Call For Papers: Nothing But Good Times Ahead
Jan312008
As I told the Mysterious Laura, this always makes me feel all warm inside and embarrassed outside: Eric Selinger and Laura Vivanco are compiling a collection of essays on, uh, my work, and would like you to know about it. They’re calling it Nothing But Good Times Ahead:The Novels of Jennifer Crusie, and the deadline for submitting ideas is May 1. The text of the CFP is below, but if you’re interested, I’d suggest following the above link to their blog and reading their posts because that will tell you what terrific people they are to work with. Actually, I’d suggest you go there anyway; it’s the best academic discussion of romance anywhere on the net.
Nothing But Good Times Ahead: the Novels of Jennifer Crusie
Edited by Eric Murphy Selinger and Laura Vivanco
Additional contributions are invited for a collection of critical essays on the work of Jennifer Crusie. Two publishers have expressed interest
in the volume, but we would like to add to it before we submit the full manuscript.Nothing But Good Times Ahead: the Novels of Jennifer Crusie will mark a turning point in the critical study of romance fiction, even as it
demonstrates the richness of this author’s work as both an innovator in, and theorist of, her chosen genre.Crusie’s category and single-title romances have won numerous awards, and in a genre where most books go out of print quite soon after publication, hers have been repeatedly reissued. Crusie’s essays in defense of the genre articulate a theoretically sophisticated, ardently feminist argument on its behalf, and her novels, too, engage in cultural critique, subtly challenging readers’ expectations about what romance heroines, heroes, plot structures, and love scenes can be, while affirming the deeply-rooted optimism of the romance novel as a form.
We invite critical essays on the full range of Crusie’s novels, from her early category romances to her recent collaborations, whether read
individually or comparatively.All critical, theoretical, and methodological approaches are welcome; indeed, we encourage critics who do not ordinarily work on popular culture or romance fiction to submit abstracts for our consideration.
Here is a suggestive, but not exhaustive list of possible topics:
* Magic, whether literal (as in The Unfortunate Miss Fortunes),metaphorical (i.e. “Fate,” in Bet Me), or authorial (magic as a figure for creativity more generally).
* Food: a recurring motif in Crusie’s work, and one rich with allusive, symbolic, and other meanings. Apples, cherries, Krispy Kremes, chicken marsala, pancakes, Mob Food; eating alone or together.
* Aging: Crusie has repeatedly explored the narrative and thematic possibilities of older heroines, whether as central or supporting characters.
* Homes: literal and symbolic; domestic and communal; threatened and sheltering.
* Crusie and the genres of romance and comedy, broadly and theoretically defined.
* Crusie as theorist of romance: her essays, her criticism, her reflections online.
* Crusie’s work as it relates to developments in romance fiction over the past twenty years.
* Crusie’s romances as feminist novels, or more broadly, Crusie’s efforts to promote and exemplify romance fiction as a feminist genre.Nothing But Good Times Ahead has the potential to reach audiences both inside and outside the academy. Our intended audience includes not only professors of popular culture, women’s studies, American studies, and literature, but also the intelligent, well-educated, and enthusiastically literate community of romance readers.
We will consider abstracts (approximately 500 words), conference papers, and full-length essays. All submissions should be e-mailed to Eric Murphy Selinger (eselinge@depaul.edu) and Laura Vivanco (nothingbut@vivanco.me.uk) no later than May 1, 2008. Earlier is better!
For more information, including a fuller description of the book, visit http://www.vivanco.me.uk/modern_romance_scholarship/nothing_but.
Filed in X (Everything Else)
Loading ...
53 Comments to 'Call For Papers: Nothing But Good Times Ahead'
On January 31, 2008 at 12:40 pm Evesie said...
very cool! Please keep updates on when the book is published. I was always interested on how people took in your books, which elements left the biggest impressions. CONGRADULATIONS!!! Btw, Bob should def. do an intro.
On January 31, 2008 at 12:52 pm Laura Vivanco said...
that will tell you what terrific people they are to work with. Actually, I’d suggest you go there anyway; it’s the best academic discussion of romance anywhere on the net.
Aww, thanks Jenny. And now I’m feeling all warm on the inside and embarrassed on the outside. But in a mysterious way, of course.
On January 31, 2008 at 1:28 pm Lori J. said...
Congrats Jenny. I bet you feel all odd inside. Here’s people talking about you in front of you instead of behind your back. :p
After you’ve read the book it will be interesting to hear your opinion on what these authors have said about your work. In any event, I hope it brings you nothing but good stuff your way.
