Ryan Field's Blog, page 588
October 15, 2010
Newest Release: SIR, YES SIR
SIR, YES SIR is my newest release with loveyoudivine.com. And just so it's clear, this isn't a romance. It has a happy ending and romance in the storyline. But this runs more along the lines of erotica. Another version of this story was pubbed in an anthology by STARbooks Press under a different title. I also added more layers to this version, and more character development. And, (smile), this time I made the choices about what remains and what doesn't, not someone else.
Below is the blurb and tag line. It can be purchased here, or at any online e-book retail outlet.
When cousins are two of a kind, a handsome young private helps keep it all in the family.
Blurb: When good-looking young Buddy goes looking for fun near the military base, his heart is racing and his pants are tighter than ever. He stumbles upon a bar where the music is bawdy and the military boys are rough and ready to go. It all starts out with an innocent smile and a simple game of pool in the back room. But it winds up in an old recreational vehicle parked outside the bar, with two drunk, rowdy cousins who know how to kick off their black boots and give orders to their smooth little blond boy. And Buddy can't wait to get down on his knees and follow their commands. His solitary goal is to please them both at the same time. It's not about love and romance anymore. It's about satisfaction, primal urges, and grown men with strong needs taking what they want without any apologies.
October 14, 2010
Link to Post about Author Interaction
I post a lot about behaving and working your way through the social networks. And when I read a blog post like this, I like to share.
Although the author of this post has that rare level of high energy we all can't have, I do think it's an important post to read, and then apply to your own situation as an author.
Although the author of this post has that rare level of high energy we all can't have, I do think it's an important post to read, and then apply to your own situation as an author.
This Year's Rainbow Awards
I just submitted my last rating for the last book I read for this Year's Rainbow Awards. I've been a judge two years in a row and I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised by each book I read this time. I liked them all so much I raved about them with my ratings.
And best of all, five of the books I read were books I'd probably never read myself. And I loved the fact that I was assigned these books for this exact reason. I was given a chance to read different sub-genres and learn new things. I also discovered five new authors I'm going to be following from now on.
One of the six books was written by an author I've seen and read about for a while, but never had the opportunity to actually read. And I wasn't disappointed there either. The book was a historical and just as good as I'd hoped it would be.
And now I'm looking forward to the final stages of The Rainbow Awards, and anticipating the outcomes. I'm a huge fan of Elisa Rolle and I admire this huge responsibility she's taken on to help lgbt authors and publishers move forward.
October 12, 2010
US District Judge Virginia Phillips Orders 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Injunction
I'm not just posting links this time. I'm posting a link to the article and the actual article because I think it's MANDATORY for everyone to read this thoroughly. This isn't just about jumping and and down and screaming "huzzah." The way this happened defines American politics as it is right now, and who is truly fighting for equal rights and the lgbt community.
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/us-district-judge-virginia-phillips-orders-dont-ask-dont-tell-injunction/19671216?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C177134
Federal Judge Orders 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Injunction
Updated: 1 hour 2 minutes ago
Print Text Size
Print this pageEmailShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Digg U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling also ordered the government to suspend and discontinue all pending discharge proceedings and investigations under the policy.U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Pentagon and Department of Justice officials said they are reviewing the case and had no immediate comment.
