In Which I Wade Unnecessarily Into the Fray (GoT SPOILER ALERT)

WARNING: this post is all about a spoiler re the April 20th episode of Game of Thrones.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

I really should stay out of it, instead of offering my face to be (metaphorically, I hope) punched. But I'm startled and disturbed by how many viewers seem to find Jaime's rape of Cersei substantially more offensive, despite its context, than the innumerable slaughters of innocents in preceding episodes.

The week before, for example, not for the first time, we had people burned alive. All the various burnings and throat-slicings and torturings apparently pale by comparison to Jaime raping Cersei beside her son's body.

Don't (PLEASE) get me wrong. I am not saying that in a court of law, or in any moral judgment, Jaime isn't guilty of rape. That's so in spite of Cersei having, moments before, kissed Jaime as part of her attempt to get Jaime to kill their brother Tyrion. It's rape despite the fact that we all know Cersei is capable of a much more emphatic and angry resistance than what she offers. It's rape, and it occurs when Cersei is at her most emotionally vulnerable. But is it really more shocking and culpable than murder by fire, or murder of children, or murder of a pregnant woman?

Not by me.

Division paperback release day!

Taa-da-da-taa-taa-taa-taa-taaaah! (That's my attempt to write out the sound of a trumpet fanfare.)

It's Release Day for the paperback edition of my near-future novel, Division! So of course, I'm providing a link (Amazon -- B&N will follow) and a short blurb.

Here's the link. And here's the blurb (complete with third-person reference to yours truly):

-----------

Conjoined twins Gordon and Johnny have never let their condition keep them from living full and fulfilling lives. Now, new technology gives them a previously unimagined choice: to live in "normal," separate bodies. But who gets to choose? And what if one twin considers their conjoined life a blessing, not to be abandoned without a fight?

Division, like Wyle's earlier novels, uses original settings and situations to explore universal themes: the complexity and intensity of family relationships, the nature of individual identity, and the far-reaching effects of the choices we make.

-----------

At the moment (I don't know for how long), the paperback is available at a 10% discount.

Thanks for listening!. This is my fourth novel, and it's still exciting. :-)

Cosmos, Fox, and Cognitive Dissonance

I'm guessing that the revived series Cosmos on Fox, and especially tonight's (March 16th) episode, has some folks scratching their heads, or even writhing in the throes of cognitive dissonance.

"This show touts the scientific method and the glories of science! Why, the latest episode even made a point of attacking Intelligent Design, using ID's pet example, the eye, for good measure! Isn't the Fox network made up of knuckle-dragging anti-science conservatives? What's going on here?!?"

Well, when a new piece of evidence appears inconsistent with one's prior assumption, it seems to me that the properly scientific thing to do is to examine the evidence underlying that prior assumption, to see if it can be interpreted in a way consistent with the new data.

Doing some more guessing, I'd wager that for many people, the assumption of Fox's anti-science attitude springs from the frequency with which they air the views of climate change skeptics (deemed climate change/global warming "deniers" by some of the zealous). If all climate change skeptics are either ignorant of or willfully ignoring well-settled science, then why would any network with any respect for science give them that much air time?

I'll toss out some hypotheses to explain how Fox can find room both for Cosmos and for these opponents of the allegedly settled predictions of anthropogenic, catastrophic global climate change.

(A)  Fox treats different branches of science differently. There's some corporate tie, some financial or personal interest, leading whoever runs Fox to make climate change an exception from either a balanced or a pro-science attitude.

(B) The exception isn't global climate change -- it's Cosmos. Someone owes someone a favor, or has some other lever, to make Fox hold its collective nose and air this pro-science program.

And finally --

(C) Skepticism toward climate change is not, in fact, a sign of either ignorance or disdain for science, but rather, true science in action, with skeptics refusing to be stampeded or bullied into accepting a politically pervasive message. The facts are more complex, and/or point at least in part in a different direction.

I haven't examined (A) or (B). As my husband (aka The Hoosier Gadfly) would say, "I'll leave that as an exercise for the student." As the reader will probably have guessed, I currently incline toward Option (C). For some of the data that's led me in that direction, you can take a look at this post from 2010. (I'd suggest ignoring the comments, as they somehow veered off into areas utterly unrelated to anything on my blog ever.)

Meanwhile, I hope you're enjoying the reboot of Cosmos as much as I am.

