As for the whole Outlander thing, I’ve never read it either and I have no plans to. That thing is a huge book, and with how slow I read, it would probably take the better part of a month to muddle through. I just don’t have the time or the patience for it. Not to mention I’d likely forget what happened in the first part before I finished it.

BTW: Did that writer even READ the Sookie books or Twilight? ‘Cause, I sure as shit wouldn’t categorize either heronie as “kick-ass”. Nor would I call either of them “men in bed”. Which…really? What an….interesting way to describe a sexually confident woman. A man. Huh!

Chicklit Horror?
That article is a whole basket of peeve.

I would really like an all in one device. I can do a lot with my Blackberry-can’t use the phone carrier that I-phone requires. I love my Kindle and my laptop. I have had netbook envy but can’t justify it yet. I think the Courier may be a step toward the device I want but it isn’t there yet.

Many years ago I read a SF book about being plugged into the Net through the brain. The worst punishment was to be unplugged. Are we getting there yet?

Oh, and I’m going to prove right now what a simple creature I am because I can’t figure out what exactly that lust-worthy tech gadget is supposed to do. I admit, I’m woefully behind in my gadget education; apparently my iPhone had not brought me as into the Tech Age as I thought it would.

ETA: Went and looked at the tablet again and I think I felt as I did above becasue it seems to HAVE to do SO many things. I’m a little intimidated by gadgets that have to do it all. Using the iPhone again, I never wanted that many options on a phone. I’m betting my phone keeps me happy on multi-use tech gadgets for a while. Hell, I don’t even give a frigg about Sony’s ebook reader model with the touch screen.

I can only shake my head at the Guardian article (and flip the bird in the Guardian’s general direction.) A non-inferior ghetto. Hmmm. Not sure how that works.

That’s not to say it is in any way inferior, but it seems to have become a fresh ghetto into which to push female writers.

Ghettos not being in any way inferior. Feh.

Now Roarke… I can’t fight Eve for him but I can dream.

Katiebabs,

you mean the part where he spanks Claire ‘for her own good’? Yeah, right, great hero material. Sorry, doesn’t float my boat.

Paranormal romance is the chick-lit of horror.

Gee. I write both chick lit and paranormal romance. I suppose I should feel doubly insulted by The Guardian.

200+ pages to describe a single day.

You got to be kidding?

I loathe the label “chick lit.” (I have the same knee-jerk reaction to it as I do to things labeled “girly” or hear the phrase “like a girl” attached to something.) I’m not the only person who reacts that way to it, am I?

There is something tragically ironic about an article arguing against marginalization of female horror writers while at the same time insulting PNR writers. Seriously, that takes some skill.

It does. It’s probably is a result of the same outlook (male) as the guy who edited the anthology that caused the outcry in the first place.

Maybe I’m missing out on the read of a lifetime,

I liked Outlander (I bought it off the New SF/F rack back in 1993 without any idea it was classified as a romance until I got to the first sex scene), and even read 2-3 of the following books, but I gave up partway through The Fiery Cross when it took Gabaldon 200+ pages to describe a single day. Much like Jesse Ventura ain’t got time to bleed, I ain’t got time to read that much detail.

I never read ‘Outlander’ because I didn’t feel like giving money to a woman who was horrified to be told her books were considered romance.

Snotty folks who pee on their readers don’t do it for me.

Maybe I’m missing out on the read of a lifetime,

Not in my opinion. I stopped reading Outlander about a hundred pages from the end. There were a lot of things to like about it, but also a lot of things that made me gnash my teeth.