A Movie Review of Pride & Prejudice & Zombies

Dear Mr. Steers (the director and writer to Pride and Prejudice and Zombies),

The movie, as Mr. Darcy would say, was "tolerable...but not enough to tempt me." Note: I respect your audience enough not to give spoilers.

I waited months to see this movie. MONTHS. It's all I ever talked about to my readers and to my family. Given it was taken directly from Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice with the drama of "zombies", and that the book itself was funny, scary and good, this movie had the potential to be BLOODY INCREDIBLE!!!

Unfortunately...one teeny tiny detail was left out. The storyline. It made me wonder, Mr. Steers, did you ever actually read the book to understand what the heart of the story was about? Even watching Colin Firth play Darcy or any Pride and Prejudice movie might have helped "steer" you in the right direction. It's not that I'm a Jane Austen purist. Far from it. I'm someone who likes to see things taken out of the box and smashed into the tiniest of pieces to make something new. And maybe that was the problem. You didn't even touch the box. You didn't even sniff it.

It takes real talent to direct and write. Very few people can pull off doing both. I would never claim to be anything more than a writer. It's the whole Jack of all trades and master of none sort of mentality. But I do know good writing when I see it and while you skirted it quite brilliantly at times, too many pieces were missing. *eyes cast downward in mournful sorrow*

PROS:
1.) The costuming, the settings and the filming were fantastic. It was eye candy in a box! The colors and the costuming and the setting made me feel like I was in Regency, England with a twist. I absolutely loved the visuals. Loved, loved, loved. Did I mention I loved the visual and the filming?!
2.) The acting was phenomenal. BBC quality phenomenal. Mr. Collins (played by Matt Smith) was hilarious and everything we wanted out of him and more. The rest of the cast was equally magnificent! And the opening scene with Mr. Darcy...OMG. The opening scene is what carried me through the entire movie in the hopes something would match it.
3.) The scene between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth, when he proposes to her is classic. They weren't just verbally fighting. They were physically fighting. It rocks.
4.) This is where my praise ends *sniffles*

CONS (Hold on because the pot holes in the road are going to shake your carriage):
1.) Some of the scenes were WAY too dark and it was obvious it had been filmed during the day with a filter put over it (the daylight shadowing gave that away). If you, the director, were trying to go for an authentic historic feel of showing how "dark" it would have been at night in a drawing room during Regency England, you not only succeeded, you nailed it. And I loved that you wanted to be true to history. I loved that! Unfortunately, if you put stilted scenes with dark scenes...well...the result were painful. There were times I was squinting to see what was going on.
2.) The music overpowered people's conversations (ballroom scenes). I'm not hard of hearing but I sure felt like it. I shouldn't feel as if I missed conversations because of music... *waving fan frantically*
3.) Right after the AWESOME opening scene with Mr. Darcy, we are taken through a quick history of England to catch us up to speed on the 'plague'. That introduction could have been taken to great heights but instead fell to great lows because you used cheaply drawn paper dolls to tell the story, as opposed to giving us scenes that would have elevated our investment into the story. A simple fix would have been to SHOW what was being discussed in quick glimpses as opposed to...well...TELLING. Even in a book, you don't tell your audience, you SHOW them. So for a movie...it was a death knell and here we are barely 10 minutes into the movie...
4.) Mr. Bennet is one of the strongest characters in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, and yet you only gave the man 3 or 4 lines in the entire movie. He did not exist as a character. *sobbing* Talk about a failure on your part to no understand the story of Pride and Prejudice. Even the book, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, stayed true to what Austen wrote (because he um...plagiarized her word for word). Yet you didn't bother to do anything with Mr. Bennet? How do you explain how kick ass the Bennet girls became? It wasn't thanks to "Mama" but rather "Papa". So much for male perspective and social commentary. Mr. Bennet sent those girls to become warriors and we aren't even privy to getting to know this magnificent man.
5.) We never see the girls becoming warriors. We just see them already "being". So we didn't get a chance to grow with them, which led us to being completely disconnected.
6.) The love story between Mr. Bingley and Jane had no time to develop and felt thrown in. Partly because they danced once together and gaped at each other in passing and that's it. The actress who played Jane was the weakest out of all the actors in this film. While Jane is supposed to be "shy" it just came across as bad acting (and mind you, she was a GREAT actor!). So when Mr. Bingley leaves, we don't feel the impact of his leaving at all. *heaving bosom*
7.) In the beginning, you establish that the zombie infestation is under control, but for some reason, they were "magically" popping up at every "secured" event we were at. Um...teacher...I'm confused.
8.) There weren't enough scenes and interaction between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet to make me feel like they actually fell in love. We were so busy fighting zombies, we forgot to build a relationship.
9.) This movie tried to replicate iconic scenes from the original Pride and Prejudice but failed miserably. You basically cut and pasted random things in to say "My name is Pride and Prejudice" when in fact you were saying "I like being random" Take for instance...The iconic swimming scene with Mr. Darcy.  After an action scene we break to calm pond. No introduction to where we were or why. Then Mr. Darcy randomly jumps into the water and...that's it. Nothing else comes of it. We don't even get WHY he jumped into the water and we didn't even know whose property he was on. His? Bingley's? Bennet's? We never saw Mr. Darcy in his own house, in his own realm, with his sister, we never see Mr. Darcy's personal life at all. Which lead us into not caring about him at all. *sobbing* I wanted to care so much. It's Mr. Darcy for pity's sake!
10.) The 4 horsemen. You introduce us to something magnificent and show us Mr. Collins explaining what he knows best: the bible. YES, YES, YES!! And then...you never explain it and you never touch it again. Bye, bye. If this is your way of saying we have to wait for Part 2, I may just have to spank you because I'm not paying to see Part 2 unless you let me help you with the script.
11.) The ending. It made no sense. Someone was supposed to be dead. But you never showed us how Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth took care of that situation or got out of said situation with someone who was supposed to be dead. So I'm...confused?
12.) What was up with Mr. Darcy's voice?

Bottom line, I'm sobbing. I'm sobbing because I wanted to love this movie SO much. I wanted people to see historical romance at its finest while doing comedy and horror. Because it never gets any attention from the public. As a director, you have a gift. As a writer, you're still growing. I'm not a Jane Austen purist given what I write...BUT...I went to this movie in the hopes of a story. I got eye candy and then I got...detached. When a historical romance author is detached during an apocalypse, all that's left for her to do is grab her smelling salts and find a fainting couch to lay on.

THAT SAID, everyone should still see the movie just for the opening scene. It's worth $10 for the opening scene, the costuming, the acting, and in particular, watching Mr. Collins.

Yours Truly,
Delilah Marvelle

The Historical Romance Retreat

My Dearest Reader,
I don't know about you, but I'm all about history. Aside from reading it, writing it, traveling to locations to explore it, I'm also obsessed with collecting artifacts no one wants to touch (like chastity belts) and historical pieces like jewelry and gowns. Of course, if I were to wear said jewelry and gowns and chastity belts in public people would think I was crazy (not that I care THAT much...heh), BUT...imagine being able to go to a historical site and wear said gowns and jewelry and chastity belt without anyone thinking you're weird. In fact, you'd be weird if you showed up in jeans. That's right, people. It's happening and Bestselling Historical Romance author, Renee Bernard and I are bringing it to the world!