The injunction goes into effect immediately, said Dan Woods, the attorney who represented the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay rights group that filed the lawsuit in 2004 to stop the ban's enforcement. "Don't ask, don't tell, as of today at least, is done, and the government is going to have to do something now to resurrect it," Woods said. "This is an extremely significant, historic decision. Once and for all, this failed policy is stopped. Fortunately now we hope all Americans who wish to serve their country can." Legal experts say the Obama administration is under no legal obligation to appeal and could let Phillips' ruling stand. Phillips' decision was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not. "This order from Judge Phillips is another historic and courageous step in the right direction, a step that Congress has been noticeably slow in taking," said Alexander Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans. He was the sole named veteran plaintiff in the case along with the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights organization that filed the lawsuit in 2004 to stop the ban's enforcement. Gay rights groups warned gay troops not to make their sexual orientation public just yet. Aaron Tax, the legal director for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he expects the Justice Department to appeal. If that happens, the case would be brought to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, where the decision could be reversed. "Service members must proceed safely and should not come out at this time," Tax said in a statement. Supporters of the ban said Phillips overstepped her bounds. "The judge ignored the evidence to impose her ill-informed and biased opinion on our military, endangering morale, health and security of our military at a time of war," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, a women's group on public policy. "She did not do what Congress did when it passed the law and investigate the far-reaching effects of how this will detrimentally impact the men and women who risk their lives to defend us. "The case put the Obama administration in the awkward position of defending a policy it wants Congress to repeal. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Republican, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, the military's top uniformed officer, have both said they support lifting the ban. But Gates and Mullen also have said they would prefer to move slowly. Gates has ordered a sweeping study, due Dec. 1, that includes a survey of troops and their families. President Obama agreed to the Pentagon study but also worked with Democrats to write a bill that would have lifted the ban, pending completion of the Defense Department review and certification from the military that troop morale wouldn't suffer. That legislation passed the House but was blocked in the Senate by Republicans. Gates has said the purpose of his study isn't to determine whether to change the law - something he says is probably inevitable but up for Congress to decide. Instead, the study is intended to determine how to lift the ban without causing serious disruption at a time when troops are fighting two wars. "The president has taken a very consistent position here, and that is: 'Look, I will not use my discretion in any way that will step on Congress' ability to be the sole decider about this policy here,' " said Diane H. Mazur, legal co-director of the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara that supports a repeal. Government attorneys had warned Phillips that such an abrupt change might harm military operations in a time of war. They had asked Phillips to limit her ruling to the 19,000 members of the Log Cabin Republicans, which includes current and former military service members. The Department of Justice attorneys also said Congress should decide the issue - not her court. Phillips disagreed, saying the law doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services by hurting recruiting during wartime and requiring the discharge of service members with critical skills and training. "Furthermore, there is no adequate remedy at law to prevent the continued violation of servicemembers' rights or to compensate them for violation of their rights," Phillips said in her order. She said Department of Justice attorneys did not address these issues in their objection to her expected injunction. Phillips declared the law unconstitutional after listening to the testimony of discharged service members during a two-week nonjury trial this summer in federal court in Riverside.She said the Log Cabin Republicans "established at trial that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act irreparably injures servicemembers by infringing their fundamental rights." She said the policy violates due process rights, freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment.Phillips is the second federal judge in recent weeks to throw the law into disarray.
Sponsored Links
adsonar_placementId=1505948;adsonar_pid=994774;adsonar_ps=-1;adsonar_zw=242;adsonar_zh=252;adsonar_jv='ads.tw.adsonar.com';
A federal judge last month in Tacoma, Wash., ruled that a decorated flight nurse discharged from the Air Force for being gay should be given her job back as soon as possible. Barring an appeal, Maj. Margaret Witt who was suspended in 2004, will now be able to serve despite being openly gay.Gay rights advocates have worried they lost a crucial opportunity to change the law when Senate Republicans opposed the defense bill last month because of a "don't ask, don't tell" repeal provision.If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming elections, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult - if not impossible - next year.The "don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but bans those who are openly gay. Under the 1993 policy, service men and women who acknowledge being gay or are discovered engaging in homosexual activity, even in the privacy of their own homes off base, are subject to discharge.Associated Press Writer Anne Flaherty contributed to this report from Washington, D.C.
Filed under: Nation
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/us-district-judge-virginia-phillips-orders-dont-ask-dont-tell-injunction/19671216?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C177134
Federal Judge Orders 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Injunction
Updated: 1 hour 2 minutes ago
Print Text Size
Print this pageEmailShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Digg U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling also ordered the government to suspend and discontinue all pending discharge proceedings and investigations under the policy.U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Pentagon and Department of Justice officials said they are reviewing the case and had no immediate comment.
