Today, I woke, sat down to my first cup of coffee and found a headline that gave me the sensation of a lead weight in my stomach.
North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill
Republican North Carolina state legislators have proposed allowing an official state religion in a measure that would declare the state exempt from the Constitution and court rulings.The bill, filed Monday by two GOP lawmakers from Rowan County and backed by nine other Republicans, says each
state “is sovereign” and courts cannot block a state “from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.” The legislation was filed in response to a lawsuit to stop county commissioners in Rowan County from opening meetings with a Christian prayer, wral.com reported.
The religion bill comes as some Republican-led states seek to separate themselves from the federal government, primarily on the issues of guns and Obamacare. This includes a proposal in Mississippi to establish a state board with the power to nullify federal laws.
The North Carolina bill’s main sponsors, state Reps. Carl Ford (R-China Grove) and Harry Warren (R-Salisbury), could not be reached for comment on Tuesday, The Salisbury Post reported. Co-sponsors include House Majority Leader Edgar Starnes (R-Hickory). Another is state Rep. Larry Pittman (R-Concord), who in February introduced a state constitutional amendment that would allow for carrying concealed weapons to fight federal “tyranny.”
The bill says the First Amendment only applies to the federal government and does not stop state governments, local governments and school districts from adopting measures that defy the Constitution. The legislation also says that the Tenth Amendment, which says powers not reserved for the federal government belong to the states, prohibits court rulings that would seek to apply the First Amendment to state and local officials.
SECTION 1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.SECTION 2. The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools, or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.
The North Carolina state constitution disqualifies those who do not believe in God from public office. The provision has been unenforcible since the 1961 Supreme Court decision in Torcaso v. Watkins, which prohibited such bans. (from Huffington Post)
Remember how many times I’ve said we were headed toward a theocracy, thanks to the right wing tea party folks? It has begun.
Also yesterday, I noticed how many news stories there were about people who have softened their views on gay marriage. We have more support for that than ever, recently. Even a few (gasp) Republicans have changed their tune. While this is a very encouraging sign, we still have a formidable cadre of fundamentalists out there in positions of power, and they will continue to undermine everything that makes America great. My first thought when I saw the above-mentioned article, was that this was another example of the fallout created by gay marriage advocation. The repressed, ignorant, bible-thumping Soldiers of GAWD are at least a little frightened. Frightened that this might actually be a government “OF the People BY the people and FOR the people.” Not “of God, by God and for god” by god.
In Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, he said, “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” The first amendment to the Bill of Rights states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” Which is exactly what they are trying to do. Make a law respecting the establishment of religion.
Yes, many of our Founding Fathers believed in God, but they were of many different beliefs, and some were agnostic, and some had no affiliation, but it’s important to recognize that their concept of God was quite different than the concept being touted in the mainstream fundamentalist declarations. Just like the Republican party of antiquity is hardly recognizable within the modern-day Republican party. It’s crucial, then, to understand context and intent, and not just spout off things like “yeah, the constitution said we get freedom of religion.” Freedom to believe what you wish, yes. But that freedom does not extend to cramming your personal beliefs down the throats of others. And whether you understand it or not, America is a secular government predicated on the need to escape the religious rule of England. Just read about Henry the VIII and you’ll have a firm grasp of the dangers of zealotry and theocracy.
How would everyone feel if a state FORCED its citizens to honor ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION and its tenets WHETHER THEY BELIEVED IN IT OR NOT? I can just see the wood being piled up now–the wood that goes around that pole, where they tie up the “heretics” for a BURNING.
George Santayana famously said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Let us be ever mindful that now is the time to remember our history, and avoid a dangerous complacency.
This issue is also comparable to the story I posted about yesterday (GOP chairwoman Everhart, who warned that straights would start having gay marriages). I hope it’s the Fundies’ last-ditch effort to keep a foothold, and of course, I hope it fails. It has to. It’s amazing to me that they don’t see that this is exactly why America was founded…to escape this sort of theocratic control. Did they not pay attention in history class? If they want a theocracy, let them go buy some island somewhere and create their own country. We cannot let them TAKE OVER this secular government…I find this sort of legislation TREASONOUS.
