his chest, which was covered in a dark blue linen shirt that made his ice blue eyes really pop.  The slacks were also a linen it seemed and in the same shade.  His hair, which he wore just a touch long, was combed over and parted on the side.  It was such a nerd thing to do and it was one of the cutest things Clair had ever seen.  He stood ramrod straight, almost military straight as he let his eyes roam over her.  Clean shaven, his angular jaw line and ridiculous cheekbones were put on display framing his full lips as he softly smiled at her, finally meeting her eyes.

“Good evening Clair.” He drawled smoothly.

For a split second as she stared into his eyes as he smiled down at her, his deep voice caressing her, Clair did something she had never done before.  She went completely blank, no thought would cross her mind as she stared into his eyes.  She felt her mouth open but no words came out.  And that was when panic had started to set in.  Blinking rapidly she stood in the door facing him as her jaw flapped without voicing anything at all. 

Sergei arched a brow at her seemingly enjoying her display.  Mercifully he asked, “Can I come in?”

The question registered and Clair solemnly nodded and stepped aside so he could do just that. As he passed her, the frozen ‘deer in headlights’ feeling she had started to fade.  What in the hell was that, she frantically asked herself.  I acted like a deaf mute for a second there, he’s not that hot!! She could feel the last thought actually being yelled in her mind.  With a deep breath and a concert smile she turned to the large man that was standing in her living room.

“Sorry about that.” She said briefly.

He shrugged casually. “About what, it’s a compliment to render a woman dumb, deaf and blind for a second.” He paused and thought about it some. “Or it’s very sad.” He frowned as he thought about the other end of that.

Other Posts on this book:

That Scene with Sergei and Clair

Sergei

Clair Fair

Love is Queen

So a Psychic and a Rocket Scientist Walk into a Bar

Grab your copy of So a Psychic and a Rocket Scientist Walk Into a Bar

Amazon
Barnes and Noble
Smashwords

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

Not Another Bodice Ripper - The Case for Serious Romance

THE INTRODUCTION
Romance in general has always prescribed to formulas. Ask any literary agent who religiously sticks to what sells, and any aspiring romance novelist that would like to change things up. Romance novel trends seem to hate change more than any other genre. It is ironic then that it is the category of fiction that needs a makeover the most. However not truly in style, just in the context this style is delivered and perceived.

THE ISSUE
Romance has always suffered from a fallacy of perception as the people who don't actually read the genre seem to have the most to say about their inefficiency as a viable form of fiction. Yet in their vaulted wisdom of what is literary genius, and what is the lowest common denomination of literary fair, I must broach some fallacies of logic. Most high brow fiction involves some version of a love affair. The difference is usually how sexual interactions are portrayed if they are even portrayed.

THE COMPETITION
I think of some proverbial heavyweights of fiction such as Charles Dickens, Earnest Hemingway, and even Jane Austen. In their stories they seem to have very austere, pre-described, and idealized versions of love being portrayed. This is in some terms a 'clean' ethereal based love that only leaves a mess of the tongue and not of the person in a literal sense. The characters generate more passion for misplaced ideas than they do for the presence of another. Is it this sense of high dungeon that produces literary excellence?

In some instances in Hemingway's work for example there are clear overtones of a consuming misogyny as women can be easily trapped in a box and label of a mother, or a whore. It's always painfully Freudian when they end up as both, and thus rendered perfect. Yet this somehow manages to always be observed as part of the literary genius. The analogous representation of the purity of story because of the personalization of sexuality that is hardly ever actually realized just theorized.

THE THEORY
In some ways I believe the bias towards romance is a much deeper seated issue of humanity's perception of itself. The baser instincts of mating that romance points out are seen as 'immature' and 'unrefined' for many. Physical desire is usually seen as an indication of a simple beast instead of a hallmark of one in tune with the nature of whom and what it actually is. Human beings are mammals, and in many situations that animal instinct and urge is much more reliable in choosing a mate than a pros and cons list. The feeling is that romance makes absurd assumptions about this level of attraction and magnetism. That this 'animal' urge cannot be the basis to eventually grow into a deep and abiding love because love is something of a human nature, and not an animal one.

