Kunati Named First Independent Publisher of the Year by ForeWord

I know it’s not the usual stuff I post about but I just had to let you know about this because believe me, it’s some achievement. "ForeWord has named Kunati Books the first Independent Publisher of the Year. The new honor was created to celebrate ForeWord's tenth anniversary and to recognize Kunati's innovation and fearlessness.Kunati, a year-old publisher, produces book trailers for every new release, maintains a blog, and encourages its authors to blog and actively participate in marketing their books. The publisher currently has several movie deals in the works, and its roster of authors includes Pulitzer Prize winner John E. Mack."

Cool or what, and if you haven’t seen the trailer to Recycling Jimmy, it’s a good laugh….except for the headshot of me drifting though where I look like an anaemic Dale Winton.

Recycling Jimmy

Is Romance Innocent?

posted for Zane

I was thinking about this and whether or not us girls do use romance as a weapon as Andy suggests. Must admit, sometimes we do (except teenagers, but they’re a different story all together!). But so what? Just because we know how to use romance doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It just means we are more clever at it than men. Women know that a ‘romantic girl’ makes a man feel good – big smile + happy eyes = very pleased man! (see, I can do maths too!) So yes, romance may have a dark side and maybe is not so innocent but it’s no less real for that. And like it or not, men know this too. They use romance to try and control us girls. You like us to be calm and happy and let you sit in lovely silence and do your thing and to get that you know what you need to do from time to time. So you can’t have it both ways. You can’t manipulate by it and then blame women for being needy and romantic. As I said before, the truth is that we are all romantic but probably for different reasons)))

To begin with.....

First, I’d like to say that I’m not going to make a feminist fight here. I’m speaking as a woman not an activist! But I do disagree to many of your views.
I don’t think romance is only in a ladies mind like you said Andy. Infact, this is possibly more true about men! Difference is – women in their relationship (most of the time anyway), try to give it some sparkle. Men seem to interpret this as being ‘her’ with all her funny, woman ways but it isn’t; we’re trying to keep things interesting. So, sometimes we force ourselves to create an atmosphere which we both can enjoy. and we both benefit from it. Women try to make men feel relaxed, take their mind off work and other things (like football and beer). And yes, we do call it romance. And be honest, sometimes men feel they need to treat their ladies too from time to time. It makes you feel good doesn’t it? So why do you call it surviving? Too scared to admit that you have a sensitive side?? Its a fact, men like to be romantic – candles, music, dinner, etc. It makes you happy and I don’t think you do it just for us. You do it even without trying to be romantic, so in whose head is it then? I know the answer)))

Time I shut up.

Well, it’s wrap up time for me. Okay, I am a little disappointed about the level of support I managed to drum up but never the less, I think I made a point, or enough at least to condemn me to the spare room for a couple of nights last week. Never the less, I stand by my proposition that romance is a scam. In summary, this is based on the two things. Firstly, that there is no consistency, no benchmarks for men to measure themselves against and men like to measure themselves (easy!!). A moving target is just too hard to hit and frankly, is always suspicious to me. Secondly ‘romance’ seems to be directly proportional to the benefit (and yes, I think we could substitute money here) that a girl extracts from a particular gesture. This seems to be the complete opposite of what romantics claim; that it’s the thought that counts. It blatantly isn’t. Any way, I’ve said my piece so it’s over to my better half for no doubt a considered response. Watching her sit on her hands chomping at the bit for the last week has been fun but a little cruel. Over to you darling xx

Thanks Heather!

Heather Mills eh, what a girl. And what brilliant timing for me too! I mean, if we are to go with the idea that romance is central to (and a pre-requisite for) a successful relationship then surely the judge would have mentioned it somewhere in his judgment? But he didn’t did he, because apart from the fact that romance is a made up concept, Sir Paul MCcartney must surely have been one of the most ‘romantic’ geysers on the planet. Imagine being woken up every morning girls by the chubby faced scouser’s soft tones, as he sits on the edge of the bed grinning and strumming away? And I mean his guitar! But no, it all came down to money, as it always does. There’s a clue here as well to what ‘romance’ actually is; a litmus test for how much a potential partner is prepared to give. Be honest, what’s romantic about train stations and wind swept hill tops? Absolutely no appeal what so ever apart from one thing: women know that if a bloke is prepared to stand in the pissing rain and wait for hours on end just to see you, then the chances are that somewhere down the line he’ll shell out for a big shiny rock. That’s what romance may be. A litmus test of a blokes potential.

