I’ve written in a number of genres over the years. In fact, there are very few I haven’t tried, except the trashy ones like horror and erotica. I even wrote the dialogue and scenes for a children’s picture book, but I didn’t have an illustrator. Among my published works I now have epic fantasy; historical romance; contemporary romance; contemporary women’s regional; military sci-fi; YA dystopian adventure; historical (non-romance); children’s fantasy; and western.
While not all the stories are equally suited to me, I’ve written a LOT of them. I’ve noticed that over the years, including recently, a number of people have insisted I was a “sci-fi” writer. I find this strange because sci-fi hasn’t been a huge proportion of my output. It might be 30% at most. I’ve written almost equal amounts of historical work. Why am I not a “historical” author? There would appear to be equal validation for that. And what about the fantasy? Even a story like Ryan and Essie has large amount of fantasy, though it has a sci-fi angle too. If people just think I’m better at speculative than other work, why do they never mention my fantasy stories?
My point is that I don’t particularly like science fiction. I’ve written it along with many other things, but I didn’t feel the stories were better, more with readers, or more likable. The sci-fi stories I did were also maybe a bit unusual for the subgenre they were in, whereas my work in other genres is more typical. I only write anything with science fiction or futuristic when that’s just where the story has to be told--and the kind of sci-fi I think they mean, for there are many kinds, is one I find really boring and I'm not sure it's what I actually write. Not that I’m against my sci-fi stories—that would be unfair—but I am surprised by an idea they are most of my work.
And there will be more updates.
7 books published and 3 more on the way. Farmer's daughter, Star Wars fan, loves to read rather than talk about reading. Always has time to finish her WIP.