Only yesterday, I posted a link to one of my newly published essay booklets…I’ve been giving them away–the downloads are free for these on Smashwords, (And hopefully Kindle will price match them too; currently Amazon/Kindle offers now selection for authors to list anything for free. We have to charge at least .99).
Anyway, in the post of this booklet from yesterday, there is an essay that addresses this very subject. I share it here:

Separation of Church & State
(excerpt from Unreasonable Ideas : The Etymology of Ignorance)
(c)Kelli Jae Baeli
“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith…we need believing people.”
~ Adolf Hitler, Excerpted from a speech made on April 26, 1933
John Locke, an English philosopher of the 17th century, wrote about a “Social Contract” theory, in which individual conscience was left to the individual, and should never be given over to governments. This developed popularity and was eventually referred to as separation of church and state.
The phrase, “separation of church and state” stems from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, addressed to the Danbury Baptists:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
In the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 states, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…” It can’t be much clearer than that.
Jefferson also said,
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg (Jefferson, Notes).
Modern-day fundamentalists are trying to return to the Dark Ages, by infiltrating the government, forcing prayer in schools, the teaching of Intelligent Design and Creation “science” and by changing the secular government to a religious one. Fundamentalist and evangelistic adherents are more and more commonly expressing a mindset that all liberals, progressives, atheists, homosexuals and others they deem undesirables, should be carted off to an island prison somewhere in the middle of the ocean. This, because the secularists and queers among us are “trying to take over” the government.
Frank Schaeffer, New York Times best-selling author[1] and contributor to the Huffington Post, receives hate-mail all the time from the religious right. This particular one was from a priest.
Frank, I just read that you are supporting the pro-abortionist Barach [sic] Hussein Obama…Now you support a man who is the dream come true of everything ANTI-Christian. Are you no longer Christian?? I was stunned…Please respond, How could you post on the Huffington Post, the most anti-Christian, anti-traditional site?? These people HATE everything Christianity stands for!
In Christ,
Father G. (Shaeffer).
Don’t you love how the hateful, racist diatribe, baiting with the emphasis on the president’s middle name, ends with “In Christ”? This should be a clue. Being in Christ means being hateful and disingenuous.
The fatal error here, is that the government was created as secular, and it’s the Extreme Right that is seeking a takeover. It’s time for the general public to recognize this, and stop allowing the fanatics to redefine everything to their liking.
Still think the religious zealots aren’t trying to take over our government?
“We have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, ‘We’ve had enough,’ we are going to take over.” ~ Pat Robertson, speech given to the April, 1980 “Washington for Jesus” rally, quoted from Robert Boston, The Most Dangerous Man in America, p. 29
Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody’s pseudo-right to worship an idol.” ~Rev. Joseph Morecraft, Chalcedon Presbyterian Church, “Biblical Role of Civil Government” speech given 8/31/93 at Biblical Worldview and Christian Education Conference.
“This is God’s world, not Satan’s. Christians are the lawful heirs, not non-Christians.” ~Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), p. 102.
“We need a legal strategy which protects the rights of those of us who hold Christian convictions which will afford us the opportunity to contend once again for the mind of this culture.” ~Keith A. Fournier, ACLJ brochure “Religious Cleansing.”
“If Christian people work together, they can succeed during this decade in winning back control of the institutions that have been taken from them over the past 70 years. Expect confrontations that will be not only unpleasant but at times physically bloody…This decade will not be for the faint of heart, but the resolute. Institutions will be plunged into wrenching change. We will be living through one of the most tumultuous periods of human history. When it is over, I am convinced God’s people will emerge victorious.” ~Pat Robertson, Pat Robertson’s Perspective Oct-Nov 1992.
“America is under the judgment of God. And if we are ever going to rebuild this country, it must be under God’s law. Our goal must be simple: We must have a Christian nation built on God’s law, on the Ten Commandments. No apologies.” ~Randall Terry, Operation Rescue, address to “Cities of Refuge” campaign, Willoughby Hills, OH, July, 1993.
