HomeReviewsInterviewsStoreABlogsOn Writing

Isn’t that just the most romantic thing you ever heard?

I’m sure Chancery Stone will be pleased that I posted her Youtube vid on the blog, seeing as she’s such a publicity whore.

By the way, when you look at her other videos, do you come away with the feeling that she hates men?

Just sayin’.

CHANCERY Effing STONE.

The woman is too stupid to be real. She’s spent days arguing and trying cause a kerfuffle on the Amazon boards, all because she wants to sell more books. She obviously believes that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. (I wonder how that’s working out for her?)

She then decides to act like the injured party, and posts this crap, on the Amazon romance readers board:

Hi, my name is Chancery Stone. I am the author of The DANNY Quadrilogy and I first posted on this forum two days ago. Since then I have witnessed some strange and occasionally, at least to me, entertaining behaviour, and what I want to ask you now is this:

Do romance authors hate all other authors? Do YOU hate other authors? Or is it really a small clique of authors on here that simply create this impression?

Now that we know what her usual MO is, this seems like such an obvious ploy to get people to lash out at her, thus generating more talk about her and her books. I don’t mind giving her the publicity she obviously craves, but sooner or later, she’s gonna learn that most valuable of lessons: Nothing really ever dies on the internet.

The silly arse continues:

In my short two days I’ve had authors stridently assert that my book wasn’t a romance – without them knowing the first thing about it. I’ve had them tell me it “couldn’t qualify as a romance” because it contained incest. I’ve had them assert very aggressively, and repeatedly, that ALL romance readers have to have a happy ending on their romances or they will boycott any authors that dare to do different. I’ve had them assert that Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre – the prototype romances upon which all modern romances are based – are not romances. Neither, apparently, are Gone With The Wind, or the works of Virginia Andrews.

I imagine there are an awful lot of readers around the world right now cheerfully believing they are reading some of the finest romances in the world only to be bitterly disillusioned, by this board, to discover they are not.

What an utter fuckwit.

have also been told that the definition of romance is determined by the Romance Writers of America, an appallingly xenophobic remark that we shall put to one side for just now to discuss what this says about the board. Is everyone on it really that narrow in their definitions? Are YOU only confident you are reading a romance if the RWA says so? Who exactly ARE the RWA to determine what is a romance and what isn’t, and to lay down rules – if they actually do – about it’s ‘true’ nature?

She is such an attention-seeking dickhead.

I am curious as to what all the hundreds (thousands?) of silent readers think, reading this hostility masquerading as “advice”. Does it make you want to take part in discussions? Do you feel these people represent your views? Are you afraid to venture your true feelings, ‘advertise’ your own work, say anything, indeed, in case the self-appointed clique-of-the-week decide to take you down for not conforming?

I can pretty much guarantee that the majority of the silent romance readers, think you’re a cock.

This comment had me choking on my lemon tea:

Part of this charming definition of ‘etiquette’ has, for my part, included me being threatened with the ‘report abuse’ button. It has also had me referred to as “one of those foreigners” who, allegedly, come over to Amazon.com just to break these ‘rules’ of ‘etiquette’, perhaps by stealing your jobs and raping your women.

Yes, people, this twat is actually comparing the reaction of romance readers to racism.

There are lots more, but this little comment tells you what that whole post was really about:

This sad and moving speech has been brought to you by Chancery Stone, author of The Danny Quadrilogy, volume 1 of which may be bought from Amazon.co.uk and Volume 2 of which appears here on Amazon.com.

At one point, she boasts that she has loads of readers and her sales are fabulous. But this naturally begs the question, if she’s got that many readers, why does she feel the need to go around and harp on about her books to an audience that she surely knows wont be adding to her sales figures?

This comment from ‘Francois’ had me laughing my tits off:

So we’ve established that Chancery Stone is a nutcase who’s been shilling her “novel” for upwards of fifteen years to no avail whatsoever in between masturbating to her own genius. Oh, and I have a new favorite quote:

“I like going for the jugular and watching them squirm as they try to redeem an irredeemable faux pas.” This coming from a woman who showed up on a quiet romance novel forum screeching “READ MY EDGY GAY INCEST STORY!!”

I swear, she even makes the Vicious Rhinoceros and her sidekick, look slightly less insane.

My hope for her is that one day (soon), she learns about the benefits of taking one’s medication before logging onto the computer.

It never fails to amaze me how stupid some authors can be.

Meet Chancery Stone. Apparently, he/she/it is an author. And he/she/it thinks that incest is romantic.