Coming attractions -- and a freebie in anticipation thereof

It looks like the paperback of my near-future novel Division will be available on Amazon on schedule -- which means March 20th. Whether it'll have all features (e.g. "Look Inside") by then isn't clear, but if not, they won't be far behind.

The paperback, if you buy it on Amazon, will come with a free Kindle version. But if you'd like to pick up the ebook for free, and then decide whether you want the paperback on your shelf, pop on over to Division's Smashwords page and use coupon code UP22R by March 19th.

Here's what the whole paperback cover looks like -- complete with some excerpts from early reviews (which you may be able to read here, if you have really good vision). 

Dear Senators: re HJR-3

I've been doing my bit to lobby the Indiana General Assembly against HJR-3, the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. For those who haven't been following the process, a constitutional amendment has to pass two separate sessions of the General Assembly in order to go before the voters for possible incorporation into the state constitution. The original version of this resolution, HJR-6, passed the General Assembly with broad bipartisan support in 2011. The political winds have shifted remarkably since then, even here, and very few Democrats now support the measure, while growing numbers of Republicans are developing qualms. Many business groups, community leaders, and clergy are opposing it. Recently, the Indiana House dropped the second of two sentences, which would have outlawed civil unions and other (undefined) statuses "substantially similar to" marriage. This means that even if HJR-3 passes the Indiana Senate, it can't go to the voters yet, unless the Senate adds the more draconian language back in and gets the House to go along.

Here's what I sent, individually, to the members of the Senate Rules and Legislative Procedure committee, which will be the next body to consider HJR-3. (I excepted those who have already come out against the resolution, or who have unrelated reasons to loathe me and thus to support anything I oppose.)

You will soon vote on whether to incorporate a prohibition on gay marriage into a state constitution otherwise notable for preserving individual liberty.

There has been much talk about "letting the people vote" -- but if there were not a crucial role for legislative judgment in amending our state constitution, HJR-3 would not have to win General Assembly approval in two separate legislative sessions.

Public sentiment, in Indiana and nationwide, has changed significantly since this House held its first vote on what is now HJR-3. By making it exceptionally difficult for Indiana to adapt to the times, HJR-3 would do serious damage to our ability to attract and keep employers and investors. Moreover, even if Indiana would somehow benefit from the loss of many current and prospective gay citizens, it can scarcely afford to discourage all the bright, talented young people who would shun any state that treats their friends and family members as second-class citizens.

Nor will this amendment do what many of its proponents hope, and insulate Indiana from judicial interference in its social institutions. If, as seems likely, same-sex marriage is eventually seen in this country as comparable to (and no more controversial than) mixed-race marriage, then not even a constitutional amendment will prevent the federal judiciary from becoming involved. Moreover, our own courts will be increasingly burdened with the tangles inevitably resulting from our failure to recognize a legal status recognized by more and more other states. Ironically, the one reason any gay adult might have, under these circumstances, to relocate to Indiana would be the wish to evade the legal consequences and responsibilities of an existing same-sex marriage.

I urge you, as well, to look at the human costs, as opposed to the highly speculative, intangible and undemonstrable "benefits," of this amendment. Thousands of children growing up in loving families would be confronted with a state declaration that their parents were different, lesser, even dangerous to their society's values. Hoosiers already battling life-threatening illness would in some cases be forced to do so without their loved ones by their sides. Should they lose that battle, they would face their final hours in fear that their children might lose their surviving parent as well, due to the inability of courts to recognize that parental status.

(All these consequences, of course, would be immeasurably increased should the Senate revert to HJR-3's original and more draconian language.)

I urge you to exercise your legislative oversight and stop this ill-considered proposal before more damage is done.

Sincerely,

Karen A. Wyle

Since I need a link for the Division ebook cover...

I'm going to be bold, once again, and submit a cover to The Book Designer's "e-Book Cover Design Awards" -- so I need a link with a suitably sized image of the cover in question.

Hence this post.

For some reason, the color shifts depending on the size of the image, in my preview browser. FWIW, the skin tones should not be particularly bronze.

What the heck is author Sue Ann Jaffarian doing?

Since I stumbled on Sue Ann Jaffarian's mysteries, I've been scarfing up every one I can get my hands on. I think she has three series going, but I've only read the books in two of them:

--the "Granny Apple" series, about a woman (Emma Whitecastle) who can see and hear ghosts, including the ghost of one female ancestor (Granny Apples), who assists Emma in solving the problems that keep various ghosts from "crossing over";

--the Odelia Grey mysteries, about a plus-size paralegal who keeps finding herself in mystery-type situations, and can't seem to sit back and let other people handle them.