Science to the rescue.

Have a read here. Interesting stuff, picked up from a comment on yesterday’s post. Just the kind of stuff I was hoping to root out with the blog, and for two reasons. Firstly, it convinces me that men and women (on some issues at least) are, in spite of all the things we pretend to be in our brave new world, still looking at things from completely different perspectives. Secondly (and more importantly!) the article adds a good deal of weight to my argument about romance. The article headlines that ‘….the payoff for doing more chores could be more sex.’ This ‘finding’ isn’t news to us blokes, and I suspect not to women either. We all knew this before but what it does do is draw back a veil on a darker issue. You see, I think that this report is slightly out of date in that girls seemed to have ‘modified’ this position over the last couple of years, and very subtly too. It was a fact for some time that:

washing dishes + ironing = 0.8 sex
(please note that there was always some residual uncertainty here).

Now though, with the manipulation of romance into the equation we get:

washing dishes + ironing = romantic gesture

But there’s one more step before we get to the dark truth behind this. See, because you girls have drummed into men that it is their duty to be romantic then, substituting above we get:

washing dishes + ironing = duty


Clever stuff ladies, and kudos indeed, but we are on to you!!!

Romance makes the offside rule look straight forward.

Okay, let’s start with the definition:
ro·mance
(r -m ns , r m ns )
n.
1. a. A love affair.b. Ardent emotional attachment or involvement between people.c. A strong, sometimes short-lived attachment, fascination, or enthusiasm for something.
2. A mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous, heroic, or strangely beautiful.
3. a. A long medieval narrative in prose or verse that tells of the adventures and heroic exploits of chivalric heroes and blah blah blah. Not really relevant this bit….

But you will notice that NO definition (that I could find anyway) talks about anything relating to gifts or breakfast in bed or surprise flowers or, well to be honest, any one doing anything ‘nice’ or self sacrifice. So when did women twist this innocent enough word into such a powerful weapon? When did they decide to disregard the actual meaning of it and turn it into something else, something that only they can define? I have no idea, but somewhere along the line the truth has been left behind. I mean, would my girl feel happy if I wrote in her birthday card ‘All my enthusiasm always xx’? Don’t think so, but she bloody should do if we stuck to the rules and apply the definition. And this is the problem with your united front girls. Whilst we all know that it’s been manipulated, no one never agreed on what the new improved romance should be. In other words if you change your minds about what is romantic from one day to the next then you just leave us lads guessing and if we’re guessing, then we ain’t being romantic, we’re just trying to survive.

I think you’ll find this little test will help you understand what I’m trying to get at here.
Romance Test

Romance isn't dead girls...you just made it up.

For my first pitch I'm going to challenge something that (or at least the 'lack' of it) can cause so much grief between partners. How many times do we hear it lads? 'Ooh, you're not as romantic as you used to be' or even worse, 'Sandra's husband is so romantic, why can't you be more like him?'. Well the reason is simple ladies. I believe that most men, and certainly the majority of those who've spent more than a few months in a relationship, understand that romance exists only in a woman's mind. Trouble is, even with this knowledge, we still fall for it and feel guilty from time to time but for me, this only serves to reinforce my suspicion that there's something else going on here. Fair play to you girls though because as a collective, women do tend to sing the same tune so on the face of it, my theory that romance is contrived in the head and not the plea of an aching heart does feel a little vulnerable. But fortunately for me, this 'united front' that men are presented with isn't quite as robust as it first appears. There are cracks, and it's these that I'm going to prise open over the next few days and expose romance for what it is: a scam. Can't wait!!...but remember, it is just for fun.