The injunction goes into effect immediately, said Dan Woods, the attorney who represented the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay rights group that filed the lawsuit in 2004 to stop the ban's enforcement. "Don't ask, don't tell, as of today at least, is done, and the government is going to have to do something now to resurrect it," Woods said. "This is an extremely significant, historic decision. Once and for all, this failed policy is stopped. Fortunately now we hope all Americans who wish to serve their country can." Legal experts say the Obama administration is under no legal obligation to appeal and could let Phillips' ruling stand. Phillips' decision was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not. "This order from Judge Phillips is another historic and courageous step in the right direction, a step that Congress has been noticeably slow in taking," said Alexander Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans. He was the sole named veteran plaintiff in the case along with the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights organization that filed the lawsuit in 2004 to stop the ban's enforcement. Gay rights groups warned gay troops not to make their sexual orientation public just yet. Aaron Tax, the legal director for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he expects the Justice Department to appeal. If that happens, the case would be brought to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, where the decision could be reversed. "Service members must proceed safely and should not come out at this time," Tax said in a statement. Supporters of the ban said Phillips overstepped her bounds. "The judge ignored the evidence to impose her ill-informed and biased opinion on our military, endangering morale, health and security of our military at a time of war," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, a women's group on public policy. "She did not do what Congress did when it passed the law and investigate the far-reaching effects of how this will detrimentally impact the men and women who risk their lives to defend us. "The case put the Obama administration in the awkward position of defending a policy it wants Congress to repeal. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Republican, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, the military's top uniformed officer, have both said they support lifting the ban. But Gates and Mullen also have said they would prefer to move slowly. Gates has ordered a sweeping study, due Dec. 1, that includes a survey of troops and their families. President Obama agreed to the Pentagon study but also worked with Democrats to write a bill that would have lifted the ban, pending completion of the Defense Department review and certification from the military that troop morale wouldn't suffer. That legislation passed the House but was blocked in the Senate by Republicans. Gates has said the purpose of his study isn't to determine whether to change the law - something he says is probably inevitable but up for Congress to decide. Instead, the study is intended to determine how to lift the ban without causing serious disruption at a time when troops are fighting two wars. "The president has taken a very consistent position here, and that is: 'Look, I will not use my discretion in any way that will step on Congress' ability to be the sole decider about this policy here,' " said Diane H. Mazur, legal co-director of the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara that supports a repeal. Government attorneys had warned Phillips that such an abrupt change might harm military operations in a time of war. They had asked Phillips to limit her ruling to the 19,000 members of the Log Cabin Republicans, which includes current and former military service members. The Department of Justice attorneys also said Congress should decide the issue - not her court. Phillips disagreed, saying the law doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services by hurting recruiting during wartime and requiring the discharge of service members with critical skills and training. "Furthermore, there is no adequate remedy at law to prevent the continued violation of servicemembers' rights or to compensate them for violation of their rights," Phillips said in her order. She said Department of Justice attorneys did not address these issues in their objection to her expected injunction. Phillips declared the law unconstitutional after listening to the testimony of discharged service members during a two-week nonjury trial this summer in federal court in Riverside.She said the Log Cabin Republicans "established at trial that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act irreparably injures servicemembers by infringing their fundamental rights." She said the policy violates due process rights, freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment.Phillips is the second federal judge in recent weeks to throw the law into disarray.
Sponsored Links
adsonar_placementId=1505948;adsonar_pid=994774;adsonar_ps=-1;adsonar_zw=242;adsonar_zh=252;adsonar_jv='ads.tw.adsonar.com';
A federal judge last month in Tacoma, Wash., ruled that a decorated flight nurse discharged from the Air Force for being gay should be given her job back as soon as possible. Barring an appeal, Maj. Margaret Witt who was suspended in 2004, will now be able to serve despite being openly gay.Gay rights advocates have worried they lost a crucial opportunity to change the law when Senate Republicans opposed the defense bill last month because of a "don't ask, don't tell" repeal provision.If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming elections, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult - if not impossible - next year.The "don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but bans those who are openly gay. Under the 1993 policy, service men and women who acknowledge being gay or are discovered engaging in homosexual activity, even in the privacy of their own homes off base, are subject to discharge.Associated Press Writer Anne Flaherty contributed to this report from Washington, D.C.
Filed under: Nation
Asking for Money on Facebook
I posted this today on facebook:
I'm curious about this. No opinion here. I've just seen this a lot lately on facebook.
Is asking for money on facebook for personal reasons, like to help push a career in the arts forward, a good thing, a bad thing, or just something that shouldn't be taken seriously?
I wanted to see how other people would respond. And I was surprised to see that every single person who left a comment said that if people were asking for money on facebook that was going to charity it was fine. But they all agreed that asking for money on facebook for personal reasons it just downright tacky. And tacky was the word they used.
To take this one step higher, without mentioning names, I've been seeing a lot of this on facebook. There's a young entertainer in New York who has been having a facebook fundraiser in order to make enough money to produce a new CD. He's very aggressive about this and he doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with doing it. While I'm sure it's legit and he's honest about his goal, I'm not so sure how people are going to receive his requests. From what I'm seeing, most people are offended.
He's cute; he has raw talent. But where do we draw the line?
I'm curious about this. No opinion here. I've just seen this a lot lately on facebook.
Is asking for money on facebook for personal reasons, like to help push a career in the arts forward, a good thing, a bad thing, or just something that shouldn't be taken seriously?
I wanted to see how other people would respond. And I was surprised to see that every single person who left a comment said that if people were asking for money on facebook that was going to charity it was fine. But they all agreed that asking for money on facebook for personal reasons it just downright tacky. And tacky was the word they used.