THE HISTORICAL ROMANCE RETREAT 

is a 4 day event you don't want to miss!

SEPTEMBER 22-25th, 2016

We're stepping back in time with over 2 dozen of your favorite historical romance authors 

and are going to party at the Davenport like it's 1699 or 1799 or 1899. 

Whatever era you want to come dressed in!

LOCATED IN SPOKANE, WASHINGTON and hosted at the historic 5 star Davenport Hotel built in 1914, where Bing Crosby, Amelia Earhart, Babe Ruth, Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman, William Taft and more stayed! 

For years, the hotel kept the incredible tradition of never letting the fire 

die out in the lobby hearth, whether it was summer or winter. 

They also kept the tradition of washing the coins every night as they received them. 

Historic hotel practices that have long since been forgotten with our modern era.

WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT?

*Mingle with your favorite authors all four days!

*Travel back to 1931 for a movie night in an authentic 1931 theatre gone flapper.

*Historical Food at every event. Try things Jane Austen would have eaten!

*Gaming Hell Night, featuring historic games and prizes you don't want to miss.

*Absinthe Party, discover the history and why it was the drink of choice since the 1840's.

*Massive book signing with over two dozen historical romance authors.

*Author chats, the grand ball, surprise guests and more!

WANT MORE INFORMATION?

Sign up before the Early Bird Special Ends!

Limited to only 300 attendees!

www.HistoricalRomanceRetreat.com 

HOPE TO SEE YOU ALL THERE in 2016!

Cheers and Much love,

Delilah Marvelle

Authors aren't the only ones being plagiarized

UPDATE: As of 04/06/2015 the blogger referred to in this post has had their blogger account deleted and all reviews taken down with it. Her response regarding her snatched reviews? Her 'cousin' apparently took over her account and forged everything. Ehm. Yeah. I guess once an idiot, always an idiot. Blame it on the poor cousin... 

My dearest Authors and Reviewers,
We, as authors, have a very close and very complicated relationship with reviewers. Reviewers enable our books to be discovered in the chaos of the vast Internet world. Those reviews can make an author giddy with joy (someone loves me!) or cry in pain (someone hates me!). Whatever your perspective on the relationship between authors and reviewers, there is one thing that binds us: our honesty about our love for books.

So what happens when that honesty is violated between reviewers? Allow me to vent and lay out what just happened and why it needs to be addressed.

A few weeks ago, I was contacted by a reviewer in Portugal requesting a copy of one of my books. Nothing unusual. It is always at the discretion of an author whether they want to trust/spend the money to do so. It could be a scam, but I am a firm believer that when a reviewer goes out of their way to contact an author, an author should make the time to honor that request. Because there is one universal truth about reviewers. They are doing it for the love of books and most do not get paid a single penny for their love. So it is my way of returning their passion for books by giving them a copy. It doesn't matter what the review outcome is. All that matters is that a reviewer took a chance on my book. It is their precious time. Much like my writing is to me, reading is to them.

So what happens when a reviewer decides to violate ANOTHER reviewer? *gape time* That's right. I'm not talking about author/reviewer relationships anymore or how some have spiraled out of control because neither side is willing to be gracious. I'm also not talking about the scam of taking a book and never reviewing it. I'm talking about a reviewer violating another reviewer by plagiarizing another reviewer's review. Are you still with me?!

These are the clues that started coming together as to what had actually happened:
-I was contacted by a reviewer from Portugal who had a blogger website listing beautifully well worded English reviews.
-The reviewer from Portugal who contacted me spoke very choppy English. Her emails were like reading Google Translate on crack. Hm.
-The reviewer from Portugal contacts me to say she received said book, still in choppy English. Okay.
-A week later, she sends me a link of a beautifully written review for Once Upon a Scandal. Double hm and something doesn't feel right.
-So I had a friend help me find a plagiarism checker online (Duplichecker) and it appears my review for Once Upon a Scandal was lifted word for word from ANOTHER reviewer's blog. And it wasn't just for my book. She was lifting reviews left and right for countless other books when further digging was done.

My jaw dropped and I started seething. Holy shit. Because we always talk about books being plagiarized, but we never talk about a reviewer's own words being plagiarized. Never mind that I got screwed out of money or getting a real review, what about the reviewer whose words were lifted word for word? The time she/he put in for the love of what they do. Their passion is being used for the gain of another who just wants to read a book but is too fucking lazy to even sit down and write the review. So she snatches it from others.

Some of the reviewers were already contacted about the plagiarism and it is my hope that her site gets shut down by blogger. Blogger is being contacted and they will hopefully address this.

Needless to say, I want reviewers to do the following things:
-Make sure on your site, you have a copyright statement.
-Make sure you have a contact on your site so when others find something to report to you, you can be contacted (it was difficult contacting some of you!).
-Do random checks of your reviews (especially older ones) by running through a plagiarism checker.
-If you feel your reviews are being lifted by another reviewer, contact blogger or wordpress and have that sucker taken down.

Bottom line, I'm being the bigger person and not posting this reviewer's blog BUT if her website isn't shut down by blogger in the next few weeks...her ass has been warned. It's WRONG.

*This shout out is for all reviewers who work so hard to share their love of books. We authors love you because you put your love into YOUR words. Not someone else's.

Yours Truly,
Delilah Marvelle

An Open Letter to my agent Donald Maass

So last month, the CEO of Kensington (my first publisher) had made comments about the self-publishing industry that I felt needed to be addressed. And this month, it would seem I'm 2 for 2 on the self-publishing debate given that my own agent has also stepped into the arena looking to take a swing in the self-publishing industry. (I would like to point out that Donald Maass did NOT represent me in my Kensington contracts, for those of you who were wondering.)

This is my open letter to my agent after he had posted to Writer Unboxed. He was rather well addressed over at Joe Konrath's blog where Joe aptly named it Fisking Donald Maass. I don't think I need to add anything to what was said. What I'll be addressing is the side few readers and unpublished authors get to see. The real relationship between a writer and their agent.

Dear Donald Maass,
So last week, I was attending a fabulous Indie "Unconference" in San Francisco, learning more about the self-publishing business I'm in, and meeting tons of great professional people, when I stumbled across your blog called The New Class System. Fortunately, I had stumbled on it prior to the event because I was repeatedly asked by other indie authors face to face what I thought of your post given, well...um...you're MY agent and um...I'm self-publishing. It was an awkward position to be put in. After all, I've spent more than a few years getting to know you, your business, your model, your craft and what makes you the success that you are. I loved working with you and implementing your ideas and strategies of how to not only step out of the box, but smash it.

Not surprisingly, people had a lot to say about your post. But few (if any) who commented are actually represented by you. They responded to your post with two fists without realizing that you encouraged me to take up self-publishing and explore a world that I was too damn scared to venture into. You supported my decision to self-publish knowing that a.) you wouldn't see any money from what I was doing and b.) that I was walking away from a three book contract with Harlequin. Does this sound like a guy who believes there's a new class system being created? Or were you knowingly letting me get on Freight Class? (I'm being cheeky here, Don).

