Comments on: Nikki Does Derrida http://www.nicolepeeler.com/2009/02/nikki-does-derrida/ Website for author Nicole Peeler Wed, 01 Feb 2012 19:57:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Nicole Peeler http://www.nicolepeeler.com/2009/02/nikki-does-derrida/comment-page-1/#comment-705 Nicole Peeler Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:37:25 +0000 http://nicolepeeler.com/?p=123#comment-705 Thanks, Katie! It was a bit garbled, I'm running on diesel at the moment. But yeah, I think it's a really big issue, because I had no discussion at all, between Jane and Ryu, originally. Which didn't ring true. So I added another type of scene, where he assures her everything is fine, and it reminded me of a scene from Sally Jesse Raphael. So I finally went with my gut and changed it into something I think is more believable for JAne, because she's a really strong, confident woman in a lot of ways and especially sexually. So I hope, when you see it in print, you smile. ;-) Thanks, Katie! It was a bit garbled, I’m running on diesel at the moment. But yeah, I think it’s a really big issue, because I had no discussion at all, between Jane and Ryu, originally. Which didn’t ring true. So I added another type of scene, where he assures her everything is fine, and it reminded me of a scene from Sally Jesse Raphael. So I finally went with my gut and changed it into something I think is more believable for JAne, because she’s a really strong, confident woman in a lot of ways and especially sexually. So I hope, when you see it in print, you smile. ;-)

]]> By: katiebabs http://www.nicolepeeler.com/2009/02/nikki-does-derrida/comment-page-1/#comment-704 katiebabs Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:47:08 +0000 http://nicolepeeler.com/?p=123#comment-704 What a great post! There was a discussion on a blog that I followed where they ask when a character is in the middle of intimacy, does it take you out of the realm of fantasy for one of the characters to mention protection. In most UF, I hardly see any protection between the hero or heroine because usually one or both are supernatural and there is always a reason why one or the other can't catch something. What a great post!
There was a discussion on a blog that I followed where they ask when a character is in the middle of intimacy, does it take you out of the realm of fantasy for one of the characters to mention protection. In most UF, I hardly see any protection between the hero or heroine because usually one or both are supernatural and there is always a reason why one or the other can’t catch something.

]]> By: Nicole Peeler http://www.nicolepeeler.com/2009/02/nikki-does-derrida/comment-page-1/#comment-703 Nicole Peeler Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:33:00 +0000 http://nicolepeeler.com/?p=123#comment-703 Hey guys! Thanks for the comments. Jen: I loved and I loathed those books at the same time, and I'm SO conflicted over them. So the panel was really neat, because one paper was a very ambivalent, yet really strongly articulated defense from a feminist perspective, one person clearly loathed it, and one person was just breaking it down. It was fun to watch and it really made me think. Nelly: I KNOW, you're hitting my conflict on the head. And it was interesting, because the fantasy element of a fantastical romance would demand no VD, no unplanned pregnancy, etc., and yet would a girl around my age REALLY not think about protection? So I actually went with the fantasy trope, and it never felt right. And it obviously doesn't feel right to a lot of other PR/UF writers, as they address it all the time. Anyway, I'm not making any sense. I'll think about it after I do more conferencing. ;-) Kim: It is SO fun although I kinda wanna go run around NM. ;-) I hope it works, the edits I did on the plane. I gotta look at them again. And I was bothered by the responsibility issue, because Jane is a very responsible character. So it never felt "real" that she would just trust this dude. So I went with the funny and I hope it worked. We'll see. But thanks for the support! Rootie: I still think that should be the emergency dentist. Seriously? Hey guys! Thanks for the comments. Jen: I loved and I loathed those books at the same time, and I’m SO conflicted over them. So the panel was really neat, because one paper was a very ambivalent, yet really strongly articulated defense from a feminist perspective, one person clearly loathed it, and one person was just breaking it down. It was fun to watch and it really made me think.

Nelly: I KNOW, you’re hitting my conflict on the head. And it was interesting, because the fantasy element of a fantastical romance would demand no VD, no unplanned pregnancy, etc., and yet would a girl around my age REALLY not think about protection? So I actually went with the fantasy trope, and it never felt right. And it obviously doesn’t feel right to a lot of other PR/UF writers, as they address it all the time. Anyway, I’m not making any sense. I’ll think about it after I do more conferencing. ;-)

Kim: It is SO fun although I kinda wanna go run around NM. ;-) I hope it works, the edits I did on the plane. I gotta look at them again. And I was bothered by the responsibility issue, because Jane is a very responsible character. So it never felt “real” that she would just trust this dude. So I went with the funny and I hope it worked. We’ll see. But thanks for the support!