To take this one step higher, without mentioning names, I've been seeing a lot of this on facebook. There's a young entertainer in New York who has been having a facebook fundraiser in order to make enough money to produce a new CD. He's very aggressive about this and he doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with doing it. While I'm sure it's legit and he's honest about his goal, I'm not so sure how people are going to receive his requests. From what I'm seeing, most people are offended.
He's cute; he has raw talent. But where do we draw the line?
October 11, 2010
National Coming Out Day: A Different Kind of Post
For those who aren't sure (and from the e-mails I receive, I know there are many of you), I'm posting this link to let you know what National Coming Out Day is all about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coming_Out_Day
If you feel so inclined to come out today or in the near future, I wish you the best. If you have come out because of National Coming Out Day, I applaud you.
In all honesty, I've never met a gay man (can't speak for women) who was inspired to come out because of this day. I'm sure there's someone; I just haven't met him. But I like this day because it creates awareness and offers hope to the millions of closeted gay people all over the world. And comfort to the millions of gay people who don't have options and choices and who can't come out in parts of the world (I've read all your e-mails, too).
Personally, I didn't "come out" to anyone. I was always gay and I just lived my life the way I felt like living it, without offering an explanation to anyone. For me, it was easier this way.
But the experience of acceptance and self-actualization is different for all gay people. And no one shares the same exact experience. So if you find that National Coming Out Day puts more pressure on you than support, please don't think you are alone. You'll get there in time, and on your own schedule.
If you feel so inclined to come out today or in the near future, I wish you the best. If you have come out because of National Coming Out Day, I applaud you.
In all honesty, I've never met a gay man (can't speak for women) who was inspired to come out because of this day. I'm sure there's someone; I just haven't met him. But I like this day because it creates awareness and offers hope to the millions of closeted gay people all over the world. And comfort to the millions of gay people who don't have options and choices and who can't come out in parts of the world (I've read all your e-mails, too).
Personally, I didn't "come out" to anyone. I was always gay and I just lived my life the way I felt like living it, without offering an explanation to anyone. For me, it was easier this way.
But the experience of acceptance and self-actualization is different for all gay people. And no one shares the same exact experience. So if you find that National Coming Out Day puts more pressure on you than support, please don't think you are alone. You'll get there in time, and on your own schedule.
When You Vote Next Month, Don't Forget About Carl Paladino's Anti-Gay Remarks
There's an important election coming up soon. It's especially important for the lgbt community to get out and vote. We all have choices when it comes to voting. Personally, I'm not thrilled with what either party has been doing for the lgbt community. I'm disappointed in the Obama administration. But sometimes voting comes down to the lesser of two evils.
And in the case of Carl Paladino from New York, I think it's clear from these recent comments he made which is the lesser of the two evils in the state of New York.
But most of all, take a few minutes to find out where your candidates stand on lgbt issues and vote accordingly. The info is out there. All you have to do is a quick search and you can find it.
And in the case of Carl Paladino from New York, I think it's clear from these recent comments he made which is the lesser of the two evils in the state of New York.
But most of all, take a few minutes to find out where your candidates stand on lgbt issues and vote accordingly. The info is out there. All you have to do is a quick search and you can find it.
October 10, 2010
For New Writers: Link and the Difference Between a "Blog" and a "Post"
Here's a link to a post from the Lori Perkins Literary Agent Blog, Agent in the Middle. It deals with some advice I think is important for anyone starting out as a writer and looking for information about publication.
Now.
What's the difference between a blog and a post? I see people making this mistake all the time. Is it a big thing in the grand scale? No! But when writers make these mistakes it does cause people stop and think about how savy they are when it comes to online communication. Personally, I think it's important to get the terms right. After all, you wouldn't call a letter a package. And you wouldn't call a car a truck. So why call a post a blog?
A blog is a web site where you post information. In other words, what you're reading right now is a post, not a blog. You're reading the post on the blog.
Now.
What's the difference between a blog and a post? I see people making this mistake all the time. Is it a big thing in the grand scale? No! But when writers make these mistakes it does cause people stop and think about how savy they are when it comes to online communication. Personally, I think it's important to get the terms right. After all, you wouldn't call a letter a package. And you wouldn't call a car a truck. So why call a post a blog?
A blog is a web site where you post information. In other words, what you're reading right now is a post, not a blog. You're reading the post on the blog.
The All so Important First Chapter
Here's a link to an interesting blog post by author Valerie Kemp. It deals with the importance of first chapters and getting them right.