On January 31, 2008 at 1:44 pm Tamar said...
This is really exciting! Though I hope they don’t analyze the charm out of the novels. That would be depressing.
On January 31, 2008 at 2:36 pm robena grant said...
Wow! This is fabulous. You deserve this and should feel honored. Not every writer’s work deserves this kind of scrutiny. You’ve brought a lot to the romance genre and have given so much back with your insightful brand of teaching. Congratulations! Now let that chest puff up with pride, you’ve earned this and more. I’m heading over to the link to read what Laura has to say.
On January 31, 2008 at 2:47 pm Eric Selinger said...
Hi, Jenny! Thanks for the kind words–and believe me, a book like this is the least I can do. Your books have brought a lot of joy into my life, and it’s a treat to work on them professionally, too.
On January 31, 2008 at 3:11 pm Laura Vivanco said...
Robena, most of the good things we’ve said about Jenny are in the longer description of the book, which is on my website. We have done quite a bit of analysis of Jenny’s books on the Teach Me Tonight blog, and we quite often refer to her essays, and you can find all those posts here. They include my analysis of “Hot Toy” and Crazy for You as well as Sarah Frantz’s analysis of The Unfortunate Miss Fortunes and Eric’s comments on Bet Me.
On January 31, 2008 at 3:49 pm orangehands said...
very interested in reading this.
On January 31, 2008 at 4:10 pm Evesie said...
read for pleasure is a marvelous blog! thanks
On January 31, 2008 at 5:43 pm Jill said...
Laura, I sse you mentioned Sarah Frantz. On Smart Bitches she was asking for recommendations of different romances genres for a class she is teaching. Other than Nora ,Jenny’s books are the most recommended.
On January 31, 2008 at 6:06 pm Julie said...
I might also mention that SBTB called “Bet Me” the seminal contemporary romance novel. I agree. If I’m buying a book for a non-romance reader, it’s going to be “Bet Me”.
The book’s irresistible, but what’s more, the writing, characterization and everything else about it is the gold standard, and what we all aspire to.
On January 31, 2008 at 6:19 pm ZaZa said...
Jenny!
Way off topic, as usual, but here’s a link to another gorgeous quilt, also collagey in intent and style:
http://joshilynjackson.com/bridequilt.html
On topic: It must feel very strange to be both dissected and lauded while you’re still breathing. You must be doing something right. Heh. Well, you know what I mean, more than just writing the books. /;+)))
And why did I lose my feed to the TeachMe blog??? I’ll have to go remedy that.
On January 31, 2008 at 6:36 pm Laura Vivanco said...
On Smart Bitches she was asking for recommendations of different romances genres for a class she is teaching. Other than Nora ,Jenny’s books are the most recommended.
Yes, I noticed that. Sarah’s one of the contributors to this volume, so I’m almost certain she’d already thought of Jenny’s novels as a possibility, but it’s always helpful/reassuring to get confirmation like that from others.
I stayed off the thread, though, because as Sarah was specifically asking for recommendations for novels which would be appropriate for/pleasing to “southern ladies of a certain age,” and I’ve never met any, I didn’t feel qualified to offer her any advice.
On January 31, 2008 at 6:40 pm Allie said...
Argh, this is something I’d LOVE to do but this is going to be my busiest semester ever. There’s no way I could get something done by May.
On January 31, 2008 at 6:51 pm robena grant said...
Eric and Laura, what an interesting site. I’ll have to revisit later tonight to read all of the reviews. I knew about this some time ago (I think during the HWSW blog)and visited, and then forgot about it. Sorry. It won’t happen again. LOL.
On January 31, 2008 at 6:54 pm Jenny said...
Having actually met Sarah and Eric in Boston at the Pop Culture Conference, I can tell you how great they are to talk and work with. The Mysterious Laura, however, remains elusive. We are still waiting for her definitive analysis of the GHH which is sure to cause, uh, convulsions in the academic world.
Basically, the Mysterious Laura rocks.
Must go thank the SBs for their kind support.
On January 31, 2008 at 7:05 pm Jenny said...
Note: I went to check the spam filter and there are over 2000 of the little bastards in there. I am not wading through that much porn and viagra for anybody, so they’re getting deleted without a check. If you’ve posted and it hasn’t shown up, that may be why. Sorry!
On January 31, 2008 at 7:19 pm Laura Vivanco said...
