I have been utterly and completely turned off reading fiction.

I'm not sure why, but I just don't wanna.

I've been to the library a couple of times since I got back home — and god, I love the public libraries here in Singapore! — and I always walk away empty-handed from the fiction section. I go to bookstores, and wander out again, not having spent a single, precious penny. Which means I'm spending a ridiculous amount of cash on needlework stash and I really don't need any more — FYI, my TBR pile is usually about 10 books and I have already achieved what we stitchers call SABLE: Stash Acquisition Beyond Life Expectancy.

Do you know what amount of monstrous effort that would normally require of me? Do you have any idea?

I'm someone who usually reads upwards of 200 novels each year. There are years when I make it close to, or even past the 300 mark.

Now I can't remember the last time I read a novel. Can't remember the last time I wanted to.

It's depressing, is what it is. I don't think I'm going to make it to the two hundred mark this year for novels.

I watch some TV. I have gotten rather addicted to NCIS for reasons best known only to my squishy, pulpy inner self. And I know it's not the same. My true self, who is a bookworm, would never dream of likening TV to a book.

I listen to a lot of podcasts from the BBC and the Economist — I save a lot of time by not reading newspapers any more and using that time for stitching.

So I'm thinking.

An enforced year of reading only non-fiction. There's nothing to stop me from reading narrative non-fiction, or watching TV or movies (I want to watch Salt!).

It might kill me. Or it might be my salvation and I'll read nothing but fiction in 2012 — assuming that the world's still here, and that I'm back at university, I'm pretty sure I'll need it.

Do you think you could do it? Or do you think your soul would shrivel up into dry and cracked leather?

Emily spent the past three years in the cold and wet, and is now basking in the tropical sun. She was born in Malaysia, grew up in Singapore, and educated in Britain, and wishes people would realise an international lifestyle is actually all about the packing and unpacking.

For those of you who don't know me, I homestead on six acres in north Texas. It's a fine life if you don't mind the scorpions, snakes and the serenade of lions at night. (I live less than a half mile from a big cat preserve.)

If you follow my blog, you know sometimes my life becomes a little too real.

Crickets and grasshoppers hit you like shrapnel as you walk through crunchy dry grass. The air is thick and hot, and when I come in from mucking out the chicken coop or double-digging the garden, my muscles remind me that I'm going to need that glass of wine as soon as the sun goes down.

I'm living La Vida Loca, brothers and sisters! I've learned more about world building and characterization in the last twelve months than I had in the last twelve years when I was climbing the corporate ladder. Who knew living in the country would make me a better writer?

Maybe downtown offices and big city living zombifies you a little. How many of us relish rush hour traffic, computer meltdowns, and crabby coworkers? Like everyone else, I went through the paces.

Moving to the country changed all that. Now, my day to day experiences are important and I better pay attention because they can also be painful. My first hard-knock lesson was delivered by a little scorpion that decided to get into bed with me.

My dog, Iko told me there was something amiss, but I shushed him and told him to go to bed. My pinky paid the ultimate price and throbbed for two days. It felt like someone had mashed it with a hammer. You bet I pay attention to that dog now. He gets a cookie for every scorpion he corners.

There have been snakes that have slithered past me, the angry buzzing of hornets, and the silent shadow of a giant black widow spider as it secured its egg sack to her web. When buzzards circle high in the sky, I'm sure to find a dead deer or a humongous wild boar.

A hen will cluck contentedly after she's laid her egg. A rooster will crow with pride after he's laid…well, you know.

A fire can roar out of control in seconds, and a dog can hear trouble long before you do. These are the things I've learned in the past year.

And these are the moments I look for when I write my stories. That's a departure for me. Plot used to be the most critical. Now I look for the telltale clues of what makes people (and nature) click. And I learned it all from twisting ankles, burning fingers, and tearing my clothes off when I discovered I had picked up a log full of ants.

Will I ever learn?

I'll bet my ancestors had a bit more snap than I do.

But it makes me wonder. Has the proliferation of media made us less aware or are we just too busy to notice the subtler moments of life?