I read mysteries, when I do, more for the characters than the plot. I enjoy the main and subsidiary characters in both of these series, as well as Jaffarian's writing style. But I'm increasingly puzzled and somewhat irked by what Jaffarian is doing with the Odelia Grey stories.

Starting with perhaps the second or third book, characters keep confronting Odelia, more and more frequently and critically, with the fact that somehow, she just keeps stumbling on dead bodies! Her boyfriend, at one point, calls her a "corpse magnet." The obsession of almost every recurring character with this idea is playing a larger role with each successive book.

Of course, the reason Odelia keeps finding dead bodies is that she is -- ta-da! -- the protagonist in an amateur-detective mystery series. There's really no way around this (sorry) stumbling block. The more usual way of dealing with this element of the sub-genre is to ignore it -- which has never particularly troubled me as a reader. Am I unusual in this respect?

In Twice as Dead, the sixth book in the series, Odelia's friend Zee practically spills the beans, saying to Odelia, "It's just  . . . well, it's just that sometimes I wonder if somehow, some way, something unseen has chosen you to find these bodies." Yup, that's about right. If this had been the loudest note of the theme, an ironic wink toward the audience, and the characters had thereafter stopped harping on the subject, that would have worked. Or Jaffarian could have gone all the way into the meta level, and had Odelia regularly remonstrating with the author who was dropping unwelcome corpses in her path. Instead, we have poor Odelia constantly castigated by loved ones, friends and acquaintances for one of the foundational elements of her existence. I can only speak for myself, not having investigated how others react, but it distracts me and pulls me out of the story.

I've been wondering why Jaffarian takes this tack, and have come up with only one hypothesis. Perhaps Jaffarian finds the implausibility of the amateur-detective premise increasingly hard to swallow, and would rather be working on one of the other series -- but her agent or publisher insists that she keep cranking out Odelia Grey novels. The chorus of characters could be chanting Jaffarian's own complaint. Consciously or unconsciously, she could be declaring, or trying to ensure, that the assumptions underlying this series are untenable.

The "Granny Apple" series has no such difficulty. Naturally, a woman who can communicate with ghosts will be the one to receive their requests for assistance. The only improbability is the ability itself, and that's a familiar enough literary trope. Emma Whitecastle does have a fair number of scoffers and skeptics to deal with -- but unless they, in turn, start to drown out all other elements of the stories, Emma and Granny Apples should be able to keep solving mysteries for some time to come.

Yup, it's a holiday reminder of my books that you could give someone....

I haven't done a lot of posts, Tweets, etc. pushing my books this holiday season, but I figured I should do at least one. So here 'tis.

I have four novels available as ebooks (two only on Amazon, two all over the place) and three as paperbacks.

My series-in-the-making started with Twin-Bred, which springs from the question: can interspecies diplomacy begin in the womb? After seventy years on Tofarn, the human colonists still know almost nothing about the native Tofa. Misunderstandings breed conflict, and the conflicts are escalating. Scientist Mara Cadell’s radical proposal: that host mothers carry fraternal twins, one human and one Tofa, who might understand each other better. But both the human and Tofa communities have their own agendas for Mara's project. Will the Twin-Bred bring peace, war, or something else entirely?

Twin-Bred eventually acquired a sequel, Reach: a Twin-Bred novel. Mara and the Twin-Bred she helped to create embark on a new and perilous journey -- except for one pair who remain on Tofarn, attempting to live in the human and Tofa communities. Meanwhile, events on Tofarn approach a crisis, in which former host mothers Laura and Veda are deeply involved. 

(Will there be a third? Well, I have some ideas. . . .)

My one departure from science fiction, so far, is Wander Home, a family drama with mystery and romance elements set in a re-imagined afterlife. The tag line: Death is what you make it . . . . Driven by the compulsion to wander, Eleanor left her beloved daughter Cassidy in her family's care -- but Cassidy and the others died before Eleanor could find her way home. Now Eleanor and her family are reunited in an afterlife well suited to confronting unfinished business. But the restlessness that shaped Eleanor's life still haunts her in death. Somehow, she must solve the mystery of her life -- or none of them will be at peace.

Finally, there's my near-future novel Division, intended for general audiences as well as science fiction readers. It's only available as an ebook, so far, but the paperback is due out next spring (March 20, 2014).

