Feminism made a long overdue showing in the 18th Century. Society, as a whole debated important issues, and, naturally, well-informed women began to question their place in the whole structure. These women were not called “feminists,” but rather “female philosophers.” They were nonmilitant…no bra burners among them. Rather I should say no corset burners among them. They did not protest for legal rights. Instead, they focused on the lack of education for females and on the moral autonomy and authority of males within the family structure. Early female writers included Mary Astell and Catherine Macaulay. Although few would call her a feminist, Jane Austen spoke of such issues in her writing. Austen simply gave us sympathetic female characters. Yet, how can we believe that she grudgingly dedicated a novel to a prince she did not admire and then think that Jane Austen was not aware of the moral debate going on about her.

Perhaps the most controversial figure of the feminist movement of this time period was a teacher and novelist: Mary Wollstonecraft. She wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792. The book sets the “female perspective” in the context of post-revolutionary Europe. The downfall of the book is its emphasize on rational principles. That is also the strength of the book. Wollstonecraft created a firestorm of sorts and alienated many readers by attacking male icons such as John Milton and Rousseau because both men advocated subjugation of the woman in a man’s world. When I taught high school English, my female students (and some of the males) saw parallels to the pro-feminist speeches found in the 1960s and 70s in the U.S. One of Wollstonecraft’s more controversial comments dealt with how the English education system for girls taught them how to attract a man but how to run a man’s house once they landed him.

In 1798, Mary’s husband, William Godwin, wrote a Memoir of her life. This was shortly after Wollstonecraft’s death. Mary lost her life to childbirth. (That child, Mary Godwin, became the wife of Percy Shelley and the author of Frankenstein.) Godwin told the world of his wife’s suicide attempts and of her bearing an illegitimate child, as well as an exaggerated version of Mary’s rejection of Christianity. Mary was labeled an atheist and a whore. Such labels destroyed what good Wollstonecraft created with in her work.

A friend of mine recently told me that I should consider writing comedy. I laughed, naturally, because I assumed he meant it as a joke. I am known for those kind of lines, which can strip someone of his dignity, but I would not say I was particularly funny. When I hear a good joke, I do not remember it to retell it to my friends.
He was serious, though. He said, “Writing comedy is the same as writing the romance novels, which are your stock and trade.” Again, I laughed. “Comedy needs real-life situations,” he explained. I thought about that fact and agreed. “It needs strong dialogue, which tells the story.”

My interest piqued. “I think dialogue is one of my strengths in writing,” I confided.

“The characters have to be relatable. You have to see yourself in them.”

“Okay, I get it. What else?” I asked, now enthralled with the idea.

He paused to think what other examples he should use to sell me on the idea. “Pacing is important,” he added.

“Yes. . .” I encouraged.

“A balance between the elements,” he continued.

“Does not one have to know how to write a joke?” I asked when he paused again. “Should not one have a sense of humor?”

“You have an excellent sense of humor,” he assured me. “Maybe a bit too sophisticated at times.”

“So, I do not like bathroom humor,” I countered.

“But you do like word puns and malapropisms.”

“That is true. But just because I enjoy twisting the King’s English, that does not mean I can write comedy.”

“Have it your way,” he said. “But you are funny, whether you know it or not.”

I thought about what he said. Then I noticed the sly smirk turning up the corners of his mouth. “Oh, yeah,” I protested. “Tell me a time when you recognized my natural comedic flare,” I challenged.

He sat for several elongated minutes. Finally, he said, “Besides when you slipped on the ice and looked like a windmill trying to catch your balance.”

“Yes, besides that.”

“Never.”

“I rest my case.”

Pride & Prejudice Is Top Book Brits Lie About Reading

This article was originally published on Female First: Celebrity Gossip & Lifestyle Magazine.

This article was originally posted on the NY Times.com.  

Writer’s Cramp: In the E-Reader Era, a Book a Year Is Slacking

For years, it was a schedule as predictable as a calendar: novelists who specialized in mysteries, thrillers and romance would write one book a year, output that was considered not only sufficient, but productive.

This article comes from CNET News.

Here’s something that tends to get lost in the debate over e-book prices: Paper doesn’t cost very much. There’s a perception among consumers that an e-book should cost very little or next to nothing because there is no paper, printing, and shipping involved. But in fact, for a new best-selling hardcover, all of the costs associated with print, from the printing to the shipping to the distribution to the warehousing to returns, amount to a mere few dollars per copy, depending on the size of the print run.

The vast majority of a publisher’s costs come from expenses that still exist in an e-book world: Author advances, design, marketing, publicity, office space, and staff. You can therefore imagine the fear that e-book prices instill in publishing executives’ hearts. They’re only saving a few dollars per copy in the switch to the e-book world, but the prices of books were slashed more than half: from $24.99 to $9.99 and even lower.

That begins to explain why publishers are trying to keep e-book prices high. But it doesn’t tell the whole story.

It’s still a print world
Not only are publishers’ margins better on higher-priced print books, but when bookstores close it has enormous ramifications for the industry. When Borders went bankrupt, for instance, Penguin Group was its single largest creditor, with $41.1 million outstanding.

And even aside from financial considerations, publishers’ entire reason for existence is bound up in print. The major publishers are, quite simply, the best companies in the world at getting print books from authors to readers. Most of the tools at their disposal for making a book a hit are tied to a print world, from buying front-of-the-bookstore placement (yes, publishers pay for that) to book tours.

As the exponential growth of e-books has slowed, some publishers are even whispering their hopes that perhaps the rate of e-book adoption will slow further and print will be viable well into the future.

But meanwhile, on the other side of the e-book price divide are consumers. Whatever the cost of paper, $10-plus e-books look mighty expensive when they’re undercut by 99-cent Kindle best sellers sold by authors who don’t have a publisher’s overhead.

Publishers have a massive problem with perception of value. When you can’t hold it in your hands and easily pass it along to a friend, $10-plus just feels too expensive to many people.

For the complete picture and more analysis of the problem, please visit http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57412587-93/why-e-books-cost-so-much/