Rootie: I still think that should be the emergency dentist. Seriously?

]]> By: Rootie http://www.nicolepeeler.com/2009/02/nikki-does-derrida/comment-page-1/#comment-702 Rootie Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:19:22 +0000 http://nicolepeeler.com/?p=123#comment-702 Excellent decision on the edits! Maybe you can work in a trip to the GUM clinic in the sequel? Excellent decision on the edits! Maybe you can work in a trip to the GUM clinic in the sequel?

]]> By: Kim Wells http://www.nicolepeeler.com/2009/02/nikki-does-derrida/comment-page-1/#comment-701 Kim Wells Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:31:50 +0000 http://nicolepeeler.com/?p=123#comment-701 First, your discussion of the conference makes me miss going to that conference. I always love it, and am looking forward to the PCA in April. :) I hope you're having a blast there. Then, I really am glad that you thought about this and I totally like the decision you made both aesthetically & as someone who encourages responsibility. Obviously, fantasy is fantasy, but what's wrong with having a little bit of responsibility in there? If you imagine your characters real, then they feel more real, and then your readers have a better time with the "willing suspension of disbelief" thing. Plus, you can make it funny, because it sounds like you're making a lot of the typical elements funny, which is why I think your book(s) will be popular and/or great. :) First, your discussion of the conference makes me miss going to that conference. I always love it, and am looking forward to the PCA in April. :) I hope you’re having a blast there.

Then, I really am glad that you thought about this and I totally like the decision you made both aesthetically & as someone who encourages responsibility. Obviously, fantasy is fantasy, but what’s wrong with having a little bit of responsibility in there? If you imagine your characters real, then they feel more real, and then your readers have a better time with the “willing suspension of disbelief” thing. Plus, you can make it funny, because it sounds like you’re making a lot of the typical elements funny, which is why I think your book(s) will be popular and/or great. :)

]]> By: Nelly http://www.nicolepeeler.com/2009/02/nikki-does-derrida/comment-page-1/#comment-700 Nelly Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:00:43 +0000 http://nicolepeeler.com/?p=123#comment-700 You raise the issue here of the intersections between fantasy and reality and the moral responsibility of the artist. To paraphrase Dr. Johnson, "reality is always creeping in." So--should you position fantasy characters as role models for the real world--because that's what you're doing? If so, logically, should you eschew violence in fantasy because it sends a bad message? I don't think you want to go that far, right? Hmm. . But of course, I'm totally with you on your editorial changes (as the mother of a 13 year old girl especially) but you have certainly vexed the reality/fantasy boundary. You raise the issue here of the intersections between fantasy and reality and the moral responsibility of the artist. To paraphrase Dr. Johnson, “reality is always creeping in.” So–should you position fantasy characters as role models for the real world–because that’s what you’re doing? If so, logically, should you eschew violence in fantasy because it sends a bad message? I don’t think you want to go that far, right? Hmm. . But of course, I’m totally with you on your editorial changes (as the mother of a 13 year old girl especially) but you have certainly vexed the reality/fantasy boundary.

]]> By: Jen Hayley http://www.nicolepeeler.com/2009/02/nikki-does-derrida/comment-page-1/#comment-699 Jen Hayley Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:55:31 +0000 http://nicolepeeler.com/?p=123#comment-699 The problem with the sex in Twilight is that Meyer specifically stated several times that vampires cannot produce offspring. More than that, they don't have bodily fluids. It was more of a problem of consistency than condoms in her case. As for overall, I still have a problem imagining how a vampire could produce offspring in pretty much any situation...but maybe he could have a disease? I don't know! I've never written a sex scene... The problem with the sex in Twilight is that Meyer specifically stated several times that vampires cannot produce offspring. More than that, they don’t have bodily fluids. It was more of a problem of consistency than condoms in her case.

As for overall, I still have a problem imagining how a vampire could produce offspring in pretty much any situation…but maybe he could have a disease?

I don’t know! I’ve never written a sex scene…

]]>