People with pets will tell you how well animals know love. Better sometimes than other human beings. They don't go with logic that their love will be returned. They operate on instinct, sometimes presenting themselves to an owner unsolicited on the street. This is how they love. Why is the idea that human love can be similar so seemingly odd? Or maybe they just have issues with the sex.

THE ANSWER
Love is a personal endeavor no matter how universal television commercials would like it to seem. The nature of it is idealized for some, and wide open for others. The truth is when writing about something as profoundly intimate as love, it is really bad form to try and relate love in another voice or fashion other than your own. The truth and charm to a story comes from that bit of truth that is included. That bit of truth is the relatable aspect of any story. This is the core of your own voice as a writer. Regardless of how many people 'understand' your character's plight or not, the truth of the situation will ring forth and give the story just the push it needs to really fly.

With that in mind it is very bad form for generalists to assume that a certain plotline or story premise is in line with any pre-described social agenda. The liberation of women was just that, liberation. Liberation is the right to make choices. A woman can decide if she would like to be a public figure or a private one. A woman can choose to vote, bear children, and get married or not. The claim that the creation of or reading of romance somehow 'tricks' women into believing in self destructive rhetoric is almost more offensive than any other misogynic claim as it actually feeds into the myth that women are incapable of processing thought beyond what they know to be a fictitious account.

In laymen's terms, the claim in essence says that a grown woman is not capable of separating fantasy from reality. This is a claim usually attached to mental illness, and honestly makes light of conditions suffered by those who have legitimate hormonal imbalances, injuries or birth defects that are associated with mental illness. Reading romance is not an illness. Also it no more detracts from feminist prose as it would add to it. With that being said, no romance is the same. Like all forms of entertainment and media there are levels of content. No two books actually read the same.

The romance formula is very easy to follow. Usually two people, and in recent entries sometimes more, have a great potential for a romantic relationship. They must confront each other and often times the results are not initially positive. That is because of individuality. This is an aspect of romance that is explored more than it is in some of its traditional fiction contemporaries. You have the dichotomy of a relationship as opposed to the relationship being a side car to the dichotomy of the story. In the end the essence of the story is to confront relationship boundaries and expose them. This is a very emotional plane of existence that can sometimes hold the same trauma as a tragedy. And it should. Love is a life changing event. Seeking to experience it, and be bound to another person for all time is also a life changing event. As far as I know not a single life changing event has ever gone quietly and without lessons in humility and shame. These are human emotions that bear the weight in most situations. Yet in love they are the core of what this entanglement is about.

The way a writer creates this is wide open. This sense of growing affection and intimacy is developed from one thing and one thing only, seeing the person for who they are and loving them because or despite it. This is a truth that romance novelists understand that is rarely examined in most contemporary literature where relationships seem to be of convenience and not of necessity. Others are forced attachments where the characters are bound by seemingly invisible tendrils of emotion that are strong enough to bond yet not strong enough to carry the story.

To some degree the emergence of more acceptable contemporary popular fiction, and the need to be perceived a certain way by others has taken the blush from the rose as far as sweeping love relationships are concerned. Romance novels have long been the butt of literary jokes and recently in a twisted parody of art imitating life some have even endeavored to live up to this reputation of being incomprehensible smut with bad punctuation and grammar. But what are the far reaching consequences to this? This seeming end to fairytale as it were that now blocks the heart from even seeking some idealized contentment. Is it this lack of 'romance' being taken seriously in day to day life that has enabled a lack of respect for sex, marriage, and all romantic relationships? Has the 'replaceable' mate taken the place of the 'irreplaceable' mate?

Today more than ever in a world of revolving doorlike changes we need the purity of actual romance.