If you really want to get technical, I think first paragraphs are just as important. But I think this post is helpful for people who are starting out. The first chapter is like the roadmap to the rest of the novel.
If you really want to get technical, I think first paragraphs are just as important. But I think this post is helpful for people who are starting out. The first chapter is like the roadmap to the rest of the novel.
October 9, 2010
Unpublished Excerpt From THE VIRGIN BILLIONAIRE'S WEDDING
I wanted to post an unpublished excerpt from THE VIRGIN BILLIONAIRE'S WEDDING so people who are thinking about buying it can have more info on which to base their decision. I don't like the idea of people spending their hard earned money in times like these without knowing what they are getting. Readers e-mail me all the time asking about books, and I'm more than happy to reply to them. Like all the books I write for ravenous romance, this one is a m/m romance that has a happy ending. I try to distinguish between the m/m romances I write and the m/m erotic fiction I write. And if it's being published by ravenousromance.com, it's going to be a romance.
I also like to recreate story lines that have been done before. I don't do this all the time (none of my erotic male fiction stories with lyd or other gay publishers are recreations...Missing Jackson's Hole, Kevin Loves Cowboys, etc...) but I will do this with romances because I like recreating the plot lines with gay characters that have already been done with straight characters. Most of the time the dynamics change drastically, and I rewrite scenes and dialogue to fit with the characters. I've posted before about how I believe there are only really seven original storylines out there and almost everything else is a recreation. TV shows do this all the time. They take past story lines and redo them in different ways. Some authors mask it more than I do, which is fine. I applaud them. However, I think that since the lgbt community has been so starved so long for any story lines (you can only take so much of those serious, artistic, literary gay books out there, with all those depressing characters riddle with guilt and angst), it's interesting to recreate some of the more classic pop culture stories and gear them toward the lgbt community and those straight people ( a growing number of readers, male and female) who like reading m/m romance. I think that if Truman Capote had been able to write Breakfast at Tiffany's with gay characters he would have. But he didn't have the choices lgbt authors have today. In the early l960's that would have been taboo and no one would have read it. Actually, they would have laughed at him.
I've taken some heat for recreating stories from the serious, snide literary types...even within the lgbt community. But as long as people...readers...keep reading these books and asking for more, I'll keep writing them. Actually, I wanted to stop a while ago, but I receive so many e-mails from readers asking for more I don't want to let them down.
The scene below is from a chapter where Luis and Jase's mother and grandmother go out for lunch, to a male strip club of all places, and Luis runs into Jase's old "friend" who is now openly gay, too.
By noontime, they walked back toward the docks and stopped in front of a long, flat wooden building with a sign that read, "Dawson's." The wooden siding had been left unpainted and it had aged into dull, dishwater gray. The red tin roof had buckled over the years and the outside lamps were all crooked. It appeared to be a restaurant, but Luis couldn't be sure because the windows were all dark. It reminded Luis of a gay bar back in Tennessee on the edge of town where so-called straight guys used to sneak out on their wives.
Isabelle rubbed her palms together and said, "Here we are. I've been looking forward to this all morning. We're gonna see some hot stuff today!" Her pupils were dilated; she rocked back and forth in her white running shoes.
Mary sighed. "Just don't get too excited, Mom. The last time we did this you almost fell and broke a hip. I don't want to spend the rest of the day in the emergency room."
She smiled at Luis, but her tone was exasperated. Isabelle raised one eyebrow and smirked. "I'm a grown woman. I know how to behave, thank you. And for your information, I was talking about the fact that I'm starved, not the surprise we have planned for Luis." Then she poked Luis in the ribs and giggled.
He looked to Mary for help and she just sent him a hapless glance with half-closed eyelids.
When they entered Dawson's, Luis noticed a long bar at one end of the room and tables scattered around it. The main room wasn't very large and the tables were so close together you had to squeeze through chairs to get around. The walls were dark pine, the windows were covered with dark shades, and the lights were dim. And almost every table was filled with women of all ages in groups of four to six. As they passed the bar, Mary and Isabelle stopped to say hello to a young man sitting on a stool at the far end. Other than a few employees, he and Luis seemed to be the only men in the place.
"Long time no see," Mary said. She leaned forward and kissed him on the cheek.
Luis recognized the man. It was Trey, Jase's old friend from the party. He was wearing a tight black shirt and tight low-rise jeans. Though he'd moved back to Alaska for good, Trey still dressed as if he were living in Los Angeles. Though weren't many men in Dawson's that afternoon, Trey stood out from the other men there. He was thinner and more toned than the other guys. He had a slicker hair cut and a sharper look in his eyes.
