Seedy and Unsettling

Seedy and unsettling. That's a recent description of my book, 24/7.

I couldn't be more proud.

I won't lie. At first, before I knew the context and only saw the "rating", I was mortified. Appalled. Embarrassed. Ashamed. A little depressed. And very disappointed in myself.

The backstory: I knew my books (mandatory plug: 24/7 and Trattoria) were being reviewed in the latest issue of Romantic Times magazine.

So I went and checked the website to get the rating. They don't post the text of the review on the website for two months, only the star rating. You have to purchase the magazine to get the text of the review.

So. Anyhow. What I found was this:
A four star rating for Trattoria, and a two star rating for 24/7. Let me explain that for you just in case it's not evident. Four stars is pretty freaking good. Two stars means the book sucks.

I freaked out.

I mean, I was upset.

So now I will speak frankly about my two books. I wrote 24/7 first. Once it was finished, I was convinced it would never sell because it was too long and too extreme. So I purposely dialed myself down and wrote Trattoria. Trattoria is tamer and cuter. Though many reviewers still shy away from it and tag it with "sexy, edgy, strong language", ect, it does pull much more toward the middle of the road than 24/7 does.

Basically, on a 1-10 decibel level, Trattoria is me dialed back and hushed down to about a 4.5. 24/7, on the other hand, is me turned to about a 7.5.

I'm proud of Trattoria because I set out to do something specific (write a more mainstream chick lit but still infuse it with some "cool" and character and some pop and punch while keeping it somewhat traditional) and I think maybe I accomplished some of that.

However, since 24/7 is much more in my natural style, it also has a lot more of my own blood and sweat in it. 24/7 isn't me *trying* to be something or to shoehorn into a market. 24/7 is an honest representation of my personal tastes and proclivities. I love the romantic and cute stuff. Helen Fielding is just aces with me. But I also love Anais Nin, Charles Bukowski, Elmore Leonard and Chuck Palahniuk. These are writers with pulp and zing. And I thought -- why can't these worlds/genres/literary ideals be combined?

So I wrote what I'd want to read: Hot sex, head-fucked characters, action sequences.

I understood that it would never make the cut as genre romance. And that's ok with me.

But I figured, I'm not the only person out there who digs "Reservoir Dogs" and "Pretty Woman".

Luckily, my publisher didn't think I'd be the only one either.

Even luckier, I got some really heartening reviews right out of the gate.

And then I pulled up the RT site and saw that two star review.

Holy fuck.

I know, ok, I know that you can't have everyone like your stuff. But I was really shaken because I didn't read the text and I thought maybe I was a sham and my writing did actually suck so hard. I tried with 24/7, I tried really hard. And maybe I'm just pretentious and stupid and lacking talent. (I'm quite certain I'm all of those things, but Christ almighty, WHY did people have to figure it out so quickly?)

So. Anyhow. Then I started to rationalize and hope. I thought: Wait. Maybe. Maybe there's a possibility that in the review she doesn't say it's "boring" or "badly written." Maybe this is it. Maybe I've found someone who's after traditional genre romance and 24/7 was too hard edged for her. That would be better than alright. That'd be fucking great!

So, dumb-fuck author me popped the cash and bought an issue of RT to see what it said.

So here I give you the greatest two-star review I could ever hope for.

24/7
Susan DiPlacido

Marina Martino loves Las Vegas and has a knack for counting cards. She prides herself on never taking chances with cards -- or her heart. But when she meets blackjack dealer Miguel Rodriguez, all bets are off. Marina is knocked off balance by her immediate desire for him and his seemingly mutual lust for her.

Despite the warning bells set off by his violent past and some scary encounters in the present, Marina wants to follow her heart and believe in a future with a man for the first time in a long time. Will Marina win big or lose everything -- including her life?

DiPlacido does a good job drawing the reader into the glitter and seediness of Vegas. Unfortunately, Marina and Miguel do not fare as well as their favorite city. These two are definitely not the boy and girl next door, but DiPlacido shows us very little of what is good about them, making it difficult for the reader to sympathize with them.

Everthing about Marina and Miguel -- from their language to their lifestyle to ther intense lovemaking -- is rough and hard. It is the pervasive violence and seediness, mediated by too few positve expressions of emotion, that ultimately makes this book more unsettling than enjoyable.


reviewed by Stephanie Schneider
Romantic Times Bookclub Magazine

The only thing I'd love to change about that review is the word "lovemaking". Precisely because that's the point. This isn't a book about "lovemaking". It's about FUCKING.

I had worries that I'd written some really sappy and overly sugary scenes and dialogue along the way. The kind of Nicholas Sparks bullshit that makes me want to barf when I read it. And I'm quite sure I did go over the edge at times into "too sweet" territory.

But I'm so goddamn happy that at least one person thought this book was too rough and hard and seedy and unsettling.

It was supposed to be!

I'm so relieved. I'm so happy!

There's only one thing that could be better: If I can get someone to say it's "lurid and disturbing". That's my next goal.

I don't need to have everyone like my stuff. As long as they hate it for the right reasons, that's just fine.

Bottom line. If you want to read a romance about perfect, perky, straight-arrow people, read some Nicholas Sparks. If you want something "romantic" that's boozy and sexy and where the characters more likely crawled out of a Sopranos script than a church-hall, then read 24/7.

My next book, I'm gonna turn it up to 9.

Are you ready for that?