Allie, you’d only have to put together a 500-word abstract by May. We’re not expecting everyone to submit full-length papers by then. So if you’d have time after May in which to write the paper, please consider sending us an abstract.
Robena, I’m glad you liked the blog and found it interesting.
Jenny, my definitive analysis of the Glittery HooHa is currently with Eric and Sarah. It includes quite a few quotations from Bet Me and the essay is going to be in the other volume we (the TMT crew) have in preparation. That one’s called The Mind of Love and is being edited by Sarah and Eric.
On January 31, 2008 at 7:44 pm Sarah Frantz said...
Having the insider scoop on the Glittery HooHa paper, I have to say it’s wonderful! Such a delight to read such great scholarship about romances!
And thanks for the compliments, Jenny. I’m teaching Bet Me to my students this semester and might teach it in my Continuing Education class of “southern women of a certain age.” Although I might stick with the “books set in the south or written by southern/NC writers” theme.
On January 31, 2008 at 8:38 pm jackie said...
As an interesting note… I was off looking for a book by either herself (Jenny) or Himself (Bob) at the local bookstore lately and couldn’t find either. So I hit the computer and found nothing under Bob Mayer in house, but the Cruisie and Crusie/Mayer stuff was under… literature. I’m not sure whether to laugh or be offended. How is the poor woman going to get her books sold if no one can find the blessed things?
And exactly what is the difference between romance and Literature? Then I looked around some more and found a few more romance SF writers in the literature section. Huh. Does this mean something? All I want is to find the books I’m looking for.
On January 31, 2008 at 9:12 pm Office Wench Cherry said...
This is so cool. Congratulations, Jenny! It must have been very gratifying to know that you are so good at what you do that people want to study your work. This is fantastic news.
I can’t wait to read the GHH essay.
On January 31, 2008 at 9:46 pm Lori J. said...
Out of curiousity how or why exactly is Bet Me considered a Southern book? And why is it suppose to appeal to Southern women of a certain age? Or just Southern woman in general?
I’m a pure bred Southerner and I’ve also read the book (which was fabulous) but I don’t see the connection.
And if Jenny was truely a Southern author Agnes would have given Shane bisquits for breakfast instead of an English muffin.
On January 31, 2008 at 10:29 pm Sarah Frantz said...
Bet Me is NOT considered a southern book–at least, not by me. I said I might teach it, but then I might stick to a southern theme instead. Sorry if I was confusing.
On January 31, 2008 at 11:10 pm Melissa Blue said...
“also the intelligent, well-educated, and enthusiastically literate community of romance readers.”
This description of the romance community is why I love Laura.
And congrats, Jenny. No need to be meek. It might ruin your rep.
Anyway, can’t wait to see the book in full. I might just buy a few copies and stick it in english profs boxes at my school.
On January 31, 2008 at 11:48 pm Jenny said...
Well, Agnes was a Yankee, so she skipped the biscuits.
The only reason that book was in the South was because Bob is mule-stubborn, and it wasn’t a battle worth going to the mat for. But I TOLD him I didn’t know anything about the South. Now he’s moved to the Pacific Northwest. I don’t know anything about that, either.
I can’t wait to read the GHH paper. I’ll be first in line for that book.
On January 31, 2008 at 11:58 pm Sarah Frantz said...
Hey, Jenny, can we quote you on that?! We’ll use it for incentive for publishers: “See, there’s an audience for this book beyond academic libraries!”
On January 31, 2008 at 11:58 pm Jill said...
And exactly what is the difference between romance and Literature?
Not much. Except that romance sells better ?
On the too infrequent occasions that I actually get to visit a bookstore Jenny’s books are shelved in Literature . Only sometimes in Romance.
On February 1, 2008 at 1:09 am Jenny said...
Hey, I’m just glad they’re shelved.
Absolutely, Sarah. You can’t link me with the GHH often enough.
On February 1, 2008 at 5:04 am Laura Vivanco said...
And exactly what is the difference between romance and Literature?
It very much depends whose definitions you’re looking at. “Romance” has meant so many different things in the past, including chivalric romances, which then merged into “romance” as tales of stirring adventures (so Sir Walter Scott’s novels have often been termed “romances”), and “literature” can sometimes mean “fiction” and sometimes its used in much broader, or much narrower, senses. The OED online gives the following definitions:
• noun 1 written works, especially those regarded as having artistic merit. 2 books and writings on a particular subject. 3 leaflets and other material used to give information or advice.