Of Love and Madness

It wasn't desperation, couldn't be desperation that makes me act.
It wasn't confusion, couldn't be confusion that makes me wait.
It wasn't masochism, couldn't be masochism that makes me hold on.

The thoughts swirl and mix.  Chemistry of the brain the scientists will call it.  This gland secretes this fluid, and the reaction is love.  This gland releases this hormone, and the change is lust. This enzyme is allowed to run free in your brain, and it manufactures hate. So very simple is it, in the end the things that power a being to move.  So very simple.

Your brain sends this signal, and your heart rate speeds up.  Your synapses process this change, and respond to make your sweat glands react. This reaction takes away from another, and your mouth goes dry.  This dryness triggers a response that dilates your eyes. The process for fear takes movement from your limbs.  The fluid secreted to minimize your movement and maximize your senses. Your senses expand making everything clearer.  Sense of taste, smell, sensation, hearing, even sight to tell the brain how next to respond.  What fluid to secrete. What enzyme to release. What sense to expand. What action to take next.  It's all a biological process that is easy to explain.  Why you feel the way you do.

Why do I feel the way that I do?  What process triggers that? What fluid is released and secreted? What change has happened to cause this to occur? Where did this start?  Not from a thought, not from a moment, no stimulation on my part.  It was the other one that started this.  What did they do to inject such intensity. Why with a look can the world shift on its axis?

The science explains nothing. Instead just confirms my madness. It's incomplete this definition. Without a proper point of entry.  The big bang theory on love. It just happened without an impetus without a cause. There has to be another place, another wall; a path we haven't seen.  There has to be another channel another space that we can't perceive.

It wasn't desperation, couldn't be desperation
It wasn't confusion, couldn't be confusion
It wasn't masochism, couldn't be masochism

Does the oxygen in the air thin when they arrive?  The levels of carbon dioxide become greater, and takes away from the air quality. Maybe they exude a pheromone that causes my tongue to swell. Perhaps they have altered my gravity setting off an unerring chain reaction in my head; the brain seeks to protect itself from the heightened levels. Too much iron in their blood causing a magnetic response. Water, of course, they have lower or higher levels of water in their system. The hydrogen makes me light headed. It is a volatile element always on the brink of exploding.

Nonsense, foolish tripe, driveling nonsense. The elements don’t react that way.  The human form is not only a body.  It is a body, connected to a controlling conscious mind driven by an unseeable unphantomable force called a spirit. I would reason that while the body is ruled by the mind, and the mind has made itself a slave to reason, this spirit knows nothing of logic.  Logic this construct of man to give reason focus, and to relegate emotion to fantasy.  Something to sometimes indulge, but never take too seriously.  After all it bears no true weight and meaning.  And yet it explains all else that logic can't.

It wasn't desperation
It wasn't confusion
It wasn't masochism

I must call it madness. That's what any sensible human being calls it when it doesn't have a logical explanation.  Only that which is logical is sane.  Correct. . It wasn't...  Correct, logic is the only true answer.  In logic is reason, and reason has justification, reason has . . .  It wasn't . . . has the essence of life.  We have created so much on the back of reason. . .It wasn't ..love is just this fanciful idea. It's a theoretical theological myth. . . It wasn't . . . love doesn't happen this way in an instant.  It is cultivated over time, between two people with a wealth of common goals and interests and they. . . It wasn't  . . love each other because it's practical and beneficial.  That thing was just a chemical response, physiology and such . . . it wasn't. . .love.  It wasn't love, how could it be love. How could it be love?

How could it be anything but love?