The class system you describe did surprise me. Because I think you're over-generalizing self-publishing by listing it as simple Freight Class and you know it. I've been in Coach, Don. You helped me get there. You did everything to ensure I was a success in Coach even though the seats weren't as comfortable as I thought they were going to be. But I stayed in my seat. Because I knew that by staying in my seat, the conductor would come around and eventually look at me and say, "You look like you should be sitting in First Class." Unfortunately, that conductor never gave me a second glance, no matter how many times you tried to wave that asshole down for me. In fact, the conductor took it upon himself to leave a window wide open, allowing eight of my books to fly out the window at a digital rate of 8% that I know I should have never signed. It was a digital rate you yourself didn't agree with, but we were dealing with Harlequin and I was told they don't negotiate their digital rates. And if Donald Maass can't negotiate a better deal for me, who could?

But here is the one thing that made you stand out as an agent, even after I've been through 4 others. The one thing that I believe will continue to make you successful regardless of how the publishing industry changes. That although high winds were blowing in Coach Class through that open window and I couldn't hold onto my thoughts or my words or my clothes, you held my hand and kept my thoughts focused on what mattered most: the writing. I learned SO much sitting in Coach Class there with you. I learned to be a better writer because of you and I learned to challenge myself because of you. To me, THAT is what made you earn your 15%. What author can say that or more about their agent? My experience says very, very few. When I finally had the guts to get up from my seat because I knew First Class wasn't going to be in my future for at least another 10 years, you helped direct me to what you now call Freight Class.

I have to say, Freight Class is awesome. No one left the window open back here. The seats are bouncy and let me swivel any way I want so I can write and deliver the books in any way I want. And the conductor isn't sticking his nose in on my business telling me what I can and can't write. It's soooo nice. I guess what you're not seeing is that I learned to appreciate the wonders and the joys of Freight Class after being stuck in Coach Class for so long. I'm loving it back here and I kinda wish you'd actually rename all the classes. Because the people in Freight Class deserve more respect. And let me tell you why.

Once upon a time, traditional publishers and agents defined what went on the shelf. In the gatekeeping industry, a traditionally published author had to please only a few people to get on that shelf: their agent and a core group of editors within the publishing house. If it didn't please those core group of people, a rifle was taken out and the book was shot dead on the spot and buried on the side of the Railroad tracks our Class System train is zipping by. Unlike Coach and First Class who are confined to this way of thinking, the bar has been officially set higher by those in Freight Class. You heard me. Higher. Because we, in Freight Class, have to please more than just a few people. We have to please THOUSANDS and we have to do it all upfront and on our own.

The cold reality is that readers are the new gatekeepers. They aren't the agents, they aren't the editors, and they most certainly aren't the publishing houses. The readers pay for an author's ticket to stay on the train, regardless of what class system they're sitting in. They've always been the gatekeepers, but for some reason, a core group of people in New York decided that their control of the industry held more weight than that of readers and authors.

These single-minded group of agents, editors and publishers surprisingly share a similar core and history with the same group of people who told Charles Dickens he was a loser for supporting International Copyright Laws because he wanted to get paid. Imagine that. We don't know any of the big wig names belonging to those core of people from the publishing industry who told Charles Dickens he was a loser, but guess what? We sure as hell know the name Charles Dickens. And that's something the publishing industry is forgetting. Believe it or not, Charles Dickens started out in Freight Class, too. Because he didn't print his stories in the traditional way writers were expected to in his era (books). He originally printed his stories through periodicals, which was a quick and very inexpensive way to get his stories into the hands of thousands (wow, sounds like a Kobo, Kindle or Nook) as opposed to a select few who could barely afford books (hardbacks come to mind).

Regardless of the class system a writer is put into by an agent or a publisher, ultimately, you and I both know that it's the reader who decides who is going to stay on the train and who is going to get off. And while I believe you aren't knocking the self-publishing industry, given the incredible and wonderful support you have given me, I'm rather liking the idea that I'm sitting here in the same class system similar to what Charles Dickens once hung out in. Being innovative, progressive and dedicated to craft all at an affordable price the masses can afford.

In closing, self-publishing is a lot of hard work, yes, but let's not fool ourselves into saying that the work-load is any different when under a publisher's wing. In fact, the amount of work I did while with New York prepared me to take on self-publishing without any problem. Because my New York publisher never created my website, they never took on my Facebook, they never took on my Twitter, they never promoted my blog, and they never provided me any guidance on how to brand myself. Everything I did, I did on my own all while writing my books. All of this was done while under a publisher's wing, or more aptly, while hanging from the feather of a bird who can't even share my digital numbers.

Best,
Delilah Marvelle AKA Freight Class Ticket Holder

An Open Letter to the CEO of Kensington Publishing Corp.

While this blog is usually dedicated to the history of sex, this post will be dedicated to a different sort of history that eventually allowed me to publish and write about historical sex.

The following is my response to an open invitation by Mr. Zacharius, the President and CEO of Kensington Publishing Corp, made after he posted an article to Huffington Post and then posted comments on The Passive Voice. The idea behind my post is to share my experience and educate. 

Dear Mr. Zacharius, President and CEO of Kensington Publishing Corp.,

My name is Delilah Marvelle and I write historical romance. After writing 40 manuscripts and receiving over 200 rejections letters from the publishing industry over the course of 11 long years well before the digital revolution, Kensington was the first and only publisher to give this author a chance given the edgier and racier content of my stories. Kensington took a chance with an author that the rest of the industry brushed aside. I firmly believe, I would not be where I am today, as a writer, if it were not for Kensington giving me an opportunity to be part of the industry. And I thank you and all of Kensington, including and especially John Scognomiglio for putting me into the hands of readers.

That said, I would like to open up the discussion about traditional publishing that you and most of the American population may not be aware of. And that is the history of our publishing industry that made it into what it is today.

Back in 1842, a rising star of the writing world known as none other than Charles Dickens, came to the United States with an open plea and a stance regarding American publishers to favor International Copyright laws. Why? Because American publishers weren’t paying ANY royalties on imported manuscripts to authors. None. Zero. All copies imported by New York publishers were pirated and every penny was pocketed. Have you ever wondered why all the print publishers were historically living on the east coast? So they could hop on a ship and buy up copies of books in England that they then brought back to the States so they could make a huge profit that no author would ever see. Needless to say, American publishers were *astounded* that a popular author would come into their country and educate them on their business practices. What did HE know about the industry of publishing? He was just an author. They tried to intimidate and silence him, telling him he was being “petty and self-serving and undemocratic” by speaking out against their business despite the fact that supporting International Copyright Law would have put more money into the pockets of American authors.

This is the history of New York Publishing. To pay no royalties unless required by law. And in my eyes, not much of New York has changed. This mentality of not discussing the business has been ingrained in the old school brain of every publisher going back to 1842. They intimidated authors into not discussing their contracts, their numbers or their rights. Why? Because if they started discussing the details, the authors might actually realize that they were being financially raped. The services that you, as CEO, boast about (which are hardly unique to the publishing world) comes to an author at an obnoxious price no publisher in New York is willing to discuss. Should ANY publisher get more than half the profits of an author’s work? Are you saying you do more work than, I, as an author, do and that your services are worth more than the content of the book itself? No. I’m sorry. I don’t think so.

