Riverale Avennue Books
How to Submit Your Work to Us
First of all, we love writers, of both fiction and nonfiction, published and unpublished. Please think of us when you have an idea for a book, have gotten your rights back, or have finished a manuscript.
Whether you are an unpublished or published author, the first thing we would like to see from you is a simple one-page query letter telling us about your work and your writing background. Please make sure you include a return email address and a phone number. We are an electronic publisher and DO NOT take physical queries or manuscript submissions.
If you are an unpublished writer, keep in mind that we will need you to submit a finished manuscript, so please do not submit a query to us before you have finished the first draft.
If you are a previously published author, after you have sent a query letter and we have expressed interest, we will expect you to submit either the first three chapters of your novel and a complete outline, or your nonfiction book proposal. Even if you have finished the manuscript, please wait for us to ask to see the entire book.
Guideline & submission details at:
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Riverale Avennue Books
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Monday, May 25, 2015
Sunday, May 24, 2015
by Kathleen Bradean
There’s no such thing as writer’s block. That was invented by people in California who couldn’t write.
I always say, if you can't think of anything to write, go meta and talk about not being able to write. Okay, I never say that. But I am having a difficult time writing at the moment, and I'm in California, so here I am evoking writer's block as a topic.
According to legend, the lyricist for the 70s band Chicago was up all night trying to write a song. He looked across the room at the clock and saw that it was about 25 or 26 until 4 in the morning. I've heard that song maybe a hundred times but didn't realize it was about writer's block until recently. I still don't like the song much, but at least now it makes sense.
I went for years not finishing anything. Because, of course, when you finish something you can be judged.
I've been trying to write the next novel in my series. The first scene has defeated me. Maybe I expect too much from it for a first draft even though I know better. I asked other writers how they get past this sort of opening scene paralysis. Some said they skip writing the first scene or chapter until the rest of the novel is finished. This makes sense, because by then a writer should understand the bigger theme of their work, the tone, etc and how best to bring the reader to that. Others say they just write anything, knowing that they'll throw it out later.
My own experience is that once a story has been written, one has to cross out the beginning and the end. It is there that we authors do most of our lying.
Another writer confided that many of her writer friends can not get past their first chapters. Ever. The pursuit of perfection kills their creativity. I'm not trying to be perfect. All I want is to know I've got it mostly right.
The work never matches the dream of perfection the artist has to start with.
I'm a terribly inefficient writer. I've mentioned this before. I write to find the story and toss out the thousands of words it took to get there. I'm like Thelma from Scooby Doo, touching everything in search of my glasses. The difference is that she knows when she can see. I have sight, but have no confidence that I can create my vision. The first scene poses a question. The rest of the story answers that question. How can you even begin to ask when you've lost your voice?
From Kathy's Song by Simon and Garfunkel
....and a song I was writing is left undone/ I don't know why I spend my time/ writing songs I can't believe/ with words that tear and strain to rhyme
How do you get past writer's block? Do you believe it's real?
Posted by Kathleen Bradean at 1:00 AM
Saturday, May 23, 2015
But a comment one person made really made me think. I can't remember the exact wording they used, but it was something along the lines of, if an eBook is also available in print, it makes it appear more professional, less like a self-published title. Even if it is self-published. Apparently, it just gives the impression of more professionalism, probably something to do with that if the author has gone to the trouble of putting the book into paperback format, that they'll also have gone to the trouble of getting the book properly edited, formatted, etc. I can understand the thinking - we all know how many crappy quality books are out there, and not just self-published ones, either. We have to battle against opinions that eBooks are somehow inferior to print books, and also, that indie published stuff hasn't been professionally produced. It's infuriating, but there it is. All we can do is hope our books get into people's hands, and that those people will then leave positive reviews on Amazon. Or even negative ones, if they didn't like the story - you can win 'em all, after all - but at least if they make no comment on terrible formatting, spelling, grammar and so on, then at least other readers can rest assured that the book's been done right.
But simply selling a book in both eBook and print format - does that give it extra credence? Make you more confident you're buying a quality product? There's no right or wrong answer here, guys, I really want to know what you think. As I said, the original commenter really gave me pause for thought, as it wasn't something I'd considered before, so your opinion would be much appreciated. And please, share the post and encourage your friends to weigh in, too. It's a very interesting topic, so the more opinions, the better.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
By Lisabet Sarai
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
It's the 19th of May. That means it's Sexy Snippets Day! Time to share the hottest mini-excerpts you can find from your published work.
The ERWA blog is not primarily intended for author promotion. However, we've decided we should give our author/members an occasional opportunity to expose themselves (so to speak) to the reading public. Hence, we have declared the 19th of every month at the Erotica Readers and Writers Association blog Sexy Snippet Day.
On Sexy Snippet day, any author can post a tiny excerpt (200 words or less) in a comment on the day's post. Include the title from with the snippet was extracted, your name or pseudonym, and one buy link, if you'd like.
Please post excerpts only from published work (or work that is free for download), not works in progress. The goal, after all, is to titillate your readers and seduce them into buying your books!
Feel free to share this with erotic author friends. It's an open invitation!
Monday, May 18, 2015
“Carnegie Mellon Researchers Find More Sex Doesn’t Lead to Increased Happiness.” Variations of this headline made the news a few days ago. It even got discussion time on Larry Wilmore’s Nightly Show. I had a hunch the headline was misleading—these things always are, especially when it comes to sex--but I wasn’t surprised the story was all over the Internet, because this “scientific discovery” played right into the sticky hands of our society’s erotophobia.