Oddity of Mind

A few year ago I released a memoir style fiction called Perilous Flight. It was a coming of age thing that had a lot more reality in it than I ever wanted to believe.  This weighs on me right now.  Give a read.  Feeling a bit of melancholy, need a little direction or just want to get lost with someone who was.  Perilous Flight is the book you're looking for. It is the culmination of healing a broken heart that begins and ends with understanding what you should and shouldn't be fighting for:

I usually don't indulge in psychic flights of fancy.  I know things, I don't like it, I just do.  But every once in a while I have an awareness issue where it feels all of the world's everything is pouring into me.  So it's a haze, blurring dizzying and out of control and then I focus.  And out of the whirl comes a clear conscious stream.  Within this stream I see everything.  Not just a picture, I see people, what they are thinking, what they are feeling why they've responded the way that they have, the connections in their lives that have made it so.  I see myself through their eyes and still maintain what I'm thinking.  It's almost like watching my life as a spectator.  I remove myself from myself and then just politely, quietly watch. 

Not many people know this except for close personal friends. But I dreamed of Siegfried for years before we met.  Call me nuts, but really what use would it be. Anyway in these dreams he would murder me.  He was a serial killer, and he would come up to me and I would stand there knowing that he wouldn't hurt me, trusting him even though I knew I shouldn't and I would let him cut me down. 

He would start with my limbs slowly hacking away at me.  His face impassive and calm, indifferent.  He wasn't even really enjoying it, or paying attention truly.  He was performing a function.  And I endured it knowing that while I would die in one way, I would be reborn in another.  The sane would say that you stay away from the man that murdered you in your dreams.  I say I'm not sane and this was the path I needed to take.  Pain teaches so much more than pleasure does.  As far as my life up to this date has shown me at least.

Honestly I owe the man I'm divorcing a bit of gratitude.  I am just now becoming the woman I've always wanted to be.  And I never would've done it if he hadn't destroyed me emotionally to the point that I no longer wanted to live.  It made me find a reason to exist and forced me to find value within myself and not as a side car of what other people want from me.  The greatest gift a woman can ever give herself, is herself and herself alone.

And now my dreams are my own.  They are tempered with flirting, anticipation, longing, desire, waiting, anxiety, all of the delicious, delicious sensations that accompany being alive.  And now I'm starting to finish the dream, the one where Siegfried destroys me.  It doesn't end like I thought it did, but I never knew that before.  The pain of what I was enduring was always too much and I would end the dream early, well before he’s done killing me. You see, I always thought that this ended in my death and I always check out of dreams before I die in them.  Too Nightmare on Elm Street for me. But now, that I don’t fear the dying I can finish it, picking up from where he left off.

I watch as he pries out my heart and just holds it staring into my face waiting. Finally I yell at him to leave me alone, cursing at him, hating him.  He calmly tosses away my heart, gets up and leaves me lying there. I lay on the ground, my limbs scattered around me, they are burned and singed from my proximity to hell.  My eyes are closed and I weep, uncontrollable weeping.  But no motion, it hurts too much I can't bear the pain of crying as I normally would because heaving does me no good.  I turn to see tiny red demons with stubby limbs fighting over my heart.

Suddenly, the earth shatters around me and I hear him before he lands.  The sound of his wings ripping away as he falls cuts through my pain and stops my tears. I close my eyes as the lightning strikes, it tears up the sky and hurts to look at. And I can see him in my head, falling backwards through clouds, his black wings being torn from his back by the force of his falling. He folds his arms across his chest and lets himself fall.  His face is obscure because it’s being covered by his whipping hair. And then he's there. 

I can't see him, but I can feel him slowly putting me back together.  He starts with my legs, the putting together is almost more painful than the hacking off had been.  Because I can feel the burned torn flesh, I can feel the skin he peeled away from when Siegfried was pulling me apart.  I can feel the exposed nerves, the aching of my bones as they are being fused back together.  I feel the stranger’s hand at my brow. I want to open my eyes but I’m so afraid to stare into the face of my savior, so afraid to meet the man that will have all of me forever no matter what else is decided. He fell for me, what choice do I have. Not that I would choose anything else.  I feel his lips at my eyes telling me its okay not to look, and I feel him push my heart back into my chest. 