I'm learning the hard way how to be more conscious to the things around me, but I don't know that I'll ever be as good as my forefathers. Thank goodness for paramedics!

How about you? Do you think you're aware of your surroundings? If you came to live with me for a month, how do you think you'd fare?

Thank you, dear Nadia for letting me stop by. And thank you for not having any scorpions around — virtual or otherwise.

After years of working as an advertising artist and art director, Maria Zannini now lives in the middle of nowhere on six acres she calls heaven. Half a mile to the north is a lion refuge, to the south, there be llamas.

Maria writes sensual stories of legend and mythos.  Her first book, Touch of Fire is a post apocalyptic story set 1200 years in the future. But watch out! She's going Sci-Fi and thriller on you with True Believers, coming to Carina Press October 18.

Follow her blog as she discovers new and creative ways to maim herself on the homestead.

I've been critting a ton of stories recently. A lot of the crits have been for people I've never read before, and that's always scary — both for me and for the author. The author is putting their manuscript in my hands, and I'm doing my best to help them improve their work.

The key word in that last sentence is help. That's my intention with everything I read, but I'm the type of critter who likes to pour my thoughts out onto the page. When I receive a crit, I always find it helpful to learn what a reader is thinking when they get to certain points in the manuscript. That helps me decide if I accomplished what I intended to with a certain scene or snippet of dialogue. So in my mind, more comments = better crit.

But it occurred to me (yeah, like just now occurred to me) that others might not feel the same way, and I have this horrible worry that maybe I say too much. I always preface my remarks with things like This is just my opinion and These are only suggestions of things to think about, but sometimes, the critted manuscripts end up having solid comments down the margin of the first few pages. I'm feeling kind of dense because it's taken me so long to realize this might be intimidating to some people.

When it comes to crits, my skin is like iron (*knocks on wood* in case I just jinxed myself). You can tell me you despised my book, my heroine is too stupid to live, the hero is boring, the dialogue is cheesy, etc. I'm able to view your comments through a lens. It doesn't hurt me; it gives me things to think about. Would it be nice if you pointed out what you liked about my book, too? Sure. And that would make your crit overall more helpful to me, but it's definitely not a requirement. I'm totally cool with harsh crits.

A part of me — the nerdy part which is obsessed with statistics — wonders how many writers out there have skin as thick as mine. For example, what would be the breakdown if we classified ourselves into the following categories regarding the type of feedback we want:

1. thin – Just tell me the good stuff. I need all the encouragement I can get.
2. thinnish – Tell me mostly good stuff. I need to know what IS working.
3. normal – I need an equal balance of the good and the bad.
4. thickish – I want to know what's not working, but scatter in some encouragement.
5. thick – Nothing you can say will hurt me. Tell me EVERYTHING that's wrong.

I'm guessing most people here would say #4 — thickish. That's the skin thickness my crits are intended for, but I'm wondering if I should move towards #3 and crit with an equal amount of good and bad (I really hate the term “bad”) stuff, especially if the writer is just starting out. The last thing I want to do is discourage people from writing, but I don't like the idea of telling them only the good stuff either. I don't feel like that's helping them, and really, isn't the goal of critiquing to be helpful?

So you tell me: how thick is your skin? In other words, what type of feedback do you like in the crits you receive? What about in the crits you give? And does that level of feedback change if you're critting for someone who's relatively new to writing?

Sandy Wills is an urban fantasy author represented by Joanna Stampfel-Volpe. When she's not writing or reading romance novels, she can be found masquerading as a librarian, screaming at a rock concert, or kicking butt in the latest board games. She blogs on Livejournal and is a Twitter-addict.

I have a confession to make.  I'm 30 years old and 75% of the books I've read this year are YA.

Why?

Well, here's the thing.  With the exception of L.J. Smith, the YA that was available when I WAS that age just really stunk.  It was unrealistic, often moralizing, and seemed to think that teenagers were stupid — the intellect of 12 year olds with the hormones of college students.  Utterly unrelatable and boring.  So other than L.J., I didn't read YA when I was a young adult.  I moved straight on into adult fiction and didn't look back.