“We at the Christian Coalition are raising an army who cares. We are training people to be effective—to be elected to school boards, to city councils, to state legislatures, and to key positions in political parties…By the end of this decade, if we work and give and organize and train, THE CHRISTIAN COALITION WILL BE THE MOST POWERFUL POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA. ~ Pat Robertson, in a fundraising letter, July 4, 1991.[2]
Perhaps if they dislike this government and its secular nature so much, they ought to remove themselves to that very island. That way, they could set up the kind of government that doesn’t offend their extremist sensibilities and they can flagellate themselves into oblivion, while the rest of us can get on with our lives. Those free lives guaranteed to us by those Founding Fathers in their original documents.
A time machine is needed, so that we can send the zealots back to the 16th century, where they will be allowed to do those things.
Clearly, the Founding Fathers intended for religion to remain separate from government. Separation of church and State was included because they wanted to avoid the persecutions in England by those of religious bent. The United States Constitution is also clear about this matter, yet there are myriad examples of its violation.
As a society, we actually entertain the idea of having creationism taught as fact in our schools.
In Alabama, biology textbooks carry a warning that says that evolution is “a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things…No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.” [3] In Alabama, it seems, if you wake up to snow on the ground, but no one saw it snowing, then you may only propose a “theory” as to the origin of the snow (Carroll).
When we vote, we often have to go to a church to do so. When we go to ballgames, we must listen to some local pastor say a prayer; when we enter the halls of government buildings, we must pass by marble displays of the biblical Ten Commandments; when our tax dollars go to the upkeep of faith-based schools; when we celebrate a National Day of Prayer; when we pay for something with money that has “In God We Trust” stamped on it; when our children recite the Pledge of Allegiance, to include “One nation, under God”; and when the newly elected President of the United States is inaugurated, and has to place his hand on a Bible to take his oath of office. All these things are examples of the lack of church and state separation.
The proper place for the study of religious beliefs is in a church or temple, at home, or in a course on comparative religions, but not in a biology class. There is no place in our world for an ideology that seeks to close minds, force obedience, and return the world to a paradise that never was. Students should learn that the universe can be confronted and understood, that ideas and authority should be questioned, that an open mind is a good thing. Education does not exist to confirm people’s superstitions, and children do not learn to think when they are fed only dogma” (Berra).
James Madison was the primary author of the Bill of Rights, and in it, he also reiterated the importance of separation of church and state. Jefferson echoed this sentiment in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
Though these words exist as underpinning to our dealings with religion and service, it is near impossible for a person of no faith to get elected.
In the 2008 elections, Republican candidate for North Carolina senate, Elizabeth Dole, ran an “attack ad” which labeled her opponent, Kay Hagan “godless.” At the end of the ad, a woman’s voice is heard saying “There is no god.” This was an underhanded way to implicate Hagen as an unworthy candidate, even though the recording was not of Hagen. Dole has since been sued by Hagen for liable and defamation, and Hagen felt the need to run her own ad professing her Christianity. Dole, incidentally, lost the race.
This is another example of how religion permeates our society, even in the realm of politics. I fail to see the correlation between lack of religion and an inability to serve honorably, but most Americans don’t seem to agree. The reason seems to be that “godless” people are somehow less trustworthy, less moral, less ethical and less capable of serving in an office that seeks to represent the common good.
There are many historical figures who recognize this misrepresentation, and agree. One of them said,
“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President—should he be Catholic—how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.”
This, from one of our nation’s most beloved public servants, John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States of America. And he was, as is common knowledge, a practicing Catholic.
Susan Jacoby, a respected atheist, secularist, bestselling author and director of the Center for Inquiry, New York, has said,
…people who belong to no Church make up the fastest-growing segment of the American population. In the 1980s, no more than 8 per cent refused to identify a religious affiliation. This year, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that the ranks of the unchurched had doubled. Highly educated Americans are most likely to fall within a group ranging from atheists to those describing their religion as “nothing in particular.”
There is a powerful correlation between fundamentalism and lack of education. According to Pew, 45 per cent of Americans with no education beyond high school adhere to biblical literalism, while only 29 per cent with some university education—and 19 per cent of university graduates—share that old-time faith. Republicans have tapped into the fundamentalist resentment of educated, sceptical elites to form the party’s right-wing Christian base (Religion Remains).
The motto of the American people, “In God We Trust,” was not adopted as the national slogan until 1956, though most Americans seem to think it was minted on the first coin after the Declaration of Independence was signed. Indeed, the majority in society seem to respond to God very much like the subjects in the Emperor’s New Clothes. They don’t dare question their ruler, though it is blatantly obvious he is behaving scandalously and is a ridiculous excuse for a leader.