Through my pain I now know what to look forward to in pleasure.  I can feel it pour over me peeling away the marred, burned, sliced, and badly cauterized wounds the one who came before left.  This mystery coming into my life just unzips this heavy carcass of my despair, and carefully pulls me free from it.  Like a snake dropping its skin, my reconstructed form, starting with my feet he slowly pulls every part of me free.  His hands brushing away the debris slowly I feel the warmth of the sun combined with the coolness of water. The smell of burning flesh replaced with the onset of spring honeysuckle and lavender. Without a word, his lips to mine I am reborn.

From Perilous Flight at Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Smashwords

Socialization in the Time of Social Media

Today my word for the day was serendipitous.  So I thought a play on the title of the book that Kate Beckinsale wrote her phone number in for the movie "Serendipity" was appropriate.  It was called "Love in the Time of Cholera".  I'll let you sort out what I mean.

Relationship Status

Facebook status goes from "in a relationship" to "single".  Like me I know you've seen this byline in your Facebook timeline.  It makes me miss the days when your relationship status wasn't public property.  Not that it is by any means, but some days the way social media works you think you are obligated in some way to tell the world this unfortunate truth.

I must admit that after my marriage ended it was somehow empowering to go into one of my media networks and boldly go from "married" to "single".  It was more than just a declaration to the people who knew and loved me.  It was a declaration to myself.  Somehow making that one move put me on the path to understanding why I was in the situation I was in and how I could avoid returning there in the near future.

Love and Hate

I have a love hate relationship with social media.  I see it's potential in bridging the gaps between people and I also see the possible destruction from making so much of your existence not as private as it used to be.  I'm a Generation X'er.  By nature we are more skeptical while being opportunistic.  It has a lot to do with being raised by Baby Boomers and their changing value systems.  I think the irony of this is that no one has embraced social media like the generations that flank us.  Those being our Baby Boomer parents (well not mine, but some of us) and our Millennial understudies.

For those wondering, the Millennials are the generation of people who are being born with the Internet as a part of their lives.  The constantly 'plugged-in' set while us Gen X'ers are mostly involved yet quite on the fence with our involvement.  We see the opportunity social media creates, but we are somewhat fearful of the loss of self for the cause.  I see it all of the time as my generation picks and chooses what social media outlets will hold their time and attention, and which ones they just can't be bothered with because it's that step too far.

Live Journal

I think back to the days of high school crushes and random childhood gossip, and I see the implications for what could've been if every time someone in my cliché 'broke-up' it became social fodder.  And I find myself grateful that there isn't an archive somewhere of my high school follies.  I know a lot of people a little younger than me that can't say the same thanks to LiveJournal.  But it brings me face to face with the changing tide of how technology has affected how we perceive and feel about human relationships.  With the ability to make your relationship a matter of public media, you risk affecting the intimacy that good relationships can cultivate.  I find myself wondering if you can also increase it.

Words are powerful things.  I should know I'm a writer : ) And I often prefer writing someone and not telling someone because my written word is always going to be more eloquent, direct, and poignant than my spoken words.  I just don't think in speech like I think in written word.  So I can write tantalizing love letters and flowing poetry yet have the damnedest time getting those words out of my face.  It leaves me to wonder which face is my true face.  What is it about captured language that makes it a preferable option to me and apparently to many of the people in our tech world today who prefer text messaging to phone calls.

I have often read things friends have said to me as a comment on Facebook and I wondered at the authenticity of it.  But not in the way you might think.  My friends have written some of the loveliest sweetest things I've ever read about myself to the point that I have been moved to tears. I know these people well and they know me and I wonder if we were face to face would they reveal that much of their true feelings about me or if the specter of the screen and the loose feeling of anonymity have somehow changed the nature of the discourse.  Has being able to channel these feelings through a source that can feel as intimate as a computer can sometimes opened a door to a true core of emotion that maybe unrealized in any other way.