New technology, new choices . . . but who gets to choose? Conjoined twins Gordon and Johnny have never let their condition keep them from living full and fulfilling lives. Gordon looks forward to many years of closeness and cooperation. Johnny, however, faces their future with increasing restlessness, even dread.

When the boys are in their teens, the new technologies of accelerated human cloning and brain transplants are combined into a single medical procedure. Someone whose body has suffered such extensive damage as to make normal life impossible may -- with court approval -- be cloned and then given a brain transplant into the clone body. With Gordon's unwitting assistance, Johnny realizes that this procedure provides the chance he had never dared to hope for -- the chance to live in a "normal," separate body.

But Gordon considers their conjoined life a blessing, rather than a curse. He has no intention of accepting separation -- not without a fight . . . .

You can find various purchase links for all these novels on my website. 

Happy shopping and happy reading! :-)

Cyber Monday sale on near-future SF novel Division -- on Smashwords only

I'm somewhat skeptical about most readers' willingness to use Smashwords coupons, given that one has to take the extra step of loading the book onto one's device of choice -- but nonetheless, I've made a coupon for my latest ebook, the near-future novel Division. With coupon code JA93J, you can pick the book up on Monday for $2.00 instead of $3.99, at this link. Various ebook formats are available.

And here's the blurb (complete with third-person reference to Your Humble Blogger):

----------

New technology, new choices . . . but who gets to choose?

Conjoined twins Gordon and Johnny have never let their condition keep them from living full and fulfilling lives. Gordon looks forward to many years of closeness and cooperation. Johnny, however, faces their future with increasing restlessness, even dread.

When the boys are in their teens, the new technologies of accelerated human cloning and brain transplants are combined into a single medical procedure. Someone whose body has suffered such extensive damage as to make normal life impossible may -- with court approval -- be cloned and then given a brain transplant into the clone body. With Gordon's unwitting assistance, Johnny realizes that this procedure provides the chance he had never dared to hope for -- the chance to live in a "normal," separate body.

But Gordon considers their conjoined life a blessing, rather than a curse. He has no intention of accepting separation -- not without a fight . . . .

Division, like Wyle's earlier novels, uses original settings and situations to explore universal themes: the complexity and intensity of family relationships, the nature of individual identity, and the far-reaching effects of the choices we make.

------------

There aren't many reviews on Smashwords, so you can head over to Amazon and read some. (Heck, you can even buy the book there, for $3.99, if you use a Kindle device or app, and prefer the convenience to the price break.)

Iran's Sweet Deal

Once again, my husband, the Hoosier Gadfly, has come up with a trenchant and timely bit of analysis -- and doesn't plan to post it any time soon. With his permission, I'm simply going to paste it here.

The subject: the proposal to relieve sanctions on Iran, in return for supposed concessions.

Without further ado, here's what the Gadfly has to say. (The starred items are quotations from this article in the Jerusalem Post, some with minor corrections of faulty English.)

-----------

Let's parse this deal:

* Iran would stop weapons-grade 20 percent uranium enrichment and turn its existing stockpile into oxide, a harmless material.

I've previously stated that converting the 20% medium enriched uranium (MEU) into fuel is just another way of storing it.  You can go from oxide BACK to UF6 and then you have feedstock.  Rationally, you should treat unburned fuel the same as UF6.

* Iran would be allowed to continue 3.5% enrichment needed for power stations, but limit the number of centrifuges being used. The deal would, however, not include any demand to remove or disable any other centrifuges.

Idiocy.  3.5% is over 60% of the way to bomb grade.  Not disabling any centrifuges simply means that Iran is in a position to amass a huge stockpile of LEU that can quickly be converted to bombs.  It's necessary to eliminate the stockpile and the centrifuges.

* While still being allowed to work on its plutonium reactor at Arak, Iran would agree not to activate it for six months. The plutonium reactor could provide for another route to nuclear weapon capability.

Breathtaking idiocy.  This allows Iran to get the Pu reactor ready to go while further negotiations take place

* Iran would not use its IR-2 centrifuges that are more advanced and capable of enriching uranium three-to-five times faster than the older model.

Fine.  All that is required is to set up the cascades for bomb production and wait.

If I wanted to come up with a plan that would protect Iran from attack while it prepared for breakout, the above is what I'd propose.

Of course the elite Neville Chamberlain pin-stripers in the State Department love this deal.

--------------

I would add that unless Israel has some remarkable magic up its sleeve, it's paying the price for excessive patience. Israel wanted to allow the futile negotiation process to run out of steam, and to placate the US as long as possible. Now, far more than before, any attack will look to many like sabotage of an actual peace process.