Some novels which are usually thought of as “literature” (in the sense of being part of the literary “canon,” i.e. the most famous/distinguished among “those regarded as having artistic merit”) could easily be labelled romance (in the sense of being love stories with happy endings), e.g. Austen.
Those of us contributing to the volume definitely think that Jenny’s novels have “artistic merit” i.e. in addition to having exciting plots, they’ve also got lots of other layers that we can spend our time and paper analysing. The focus of my paper is on the deeper meanings of underwear in Jenny’s novels. Jenny has some very symbolic underpants
“Literature” as defined by booksellers sometimes seems to mean “books that don’t look as though they’re from any particular genre (so not history, cookery, romance, mystery etc) and/or books that will appeal to people who’re not looking for “genre” fiction. But sometimes an author breaks out of the genre label by becoming very famous and/or being deemed to have “literary merit”. Cover design can also play a part (the later Harry Potter novels, for example, were published in the UK with more “literary” covers as well as in “children’s” covers. However, both versions were selling so well they were pretty much stacked in a “Harry Potter section”).
Some people will buy a book that’s labelled “literature” but would scorn the same book if it were labelled “romance.” Booksellers sometimes cross-shelve and have some copies of the same book in a number of different sections. Basically, they’re interested in increasing sales.
I know Jenny once mentioned that in one bookshop (which, I think, specialised in mysteries) at least some of her books (Faking It and Welcome to Temptation, maybe?) were shelved as mysteries. So it seems as though booksellers will shelve books in whichever section(s) they think will make the book sell best and/or whichever section the publisher has labelled it as (based on where the publisher thinks it will sell best). Some sections are more vaguely defined than others.
This description of the romance community is why I love Laura.
I do agree with it, so feel free to carry on loving me, but as far as I can remember that was actually written by Eric. So love him too!
On February 1, 2008 at 6:49 am AgTigress said...
Bookshops and libraries need to use some sub-categories of ‘fiction/novels’, not least to assist buyers and borrowers who are looking for what they regard as a type of story, rather than a particular writer whose name they can find by simple alphabetical means in a huge, undifferentiated fiction section. But nobody ever said that classification (in any discipline) is static: it is constantly changing. Not only do new classifications appear, but people’s perceptions of the old ones change.
Georgette Heyer wrote ‘historical novels’, not ‘romance’ when I was a girl, and she was certainly never shelved anywhere near the Mills & Boon publications in those days. Crusie is shelved under ‘general fiction’ in most British bookshops today, but Heyer has now migrated into ‘romance’. Mary Stewart, whose work is now generally classified as ‘romantic suspense’ was originally published as ‘general contemporary fiction’ - not even as ‘women’s fiction’, itself a rather recent construct.
I don’t think we should expend too much effort in trying to understand the current classifications, because they are so nebulous and mutable that by the time we have pinned them down, they’ll be different.
On February 1, 2008 at 10:21 am Melissa Blue said...
In Borders I can find Crusie solo STs in literature. I can’t speak for DLD and Agnes, because I got the first in the NEW section and the second as an ARC.
But the books she wrote for Harlequin, I can find in romance. I sometimes wonder if they shelve by publisher, not genre. (I find a lot of St. Martin’s press, Dafina, particulary their romances in literature.)
…but as far as I can remember that was actually written by Eric. So love him too!
Then I definitely love Eric too, but he’ll have to come second. I always wanted to be brainy when I grew up.
Also, written works, especially those regarded as having artistic merit.
I think this is why I enjoy re-reading Jenny’s books. There is so much there I might have missed with the previous reading. She definitely broke down the barrier for me that literary fiction and romance can’t exist in the same book.
On February 1, 2008 at 11:30 am Eric Selinger said...
“Then I definitely love Eric too, but he’ll have to come second. I always wanted to be brainy when I grew up.”
That’s fine with me, Melissa! I’m glad you liked the description, but even happier that you (and everyone here) give such a warm reception to the book itself. If I were a publisher, I’d certainly want to reach this audience!
–E
On February 1, 2008 at 11:48 am Lori J. said...
Sarah, I apologize for mis-understanding your statement about the book. Although I now re-call the krispy Kreme doughnuts in Bet Me.
This raises a question I’ve always wondered about. I love both Don’t Look Down and Agnes and the Hitman, but they were definitely not *Southern* books. The settings were in the South, but there was not a Southern feel to the books. Maybe not enough Southern tags. At least I didn’t think so; I’m not the spokesperson for all of your Southern readers.