I know that I have stated true feelings through this medium to other people that I would never have the gall to say to their face and I wonder why.  In those moments of typing as I stared at the words as they hit the page I knew that not telling the truth would be like lying to myself.  And at every turn as I read my own words the lie of it would become unbearable and the message would be left unsaid . . . unsent.

Beyond that personal belief, it was the freedom of knowing that I can get my thoughts out without instant rejection because of response time.  When you state things to someone's face you see instantly how well received or not well received they are.  At least with awkward silence there is a sense of accomplishment because you can't be sure about how someone has taken your commentary, but you can be sure that you made your position clear.

Reply?

We are a society accustomed to speaking over each other.  In ordinary conversations the person who has the most aggression will usually be heard over all while the meeker participants will be overshadowed.  However in the written word, in an online chat sense, everyone has a position of potential equal say.  Like nothing else, written messages demand that the normal call and response procedures of communication be adhered to.

If you're like me then there is nothing you hate more than an unanswered message.  The very nature of sending a message calls upon habits that should be ingrained by any participant in 'polite' society.  If someone has taken the time, energy, and effort to communicate with you, you at least owe them an acknowledgement of the effort. Often in face to face conversations the subject can be rerouted, changed, and ultimately ignored as you substitute surrounding incidents for current 'undesirable' conversation.  However it is hard to deny a message.  It is almost like a receipt.  The sender and the recipient know this took place and how they choose to deal with it usually determines the level of care and regard you give the person because they have stated the level of care and regard they hold for you. These are all factors that would aid in understanding the level of involvement you can or cannot have with another person.

In a relationship my partner will get both.  I'll say the words I'm thinking, and then reinforce them with poetry, cards or other little notes of affection.  But does this create its own from of intimacy without the content of being there in person?  I imagine my lover can look at the words on a screen or page and then remember how I smell, my smile, how I look at them, how I touch them. Written words can touch, but they can't feel.  They can imply, but they can't determine. Beyond that, they bare more weight when they are private, and not made available for prying eyes.

How does one create intimacy through a social media?  Is this something that is even remotely possible?  Studies have shown that people make judgment calls on others based on some of their social media choices yet I'm not always sure if reposting a cute kitten picture is the best identifier for a person.  Memes have been dedicated to the insensitive things people are willing to say from the safety of a computer screen yet there haven't really been any that talk about what people feel are inappropriate matters to be discussed in an online format.  All is open for discussion apparently.

It is very easy to find a blog post or site where people come together to discuss their heartbreak and what they are going through.  Love in the digital age has become more digital than social.  What was once something between 2 people and their closest friends and relatives has become searchable by the masses.  In many ways it does remind us that we are all the same.  But in other ways it stamps out those wonderful fundamental differences.  In the end, this is another face we place on just like any other.  How is this relationship, picture, status a true indication of the person that speaks about it?  How is this reflection to be perceived?  At face value or as a characteristic of something that is more evolved than previously thought.

Failbook

This face is one that can be constructed to a larger degree than any other face.  I like experimenting with look, style, and perception.  My photos are a clear indication of that.  I like playing with the idea that with a few simple changes I can become or appear to be someone other than who I am.  Well I think online characterization can be taken a full step beyond that.  What is real and what isn't?  Who is real and who isn't becomes more of a concern than in face-to-face encounters.  As we become overwhelmed by our own creations and they start to bleed into the reality of who we really are, who is to say that this is not who we really are now.

Personalities

The key to understanding online personas is understanding the nature of the beast.  The internet, while it was originally created as a means for academics to communicate with each other, has become a venue of entertainment.  People online have to be taken with a grain of salt because more than anywhere else, you are being sold something.  It doesn't matter where you are, in a chat room, playing Xbox live, on a dating site, or just browsing news stories, someone wants you to 'buy' something.  Either that they care, don't care, that their view is correct, or this angle is the truth.  And in many cases they want your money. 