I hope to one day be called to testify in a court of law, because when they say “Raise your right hand…do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?” I will say, “not so help me, God, no.”
I will enjoy the tittering and mumbling moving through the spectators. The judge will lean over and say, “Why not, Ms. Baeli?”
And I will say, “I believe in the separation of church and state. This court is state. That Bible is church. Furthermore, I’m an atheist. But I’ll be happy to swear on the value of my own ethics.”
=========================
[1] *author of the forthcoming Patience With God: Faith For People Who Don’t Like Religion (Or Atheism) and also of Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back.
[2]For more quotes like these, refer to Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology (Volume 4, Cosmology of the Dark Side).
[3] Also, please note that they do not apply this argument to their own statements about how life began, and what happened all that time ago. Hypocrites.
































April 4th, 2013

Anyway, the reason I stopped reading lesbian books was because I was so frequently and so profoundly disappointed in them. (and in fact, it was the reason I started writing novels–I was so dissatisfied with lesbian fiction, and I wanted to write a book *I* would want to read). Now, granted, I probably haven’t read enough of them to have an unbiased view–definitely not a scientific sampling….but after trying repeatedly, and finding that 9 out of 10 of them were awful, I just went back to writers I knew and respected. And yes, most of them are mainstream authors, not lesbians. I cut my literary teeth on Edgar Rice Burroughs, Edgar Allen Poe, Darian North, Raymond Obstfeld/Laramie Dunaway, Robert A. Heinlein, Dean Koontz, (and yes, some Stephen King); and most recently am enjoying Nelson DeMille and Michael Robotham. The only lesbian writer I read nowadays is
bad books, when you can just stop reading and look for something else you can really enjoy? I will never live long enough to read all the GOOD books I want to read, so if the first two pages make me roll my eyes, I put it away and look elsewhere. With the advent of self-publishing, anyone who thinks they can write, can publish, without ever paying their dues, honing their craft. I know. I have been writing for something like 25 years, and I rewrote every book I have until I could be proud of it, applying all I’d learned to make it the best book it could be. I can go back and read through my first manuscripts and literally CRINGE at the mistakes I made; how truly amateurish it was. So I kept writing, kept studying the craft of writing, paying attention to the writing of those I admired–studying them, and kept applying that learning to those stories of mine. And that process will never end. There will always be something else to learn, to make me a better writer.
Okay, I have probably pissed off some people by now, so maybe I should hush. It’s really awful to have to mince words simply because it might alienate someone who could be a potential reader. But then again, do I want those types as my readers? If those readers who are now huffing and puffing and busting a vein on their foreheads would give it a bit of thought, they’d see that they should be glad that I care that much about the quality of my own work. I hold myself and others to the same standard, and it’s because I want every reader to get to the end of my books and feel satisfied, knowing their time and money was not wasted.


But back to Domino Bones…and a fondness for interesting phrases and words…
Welcome to the Irony-Fest, please sign in and wear your name tags.
Review by:
Publishing a book is very much like being naked in public. So it’s difficult not to take it personally, when someone makes a comment on it. I try to take my own advice; I’ve said,
hated about it. That’s neither fair to the writer, nor fair to the potential reader. The book was clearly described on the information page, the title was similar to the book the reviewer sought, yet NOT THE SAME TITLE, which was intentional, yet it was obvious the genre to which it belonged was ignored, and the blurb wasn’t read at all before the purchase.
to hear the whole joke.” Or would you say, “I just saw this wonderful movie where the bad guy dies by being impaled with a swordfish, and the main character is really Sally, the other character, but she has two personalities, and her mother really isn’t her mother, but her sister, and this is how she finds out such-and-such….”
they are actually DOING SOMETHING. It’s really easy to slam a book, but then, you have made it about YOU and not the book, and that’s not what reviews are for. The bad writers don’t develop much of a following except among readers who are easily pleased, or uneducated enough to require very little in their entertainment; good writers tend to get more reviews, and reviews, in turn, sell books. Whether fair or not, there’s either a readership for a certain book, or there is not, regardless of the intellect of those readers. So bashing an author or a book serves no purpose other than to make the reviewer feel better. If you didn’t like a book, just stop buying that author’s work. Simple as that. No need to inflict injury.