Anyway, Jenny, when you’re using a place so foreign to you like South Carolina, have you ever considered using a regional beta reader? Now that your stories with Bob will probably be more Pacific than Atlantic, would you consider using a regional person to be one of your betas? Just to help with regional customs and whatnot.
Looking forward to reading Nothing But Good Times Ahead.
On February 1, 2008 at 2:01 pm Diane (TT) said...
I think Jenny said (sorry, not going to look it up; clearly I have no future in academia) that there are only a few hundred readers to this blog - but that may well double purchases of an academic publication.
Some of us are, primarily, library readers perhaps (I do keep TRYING), but I suspect that enough of us are SERIOUS FANS WITH NO SELF-CONTROL that, given notice of publication - we’ll buy the book.
On February 1, 2008 at 3:07 pm Jenny said...
Argh gets about 5000 unique visitors a month. I know, it boggles my mind, too. It’s not like we have a plan here.
I think the genre thing depends on who’s doing the labeling. Publishers label books to get them to the audience who will buy them and bookstores shelve the books by those labels because otherwise, they’ll never find them during inventory. (I used to work in a bookstore. Every time somebody picked up a book, wandered off with it, and put it down someplace else, our inventory went to hell again.) So Harlequins are always shelved in romance because they’re definitely romances. But my STs are shelved in General Fiction because they come out in hardcover, and romance readers in general don’t buy hardcovers because they wait for the paperback, and hardcover buyers generally don’t buy romance, so . . .
In bookstores, it’s about marketing, not content.
On February 1, 2008 at 3:45 pm Office Wench Cherry said...
Jenny said: In bookstores, it’s about marketing, not content.
Sometimes in small stores with crappy staff it’s about key words in the title. When I was in my early 20s I worked at a small, independant store that was bought (upon the retirement of the owner) by a large chain who intended to close our store (even though we netted a 2+ million profit every year). They opened one of their stores at the other end of the mall and staffed it with people who only knew a book from a hole in the ground because the books were on shelves. Two of them were friends with my co-worker and very nice people. Just not book people. At that time there was a book out with a title something like “Dragons at the Gate: the rise and fall of Some Company or Other” The cover had a photo of the company logo.
They shelved it in fantasy.
Seeing as how this chain was paying my rent and I’m anal about these sorts of things I moved all the copies to business.
Two days later it was back in fantasy.
Then again, this is the same store that had one staff member who, when approached by a customer looking for books on Mount Everest said “Mount Everest? Is that in the Rockies?”
She left, came to my store and we sold her three books.
On February 1, 2008 at 4:03 pm McB said...
I like to think that Jenny’s books, and a few other romance genre authors, show up in ‘literature’ so often because the appeal goes beyond romance genre readers. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that so many Crusie fans are wide read with eclectic reading habits.
On February 1, 2008 at 6:12 pm Diane (TT) said...
Sorry about being wrong about the numbers. It must have been D&G that gets fewer regular visitors. 5000 per month is awesome! I’m glad to know that excellence is appreciated!
I may have to buy a new car. In fact, I probably will (I’m really bummed about this - I loved my old car, it was very good to me). So, Jenny (I’m not trying to hijack, and go ahead and boot this, if you like) - do you love your Prius, does it have drawbacks (especially snow-related?
I’ve been driving an Accord for 13 years, and the Prius is definitely smaller, but how often do I need all that space (except to keep me from being killed when people and deer run into me)? Mostly I just drive (in traffic) 10+ miles to work every day, so the hybrid would really help with the mileage there.
And romance readers do TOO buy in hard cover! When it’s things we can’t wait for, and know we will read over and over… Not that I’m arguing with your stats, I just know about myself and a bunch of other crazy CBs.
On February 1, 2008 at 6:57 pm Jenny said...
Exactly, Diane, when it’s things you can’t wait for. But generally speaking, romance readers don’t buy new authors in hard cover. And since when SMP published me, nobody knew who I was, they went with General Fiction.
And I love the Prius. Great car.
On February 1, 2008 at 10:07 pm talpianna said...
Cherry, I once found a copy of Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Sex but Were Afraid to Ask shelved under Science Fiction.
And I think this is the book you are referring to:
http://www.kingstone.com.tw/english/images/Product/006/0060536357.jpg
Certainly not MY idea of a fantasy cover!
On February 1, 2008 at 11:06 pm Office Wench Cherry said...