Hi, I’m posting this for any of the (many) women who like reading male to male romances, or who enjoy stories about brothers with very close relationships.

The DANNY Quadrilogy is a 4 volume series of novels about the Jackson Moore brothers, part of a Cumbrian (English) farming family.

They have a forbidden relationship, thoroughly twisted out of shape by an abusive childhood. Things get horribly out of hand and the jealousies and rivalries end in murder.

Please be warned it is a sexually explicit tale with controversial content. However, for those people who live for intense emotional romances and who actively enjoy a challenging storyline then it will exceed your expectations.

Vloume 1 can only be purchased from the UK presently (although it is listed here on Amazon.com as an import, so you can view it here) but volume 2 is available here on .com. You can read more about the book at www.poisonpixie.com or, even more comprehensively at www.danny-is-god.com.

Thanks for your time.

That book sure sounds lovely and uplifting doesn’t it?

Listen, I know that there are people out there who dig this kind of crap, and I can just about live with it, but I certainly don’t want the romance genre tainted (yes, tainted) with incest stories.

Brother-and-brother sex, aint romantic. Father-and- daughter-sex, is also not romantic. Ask the children who are born deformed as a result of some of these unions.

Write it by all means, just don’t call it fucking romance.

The stupidity part isn’t from the above post by the way, it came from his handling of the readers who disagreed with him.

This comment was made a poster called Dog Lover. He/she wrote:

Definitely not my cup of tea and I don’t see how it relates to “romance”. Sounds more appropriate to the mystery/thriller forum.

Just my opinion.

To each his/her own…

Chancery Stone (who, incidentally, is the author of these so-called Danny Books) responded with:

Hi, Dog Lover, Danny is very definitely a ‘romance’, if you judge a romance as a story revolving around a central love relationship, regardless of gender. As the whole book (and there’s a lot of it) is about the boys’ relationship, and given that it’s specifically about the extreme intensity of it, which includes sex, I seriously fail to see how it could fail to be included, other than because societal rules say so. The fact that the book also contains other themes is neither here nor there – like I say, it’s a very big book.

He seems to have totally missed the point. The issue isn’t about gender. The issue is him trying to classify incest stories as romance.

Secondly, I am intrigued by your assertion that romances have to have HEA as a “requirement”. I’m guessing this means happy ever after? You do realise that Wuthering Heights (a book to which Danny is regularly compared) has no HEA? In fact, the whole point of Wuthering Heights is that the central lovers are doomed in their romance. I know Emily Bronte was an original and most authors do not find that bleakness palatable, but are you seriously suggesting a) that WH cannot qualify as a romance due to its reality? and that b) every other doomed romance in fiction is not a romance either?

Perhaps you are mistaking your own taste for fact.

Patronising arsehole.

He doesn’t realise that a HEA is a romance staple?

Stone continues:

Lastly, what makes you think my book “implies in any way that incestuous relationships are anything other than perversion”? And I do like your somewhat judgemental “regardless of its cause” and the idea that incest must be “dealt with to bring the character to a successful life”. You do definitely like everything tidy and ‘normal’, don’t you?

Unfortunately real life is not like that, and whereas I can already hear you arguing a case for romances being about fantasy and not real life, it doesn’t alter the fact that some authors write love stories based in reality rather than fantasy, and this does not qualify them as un-romances, just as books you don’t like.

Urrggghh – *headdesk*

Another reader, Rhian had this to say:

Are you deliberately trying to incense the people you want to buy your book? I have no objection to your original post promoting the novel but these last posts are both patronising and unnecessary.

Romance is generally read as escapism: I have no objections to thinking about societies’ norms and taboos I just don’t turn to the Romance genre for the catalyst.

And this was Stone’s response:

I’m trying to “incense” no-one. Are you incensed? If so, why, as you were not the author of any of the above comments?

I also fail to see how asserting that happy endings and fantasy are not prerequisites of romance is patronising or unnecessary. Unless by “uneccessary” you mean to suggest your opinions are valid and mine are not? And just because you don’t “turn to the romance genre” to read about society’s taboos doesn’t mean that I am not allowed to use the genre, or any other genre, to write about them.

He simply doesn’t get it. Incest may come under the erotica banner, (and even that’s a bit shady for me), but romance it aint. He’s obviously not down with any real romance authors, or he’d know that he was mostly talking out of his arse.

These next few comments had me rolling my eyes heavenwards:

Hi DL, “the expected requirements of the “romance” genre in fiction” is a very subjective issue, and it changes from month to month, fashion to fashion, author to author. You might not see it as the same thing as me, but that doesn’t make your assumptions correct, just person specific. Even several people specific, or general consensus specific doesn’t exclude me from putting myself in its radar.