Your opinion on the characters. Are the characters interesting? Do you care about them? Are they authentic? Do they remind you of anyone you know, or other characters from other books?
This is a wide subject area, but I want to focus on just a few things.
side to criticizing someone else’s writing, when you’re WRITING your criticism. It pays to invest in a good helmet, quality running shoes, and to develop a taste for crow).
and powerful word processing program–more on that in another article).
Ponzi Bonnet has a perfect marriage, or so she thinks. Her husband, Garrison, is impotent, which suits Ponzi. She can’t have sex due to earlier problems and events in her life. Garrison is a psychologist, who better to understand Ponzi’s problems?


I am having so much fun writing Somewhere Else.
painting. Another man sat on the sofa with the saxophone, wearing dark glasses.
attention was the décor. If you could call this gaudy display décor. The bedspread was an aggravating shade of pink, and there was a pink dust ruffle made of lace around the bed. I hated it. Likewise, the matching horridly pink lampshade on the nightstand, had engendered more repulsion. Though the walls were a standard eggshell color, they were festooned with all things pink.
send it downstairs for a little eavesdropping again. “Here, kitty kitty,” I said. I was t
I crammed in more chips. “Of course it does,” I said around the chips, accidentally blowing a few crumbs into the air; one of which landed on his cheek. He barely flinched. “Nonetheless, it’s true. I woke from a weird dream this morning, and I have no memory of this chick–” I indicated myself, so he’d know I was talking about this body, but not necessarily me. “All I can figure is that I’ve somehow taken control of her body and she’s…gone. Which means I can do whatever I want with this body…” I gave him a wry lift of an eyebrow, hoping he’d catch on.
Pick-A-Project-Polka; a dance we writers do when we’re trying to decide what we feel like working on next; we listen to our muse, we dance with our muse, we kick our muse out and get practical, and we sometimes curse our muse and send it to bed without dinner. All of these I’ve done this time around, as well.
the island was a living entity somehow, and perhaps it was a sort of purgatory, and my characters were already dead, but in some alternate reality after death (See? Very similar to Lost). It hardly mattered what my story was about, though, because the whole shebang was a cheese-fest. Dialogue smarmy and uber-romanticized, like something out of a bad Harlequin (not to suggest there was ever a GOOD Harlequin). But I noticed all the stereotyping I was doing, with gender-roles. I, of course, had to have the man save the woman, and she was, of course, weak and frightened and only able to feel safe while in his arms. Repugnant, all around.
scene and getting tired of using “she” and “her” so having to fix that with sentence structure, and stylistic tricks. Another was beginning paragraphs and sentences with the same word repeatedly, over and over, again and again, until it became a repetitious, recapitulation, reiteration, replay, reproduction, rerun, reshowing and also a duplication. Amazing, the little lessons we learn about our craft that we hardly notice until being faced with them in the form of our own literary apparitions, ghost stories from the past. My muse was quite wispy and frail back then. Largely attributable to my early years of reading too many of the aforementioned romance novels, and also watching too many soap operas. I learned how to write poorly from both (these sorts of things also have a way of retarding your intellect, as well). My writing only improved when I began to read more accomplished, masterful authors. Like Edgar Allen Poe, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert A. Heinlein and later, Dean Koontz (in whom I have lost interest in recent years, perhaps because his writing has become a little tedious–though I did learn a great deal by studying his writing, to find out what he was doing to get me to turn that page every time).