Release Day for near-future SF novel Division!

It LIIIIVES!... :-)

Right on schedule, my latest book, the near-future novel Division, is available as an ebook from Amazon, B&N's Nook Store, Kobobooks, iBookstore, and Smashwords (at least), at the introductory price of $2.99. (It'll go up to $3.99 in a week or two.) I expect to bring out the paperback next year (target date: March 8, 2014).

The cover you see was quite the collaboration! I found two poses with the same model and did a mockup of my conjoined twins. Graphic designer and friend Michelle Hartz did the final photo editing. I wanted to divide the twins somehow, toying with ideas such as black lightning or a torn photograph (but will people still print photos in thirty years?). Finally, one of my beta readers (see the acknowledgments for which one :-) ) gave me the idea of separated puzzle pieces. Cover designer David Leek and I then played with the design for weeks, ending up with what you see here. (The spine and back for the paperback are really cool -- stay tuned. . . .)

So what's it about, anyway? Well, I was reading a novel by Jodi Piccoult one day, and wondered whether she'd ever try a science fiction setting for her courtroom dramas. Then I thought: why wait for her to do it? . . . Unlike Piccoult, however, I spent a bit less time on the legal proceedings and instead explored in some depth what happens after the verdict. I attempted to delve, through the very appropriate medium of SF, into themes such as the complexity and intensity of family relationships, the nature of individual identity, and the far-reaching effects of the choices we make.

And finally, here's the blurb:

New technology gives conjoined twins Gordon and Johnny new choices -- but who gets to choose? 

Conjoined twins Gordon and Johnny have never let their condition keep them from living full and fulfilling lives. Gordon looks forward to many years of closeness and cooperation. Johnny, however, faces their future with increasing restlessness, even dread. 

When the boys are in their teens, the new technologies of accelerated human cloning and brain transplants are combined into a single medical procedure -- Transplant to Clone, or TTC. Someone whose body has suffered such extensive damage as to make normal life impossible may -- with court approval -- be cloned and then given a brain transplant into the clone body. With Gordon's unwitting assistance, Johnny realizes that the TTC procedure provides the chance he had never dared to hope for -- the chance to live in a "normal," separate body. 

But Gordon considers their conjoined life a blessing, rather than a curse. He has no intention of accepting separation -- not without a fight . . . . 

If you're intrigued enough to want a sample -- or hey, go wild and grab the whole book :-) -- I'll make it easy. If you read Kindle editions, this link will take you to Amazon on any of seven countries (if I haven't lost count). For other formats, there are a slew of retailers accessible from Division's purchase page on my website.

The faint shrill sound you hear is me blowing a party horn. Hooray for release days!

The Only Justification for Attacking Syria

Once again, I write in the capacity of scribe to my politically astute husband, who tends to rant very convincingly and then go off and lift weights or whatever. Today's topic: Syria.

Paul actually advocated an attack on Syria, years ago, as an alternative to attacking Libya. Back then, the Islamic jihadists in Syria were not yet a well-organized rebellion, so we wouldn't have been assisting them.

Paul is in high dudgeon about the fact that no one discussing this issue (at least, no one he's heard) is focusing on what he sees as the only adequate justification for attacking Syria at this point: to destroy the chemical weapons before Assad's government loses control of them to the radical insurgents. The factors we must weigh: how high a percentage of the weapons can we destroy, and how heavy will the "collateral damage" to civilians be from blowing up large quantities of horrific chemicals?

Paul raised the possibility that Obama is actually thinking along these lines, and that all his squishy equivocation and talk of limited, punitive measures are just a way to preserve operational security. (I don't give him Obama that much credit -- and I expect Assad will take the precaution of hiding his stockpiles somewhere new, before we get around to taking any action.)

Not a Cover Reveal, but a Tentative Cover Art Reveal

I'm working with my cover designer David Leek on the cover for my upcoming near-future SF novel, Division. In Division, new technologies -- accelerated human cloning and brain transplants -- would make it possible for conjoined twins who could never be surgically separated to live separate lives. But only one twin wants such a life. . . .

I already got a great deal of help with image manipulation from a graphic designer friend, Michelle Hartz. She helped me turn two photographs of the same model into the conjoined twins Gordon and Johnny. David combined that image with an image of slightly separated puzzle pieces. How this art -- if I go with it -- will fit into an overall cover design remains to be seen.