The traditional publishing industry has created a hostile environment in which an author is the outsider from beginning to end. Because if I, as an author want more information about royalties or outside contracts (like the one Kensington signed with Scribd), not only did Kensington refuse to share those contracts with me, even though my books are being included in those contracts, I need lawyers and auditors to get anywhere. Does that sound like we’re in business together?

I guess my biggest concern in all of this is knowing that the CEO of Kensington is going online to “talk” about the “realities” of self-publishing, when in fact, Kensington is not a self-publishing expert (obviously). And why was it back in 2011, when RWA had its conference in NYC and the big 6 (at the time) were on a panel discussing the industry with PASIC, the big 6 barred Amazon from even being in the room to listen to their panel? We know why. Self-publishing is a threat to the traditional way of publishing. It’s the first time in HISTORY authors are actually making the money they deserve. No, not millions, Mr. Zacharius, but above minimum wage. And THAT is the “reality” of self-publishing.

Delilah Marvelle

www.DelilahMarvelle.com

UPDATED RESPONSE TO STEVEN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE!

STEVEN: *Authors enter into a contract, quite often with an agent who represents their behalf. No one is forcing them to enter this contract. I believe that contracts are a personal matter between the author and the publisher.*

DELILAH: When I signed my contract back in 2007, even with an agent on my side, I was unable to change any of the percentages in my contract because (as the publishers and agents go on to say even today), it’s a “standard” contract. Your suggestion that contracts are personal when we, as authors, are told by agents and publishers alike that it’s a “standard” contract, leads me to believe that the contract isn’t THAT personal.

STEVEN: * I don't see musicians talking about their contracts in an open forum either.*

DELILAH: I think musicians talk a lot more than you think. They talk about the same things we authors are talking about. How we don’t get paid what we’re due and how the contracts are in the favor of everyone but the author/musician. I’ll just give you one link to look at, but there is a mass amount of discussions out there. Sadly, the creative industry is notorious for taking advantage of an artist’s need to be seen. http://bit.ly/LIQxL6

STEVEN: * I don't know how you're coming up with the fact that the publisher is getting more than you're making. I can't tell you how many contracts we have where the author ends up making far more than we do. The higher the advance the more likelihood this has of happening.*
DELILAH: I know that you aren’t referring to me. In fact, your example of where the publisher would make less does not apply to me. And I strongly believe you are not talking about most of your authors. Let’s get into some quick specifics on me and Kensington.
1.) For every electronic book that Kensington sells of mine, they make three times the money I do. If I get .25, Kensington gets .75. (Keep in mind that my digital sales are higher than my print sales).
2.) I know what my percentage is, but what I don’t know is what your percentage is. At no point has Kensington ever shared how much it actually profits from my books. I would love to know. And if you feel I don’t need to know then it’s hard to validate your claim that you’re the last in line to get paid. I would *love* to hear the core numbers of what Kensington has made off my book in comparison to what I have made. Put it here or email it to me with a disclosure. I’m thinking, however, that it won’t ever be disclosed. Why? Because what author would be happy to learn that their publisher was making far more on each book sold than the author who wrote it. The other thing you haven’t addressed is the time of payment. As a self-published author, I’m getting paid monthly. Kensington pays me once every six months on year old sales. I have not seen any interest paid to me for the money that sits in the bank over that six month duration.
3.) As a self-published author, and a traditionally published author, I have the luxury to compare the two. In my School of Gallantry series, I only need to sell 1 copy of my self-published Lady of Pleasure, to equal 7 electronic copies of my Kensington books in the same series. The key point being I don’t even need to be as good at marketing to break even as a self-published author.

STEVEN: *I don't think we have created a hostile environment at all. Anyone who has ever asked me a question that I feel can be answered publicly, I have done so. I have no secrets about our deal with Scribd and if you had a question, you could call or email me. I have said publicly that the author is getting their FULL royalty due on any book read from Scribd once the reader goes past a small browsing percentage of the book. The deals are the same as with other subscription services.*

DELILAH: The attitude, which I admire you for publicly expressing, needs to trickle down to the rest of your staff and business practices. Because when I contacted Kensington a few weeks ago, they told me a.) I couldn’t see the Scribd contract b.) I couldn’t be given any other contract details other than that I would be paid my regular royalties. I would hope I’m getting my FULL royalties given I gave you the rights to do so. Because as of right now, here’s how it stands. When those contracts aren’t being shared with me, even though it involves the rights of my book, I’m supposed to just take your word that the deal is what it should be. Give me a legal document that tells me what I’m getting, who signed what and why. Don’t tell me I’m getting a full royalty. Show me. Because while I genuinely wish to believe you, Steven, in the world of business, a handshake isn’t enough. It has to be put into writing. I would love to see the Scribd contract, even if it means I get a disclosure saying I can’t share it with anyone. I’m fine with not sharing it with anyone. What I’m not fine with is not knowing what was in that contract. And that applies to all of the contracts Kensington has signed for me, including foreign rights and audible rights. I’d like to see them. I haven’t seen a single one. What’s frustrating for me as an author is that even with two agents, I can’t get anyone at Kensington to further address this. This is sadly, not unique to Kensington. This is the “standard” way of dealing with authors in the industry.

STEVEN: *You are telling everyone that you need lawyers and auditors to get answers. That is simply not true. If you or any author has a question about a royalty statement we are happy to provide answers without you having to hire an experts that will cost you money.*

DELILAH: When an author asks for a breakdown of where sales are digitally coming from (in other words Amazon or Kobo), Kensington has not been able to provide that. In fact, it refuses to. So I don’t know how many copies I’ve sold digitally to what store. All it shows in my royalty statement is GROSS UNITS. And nothing more. And if I want to ensure those numbers are right, I’m sorry, but it does cost me money. Because the only way I can *ensure* the numbers Kensington is giving me are correct is by taking it to the auditor because as all authors know royalty statements are notorious for obfuscating information. And that’s me speaking of royalty statements in the most positive light possible.

STEVEN: *I never claimed to be an expert on self-publishing. I got pulled into the conversation and just expressed my opinion which basically is that there is a very small percentage of people who are making any real money by self-publishing.*

DELILAH: I think when you speak for the publishing industry, while using your CEO name, it becomes more than just an opinion. Tossing out what you think is an opinion about “self-publishing” and using polls that clearly don’t encompass the majority of the self-publishing industry, is giving misinformation to unpublished authors who don’t know anything about either business. And that, to me, is wrong. Especially because it’s pretty obvious you aren’t speaking too favorably about the self-publishing industry. Which is a shame, because many of your own Kensington authors have gone on to self-publish, including myself, and have made more money doing it.

