A hotly debated question:  where do writers get their best work done?

Some remote and unappealing-to-other-family-members corner of their home for least interruption?  Picturesque cottage involving log splitting and  kerosene lamps?  

Arguably the two most popular options are library and coffee shop.  Fans of each consider the advantage of "their" choice no-brainers: studious atmosphere with book support whenever required, vs. energetic atmosphere with caffeine support whenever desired.  

People who claim not to be able to work in a place that's too quiet just got a little more scientific ground to stand on.  A study found that those working in an environment with moderate ambient noise (defined as around 70 decibels, or the volume of a moving car) are more likely to think creatively. The ambient sound in a coffee house is often just right.  Too little, and the effect doesn't kick in, too much, and the benefits go up in smoke (cappucccino vapour?).

The trick, apparently, is to "...find a coffee shop where there's (sic) enough people and enough noise that you don't feel lonely - but not too much noise that you can't work..." 

I, of course, will delighted to declare to anyone who may question my priorities the that no, I'm not procrastinating, I'm scientifically maximizing my creativity by coffee-shop-hopping to find the perfectly ambient one.  

(seen in The Toronto Star, 23 June 2012, Creativity Comes from Shop, not the Coffee, by Stephanie Findlay)

Girls, choose a guy who will ruin your lipstick, not your mascara.


Unknown

Seen at pinterest.com

"Potato rager."

Found in a book review at Smart Bitches, Trashy Books.  I thought the term intriguing but was fuzzy on what it could mean.  Describing the moment an Atkins diet devotee falls off the no-carbohydrate wagon?  A science fiction term about vegetables come to life and bent on revenge following millennia of human consumption?

Thanks to a post in the comment thread I can pass on  the real meaning (though, to be truthful, I would ove to read the potato avenger story if it is ever published).

The phrase refers to potential reader reaction when coming across something that could not have happened at that time in that place in a story with historical setting. It pops the world-buidling bubble the author has created up to that point, and "throws" the reader out of the story if he or she cares about the accuracy of that kind of thing.

The example used is the potato, a proud and noble foodstuff, but more importantly, native to the so-called New World (i.e. the Americas).  This means it could only have been exported to the Old World (i.e. Europe) after Columbus' voyages.  So when a reader is innocently reading, say, a medieval mystery, and finds the protagonist munching on potatoes at the royal banquet, a potato rager might be born.

I am now, of course, thinking of all the other types.  Pineapple rager?  Brussell sprout rager?  What a range of literary possibilities this opens up!

Yesterday, I posted thoughts about the how broad and confusing some literary genre definitions have become

Today, I found a post at Gooodreads that makes the point in a jaw-dropping way.

It included ANNA KARENINA, Leo Tolstoy's iconic work of "serious" literary fiction, in a list of recommended chick lit. 

0_O

Usually, when someone describes themself as a novelist, the first question is "What kind of book?" 

Also usually, the questioner is not looking for an answer like "The kind with pages."  What they want to know is in which genre the novelist writes.

Simple question.  Not always simple to answer.   

"Mystery", for example, is fairly straightforward.  Questioner and questionee are both clear that there will be a puzzle, often involving a dead body, and that the protagonist will pursue the matter until a solution is found.

"Chicklit", on the other hand, is confounding.  For some, the definition is as narrow as "concerning an urban woman in her 20's, employed in publishing, preferably British, with high-frequency mention of shoes, clothing brand names, and dating life." For others the definition is as broad as "any novel containing a female character between the ages of 15-40".

"Womens Fiction" is likewise difficult to pin down.  For some, it might mean "concerning an adult female protagonist confronted with a sad, morale-building life change". On the other hand, consider that Harlequin, the world's largest publisher of what is usually considered romance, actually calls itself the largest publisher of women's fiction.  Why?  I'm not sure, but I'll guess it may have to do with defining women's fiction as any type of non-literary fiction that appeals more to women than men.  

Which approaches the act of  defining from the "back" end of observation of end user consumption  (i.e. women read this, therefore it is women's fiction) rather the from the "front" end of characterizing a type of story (i.e. as distinct from stories with a different type of protagonist or story goal) so as to help potential readers sort themselves into "I'd like this" and "I wouldn't" categories.

Personally, I like debut novelist Amy Sue Nathan's definition of women's fiction:  "...the main character saves herself."

Simple, clear on protagonist, indicative of a story on character growth, appealing to contemporary reader sensibility.  Win!

Ms. Nathan's debut novel "The Glass Wives"  will be published in 2013 by St. Martins Press.  She blogs at    womensfictionwriters.wordpress.com

(as seen at "Authornomics" blog at andreahurst.com, 21 May 2012)

"He (took) to it like a duck to merchant banking."

From GOOD OMENS, by Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett

As your host at mayamissani.weebly.com, I'm delighted to welcme you (and myself, for that matter) to this brand new outpost of the internet.  Thanks for coming, please feel free to let me know you were here!