(The background color is not necessarily final, and the whole image looks a bit warmer on this blog, for some reason. The outer edges of the puzzle pieces will probably be eliminated in some manner.)

So, what do y'all think -- of the art concept and the actual image? Please comment!

When the Best Break the Rules -- Intentional Head-Hopping

When authors of undoubted craftsmanship choose to break a general rule of POV management, there's bound to be an interesting reason.

SPOILERS AHEAD

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

In Dorothy Sayers' Busman's Honeymoon, the last full novel in her Lord Peter Wimsey detective series, Wimsey and Harriet Vane finally marry, and go off to spend their honeymoon -- with the competent and devoted manservant Bunter in tow -- in a country house Harriet had admired as a child. When the previous owner is found murdered in the cellar, the three collaborate on trying to solve his murder.

Most of the book is told from Harriet's point of view. Whenever the POV is to change, the scene changes as well. This is in accord with the prohibition against "head-hopping," a practice often found in the writing of novices, where the POV can change from one character to another within one scene, or even within one paragraph. Head-hopping can easily confuse and distract the reader: trying to figure out whose observations and reactions we are experiencing pulls us out of the story.

Toward the end of Busman's Honeymoon, however, as crucial clues are coming to light, in the middle of a long scene told (as usual) from Harriet's POV, we have this passage:

[Peter's] eye roamed the room, passed over Harriet and the vicar and rested on Bunter. "You see," he said, "we've got the first and last terms of the progression--if we could fill in the middle terms."

"Yes, my lord," agreed Bunter, in a colourless voice. His heart had leapt within him. Not the new wife this time, but the old familiar companion of a hundred cases--the appeal had been to him.

Suddenly, we have Bunter's POV. Then, within a few more sentences, we return to Harriet's, and remain there for (if I recall) the rest of the book.

Why this unorthodox transition?

Well, the moment is far more effective this way. If Harriet, observing, managed to spare a thought at this climactic juncture to comment on how Wimsey was bestowing his attention, there would be neither the certainty the Bunter POV conveys, nor the emotional impact. And if, instead, Sayers had forced a full-fledged scene change, she would have interfered with the tension and progression of the narrative.

That may be all. I suspect, however, that Sayers had another reason, that she shifted away from Harriet's POV in order to emphasize the similar shift that the passage describes -- Wimsey's collaborative attention returning, possibly against expectation, from Harriet to Wimsey's "old familiar companion."

I had read the book many times before noticing the discontinuity. This (as far as I know) single  instance of head-hopping neither confuses the reader nor interferes with the flow of the scene.

In contrast, the novel Run, by best-selling author Ann Patchett, head-hops all over the place. The POV constantly shifts, without any structural warning or transition, from one to another of the ensemble of main characters. And confusion, at least momentary, does frequently result. Where are we? What's going on? Into whose thoughts are we intruding?

Again, I believe this effect is intentional. It reflects the uncertainty, central to both the novel's plot and its emotional dynamics, about what these characters are all about, and just what relationships exist between them.

Do these examples mean we should all head-hop promiscuously? Of course not. But they do demonstrate that rules, once understood, are made to be carefully, judiciously broken.

What About Section 2?

I saw quite a few headlines, tweets, et cetera yesterday stating that the U.S. Supreme Court's Windsor v.Estate of Spyer decision had "struck down DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act]." In fact, only Section 3 of DOMA -- the section defining marriage for the purposes of a host of federal statutes -- was at issue in the case. The Court explicitly noted that the case had nothing to do with section 2.

So what's Section 2?

Section 2 allows states to refuse to recognize lawful same-sex marriages in other states. If Congress bothered to indicate the constitutional basis for Section 2, it would have been Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

(Emphasis added.) This provision generally requires states to acknowledge judgments issued in other states -- although I know of situations where courts have refused to do so, because the judgments were supposedly issued in one state without constitutional safeguards required by the case law of the other state. This language may also be the basis for the general rule that a couple married in one state is deemed married in all states. (A 2004 New York Times article, quoting author and law professor Andrew Koppelman, states that during the era when many states forbade interracial marriage, no state was ever forced through judicial proceedings to recognize such a marriage solemnized in another state. Mr. Koppelman was presumably referring to the period before 1967's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, which not only held Virginia's ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional, but involved Virginia residents married in the District of Columbia.)