At our very base level we are a nation of con artists. It's called capitalism and the bottom line is gain. Is it no wonder each generation is able to instantly spot what will garner the best advantage and then take it?  At our most enlightened we are a nation of Buddhists abandoning the suffering of trade for altruism.  Deciding that the only way to stifle the will of capitalism is to disavow it.  But most of us are somewhere in the middle trying to make a worthwhile existence for ourselves and those we love.  So how does online interactions facilitate this is what I'm asking?  How does one go from being a stranger to being a friend through a social media site?

I think in the end it's like with all things.  You regard someone and recognize the traits they have in common with you.  Through this you build up a repoire, and then over time you become accustomed to their ways and methods of communicating.  Who they are has no choice but to present itself.

Beyond not writing things in all caps, online etiquette is this unrelenting, unestablished hierarchy of mismatched rules and sometimes lacking in manners rhetoric.  It is up to the person to decide what constitutes as real human interaction, and what is just a pale reminder that the object before us is only a machine with parts instead of heart.

The real issue is that sometimes people make the mistake of believing that the people on the other end of the line are just as unfeeling as the machine they are using to communicate with when the exact opposite is true.  Usually on the other end is someone who is all too human and for whatever reason needs the parts to help them declare and expose their heart.  It would be a shame if we as other human beings suffering the same fit weren't available to help them understand the difference between cold unemotional parts and moments given from the heart.

(Dedicated to all those who have never left me hanging ; )

Status Courtesy of: http://media1.break.com/breakstudios/2011/12/21/facebook%20status%20as%20single.jpg

Love and Hate Courtesy of: http://bloggertone.com/marketing/files/shutterstock-Love-Hate.jpg

Live Journal Courtesy of : http://socialcomputing.asu.edu/uploads/1283881421/Livejournal-logo.png

Failbook Courtesy of:  http://cheezfailbooking.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/funny-facebook-fails-caught-cheatin.jpg

Personalities Courtesy of: http://mikepascucci.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/personalities-2.jpg?w=490

Reply? Courtesy of: http://www.macstories.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/notification1.png

Love you Courtesy of: http://www.bronzeframing.co.uk/scrabble/love_u_thb.jpg

Caps Lock Courtesy of: http://lh3.ggpht.com/_xM6S1O620QE/TGnrzz5a8OI/AAAAAAAAmdw/omEKGFa1R_U/Caps%20Lock.jpeg

Online Dating Jazz

Ah the magical wonderful world of online dating.  I've realized that it’s like a seasonal sport.  There are peak times and lulls.  Right now is apparently one of my peak times.  Probably has something to do with my something being trined with my Venus, Ascendant, who knows. I have a couple of profiles that I leave open here and there because it pleases me.  I used to forget about them until someone messaged me and then I would reluctantly pull one down.  Then I decided to start letting them stay unchanged in cyber space as like a letter to myself. Each one catalogues an interesting phase in my life and how I felt about men, dating, and love.  Believing in love is very important for a romance novelist, so I often use these sites to challenge the belief in love others have.

Over the years I've learned a few things about online dating habits, especially where I'm concerned.  Very rarely does anyone who habitually dates online expect to meet the other person. I think it has a little to do with many people not looking at all like the picture they used for scoring a date.  I think it has more to do with the interesting relationships we as human beings develop with technology such as our personal computers. I think to the writings of Sherry Turkle and how she has managed to admit something that we as human beings seem not to be able to do just yet. This is the thought that a computer is a very personal and intimate device.  Just think in a day how many times you touch one in comparison to touching another person. As I type this, I feel how my fingertips brush over the keys, lightly with just enough pressure to cause it to react. I've conditioned myself to respond to it in a certain way.  And unlike people, if you manage it in just the right way it will always do exactly what you want precisely without that loss of interpretation between you and what someone else sees or hears. It builds this shell of safety and comfort for people that the harsh reality of an actual human being shatters.