Then came Twilight.  There have been many things said about this series — praise and criticism, but whether you love it or hate it, one thing that Stephanie Meyer accomplished was opening the floodgates for YA as a genre to come into its own.  Suddenly the market is flooded with YA fiction that has real, relatable characters, who deal with difficult decisions and serious issues.  You know, like real teens do.  There story lines are inventive and unique, and suddenly there are OPTIONS.

I'm not sure what got me back into reading YA.  It wasn't Twilight, though I read that too.  I know I read several last year because they were put out by other author friends of mine.  Bite Me by Melissa Francis.  The Demon's Lexicon by Sarah Rees Brennan (whom I've known for years through our mutual love of L.J. Smith when she was popular the first time).  But I can say unequivocally that the thing that started me off on my current insatiable YA reading streak was Cassandra Clare's The Mortal Instruments trilogy, which I started when my hubs broke his leg early in the year.  I TORE through the first one, staying up until all hours to finish it, despite my complete and utter exhaustion.  Ripped through the second one after only a few hours of sleep.  Begged my MIL to go pick up the third for me (as I was housebound with hubby at the time), and plowed through it as well.

After that it was on.  I couldn't get enough.  I joined a YA for Grown Ups group on Goodreads.  Half my Twitter writer pals are also into YA, so I'm constantly bombarded with fantastic book recommendations, and my TBR list, which was already resembling the Leaning Tower of Pisa, is reaching utterly epic proportions.

So what IS it about YA?  Why can't I get enough?  I mean, I'm a grown up, right?  I'm supposed to only want to read about grown ups.  Well, not so much.  I mean, I do love my romances and urban fantasies.  But there's just something about YA that really appeals to me.  Maybe it's that none of the characters are dealing with the specific real life issues I'm uninterested in reading about — jobs, bills, marriages, kids — all the stuff that I deal with on a daily basis and don't need a reminder about.  But it goes beyond that, I think.

Teenagers and college students are a particularly interesting and passionate bunch to read (and write) about.  They've got that whole immortality complex going on, and they feel so intensely about life.  While sometimes this can be hideously annoying if it's not tempered with some self-awareness on the part of the characters, it feels really good to me to be able to go back to that time period.  You know, in an I-never-have-to-really-go-back-to-the-hell-that-was-high-school kind of way.

I'm in love with teen romance, in particular.  There's just something about that whole awkward crush, of course he doesn't like me, OMG he's talking to me, kind of emotional ride.  Oh how I remember being there.  And while I absolutely appreciate the emotional arc in an adult romance that leads to HEA and usually sexual fulfillment, I like the lighter version in YA.  That hyper awareness creates its own kind of sexual tension that's all tied up in those hormones and confusion and…what can I say?  I just love reading about it.  I love feeling that first love again.  It's heady and intoxicating.   It's all the good parts about being a teenager with the benefit of a happily for now at the end.  And right now, that's my favorite reading cocktail.

Kait Nolan is a writer of action-packed paranormal romance that features a fresh and inventive mythology.  No sparklay vamps here!  Her debut release, Forsaken By Shadow, is available on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Smashwords, Sony, Scribd, and SpringBrook Digital.  She can be found at her blog, Twitter, Facebook, Goodreads, MySpace, Pots and Plots (her cooking blog).

So I've been thinking about heroes lately. Actually, I think about heroes an awful lot — they're my favourite romance-related topic to discuss with fellow readers, because they're so controversial. People love to hate heroes, and they love to love them, but rarely do people love and hate the same ones. What works for some readers doesn't work for others, and what one reader finds romantic another will find cruel, overbearing, weak, cheesy, or silly. And a romance novel can survive many things: annoying heroines, TSTL behaviour, wallpaper settings, but a bad hero? Never. Heroes — the great divider (and conversation starter!) for romance readers.

