Skip to content

Author: Mary Anne

Published on

Don't miss out on the Smashwords Read An Ebook week promo.  It runs through this Saturday, March 10th. 

There are steals and deals galore so don't miss out on this once-a-year chance to fill your ereader without draining your wallet.  It's a coupon sale, so enter the codes at check out.

ALL QUACKING ALONE ROMANCES ARE 50% OFF !  If you don't own 'em all already - perhaps you haven't picked up one or two of them yet - then don't miss these deals. 

With the strained state of finances and the need to stretch a dollar until old George Washington quacks for help - I never miss this deal and you shouldn't either.  So waddle on over to SW and fill up your ereader before the stroke of midnight on Saturday, March 10th.

Published on

Alan Jacobs of The Atlantic posted a piece entitled: Digital Self-Publishing: Should Publishers Be Worried? In the article, he says:  "John O'Hara, who long ago wrote the book for the musical Pal Joey, based on his own novel. When the play was making a big run on Broadway, two friends of O'Hara's bumped into him on the streets of New York. "Oh John," they cooed, "We just saw Pal Joey again, and we enjoyed it even more than the first time!" O'Hara snarled, "What the hell was wrong with it the first time?""

Jacobs' piece also quotes Colorado College's librarian Steve Lawson's Piece.  Lawson's article is entitled: Publishers Hate You. You Should Hate Them Back.   Lawson says: 

So library-types, let’s get our story straight. Publishers have contempt for the authors they need to write works, and the readers they need to read works. Publishers are scared that the internet is going to disintermediate their asses into the dustbin of history, and the best response that many of them have come up with is to express their fear through hatred. For all the things that we might need to improve in libraries or apologize for, this isn’t one of them.

Jacobs reply is basically as follows, although you should read the whole piece: 

But one of the illusions most common to writers -- an illusion that may make the long slow slog of writing possible, for many people -- is that an enormous audience is out there waiting for the wisdom and delight that I alone can provide, and that the Publishing System is a giant obstacle to my reaching those people. Thus the dream that digital publishing technologies will indeed "disintermediate" -- will eliminate that obstacle and connect me directly to what Bugs Bunny calls "me Public." (See "Bully for Bugs".) And we have heard just enough unexpected success stories to keep that dream alive.

Well, here's hoping. But a couple of months ago I decided to dip my toes into these waters: I wrote a longish essay called "Reverting to Type" about my own history as a reader -- a kind of personal epilogue to The Pleasures of Reading -- and decided to submit it as a Kindle Single. Amazon wasn't interested, so I decided to publish it myself using Kindle Direct Publishing. I announced its existence to the world: that is, I posted a link on my tumblelog and tweeted about it. A few people downloaded it; some pointed out typos that I had missed, but that a copy editor surely would have caught. I thought about ways to promote it better but haven't been able to come up with anything other than becoming a self-promoting jerk on Twitter. Last time I checked it had sold 98 copies

 MY ANSWER?

I'm an indie author who distributes through Smashwords, KDP, Pubit for B&N and most recently, All Romance eBooks. My books sit on the virtual shelves beside great work published by big companies and indie authors alike. For whatever it's worth, I've sold a lot more than 98 copies of my work - I don't have the number but I've sold thousands. I've (probably - haven't totaled them) sold at least 98 so far this month across the channels and it's only 4 days into March.  And NO, my numbers don't IN ANY WAY even begin to compare to some of the success stories, like Amanda Hocking's for example.  All in all, self publishing is a lot of work, but the rewards are amazing. Some of the reward is monetary - extra money to supplement yet another family struggling in this economy. Much of the reward is simply having my work out there to be loved and hated - and yes, it has received both responses.

When I started self publishing I wrote long blogs about how companies like Smashwords would break through and destroy the walls of the publishing royals castles. I continue to think that self publishing has greatly, greatly enriched the literary world and, more importantly, that it has empowered the reader to decide whether or not the work is worth her money. No longer do the publishing companies' systems and slush piles serve as socially acceptable censors.

Now, however, I'm farther along on my journey and my attitude has changed slightly. Yes, I think self publishing has already destroyed the castle walls so that all writers can get their work to readers. Yes, work from the big companies usually - but not always - sells better, but the market share of those companies will go the way of the castle walls. I think we're headed for greater equality which is always a good thing.