I think it becomes more so for those who use computers to create art.  Writers like me can easily spend hours with one and not even notice if anyone else is even in the room.  This thing enables our thoughts and tales, our stories and fantasies.  It gives them breath, and saves our favorite moments for us to relive over and over again.  It allows us to go in, and easily fix our errors in punctuation, sentence structure, and even flawed storytelling logic.  Like our stories we build online worlds and communities, such as this blog site, and it rewards us by offering us this additional mask to hide behind so that no one can get close enough to truly hurt us.  Just close enough to interact so we don't feel lonely, but without any of the potential hazards of interacting.  The graphic novel that was adapted to the movie Surrogates shows us a world where this idea is taken to an extreme.  However in many ways this idea has already been realized.

I've never really thought online dating was a good idea because the computer can't translate that moment of awareness, instinct, and presence that happens when you meet a person who you know has the potential to be a substantial part of your life. There is a pleasing anonymity to online dating that people have a tendency to not want to give up.  Whether out of fear of rejection, safety, or just not wanting to experience the awkwardness that accompanies meeting someone for the first time that you have spoken to many times, people have a tendency to chicken out. Many of the dates I have set up ended in me being stood up, cancelled on and never rein-checked, or flat out ignored when it was time to do more than have a casual chat on a random weekday night.

The pessimist would cite things like the other person cheating on someone else as the cause, or is actively trying not to cheat on someone else as the case maybe.  I think it has a lot more to do with the person being just human; a vulnerable creature that isn't always sure of themselves and is trying to find some measure of life that makes some sense. As human beings we seek fulfillment and it is up to us to determine whose fulfillment it will be. With this being the day after the death of Steve Jobs, and the irony of the topic I think I will dare and quote the late technology mastermind.

“Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.” Steve Jobs

In the end, when we create these online extensions of ourselves they somehow reflect the parts of us that we would like to show first and the most.  The process is showing yourself for interest and intent to the rest of the world. We show the parts that we think will appeal to others by either our own value systems or those of others. Which means that you have carefully outlined the parts of yourself you feel have little value or worth to others.  But really this is your truth of what you value most about who you are.

For me personally I have 3 online names, and they showcase all sides of me.  When I'm not Christina, who I am most of the time, I'm Suenammi, which of course is a play on tsunami.  This name was given to me by my first boyfriend and probably the only man to truly accept me as me with whatever that entails. To this day he forces me to never be anyone else but me. The nickname reminds me to stay true to me. Analise is my Renaissance and Medieval Faire name for that wicked side of me that would prefer life be simpler and we made our own rules and laws.  She's that side that loves to play with swords and drink all night in dives with gypsies and pirates. This side believes in natural order, justice by my own hand, and the will of Fate in all matters.  She believes in magic and the divine, in fairytales and ghost stories. While I write under the core of remembering who I am, Suenammi, it is Analise that spins the tales.

So as I consider these multiple mistresses housed in the form known as Christina, I realize why online dating and I are so incompatible.  So few people make the choice to be exactly who they are no matter who that may be whether people can tell or not. The temptation is to be who you want to be and hope that it becomes true. So many people are letting someone else's truth speak for them and not letting their instincts guide them.  And thanks to the way online personas are developed without the least bit of screening, the ones you should stay clear of have been tagged before being released back into the wild. So I have compiled a small list of self-identifiers in your online moniker that will notify me that we are most likely incompatible despite your confidence otherwise. I advise all women who attempt to date online to do the same.

(Ahem) Any references to: money, assumed sexual prowess, active drug habits, illegal career choices, racial exploitation and or skin color descriptors, confrontational behavioral warnings (i.e. TooManyGames), being a living breathing stereotype, overt religious sayings, people who you are not, all none geeky fictional characters (My first nickname is a natural disaster. It would be too hypocritical to rule out fictional character references completely.  However, steer clear of all Supermans. Just sayin'). 

Please note I will not in fact, 'hit you back."  And always the best way to start a conversation is "Hi" and not with the implication of doing me 'a favor'.

Always w/Love

Sue

Romance - Redefining Intimacy

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