One hero that I really loved recently featured in My Reckless Surrender by Anna Campbell. Ashcroft is every inch the noble man, but his reticence hides a patient, strong-willed man who knows what he wants and isn't afraid to go after it, even if it means risking rejection and humiliation. It seems at odds when combined with his pride, but his self-awareness, his willingness to go to difficult lengths to get what he knows he needs, really spoke to me as a reader. I loved the idea that he isn't as he seems, and I loved the idea that he recognises that he needs his heroine. I really loved the idea that he is willing to sacrifice some (or all) of his pride to get her. Excuse me while I sigh a little.

Sighing aside, I started thinking about why Ashcroft worked so well for me. The answer is kinda obvious — he embodies traits that I find admirable, and behaves in a way that appeals to me on a relationship level. I suppose he works for me because he mirrors back to me what I find appealing when considering a mate. In my fantasies, a hero is willing to give chase, knows what he wants, goes after it (or in this case, her) with everything he has, because he knows that his life will not be as fulfilled without her. This self-awareness and self-sacrifice speaks to me of true commitment and deep love. So I am all over it when an author uses this kind of character or plot.

Now clearly, this isn't a fantasy that's going to work for everyone, but from the people I've spoken to about My Reckless Surrender, it is a fantasy that has worked across a broad spectrum.

Here's where I'm going to start extrapolating wildly, with no real empirical evidence. I'm also not going to come up with any answers to the questions I'm going to ask, but I'm hoping that someone else might weigh in. I'm fascinated by this kind of discussion, so I'm looking forward to what other people will have to say.

I'm also going to caveat this with the fact that I'm dealing mostly with mainstream, heterosexual romance novels written by women.

So, presumably, a self-aware, pride-sacrificing hero strikes a positive chord in many romance readers, and therefore many women.

Romance authors need to tap into that sort of communal fantasy to create beloved characters and stories, and, let's face it, to continue to be able to work as writers.

But what — or who — are they really writing?

In my undergrad comp lit degree, we talked a lot about post-colonial theory. There's a theorist named Edward Said who coined the term ‘orientalism'. Orientalism at its most basic level is when a oppressor (in post-colonial terms, the colonist) writes the oppressed (in post-colonial terms, the colonised). Essentially, a colonist (in post-colonial studies, this is generally a white European) sits down and portrays through writing the colonised (generally a native — in post-colonial studies, these include Indians, Native Americans, Indigenous Australians, Africans, and other people who lived on ‘discovered' land) as if from a position of authority. This literature is then used by the colonist culture as a way of informing and educating themselves about the native (and his/her culture) but also as a way of defining the native. This is especially damaging where the native has no recourse to write him/herself, so all the information comes from the colonist/oppressor.

A similar thing comes out in feminist theory about literature pre-20^th century — you know, the time when all books by women started out with a page whereon the author apologises profusely for having the temerity to put pen to paper? Yeah. Those times. When all women in fiction appeared through the eyes of the male author, and where the virgin/whore dichotomy came out.

With me so far?

Okay, so here's where I get interested: romance novels are written mostly by women, mostly for women. That's not really in dispute. And since about the 1990s, it's been customary — actually, it's been darned near necessary — for the authors (remember — mainly women) to write in male point-of-view for at least some of the time. When it comes gay romance, some write only in male point-of-view.

Now remember, I didn't say I had any answers, but here's my question: is this problematic?

One of the (many, many) criticisms I've heard leveled at romance novels is that they promote unrealistic expectations in women. Now, I think this is bunk. Romance readers are just as capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality as any other reader, and this criticism has always smacked of a kind of misogyny (oooh poor little girl, you might get confused if you read that!!). But the truth is, we are reading a fantasy, and more to the point, we're reading a fantasy guy created by a woman.

The main argument for me distinguishing this from reverse-orientalism is the fact that men have ample opportunity to write themselves, even if most choose not to do so in romance fiction.

But still. It's something that women and post-colonial cultures have railed against for centuries, that we romance readers not only accept, we expect it.

Is it dangerous? Is it reverse-orientalism? Is it a problem?

I don't know. What do you think?