I would think you’re treading a *very* thin line excluding Jane Eyre from the romance category since it is almost certainly the protoype upon which all modern romances are based. Its inclusion in your argument does make me wonder just how deoderised you expect romances to be.

As to your idea that I should publish a book featuring a child/parent abuse scenario as a romance I already have – it’s called Danny. That’s the point. The whole idea of featuring such a story in the setting of a romance is to highlight the problems of the ‘romantic ideal’ and to show that the eroticism of the classic alpha male and his pursuit of the love object can come from very infected sources indeed. This would be the subverting the genre part. But in order to subvert it, I have to be in it, and I *am* in it. Like it or no.

Urrrgggh.

I never want the genre to be sooo inclusive that it starts letting people like this man classify his work as romance. I guess that’s a pretty small-minded view, but there are times when political correctness needs to take a long trip to hell.

Thanks to Vanessa Jaye for the heads up.

Apparently Holly Lisle is getting political on her blog, which annoyed one of her readers so much, that said reader, wrote her an e-mail telling her so.

I received this e-mail yesterday evening from a concerned reader. I have no time to paraphrase, so I’ll just post the pertinent bits:

Holly Lisle posted about some of the internet rumors going on about Obama, with links. Despite that it has been stated elsewhere that these are rumors and will be addressed by members of his staff, she said she was withdrawing her support for him and would be voting for McCain instead — and urged her readers to do so as well.

Now, a reader took exception to this and sent Holly a private e-mail, saying that she did not find it appropriate that Holly was using her influence in attempt to sway her readers’ voting choices with misinformation. She told her that she would be resigning from her mailing list and removing her books from her home, because she could not, in good faith, support someone who found nothing wrong with doing such. She sent the e-mail because she hoped that Holly would see that the way she was acting on her blog was actually losing her readers and damaging her career.

Holly re-posted this e-mail publicly, first in the comments on her original post, and then in a separate post on its own, calling the reader a “book destroyer”, continuing to defend the misinformation, and then demanding that she apologize. This resulted in Holly’s fans jumping to her defense, and calling the reader no amount of names.

(Ironically, Holly has threatened lawsuit against people who post her e-mails publicly.)

Here are the referenced posts:

Original Post 1
The second post
The third post by the reader’s friend

Here’s Holly, reposting the e-mail:

hollylisle Says:
June 11th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Waiting in my e-mail last night when the power came back on.

Holly, I know this won’t matter at all to you, but I’ll tell you anyway. I have been a fan of your work for a very long time. I’ve shared your books, helped build your fandom, respected and supported you. I’m not much of a joiner, so you don’t know me at all, but I’ve been there for you since 2000. I can’t respect you or support you any longer. You have a right to your opinions, but you don’t have a right to use your influence to spread misinformation.

Today your books went out of my house directly to the trash. After sharing your recent political blog post with others I know, I can tell you that my copies of your books aren’t going to be alone in the landfill. Because I once respected you, I ask you to please consider how much damage you’re doing to your career with your current direction. Ask yourself if it is really worth it. All the good you might do with your work is undone for me and a number of other readers. Is that really what you want?

So someone who has decided destroying the books written by someone whose opinion she disagrees with—and who is proud enough of her actions to announce them—has spoken. And it sounds like she’s putting some effort into encouraging others to destroy the books I wrote as well.

How, exactly, is that different than book-burning?

I see she totally got the point then. *g*

Apparently, Siren wasn’t the only publisher that ex-Ocean’s Mist Press owner, Noemi Rivera  lied to, about who she was. She also apparently faked her name over at Red Rose Publishing. She got found out though:

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: “Wendi”
To: redroseauthors
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 03:40:50 -0000
Subject: [redroseauthors] Important Information for you all!

It has been brought to my attention the owner of Ocean’s Mist Press was at Red Rose Publishing. She was writing under the name of Maria McBean. She submitted to us and gave us that name and signed her contract as such.

When this was brought to my attention I ran her social security number and it showed that it did not belong to Maria McBean but belonged to Noemi Rivera.

I am so sorry as I have concluded that she has commited fraud as she fraudulantly signed an alias and that makes her contract null and void.

She has been removed from the authors loop plus her book has been taken down or in the process of being taken down at all the other places we are distrubted at.

She has breached her own contract and is NO LONGER WELCOME AT RED ROSE PUBLISHING! Nor would she have been welcome if she submitted as herself.