STEVEN:*And please don't going saying as a generality that authors were making only minimum wage before. That's simply not true.*

DELILAH: And this is where you’re wrong. Is it a generality to say that authors are making only minimum wage? No and no. It’s not. Out of the HUNDREDS of authors that I know through RWA, given I have been part of RWA since 1996, very few have been able to stay at home full time writing. When my husband landed his dream job but couldn’t take it because I landed mine, he made a hard choice that cost him an opportunity he will never get. We couldn’t afford for him to take his dream job given how much money it took to maintain my writing. Even though I was writing 3 books a year, my wage as an author (I broke down my hours) was $1.23 an hour. Not even minimum wage. And my story represents so many others who don’t have the courage to talk about it like I do. I would also like to share my personal story with my dealings with Kensington. I was one of the first Kensington authors to speak up back in 2009, when I lost my contract, not due to lack of sales (I sold out my print run in less than 8 months) but because they were closing a line (Zebra debut) that Kensington just didn't have the guts to openly announce. But what did Kensington do? It made authors like me believe my sales were too dismal to support. I guess selling out of my print run is dismal in the eyes of a publisher. Unlike many authors, I didn’t quit. I went on to publish somewhere else.

The bottom line is this: Kensington is competing with companies like Google, Apple and Amazon who have billions of dollars in capital for investment. Your only investment is your authors. Why destroy that by not giving authors the one thing that they want? 50/50. If Kensington or any other publisher in New York cannot give authors a 50/50 split due to their “costs” which New York cannot cover, then I really don’t see this ending well for Traditional Publishing industry. And that’s something that is hard for even me to swallow because my first and only dream coming into this business was to be published with New York.

If you would like to continue this conversation in private so we may discuss other details that you may not feel comfortable sharing in public, please email me at Delilah@DelilahMarvelle.com

Frued's idea of orgasm

My dearest Readers,
Happy Valentine's day month to you! In honor of the glorious month, I thought we host a very special guest who knows about as much about the sordid goings on in history as I do! And in honor of her post, we will be giving away 3 digital copies of her Victorian historical romance, THE DARK LADY. Please read her post and leave a comment about the post with your email address for your chance to win! Winners will be chosen and contacted on Feb. 28th.
Without further ado, I give thee Máire Claremont.
Much love,
Delilah Marvelle

It’s so exciting to be on Delilah’s Blog. I have so much admiration for her work on exposing sex in history. Now, two of my very favorite subjects in Victorian sex are Hysteria and. . . Well, wait I will keep the other one a secret for a moment. Delilah has already done the most MARVELOUS blog on Hysteria. You must read it. But the topic does suggest that there was a huge divide in psychology and female sexuality at the time.

The Hysteria issue allowed women to be “stimulated” through the clitoris to give them medical help to ease their anxiety and tension. . . though it wasn’t considered sexual.

My topic however deals with one of the big thinkers of the time. A mover. A shaker. Someone still mentioned in the hallowed halls of psychology today. Sigmund Freud. 

Okay, kids. Are you ready for it? Let’s talk about the immature and mature orgasm. Wooo. Freud firmly believed that women who experienced orgasms through the clitoris were experiencing immature and infantile sexual pleasure. A mature woman experienced orgasm through penetration and penetration alone. Yes. You read right. Your fella just had to stick it in and if you were a mature woman? Oh, bliss. If not? You were riddled with problems and still a little girl. Right. . .

So, Freud firmly proposed that as a woman matured her ability to orgasm transferred from the clitoris to the vaginal canal. And get this, any woman who persisted in experience orgasm through the clitoris was suffering from. . . Wait for it. . . Penis envy. Yep. Penis envy. Because she insisted on experiencing pleasure from her EXTERNAL sex organ, she was envious of the man’s sexual organ, the penis. After all, she was supposed to relish the passivity of her INTERNAL organ being penetrated. Women are supposed to be passive, or didn’t you know? {pardon while I die laughing} 

But truly, this was a very serious thing in the medical and psychological field of the day. A woman who needed clitoral stimulation was suffering from a mental illness. She was immature, infantile, in need of serious help and psycho analysis. Today, we find this laughable. Then, countless women were bereft and at the whim of a budding medical field that dealt with supposition rather than fact.

Can you imagine living in this world?

A woman would be considered mentally at risk by preferring clitoral stimulation. And that preference would get her in some serious trouble or at least gain her months of analysis. You have to wonder how many women just started faking it so they could cease therapy. Many, I should think. I would. I mean, who really wants a man telling you about your body and how you SHOULD respond to foreplay. . . Oh, wait, I’m sorry. I mean the lack there of.

And consider the man’s mentality. This idea completely freed him from the need to pleasure his wife/woman in any other way but penetration because to do so would be bad for her.

Yes. Bad for her. And not only that, it meant something was WRONG with her. Under Freud’s theory, he’d be encouraging her mental illness and malformed development by performing oral sex or any other sort of fun stuff. Men already struggled {struggle?} to understand the clitoris. Freud basically gave them a get out of jail pass. She can’t come from penetration? She’s mentally ill. Oi.

Ironically, variations of this theory persisted for a hundred years. Sure, Freud’s mommy and daddy complexes give food for a lot of thought and some of it immensely valid, but I don’t think I shall ever forgive him for so disparaging that glorious organ, capable of reaching climax again, and again, and again, the clitoris.

Poor Victorian women. Between Hysteria and Freud, what a mess it was. I thank goodness I live in an era where the clitoris is hailed. Thoughts? Questions? Bring it on for your chance to win a copy of my book, The Dark Lady!

 

 

Historical Romance Book Club for Men

My Dearest Reader,

Happy New Year and hello 2013!  

We have yet another year of educational naughtiness ahead of us.  I have a few upcoming surprises that will start this summer.  I am about to give A BIT O'MUSLIN an exciting new twist. I won't share the details of the makeover quite yet, but let me say, you'll have a grand time with it.  Because I'm on vacation (and under deadline), I won't be doing a post this month, BUT, I am sharing a very special video with you called 'Historical Romance Book Club for Men' which I am quite certain will entertain all you dirty minded people.  Enjoy and Happy New Year!

 

 

Much love and until next time,

Delilah Marvelle

Venus in Furs

My dearest Readers,
There are many words we use today in which we don't even think about as to why we use them or where the heck they came from.  I'm going to explore that today.  "Masochism" is one of those words people use left and right to define people who in plain terms like to be treated like shit.  We know what it means, but where did the term come from?  Just as 'sadism' came from Marquis de Sade due to his works and quirks and private life gone wild, masochism found its way from a quiet gentleman named Leopold von Sacher-Masoch.

Born in 1836 in the city of Lemberg in the Kingdom of Galicia, which at the time was part of the Austrian Empire (now the Ukraine), he grew up fascinated by law and history and went on to be a professor.  Very educated, he lead what people thought was a simple, quiet life.  Until he retired from being a professor and turned his full attention to writing books.  At first, his books were respectable stories relating to cultural histories that he became known for and respected for.  He must have gotten bored.  Or rather, he must have gotten bored of hiding who he really was. 

In 1869, he started publishing short stories known as The Legacy of Cain.  He abandoned completing the collection of stories, but had created one story in particular that to this day made him incredibly famous and well known.  The story was called Venus in Furs.  It explores Masoch's fetishes.  Black furs, black silk, knives, whips and confessions of a 'supersensual man' who wanted to be a slave to a woman.  The word "donkey" defined who he was.  He was waiting to be ridden by his master.  It isn't merely about physical submission but mental submission.