Kate Cuthbert is a reader, writer, reviewer, twitter-er, blogger, and starter of readers' groups, all devoted (mainly) to romance novels. You can read her Romance Buzz newsletters, catch her romance round up and reviews, check out her oft-neglected website, email her, or follow her @katydidinoz.

Since I've been suffering from RSIs galore over the past few weeks, I decided to invite Alex Nordach, author of Target Tendonitis, for a brief interview. Hope this helps anyone else out there with tendon pain!

NL: Hi Alex, and welcome to the blog. Can you tell us a little about your background?

AN: Thanks for having me, Nadia. Sure, I can give you a quick overview. I've been involved in the health and fitness industry in one capacity or another for more than three decades. In that time, in addition to the usual knowledge about exercise and nutrition, I've developed some expertise about tendon pain. What causes it, and more importantly, what to do to fix it. I'm not a doctor, but I feel confident in saying that I know more about current research in the field than most medical professionals.

NL: Sounds good! I know I've been having a terrible time with my forearms and wrists lately… Any advice for writers who sit at the keyboard for hours a day?

AN: Well, any kind of RSI (repetitive stress injury) is due to an accumulation of small stresses, and so is most tendon pain. So one thing to do would be to change things like the height of your chair, your distance from the keyboard, which hand you mouse with, and the height of your wrist pad on a regular basis. Doing any or all of these will slightly change the angle you type at, and therefore will change the stress on your muscles and tendons. It's not a cure-all by any means, but it will go a long way toward preventing pain from occurring in the first place.

NL: Are there any nutritional strategies you can use to help prevent or cure tendon pain?

AL: It really depends on the type of pain you have. Everyone thinks that any kind of tendon pain is automatically “tendonitis”, but the fact is that most cases of tendon pain are actually tendonosis. The difference is that tendonitis means that the tendons are inflamed. (In medical parlance, any kind of “itis” means inflammation.) Tendonosis, on the other hand, means actual fraying and degradation of the tendon, and can be more serious. If you have tendonitis — inflammation — there are some really good supplements you can take to help out. One of the best is Repair Gold, made by Enzymedica. Other than that, just adjusting your diet so that it has more in the way of good fats (fish oil, olive oil, etc.) will help out with general inflammation.

NL: I like that point about tendonitis versus tendonosis. That would explain why icing and taking aspirin hasn't really helped me with my pain.

AN: Yeah, exactly. Those are both treatments for inflammation, but if you've had your pain for more than a couple of weeks, you probably have some sort of problem with the tendon itself. So icing and NSAIDs (Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) like aspirin and ibuprofin aren't going to help much. Unfortunately, most doctors are so used to calling tendon problems “tendonitis” that even they don't make the distinction as often as they should. It's been estimated that as much as 95% of tendon pain cases are actually tendonosis, no matter what they might be called.

NL: What about stretching? Is that good for tendon pain?

AN: Stretching certainly won't hurt, and it would be a really good idea to take a break from typing once an hour or so and get up, stretch your forearms out and walk around for ten minutes or so. But stretching is more a preventive measure than something that you can do to cure yourself if you already suffer from pain.

NL: How about cortisone shots?

AN: I don't recommend them. First of all, they don't work for everyone. Second, their effects only last a short while. Third, if you get more than two or three in the same spot you run a risk of weakening the tendon, which of course you don't want. Finally, cortisone shots are for inflammation, so they might help if you have tendonitis. If you have tendonosis, though, they won't do any good at all. In that case there are specific exercises that you can do if you're already suffering from pain, and that's what I cover in my book, Target Tendonitis.

NL: I see. Okay, that's good information. Where would someone go if they want to learn more about the subject?

AN: Well, you could check out my blog at the Target Tendonitis website. I'm happy to answer questions there if you have any. I also have articles up on various websites around the Internet, but if you want one-stop shopping most of them are collected at http://www.ezinearticles.com. Just do a search for Alex Nordach and they'll come up.

NL: Great! Thanks for the interview.

AN: My pleasure, Nadia.