I wanted you all to know what was going on. I am so sorry as she SCREWED every one she has ever came into contact with.

Take care and have a great evening!

Wendi

What a cheating skank.

I wonder if Loose ID still feel comfortable having her in their stable? Or perhaps they’ve binned her already?

Anyhoo, at least she’s getting just what she deserves.

Thanks to you-know-who for the tip-off.

"Starting rumours have consequenses. All I said is to be an adult about it. All I did was point out that this thread is nothing more than gossip and hope for revenge..."

Remember my April 10th post, where I was sent an e-mail alleging that Kristi Studts, disgraced ex-owner of Triskelion Press may have opened up a new publishing company under the name of Mystic Moon Press?

Well, I had the CEO of Mystic Press over on the blog last night to set the record straight. The problem? She also sent across a number of her henchmen authors to tell me off for spreading scurrilous rumours. (Yes, I know we’ve been here before, but bear with me.)

Anyway, Ceo Jennifer Mitchell wrote:

Hello My name is Jennifer Mitchell, I am the CEO and owner of Mystic Moon Press.

All I can say is that Kristi has nothing to do with our company other then she is a cover artist. It saddens me to know that by hiring a cover artist who claims to be male and involved with a woman I have garnered bad press because of it.

Those that doubt please feel free to check out my personal writing webpage www.jenniferraemitchell.com

or by all means go to Writing.com which is where I got my start www.writing.com/author/gen13

both places have pictures of myself and my family and my book covers.

I originally started this company with a good friend of mine, who has passed away, her name was Keeley McGreggor, to help me run the company now is an author by the name of Kristina Chartrand.

I am offended that I have not had one query to the matter of the real identity of Magickal Media is to myself or Kristina, there is no fact to base this on other then that Kristi “Magickal Media” is a cover artist for me and my company. At this point without knowing the truth I will stand behind my employee, but if I do find out that I have been decieved then I will take the appropriate actions.

It saddens me that things in the E-publishing business have gotten a bad name. Mystic Moon Press, was a dream of my dear friend and one that I want to continue to share. We are small, new and family like. We endevour to treat our authors fairly and I will go to bat for any of them.

Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Mitchell
CEO of Mystic Moon Press, LLC
jen@mysticmoonpress.com

You’ll note Dear Readers, her use of the phrase “We are small, new, and family like”. This is a familiar refrain is it not?

Anyway, fair enough she wanted to set the record straight, but then Ana Star, one of the authors at MMP also posted:

Hi everyone,

My name is ana star and I’ve been a published author for almost a year with mystic moon press. I never had any problems what so ever with this company. Alot of the authors at mmp came from writing.com and some others came from other companies.

As I was reading the comments, there is absolutely no proof as to what you are accusing. Also I am not sure why this post is even here in the first place…sounds like rumours of people who have nothing else better to do than start bs.

Who ever this kristy is, she isnt in your life anymore so be a grown up and move on…

As for the covers, all covers of every company look alike. If you go to fictionwise, you have the largest example of similar covers. Everyone uses the same images and same programs to make them…

I have no doubt that Jennifer Mitchell put out a call to arms for her authors to come over and give the blogger what-for, for spreading malicious gossip, but as per usual, they’ve gone off the deep end without actually, A, doing any research of their own, and B, without taking the time to find out the kind of blog this is. Happy days for Karen.

Now, let me address that fucktard Ana Star.

Ana, you are indeed a fucktard. You know why? Because after all that’s happened with e-publisher after e-publisher imploding and screwing over their authors royally, you dare come on here and say “Who ever this kristy is, she isnt in your life anymore so be a grown up and move on…”

That statement, my dear friend, ensures that you wear the crown of Fucktard of The Week. You must be so proud.

This statement:

As I was reading the comments, there is absolutely no proof as to what you are accusing. Also I am not sure why this post is even here in the first place…sounds like rumours of people who have nothing else better to do than start bs.

Merely cements your fucktardly status.

I wouldn’t be so incredulous had she not admitted in a later post to having already been shafted and “taken advantage by a company who turned out to be fraudulent.”

Loyalty is an admirable trait. Blind loyalty such as the one that she displays, will no doubt ensure that she will be fucked over more than once, by her present/future e-publishers.

Anyway, somebody called Jim Richards, (another one of Dear Jen’s authors) also had his tuppence worth, but he stated his piece and nothing in his comment annoyed me. Although, if they ever go tits-up, you know I’ll be reposting his comments right?