Section 2 of DOMA assumes that "prescribing the manner" in which the states shall give "full faith and credit" to marriages in other states, and/or "prescribing" what "effect" such "full faith and credit" must have, may include providing an exception based on the parties to the marriage. Does Windsor shed any light on whether such an exception is valid? The two primary principles at work in Windsor point different directions.

Windsor relies in part on the principle of federalism: that in our federal system, there are many areas in which the states exercise primary or exclusive authority. In general, family law is a state concern, not a federal one, although there are exceptions (some of which Windsor lists). The definition of marriage, like other family law matters, has been a state province. Windsor holds that "[Section 3 of] DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage."

By contrast, Section 2 could reasonably be said to honor and protect the state's authority to define marriage, by spelling out that each state may apply its own definition, regardless of how far some other state decides to stretch its own. The Full Faith and Credit doctrine may be viewed as a restriction on state autonomy -- and any restriction on that doctrine, as showing respect for state autonomy.

There is, however, another thread running through Windsor. The majority opinion uses the word "dignity" (or, in one case, "indignity") ten times. It refers to the "status and dignity" accorded a married couple by state law; it states that New York's "decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import." (Some might quibble with the idea that New York "gave," rather than acknowledged or ceased to deny, this right.) The majority also makes numerous references to "equality," "inequality," and "justice." It notes that New York, eleven other states, and D.C. "decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry and so live with pride in themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all other married persons." It describes DOMA as "writ[ing] inequality into the entire United States Code," and states that DOMA's "principal purpose is to impose inequality." Ultimately, the majority holds that given the context of our federal system, the provision in question violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantees of due process and equal protection. Perhaps there is a message in the fact that the holding is phrased in terms of "DOMA," not "Section 3," although the opinion's reach is technically limited to the latter.

Windsor deplores inequality between different types of committed couples living within a single state. Section 2 involves similar inequality, although the source of the inequality is primarily the state where these couples live, rather than simply the federal statute.

 The Windsor majority was comprised of Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Most analysts believe that the four more liberal Justices accepted the federalism argument in order to reel Kennedy in. Without that element, could they find a Justice willing to join them against Section 2? The answer may depend on whatever historical information may exist as to the original meaning of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Several Justices at least purport to rely on the original meaning of constitutional provisions. As originally understood, did  Congress' power to "prescribe" the "manner" of "proving" another state's "public acts," and the "effect" of such proof, reach so far as to let the state decline on the basis of substantive content or of parties affected? The Constitution was a grand and contentious compromise between state autonomy and national unity, a corrective for the rivalry and chaos of American life under the Articles of Confederation. If one state may disdain a marriage accepted by another state, is this too reminiscent of pre-Constitutional state conflicts? Somewhere, no doubt, lawyers and law clerks are busily preparing arguments to that effect. 

Why Book Groups Might Want to Read Wander Home

I've only just joined my first book group -- but my parents have been in book groups for years, and I have friends and acquaintances who belong to such groups. When I find Discussion Guides in the backs of books, I read them, and imagine the discussions they might provoke. And I believe my novel Wander Home would make for some interesting talk around a book club circle. (I'm using "book group" and "book club" interchangeably, and hope I'm not tripping carelessly into some mine field of disputed terminology.)

To begin with, Wander Home is set in an afterlife. Who doesn't have ideas or fantasies about what an afterlife might involve? My father the unshakeable atheist, perhaps -- but I would guess that most people have at some time imagined, or hoped, or feared, what might happen in a life after this one. Members of the group could discuss their own ideas, and express their opinions on the plausibility, desirability or utility of the features I've included.

There's also the question of just what kind of afterlife these characters are inhabiting. Does it fit into the structure of any established religion -- and if so, where?

Wander Home explores several themes that use, but do not depend upon, its unearthly setting. Forgiveness is one. Readers could ask themselves, and each other: if you were Cassidy, what would have to happen for you to forgive your mother? If you were Eleanor's parents, or her grandmother, how hard would it be to forgive what Eleanor did to you, or to Cassidy? If you were Eleanor, could you forgive yourself?

The critically minded could ask whether the plot device that eventually explains Eleanor's actions "works." Is it successful? Forced? Satisfying, or the reverse?

The characters have the chance to revisit old haunts. Where would you go, if you could? Whom would you want to take with you?

This afterlife allows you to relive, and to share, the memories of life. Are there memories you long to relive? Are some memories too painful to revisit? Is there anything to be gained by experiencing that pain?

These questions only scratch the surface of where the discussions could go. So -- am I right? Is this a book for book groups, or what? J

Why Hadn't Anastasia Steele Ever . . .

