Apparently it was just three years ago that science came to learn the shape, size, and structure of the clitoris. Yes, three. As the article says:
“Dr. Foldès has been performing surgery on women who have suffered from clitoral mutilation, restoring pleasure to over 3,000 circumcised patients,” and is dedicated to studying the clitoris for many reasons. “When I returned to France to treat genital mutilation, I was amazed that they were never tried. The medical literature tells us the truth about our contempt for women,” he said. ”For three centuries, there are thousands of references to penile surgery, nothing on the clitoris, except for some cancers or dermatology -and nothing to restore its sensitivity. The very existence of an organ of pleasure is denied, medically. Today, if you look at the anatomy books that all surgeons have, you will find two pages above. There is a real intellectual excision.“
The take-away? Your clitoris is enormous. It hugs your vagina. And it is awesome.
So, apparently, “Frank” meets the requirements for nominations for the Stoker awards. If you’re eligible to nominate, please do so before reading the other stories on the list! Ha ha ha. I mean, shoot, don’t get me wrong, I would be tickled to be nominated, but there are so amazing writers right there in that list.
I will also say that Apex Magazine has been really good about promoting “Frank” for the stuff it needs promoting for, which I really appreciate because, gods know I don’t know what those things are. I enjoy Apex as a reader, but I also really enjoy them as a writer. Good folks over there.
I wonder now what genre I think I write in? Honestly, I don’t know. I think of myself as a ghost story writer or a person who writes about hauntings. That may be a better way to put it. I write about hauntings. Sometimes those are ghosts, but sometimes not.
I’m not sure I’m a very scary writer, more unsettling, I’d think than scary. But shoot, “Horror” is a fine genre. I will sit with “Frank” in the “Horror” genre happily.
Heather Solos is going through an interesting problem for those of us who are intellectual property junkies. A website in Florida has popped up advertising itself as “Modern Home-Ec 101: Skills for Everyday Living” whereas Solos’s website is “Home-Ec 101: Skills for Everyday Living.” Solos is rightfully concerned not just that her website is being ripped off, but that Modern Home-Ec 101 seems to be hoping that there’s some confusion with her brand and that people might mistakenly think this is something she’s somehow involved in.
I told Solos I’d be really curious to know if they were planning on using her book as the textbook in an effort to make the confusion more ongoing.
Brand purity isn’t something I’ve had to worry about, thank goodness. And there are a lot of people who don’t really get how intellectual property laws work, so while I do think you have to go after those folks, it’s easy to be sympathetic.
It’s much harder to have any sympathy for folks who seem to be deliberately trying to stir up confusion and benefit from that confusion.
Plus the website actually contains the sentence, “This class teaches you how to cook like it is made from scratch, however many of the basics will be store boughten with your own twist.” I don’t know what the exchange rate between dollar and twist is, but rest assured, I will not be buying anything at the store with my own twist. I have a hard enough time with my own currency.
I finished up the first, rough, draft of 1867 last night. I was saying at lunch on Friday that blogging has turned me into a fine writer–I can churn out an ungodly number of words on just about anything in a way that amuses me and, apparently, others. But I’m not sure about my skills as a reviser. And so finishing up something that is as gloriously messy as part 1867 is daunting. I’m trying not to fret, though, because 1887 awaits and the first half of that has to be really good fun. A seance and a wedding.
But I’m going to do some reading in the meantime, before I get that started. I wasn’t expecting 1867 to be so long and involved, but it is. And I want to give my brain time to let 1887 have the same room.
It’s funny. I was trying to explain to the Professor what, exactly, I don’t care for about Flannery O’Conner and I look on O’Conner’s Wikipedia page and I see that she said, “I am tired of reading reviews that call A Good Man brutal and sarcastic. The stories are hard but they are hard because there is nothing harder or less sentimental than Christian realism… when I see these stories described as horror stories I am always amused because the reviewer always has hold of the wrong horror.”
Yeah, but I feel like you can lack “sentimentalism” while still having fondness for your characters. I believe that people are selfish, by nature, which leads them easily into evil. I may still be carrying that around from Christianity, but that seems to me to be a truth. I also believe that most people believe that they are good people–generous, kind, loving, unselfish, and doing what’s right.
In other words, people are often at odds with themselves. They believe themselves to be better than they are. And I don’t think that O’Connor would disagree with me about that. But to me, I find this state sometimes amusing and all too often tragic. I rarely enjoy watching people who are out of sync with themselves get their comeuppance. It’s not to say that I don’t enjoy it sometimes, but I don’t enjoy a worldview that is “you’re going to get what’s coming to you and it’s going to be bad. Woo hoo!”