Yes! That’s it. Barbarians, dragons, I knew there was something big and mean at the gate and it sounded like it belonged in a fantasy novel.
On February 2, 2008 at 12:35 am Jill said...
“But generally speaking, romance readers don’t buy new authors in hard cover”
True. But then they bitch when that author goes from pb/trade size to HC.
Just saying.
On February 2, 2008 at 1:36 am talpianna said...
It’s a very good book (with at least one R-rated illustration inside) and it was made into a very entertaining HBO movie starring James Garner.
On February 2, 2008 at 12:36 pm Diane L. said...
Simply awesome!
On February 4, 2008 at 4:25 pm Bob said...
Well, my essay is titled: We’re Doomed.
Not that I’m a pessimist or anything.
I’ve read a couple of Crusie books, namely Don’t Look Down and Agnes and the Hitman. Not bad. But a little bloody.
And I still don’t understand why Lucy was angry with Wilder. But I’m just a guy.
On February 4, 2008 at 5:54 pm Karla said...
RE: The focus of my paper is on the deeper meanings of underwear in Jenny’s novels. Jenny has some very symbolic underpants.
Hmmm. Now I have to go back and re-read all of her books, looking for underwear. LOL.
On February 6, 2008 at 1:41 am RfP said...
“The focus of my paper is on the deeper meanings of underwear in Jenny’s novels. Jenny has some very symbolic underpants”
Laura, I know you’re not into shoes, but underwear is like a gateway drug. First, symbolic underpants. Next, socks that say Left and Right. Then shoes that scream Toes In Bondage. And then… you need more closet space.
“read for pleasure is a marvelous blog! thanks”
That’s got to be about something of mine, right?
Don’t disillusion me.Thank youOn February 6, 2008 at 4:46 am Laura Vivanco said...
I know you’re not into shoes, but underwear is like a gateway drug. First, symbolic underpants. Next, socks that say Left and Right. Then shoes that scream Toes In Bondage. And then… you need more closet space.
The closet space problem is one Jenny will have to deal with. Although I have the impression she’s solved it by turning her socks into strange puppet creatures and letting the dogs chew some of the shoes.
Fictional underwear and shoes, however, just mean that I need more shelf-space for books.
On February 6, 2008 at 12:05 pm evesie said...
RFP
I’m not sure how you guys divide things up, but aside from liking the blog generally (I totally got the Time Magazine issue), there are particular entries I like.
In an entry dated Sept. 20, 2007, I really loved this quote, “I wasn’t impressed by the one Lucy Monroe novel I tried, but I am impressed that she’s apparently managed to write about something horrendously intimate in a matter-of-fact way, and get it published widely. (See Monroe’s website for an interesting contrast between the banal fairytale described by the book’s cover copy and the public health statement farther down the page.) She has also written about endometriosis and about impotence in a wheelchair-bound man.”
Honest. Poignant. Witty. Good stuff.
Also, I can appreciate the fact that while you didn’t like the book, you found some positives. Considering I’m reading “Me Times Three” right now and am not impressed (no matter if Sarah Jessica Parker endorsed it), I am struggling to get through it but am looking for interesting tid-bits along the way.
Lastly, how do you guys make things italicized? And why is there no new entry in such a long time? Ms. Crusie: it’s winter. It’s depressing. And we want funnies!!
On February 6, 2008 at 1:13 pm Diane (TT) said...
Evesie: I already ate my lunch (an hour and a half early), so I will try to show italics.
HTML commands always begin and end with . To begin, you put the letter of the command (b for bold, i for italics) in the brackets. so: (but without the spaces).
To end (that is, when you want to resume regular text), (again, without the spaces).
If I don’t put the spaces in, it’ll just DO it, it won’t show the command.
I hope that helps!
On February 6, 2008 at 3:18 pm RfP said...
Thank you, evesie. I don’t want to hijack the Crusie-o-rama for a me-me-megasm, so feel free to come comment on RfP if you want to chat about my reviews.
Here’s how to format all purty-like:
Bold– <b>text</b>
Italics– <i>text</i>
it’s winter. It’s depressing. And we want funnies!!
I’m not funny like Jenny, but if you’re visual, here’s some nerdy-wry humor.
On February 6, 2008 at 5:59 pm evesie said...
Diane and Rfp
thanks very much for your help. THANKS
Rfp - omg the indexed site is so cute
thanks, im cheery now. any more good stuff?
On February 6, 2008 at 8:42 pm G and T said...
I didn’t get why Lucy was mad at Wilder, either.