And now for something completely different. The following has absolutely nothing to do with my new book (*cough* Twin-Bred sequel *cough*). It just occurred to me. In the shower (where several scenes in Fifty Shades of Grey take place).

How the heck did Anastasia Steele go through childhood, adolescence, and the first years of adulthood without masturbating?

Virginity, I can understand. Her fellow undergraduates lacked the qualities that turned out to attract her. (I could, however, imagine her falling for the right kind of English professor. Hmmm . . . the chain of fan fiction could continue . . . .) But she's sexually responsive -- unusually so. She has no psychological inhibitions against experiencing sexual pleasure. Her family history might render her cautious about unprotected premarital sex, but there's nothing about it that would make her actually puritanical. Which, in fact, she isn't.

And she has a certain tendency toward curiosity.

It makes no sense that she would never have investigated her own body's capacity for pleasure -- or even discovered the same, accidentally, while exploring her developing body.

Certainly, her utter sexual ignorance fits with the more simplistic aspects of the romance formula. But it's the least plausible aspect of her character.

You may now resume thinking about other contemporary literature. :-)

Release Day -- and where I've been

So if you're keeping track, you may have wondered why, after all the talk about releasing my book today, I haven't posted yet.

Well, I've been busy on Facebook, SheWrites, Goodreads, Book Blogs, etc., etc. So to get a snapshot of just part of my frenetic day, head over to my Facebook author page and scroll, scroll, scroll.

And if you'd like to see the new book in situ, stop by the Amazon page for Reach: a Twin-Bred novel.

In closing, I'll quote the particularly appropriate first line of Reach:

"And so they were underway."

I Mess Up, You Get the Benefit -- or, Now I Know

Well, I've figured something out. It's just a little too late for me to use that knowledge, this time around. But at least you all can learn from my mistake.

Whenever I've considered a possible book title, I've searched for it on Amazon. I assumed, for some reason, that the first results to come up in such a search would be books with that exact title. If the title consisted of only one word, I assumed that every book with that word and no other in its title would be listed first. So if, for example, I did not find many books, and hardly any novels, with the simple title of Reach, I figured there weren't many out there. I also assumed, without even thinking about it, that any reader trying to find my book would be able to find it fairly easily.

Through dumb luck, I decided to add a subtitle to my latest novel, the sequel to Twin-Bred -- because there was a video game called Reach, and I preferred to avoid any confusion. But I figured that if anyone searched Amazon or B&N with the main title by itself, there it would be.

Well, guess what? Whatever algorithms govern search results on these sites, they don't favor an exact match -- or not enough to prevent many, many other titles with overlapping words, or even sound-alike words, from coming first, based on popularity or some other factor(s).

I had reasons for choosing Reach as my primary title. Both its meanings -- to attempt to grasp, and to arrive -- suited the book nicely. But if I'd known how hard it would be for would-be buyers to track down the book, I'd have tried harder to find an utterly unique title. Ironically, I would not have known how well I'd succeeded until the book was published with a particular title -- because only then could I examine the search results and see how far down in the list the book appeared.

So maybe you won't gain all that much from my frustrating experience . . . except the knowledge that if you want to find any of my books, and you can't, try searching for my name. Use my full name, Karen A. Wyle. That works like a charm.

Well, on Amazon, searching for Reach: a Twin-Bred novel works just fine. I just have to hope my would-be readers aren't lazy.

And to give credit where credit is due: Reach by itself works on Smashwords! Nook readers, head there!

Just to Clarify, Only Partially Succumbing to Forces of Darkness (aka Kindle Select)

As I posted yesterday, I'll be pulling Twin-Bred from Smashwords and the places to which Smashwords distributes, so as to give KDP Select another try as I publish the sequel. In fact, I've been advised to do so ASAP, given the sequel's May 23rd release date -- so today is the last day the .epub of Twin-Bred will be available for some time. (And to repeat, it's free while it's available at all.)

BUT: I am not currently planning to put Reach: a Twin-Bred novel into Select. Not now, and not any time in the foreseeable future. I'm reluctantly accepting the restrictions of Select in order to distribute the first book far and wide, in the hope that the book (and the teaser chapter of Reach at the back of the book) will lure people to the sequel. The sequel itself is going to stay available in as many formats as possible. And it probably won't be free very often. As I've said here and there, $2.99 is around (or less than) the price of a latte, and I hope the book will linger longer.