Adult genre. I found those books hugely entertaining and delightful and quick-reading, which was what I wanted at the time. And more recently, I enjoyed Gone Girl, by Gillian Flynn, but was disappointed in the cop-out ending–a particularly potent peeve of mine. And I have only a few days ago, discovered Nelson DeMille, and he’s shaping up to be a favorite, if this book, Plum Island, continues to be as good as it has been from page-one. I’m excited about this possibility, since I see the stacks and stacks of books he has just waiting for my hungry eyes to explore.
waiting for me to continue that series. And I will continue to do that, while developing other series in the subgenres of lesbian fiction, and making most of them novellas since the trend seems to be shorter books, now. I guess people don’t have or make much time to read these days. Until then, I must keep my focus, and not stray into territory that I can’t occupy in a formidable way, and hope to gain an appreciable piece of the literary pie in that fashion.
the officer when they met a few months ago on a domestic violence call. Her hair. She was pretty sure Chloe was gay, too, but didn’t feel it was appropriate to bring it up. Ginger would certainly have asked her out, if there was no Izzy in the picture. But she had no complaints in that department. “Still. Not sure why you’d toady me. I’m just a detective.”
had the cheek to ask for a cigarette. Apparently, she needed one because blowing herself up had caused her some stress.”
“I got his number a few months ago,” Chloe told Ginger. “when he drew down one night on a plastic coyote that the residents had placed outside to scare the geese away.” She took the roundabout back into Windsor. “Somehow, he saw the thing and was startled, so dropped to the ground with his gun out. The coyote wasn’t moving, so he crawled over and poked it with his gun. He told me later he thought it was a chupacabra.”
Ginger had trouble concentrating because Miss Beecher had one of those egg vibrators on the table next to her chair. She almost forgot why they were there. Chloe’s eyes went to the egg and back to Ginger, and the desire to laugh was almost overwhelming. Chloe did a good job of maintaining her composure, but Ginger felt a case of screaming meemies coming on.
Now Available!!! Also Known as Syzygy, book 3 in the AKA Investigations series


First of all, this reader I mentioned is from New Zealand, and I write toward an American audience. These product names and brands I might use are all familiar to American readers, and so it does create a clearer picture for them than it would a reader who might not even recognize what that some brands are. So the tendency to want generic, might be predicated on a need for familiarity. This is precisely the reason I don’t read books with foreign settings, or books like The Hobbit…I don’t want to be lost in that landscape, confused about what everything means. I detest that in my own life, in my own landscape. I like familiar things. They ground me. I like specificity. It keeps things clear.
drink, sandwich, sedan, convertible, phone, coffee….and I always had the thoughts, what kind? I wonder if this character likes white or red wine? I wonder if this character buys American or foreign? I wonder if this character likes expensive shoes or cheap ones? It kept me from gaining a full appreciation of that character, and tended to make them cardboard cutouts–and I find THAT distracting.
It’s so satisfying to sit at my desk and write to the sound of the ocean. Only this time, it’s not in my earbuds, but outside my window. Our move to Dunedin placed us within walking distance of the beach, and the rhythmic breath of the waves at shore soothes me. The cool, robust breeze from the water sometimes spits through our windows like a fire hose, but it helps regulate the temperature in this upstairs master suite, high above almost all other houses on this hillside. It’s Summer here, though luckily for me, the fall and winter-loving, heat-intolerant moi, there really hasn’t been much heat yet. Weather is weird everywhere, as I understand it.
finally create some normal routines.
Thus, over the years, I have managed to produce work in myriad categories. Fourteen, at last count. But it has become clear to me in recent months that my approach has not been wise. This diversification has only managed to erode the ground under my literary feet, and prevent me from getting a proper foothold in the market–especially when so many other writers have established theirs. And they are the ones who enjoy better sales. There’s a reason for that.
It seems that most of THOSE-WHO-READ (myself included, though I made the error of thinking other readers behaved differently) tend to pick the type of book or author they like, or both, and then they continue to read that book/author. When they run out of an author’s work, they seek other authors who write in a similar genre and/or with a similar style. Thus, the readers who buy my books have read whichever genre of mine they are drawn to, and then discover there isn’t another book in that genre from me, and they move on to find those other authors they might also like who have books available which they have not read. This does not encourage a strong, growing readership.
probably would have existed by now, after 29 books. Had those 29 books been in one genre, I would not have taken such a hit when digital publishing swelled to its current oceanic level. According to factzone.com, in America, a new book is published every 13 minutes. This groundswell of publishing is attributable to the ease with which we can now publish our work. Yes, that means more bad books from bad writers mucking up the booklist for the rest of us, but it also means more freedom, and demands that we employ smart-marketing techniques. Hence, the issue at hand with my diversification.
