The Carnegie Mellon University website provides a more detailed—and perhaps unwittingly humorous—description of the study. With grant money from the Pennsylvania Department of Health, Carnegie Mellon researchers recruited 64 married couples who were not having any particular difficulties in their sexual or emotional relationships. They “experimentally assigned” 32 of the couples to have sex twice as often as they usually did for a three-month period, while the control group of 32 continued to have sex whenever they desired it. The couples filled out surveys about their sex habits and happiness at the beginning and end of the study as well as shorter surveys each day.
At the end of the study, the couples who were asked to double their sexual activity were slightly less happy with their sex lives “in part because the increased frequency led to a decline in wanting for and enjoyment of sex.” This study was published in the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization.
Yes, let’s pause for a moment to roll our eyes and say, “Um, can the Pennsylvania Department of Health ask for its money back?”
Now, back when I was an undergraduate, I used to enjoy volunteering for studies run by the psychology department. They usually paid me a nominal fee, enough to buy a blend-in at the nearby ice cream parlor, but my real motivation was trying to figure out what the researchers were really testing. Even then, I suspected that what they told me was not the whole story, a suspicion confirmed by studies described in social psychology books, which, for better or worse, I read for fun. Unfortunately the Carnegie Mellon researchers might have been so distracted by the word “sex,” they themselves didn’t realize what they were really studying, which is what happens when you coerce people to engage in pleasurable activities rather than do so of their own volition. Is it any surprise that fun becomes a chore rather than a pleasure?
The study’s lead investigator, George Loewenstein, a professor of economics and psychology (Economics? Well, as I always say, sex does sell but not for as much as you think), stated that the findings were a surprise and a disappointment because, “We were expecting that the people who had more sex would enjoy it a lot and would be happier, and it would be good for the relationship.”
Right, I know. I’m happier when I’m having “more” rather than “less” sex myself. While I am heartened to know that the original intention was sex-positive, I am still concerned that funds for a study of sexuality, which are very difficult to find in our country, were squandered with such obvious blindness, not to say simple-mindedness. Yet this study received funding and was published. On a positive note, the professor did develop a bit more insight into the flaws of his endeavor.
"Perhaps couples changed the story they told themselves about why they were having sex, from an activity voluntarily engaged in to one that was part of a research study. If we ran the study again, and could afford to do it, we would try to encourage subjects into initiating more sex in ways that put them in a sexy frame of mind, perhaps with babysitting, hotel rooms or Egyptian sheets, rather than directing them to do so.”
Egyptian sheets? I haven’t tried those yet, but I am intrigued! And does the babysitter just watch the kids or get involved? But do remember, Professor, to think through the Egyptian sheet factor and put in a control group who does it on ordinary sheets. Otherwise you could embarrass yourself again.
Because, of course, the more significant part of this discussion is that its “findings” about sexuality have been reported all over the Internet, as, for example, the results of another article in same issue of the journal, “Dry Promotions and Community Participation: Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment in Brazilian Fishing Villages” was not.
Even the Carnegie Mellon website, quoted at the beginning of this post, is misleading, but in the popular press, the anti-sex message is dialed up.
“Having too much sex can make you unhappy, study finds”
Um, no, it finds that when you coerce people to have twice as much sex as they’d naturally choose to, they don’t describe themselves as “happier” in a survey.”
“Can Lots of Sex Actually Make You Unhappy?”
Please define “lots” for the audience, which is twice as much as you’d normally choose for three months, which should be more accurately described as “coerced sex.”
“Sex and happiness linked but not how you thought”
Actually, they’re linked in exactly the way I thought. Quality is a more important factor for satisfaction than quantity, but my experience also convinced me that having more satisfying sex does not make me less happy.
“Study Confirms Sex Does Not Make You Happier”
The study does not confirm that all sex makes you less happy, which is implied in this headline. Some kinds of sex in certain circumstances may indeed make you less happy, such as when you’re ordered to have more sex by a CMU researcher who clearly is not a very inspiring Dom, which the study does address in a limited way.
Quantity is definitely at issue as if our journalistic guardians want to assure us that “more” sex will be dangerous to our emotional well-being. If you think about it, “more” means desire for sex, as in “Gee, I wish I were having more sex than I am.” But the headlines assure us if we got what we desired, we’d be less happy, so the implied “scientific” warning is to stop wishing for sex and, uh, do more work or buy more stuff or go to church instead? The history of sexuality confirms that those in power have always been concerned with keeping sexual activity under control whether through law, religion or rhetoric--and, by the way, they always fail to accomplish this to their satisfaction. But, as we see, this noble and time-honored mission continues as of May 2015.
To be fair, if you actually read the articles, the study is described and the reader can draw her own conclusions about whether the feelings of couples who are forced to have sex impacts her personal sexual decisions and desires. Even the weirdest article, “Study Confirms Sex Does Not Make You Happier,” turns from anti-sex to a more supportive tone by the end. The articles themselves aren’t as negative, but how many people read beyond the catchy warning—“Don’t have sex, it makes you sad.”
On the contrary, the general conclusion in the texts is “the quality of sex is more important than the quantity.” Why didn’t that message make the headline?
The public is clearly hungry for more information about sex including thoughtful scientific studies, honest anecdotes, and advice that respects the importance of sexuality in our lives. Sadly, because of this desire for more knowledge about a taboo subject, such misleading and sensational headlines will continue to get the attention they do not deserve.
So, again fellow erotica writers, please keep on writing about the erotic experience with intelligence and insight. Your voices will indeed bring more happiness to the world!
Donna George Storey is the author of Amorous Woman and a collection of short stories, Mammoth Presents the Best of Donna George Storey. Learn more about her work at www.DonnaGeorgeStorey.com or http://www.facebook.com/DGSauthor
Posted by Donna at 12:30 AM
Labels: Brazilian fishing villages, Carnegie Mellon study of sexual frequency and happiness, sex and journalism
Friday, May 15, 2015
Posted by Garceus at 12:30 AM