In reading Venus in Furs, you might expect 50 Shades of Grey.  Not so.  It's a philosophical, yet romantic approach to a man fully submitting to a woman.  Quotes like "To be a slave of a woman, a beautiful woman, whom I love, whom I worship" is the premise of Venus in Furs. 

Yet it's pretty obvious more than romantic philosophies line these pages.
I picked my favorite part from Venus in Furs just to demonstrate: 

Today she suddenly took her hat and shawl, and I had to shopping with her.  She looked at whips, long whips with a short handle, the kind that are used on dogs.
"Are these satisfactory?" said the shopkeeper.
"No, they are much too small," replied Wanda, with a side-glance at me.  "I need a large--"
"For a bull dog, I suppose?" opined the merchant.
"Yes," she exclaimed, "of the kind that are used in Russia for intractable slaves."

Curious?  Want to read it?  I recommend you download it for free from Amazon.  It's a quick read and nothing like you'd expect.  It's historical confectionery masochism.  And it's hard to believe the word came from this odd little man.

Needless to say, in Leopold's private life, he was, in fact, living out his fantasies and festishes.  He signed a contract with his mistress known as "Baroness" Fanny which made him a slave to her for six full months.  He was at her cruel bidding of each hour of each day.  His only request was that she had to wear furs (which he bought for her).  Even better?  Whenever he traveled with his "mistress," he wore servant's clothing and took on a common name.  It was "Gregor" this and "Gregor" that.  Believe it or not, Leopold eventually married.  Not his "mistress" but a woman who had no idea what the hell she was getting into.  He made her live out all of the fantasies she wasn't into.  All the poor man wanted was his wife to be his master.  But I'm certain it was more work than she had anticipated.  He eventually got bored of her, given she wasn't cooperating, and divorced her.  

Believe it or not, the term 'masochism' came to be used when Leopold was still alive, back in 1886, by a psychiatrist.  Apparently, Leopold wasn't pleased but given his character, I'm certain the humiliation was one he secretly savored.  His so-called private life became further exposed when his ex-wife decided to write a memoir about their lives together.  They were detailed and to the point.  It grounded the term 'masochism' in the minds of everyone permanently.  Think on that the next time you use the term 'masochist.'  Think of poor Leopold being sized up by his ex-wife and a psychiatrist...

Until next time,
Delilah Marvelle




    

Leather Archives & Museum

My dearest Reader,
In Chicago, there is an incredible S&M museum that lays hidden from the world.  It's known as LA&M (The Leather Archives & Museum).  Having lived in Chicago for almost 20 years, I had no idea this gem of a museum existed until recently.  I happened upon it quite accidentally.  I was looking into sex museums within certain regions.  Why?  I was running a contest in which one of my readers (the gorgeous Melanie Friedman from BookWorm2BookWorm) could win a day with me.  Naturally, I wanted it to be *special* for my winner.  Heh.  So I hunted down the best dang sex museum there was in her hometown of Chicago.  Imagine my surprise at finding an S&M museum that has it all. 

The idea of S&M is nothing new.  Even though everyone who ran out and bought 50 Shades of Grey certainly thinks it is, lol.  When it comes to pain and sex, or instruments used for sex, or gay and lesbian sex, or group sex, or kinky sex, or anything involving leather, whips, restrains, and so on, you had better believe none of it is a 'recent' invention.  We just get better at understanding it.  The idea of S&M goes back loooooooong before medieval times, I assure you. 

If you're ever in Chicago (or live in Chicago), I recommend you hunt down LA&M for two reasons: It's incredibly artistic and incredibly educational.  If you've been meaning to get into kinkier sex and/or understanding what it involves, THIS is the museum to visit.

The building itself was first a synagogue, then an arts center, before turning into what it is today in 1999.  When you first come to the museum, you'll find that the doors are locked.  Given what the museum has on display inside, they have no choice but to take precautions from religious freaks who think it necessary to destroy the museum's property.  Fortunately, Melanie and I looked seemingly harmless enough and were allowed in.  Once inside, the joy of discovering where my true comfort level lay began.

The exhibits include the Etienne Auditorium and the John Larsen Gallery.  The paintings are incredible, life-like and breathtakingly provocative.  Because the art collection was started by artist Dom Orejudos who worked under the name of Etienne, I found that most of the paintings involved men or male/male.  I spied maybe one or two females painted into the artwork, which, for me, made it all the more unique, as our society has a tendency to showcase nude women, not nude men.  (I loved it!)

     
One of my favorite aspects of the museum (aside from the artwork and historical artifacts) was actually the bondage safety quiz.  Many of us think we know what bondage involves, until we take a test.  I was pleasantly surprised to find that I aced all of the questions.  And I consider myself a real amateur.  I found I did rather well because when it comes to bondage it really just involves a lot of common sense.  One has to have an understanding of what you're getting involved with and WHY you're getting involved in it.

I thought maybe you all needed proof that I actually visited the museum, lol.  So here I am getting personal with one of the 'guys' at the Leather Bar.  Yes, they have a leather bar!  I lingered at that bar for a small while, lol.

On display, they also had some incredible historical kink artifacts, including this MASTER VIOLET RAY from the 1920's.  What is a MASTER VIOLET RAY?

It's a medical device that was first created in the 1890's that delivered a high voltage current to the human body.  In the 1920's you could purchase one for the retail price of $20, which included glass attachments.  It was used to cure everything, including an ailment known as "brain fog."  Instead of caffeine, why not clear your head up with a good dose of electricity.  That's right.  Wherever your particular ailment was located on your body, you would take the rod and apply it and zap it.  Our great grandfathers and great grandmothers firmly believed running electricty through the body was good for you.  Needless to say S&M people enjoyed making use of this item at home by applying it to certain neither regions, either on their own or with their partner/partners.  Of course, people started finding it wasn't curing as much as they hoped it would and lawsuits started rolling in.  In the 1950's, we see the end and ban of these magical MASTER VIOLET RAYS.  Though that's not to say that people aren't making them and/or enjoying them today.

The most amazing aspect is the Teri Rose Library.  A must see.  It's a non-lending library filled to the ceiling with books, documents, and magazine that are all kink/sex related.  Bottom line, I *highly* recommend this museum.  I personally plan on making another visit to the museum just to spend the day going through their archives....maybe I'll see you there.

Until next time,
Much love,
Delilah Marvelle 



        

Hysteria and the vibrator

My dearest Reader,
In celebration of the recent release of the movie HYSTERIA on DVD, I thought it'd be fun to give you sneak peek behind the history of the movie.  Watch this outrageously funny little clip and then we'll chat about the history of the vibrator.  And even better, I am offering YOU a chance to win the DVD Hysteria.  How?  Read on.

Since the 1700's, doctors all across Europe were frantically treating a female condition known as "hysteria."  It was a diagnosis created by medical men that covered all sort of outrageous symptoms from asthma, muscle spasms, headaches, depression, faintness, loss of appetite and my favorite, "a tendency to cause trouble."  What was the cause of "Hysteria" in women?  Not having been properly pleasured, of course!  Meaning...lack of orgasm. 