Anyway, the original post was a ‘Rumour Has It’ post, with a request for more information. I suspect though that the authors didn’t bother reading it, and just launched straight into their staunch defence of Mystic Moon Press.

Will these people ever learn?

Thanks to Emily over at Erecsite, I came across this little gem from Ann Jacobs. Apparently, she’s still pissed at JC Wilder, and in her oh-so-passive-aggressive way, takes another swipe at Wilder, in a post entitled A Word On Pseudonyms.

She starts by explaining the reasons for her pseudonyms, and then she launches into the real reason for her post:

Some authors may use a pseudonym, or another one, because they’re writing books of a different type than what they’re best known for. In ebooks, authors may use two or more identities so it looks as if the “real” author isn’t putting out too many books.

Can you all guess where this is headed?

If I were to take a position in publishing other than as an author (which I’m not), I would use my legal name–all of it, not just my first name which happens to be “Ann”, with a made-up last name. I doubt, in that case, that any of my publishers or former publishers would fail to see that “their” author was working for a competitor in a position that might or might not show a potential conflict of interest.

Oh gee, I wonder who she’s referring to? Let me think…

Come to think of it, I would even *inform* all my publishers that I was taking this paid position with a competitor, before doing so. That’s because I would want no questions raised later if one of those publishers I wrote for sensed a conflict of interest on my part.

Seriously, could she be any more sanctimonious?

When someone comes up with another name (besides their legal one) without informing anybody–publishers, other authors, etc., it stands to reason that the “new” pseudonym wouldn’t be connected to the author’s original one(s), or to her legal name.

In a world where most business is conducted online, it’s quite reasonable that a potential conflict of interest can be cloaked until the author shows up at an in-person gathering of publishers and authors, and “outs” herself there.

And she calls herself a professional? Professional, my arse. Professional Suck-Up maybe.

Pseudonyms are good to hide behind if you don’t want your neighbors or your kids’ friends knowing how you earn your living. They’re bad when they cloak identities that will eventually be discovered once the person steps out and put a face to that name–a face that’s already known by another name, particularly.

Good grief. Indida’s infamous ‘Just write, bitch’ seems quite apt at this point.

Well, the wench was determined to become my Fucktard of The Week, and now she’s succeeded. I hope she feels honoured. Only very special people get on this list.

Harlequin finally got around to officially launching its Paranormal Romance Blog. (There were some posts in October and December.) Other than inflicting those obnoxious Nocturne covers on you, someone named “Laura…the Digital Production Coordinator at Harlequin” inflicts some obnoxiously shallow and poorly written opinions on anyone dropping by. (Clue #1: Anyone not providing a full name or at least a witty nom de Web is hardly to be trusted as a blogger.)

Oooooh, handbags! The above post was by the editor of Juno Books, Paula Guran.

I read the Harlequin Paranormal post that seemed to be the cause of Guran’s angst, but it was just a simple commentary on why she (Laura) felt that vampires were sexy. Nothing really to get one’s knickers into a twist about.

Anyway, Guran continues:

What do I find so terrible about “Laura’s” posts and why won’t I comment if I take such umbrage? Because I don’t have time to tear apart each sentence. Let me give one example of an opening paragraph: “Vampires are sexy. The question is—why?”

Are vampires sexy? Not all vampires are sexy. To ignore this fact is to ignore the basis of any discussion of erotically potent vampires. Even if one needs to be simplistic, one should acknowledge. For example: “Most vampires we read about these days are sexy even though the traditional folkloric vampire was not a pleasant creature. Some writers (and readers) prefer the “monster” version of the myth. But for those of us who love paranormal romance, the vampire is sensual rather than truly sinister. Why do we think of the vampire as sexy?”

At this point I can’t get over the fact that she’s getting all deep and heavy about the sexiness, or lack thereof of vampires. Do you think she knows that vampires aren’t actually, um ya know… real?

I won’t even go on the the next paragraph, let alone essays on “works which have helped shape the [paranormal] genre over the years” or “what defines paranormal vs. sci-fi vs. fantasy”. (Yes, “sci-fi”.)

I just don’t have time.

Perhaps she coordinates digital production well, but couldn’t Harlequin find someone else to write these things?

I kept re-reading Laura’s post to see what Guran could have possibly found offensive about it, but I can’t for the life in me, find anything vaguely rant-worthy.

I can only conclude that Guran is perhaps a paranoid schizophrenic who thinks everybody is out to get her, and that she is the expert on all things vampiric?

I’m kidding of course.

Bram Stoker was the expert on all things vampiric.