Among the most tedious manners of treating this condition in women was for the doctor to "manually" go in and finger the clitoris to induce what was known as "hysterical paroxysm."  That's right. Male doctors were fingering their patients into climax in the name of medical science.  Whilst we women of the modern age snicker at the thought of these dirty old male doctors fingering us in the name of a medical condition "they" created, here's the scary part.  They actually thought it was a real condition and therefore treated it as such.  There is no documentation of any of these women taking doctors to court for "inappropriate" fingering, or any other documented complaints.  The people of the time also didn't perceive at it as a sexual procedure, which tells you, the women were probably rather pleased to be getting off at all given many men back in the day didn't have the slightest idea as to where the clitoris was even located.  It required a doctor.  Though I do wonder how many 'fake' doctors opened up offices all around London.  *_*    

The truth is, many of the doctors saw it as a tedious chore.  They had to finger women all morning and all afternoon, day after day.  Which created sore wrists and sore fingers.  (I kid you not.  Kind of like carpal tunnel).  Though dildos were prescribed to patients, and were used on said patients since the 1700's, it still required a lot of work.  Pleasuring women day in and day out in their offices was incredibly exhausting.  So...when late-Victorian technology offered mechanical solutions, you had better believe doctors jumped at it (making women even all the more happier, I'm sure). 

One of the first vibrators was a "steam-powered device" called the "Manipulator."  And of all things it was created by an American physician named George Taylor.  It was hard to handle and created other wrist issues for doctors, lending doctors to look into creating something more efficient.
Step in Doctor Joseph Mortimer Granville (whom the movie Hysteria is based off) in the 1880's.  Dr. Granville created what was known as the first "electromechanical vibrator".  Before you knew it,
his device and many other large massagers became the fashion in many medical offices, that provided quicker and assured "paroxysms" to the large quantity of women walking through their doors day in and day out.   Eventually, more compact vibrators were created and sold directly to the public.  In the early 1900's, countless ads started appearing in female catalogs.

And there you have it.  Because men were shitty in bed, women had to go to their doctors.  Heh.
SO....for a chance to win a copy of the DVD Hysteria, answer the following question:  If you were living in 1880, would YOU go to your doctor for treatment?  Why?  Or why not?  The more creative the answer, the better your chances of winning.  Winners will be announced by Oct.28th and posted here on the blog.  US entries only.

Until next time,
Cheers and much love,
Delilah Marvelle






Princess de Lamballe & Lesbian Propaganda

My dearest Readers,
WARNING: if you are in any way squeemish, this post will make squeem (sounds dirty, I know.  I'm not sorry).

When it comes to the history of the French Revolution, you had best place both your hands on your neck and be ready for murder.  Such is the story of Princess de Lamballe.  Only hers goes way beyond murder. 

Many know the story of Marie Antoinette, and how she was dragged before the court, and asked to admit that she had been sexually abusing her own son (which she denied, for it was propaganda).  But very few know the story of our poor Princess de Lamballe who was Marie Antoinette's closest friend.  Like Marie Antoinette, Maria Louise of Savoy married young.  At 16, she was wed to the Prince de Lamballe, a man who would inherit one of France's greatest fortunes.  Barely five months into their marriage, the prince took on a mistress. Barely three years later, at the age of nineteen, Princess de Lamballe's husband died of a venereal disease, making her one of the wealthiest women in Paris.  She soon came to the court and became a confidant to none other than Queen Marie Antoinette.  She was present at every ceremony and privy to every goings on and was eventually given the honor of becoming a lady in waiting at Versailles.  As she became closer in her friendship to Queen Marie Antoinette, she was then moved upward to a rank known as "Superintendent of the Queen's Household."  It was the highest rank afforded to anyone in the Queen's realm.  This high honor came at a high price.  She became resented amongst many aristocrats for being so well loved and high placed by the Queen.

Now here is the wicked twist of fate.  Princess de Lamballe, by nature, was not only a good girl, but also a prudish girl.  Especially after the way her husband had died from venereal disease.   She played by the rules when it came to being a real lady and didn't engage men.  And yet, despite her good name and respectable nature, she became the victim of what was known as "anti-monarchist" propaganda.  What sucks about this was that she did everything respectable and yet in pamphlets all across Paris, she was being constantly portrayed in pornographic pamphlets as a lesbian to the Queen (which was far from the truth).  In 1791, when things were beginning to heat up in Paris, Princess de Lamballe went to Great Britain in an attempt to plead for assistance for the French Royal Family that was under threat.  Princess de Lamballe, whilst in Great Britain, also wrote her own will, fearing her own death upon her return to Paris.  Being loyal and a good friend, Princess de Lamballe returned to Paris and served the Queen until that fateful day in August of 1792 when the royal family was seized by the beginning of the French Revolution.

She was brought before a tribunal and commanded to revolt against her own Queen.  She refused.  With shouts of her being a lesbian by the mob (thanks to propaganda), that refusal ended in her being shoved into the street toward a male mob who delivered her the justice they believed she deserved. 

In The book MARIE ANTOINETTE: The Journey by Antonia Fraser, the following was done to Princess de Lamballe on the streets of Paris for the world to see:

*Hit by hammers repeatedly on the head until she loses consciousness.
*Raped before and after she loses consciousness.
*Her breasts and clitoris were sliced off.
*Her heart was cut out .
*She was disemboweled.
*Her head was mounted on a pike, her mons pubis then sliced off and worn as a moustache.
*Her head was then through the street on said pike and stopped over at a barber shop so that the princess's head of hair could be restyled.
*The head was then taken to where Marie Antoinette was being imprisoned and held before her window.  It was the wrong window.

While the outcome might have been the same given she was in allegiance with the Queen, the lesbian propaganda that had floated about the streets of Paris for years prior to the revolution, added to the fuel of this horrid crime.  Rest in peace my dearest Princess de Lamballe.

Much love and until next time,
Delilah Marvelle

Offensive sexual positions in history

My dearest Reader,
As if sex didn't make all the prudes in history shake a fist, there was one period in history, when more than one fist was being shaken.  In the year 1215, there was a religious cleric by the name of Johannes Teutonicus who was the first to publicly go on record that there should be only ONE sexual position allowed.  That position is known today as missionary style.  Teutonicus' theory was that the missionary style was not only optimal for conception but that any other position fell into the realm of pure evil.  (I'm so going to hell). 

Since Teutonicus spoke out so anally (get it?!) about the matter, many other religious sects began focusing on what they believed were positions that created waaaaaay too much pleasure for the common good of humanity.  It resulted in the creation and printing of "handbooks" known as SUMMAE CONFESSORUM (sounds like Harry Potter business to me...heh).  Summae confessorums were handbooks that detailed all of the "offensive" positions and issued "penances" for each offensive position you took part in.  The offensive positions listed in these books included "coitus retro" (rear entry, but not anal sex), being seated while having sex, standing while having sex, a woman being on top during sex (hey now...), having any side by side business, and sex during menstruation.  Basically, if it wasn't face to face, with a man on top and penis to vagina, it was in the book under a long list of penances one needed to do if one strayed. 

According to these books, rear door business with a woman was as bad as rear door business with a man.  It might surprise many of you to know that in England buggery wasn't illegal until Henry the VIII made it such in the 1500's.

The following list of penances was taken from Sex, Dissidence and Damnation by Jeffrey Richards and Napoleon's Privates by Tony Perrottet.
Penances included going without food and sex itself to purify the soul.

And I quote:
"Dorsal sex (woman on top): 3 years.
Lateral, seated, standing: 40 days.
Coitus retro: 40 days.
Mutual masturbation: 30 days.
Inter-femural sex (ejaculation between the legs): 40 days.
Coitus in terga (anal sex) with an adult: 3 yrs.
Coitus in terga with a boy: 2 years (*this just doesn't sit right with me.  Less time for a boy?!)
Coitus in terga with a cleric: 10 years.
Semenem in ore (Semen in the mouth): 15 years."

 But here's the real kicker.  As you well know, masturbation was never looked upon graciously.  And guess who got slapped around for doing it the most?  You got it, women.  Men got about 10-30 days while a woman got a whole freakin year of penance. 

These books, however, fell out of practice of being printed and distributed by the 1500's.  With all the positions listed in the books, I have no doubt it was because it served as its own Kama Sutra people gladly took home to look through, lol.  So next time you ever complain that your partner isn't being creative enough, whip out your 'Summae confessorums" and show them they can do it all (for a price.)

Until next time,
Delilah Marvelle








 

Power to the Prostitutes New York Style

I do a lot of research. So much of it, in fact, about 75% of what I come across never gets put into any of my stories. Ah. But they do find a place in this here monthly blog, where I explore the naughtier, dirtier and grittier side of history. My latest research adventure for my current series, took me into the depths of New York City between the years of 1800 to 1831. Although my upcoming release, FOREVER A LADY, features New York City and its poverty in the Five Points in 1830, I stayed away from the story of prostitution because it is an all too common theme for impoverished women. But…I did want to share some of the interesting aspects of New York City’s prostitution and how it compared to London’s prostitution during the Regency period.

Both cities had massive prostitution problems. There was no doubt in that. Both cities had designated sections where it thrived, usually within close vicinity of churches, as those same churches offered assistance to the poor (and prostitutes were poor). But New York City had something that London did not: private prosecution. Basically, New York didn’t create a municipal police force until 1845, while London had created its municipal police force in 1829. What did those 17 additional years without a municipal police force create? Power for the prostitutes.

Up until 1845, in New York City, it was individual citizens who pressed criminal charges, as opposed to the state and its officials. Therefore, prostitutes could use their rights as individual citizens in a way London prostitutes couldn’t. When threatened or attacked or if a loss of income occurred, the prepolice era allowed New York City prostitutes to define the crime that had been committed against them. Despite them being fallen women of society and breaking laws themselves, they were able to summon the watch and press charges. Countless men were convicted and jailed and fined due to brutalizing prostitutes and/or not paying them. How were these women able to do it? Prior to police, the process being used was known as the antebellum government. It was dedicated to protecting taxpayers and private properly. Are you catching on? So basically, prostitutes and their bodies and bordellos were considered property. Women, after all, WERE property. Talk about a quandary the New York City government had created for itself. It was either follow the law by allowing these women to protect themselves or break the law. And well…we know how quickly congress works…. can you imagine then?!

Despite this incredible muscling power that the prostitutes had discovered within the cracks of the government, it created a backlash that sent us whirling into the Victorian era that created a different prostitute in New York City that changed when the police force was instated. She needed real protection that the government was no longer giving her. This was an era that exploded with pimps who could provide the protection to these women that the government no longer did.
How’s that for a little history lesson?

Until next time,
Delilah Marvelle

Men "discover" the Clitoris

My dearest Readers,
Given I myself am a woman, and that most of the readers of my blog are women, I thought it only fair we dedicate am entire post to the ever glorious clitoris. Although women have had their clitoris for as long as men have had their cocks, here's a little something that will make you want to smack around all the men of history. The sad reality is this. The word "clitoris" which some will claim was taken from the ancient Greek word kleitor (meaning little hill...how cute), did not find its way on actual English record until 1615. Ehm. Kind of late boys. Don't you think?

Speaking of late...according to certain sources (including Perrottet) the clitoris was "re-discovered" by men in the year 1559. Now I am *more than certain* men knew of its existence prior to 1559 (geez, I freakin hope!) but medically speaking there was nothing on record pertaining to the clitoris prior to 1559. Ooo. And get this. The man who goes on record to "discover" the clitoris (which was done on a cadaver whilst conducting research of the female body) was none other than a man by the name of Renaldus Columbus (yes, like Christopher Columbus! Wow and how appropriate!).

After some "prodding" into female cadavers, Mr. Columbus came to the conclusion, which he wrote about in his book De Re Anatomica that there was a female "appendage that would throb with brief contractions" during sex. *dead silence* My question is how did this dude know this by uh...studying DEAD women? *shudder* Uh...forgive me...I'm digressing. As I was saying, Mr. Columbus decided to name his incredible "discovery" amor Veneris, cul dulcedo (the love or the sweetness of Venus). His momentous discovery created such a huff of excitement throughout the community that OTHER men started protesting THEY had first discovered it (and bravo if they had, right?).

There was only one problem. This Dutch physician taps on the shoulder of every man in Europe, including Mr. Columbus, and announces (now, mind you, I'm paraphrasing as there is no record of him saying it) "The appendage, gentleman, was written about in great detail by Doctor Galen back in the second century. The Greeks beats us, boy. Again."

And there you have it. The Greeks do it again. Though this girl hopes that men prior to the Greeks knew about it, too. For the sake of all those women in history.

Until next time and much love to you,

Delilah Marvelle

Once Upon a Chucking

My dearest Readers,
This month's post will be rather...short.  But the history will be just as amusing as anything else in naughty history.  We touch upon a wink in history pertaining to prostitutes and a particular game they used to play.  It was known as "CHUCKING." 

According to the Authentick Memoirs of the Life Intrigues and Adventures of the Celebrated Sally Salisbury (which was published in 1723), Sally was notorious for engaging in outrageous ways of entertaining her gentlemen customers.  There was nothing she wouldn't do in the name of money (the whore!).  One of her favorite antics, which made her quite famous and gave prostitutes ideas to last for centuries was her little game which became known as "CHUCKING."  When Sally Salisbury was feeling particularly saucy (and this girl always was, believe me), she would stand on her head, naked and spread her legs for the boys, encouraging them to "chuck" gold coins into her vagay-gay.  The sky was the limit with this one. For it was quite literally a game.  She kept the coins that were tossed but what about those that actually landed *in* her vagay-gay by the lucky tosser?  You guessed it.  He got laid.  Here is a snippet from that 1723 memoir which gives us a delectable peek into her naughtiness:

Between two marble-pillars, round and plump,
With eye intent, each sportsman took his aim;
The merry Chuck-Hole border’d on the rump,
And from this play Sally deriv’d a name.
Within her tufted chink, the guineas shone,
And each that she receiv’d, was all her own.
With echoing shouts the vaulted chamber rung,
Belle Chuck was now the Toast of ev’ry tongue.
Sally no more her Christian Name could boast,
And Priddon, too, to that of Chuck was lost.

So the next time you wonder if a wood chuck could chuck wood, just think about good old leg spreading Sally.  *smirk*
Much love to you and until next time,
Delilah Marvelle