I believe that publishing companies who change the way they do business can adapt, survive and succeed. I believe that they will have to adopt an Amazon approach and partner with writers, showing a willingness to throw out the old models and craft individual deals that recognize writers as important business partners with individual needs and concerns. I don't think publishing will survive in any kind of "one size fits all" way.

In the long run, I hope that publishers do adapt to the digital world. I've read many great published books and hope to read many more. Today, I've come far enough along my journey to wish publishers who adapt and change - and especially the writers who partner with them - great success.

Published on

WHY SHOULD MEN READ ROMANCE?  QUACK ON OVER TO ALL DAY, ALL NIGHT WRITING DIVAS AND READ MY BLOG POST TO FIND OUT.   MAYBE YOU'LL ALSO DISCOVER WHY THE DUCK SHOWN BELOW IS DRINKING BOURBON.

Photo Credits: 

Duck drinking whiskey
http://www.jokestation.org/view/357/Drunk-Duck

Female operator's manual
http://www.junekramin.com/archives/2368

Published on

Very early in our relationship, my hubby went shopping with me for a purse. Note that I said "very early." There are many things men will do early in a relationship that go out the door when a couple settles into reality - like purse shopping or eating green bean casserole (don't ask). After that early purse excursion, we learned that if we wanted to keep love alive, purse, clothes or shoes shopping should be my department. It must have been a good call, because we've been happily married now for over 20 years.

I hadn't really thought about how men and women shop better for different things until I read about a study in the UK's Daily Mail Online. The study, commissioned by The Co-operative Food, focused on how men and women feel about and deal with grocery shopping. Although women are considered the experts at shopping, our prowess stops at the doors of the grocery store. Yes, Virginia, the study found that women get more flustered and stressed in supermarkets.  

Researchers studied around 2,000 people and found that despite the fact that women are more likely to enter the weekly grocery shopping frey armed with lists and coupons, the experience throws us into a complete tizzy. Women hate the crowds at the store, feel rushed at the checkout and are generally shocked at the cost of purchases.  Two thirds of the women studied said they disliked fighting crowds to get what they wanted and 34% hate it when other people's children get into their way.  1 in 10 of the women confessed to getting into arguments at the store with other shoppers over things like shopping carts, fighting over the same item or line jumping.

Grocery shopping, it seems, is an activity that men excel at and enjoy.  "Men seem to adopt a much more laid back and methodical approach, taking their time looking for bargains and make sure they’re getting the most for their money."

The study found that 51% of the men are more likely to opt for brands they know while 26% of the women grab the first brand they find because it helps speed up the shopping.  It found that women are more likely to ask for help in locating something, but men are more likely to use technology to make the shopping easier.

Authors of the study say that for women, grocery shopping is apt to be just another on a long list of things they have to do so women rush through the grocery store "to conduct the shopping as quickly as possible."    Researchers theorize that there is a "new breed of male supermarket shoppers."  I find a lot of the studies I run across interesting, and may share them with blog readers even if I personally consider them to be chock full of hogwash.  I'm sharing this one for the opposite reason -- based on personal experience, I think it's absolutely accurate.

I hate a grocery store.  Just the sight of one makes me feel tense and unhappy.  One of the happiest days in my life was when Lowe's Foods came to Myrtle Beach because of the Lowe's To Go Service.  It meant I could order my groceries online and schedule a pickup time. I'd drive into the parking lot, push a loudspeaker button to announce my presence, and an amazing employee would wheel my groceries right out to my car.  It was life altering for me - and it still would be today.  The only reason I stopped using the service is because of a change in workschedules and hours, my hubby started doing the grocery shopping.  He prefers going into the supermarket and engaging in that whole battle.

It was hard for me to understand how my DH could possible enjoy the shopping experience, but the new study indicates that he's not alone.  It turns out that the grocery store is a man's world.  But you know what?  I'm okay with that.  I'm very, very okay with that.  Really, I'm okay with anything that keeps me out of the grocery store.

Don't tell my hubby, but he's much better at grocery buying than I am!    Besides, my DH looks so cute pushing around that shopping cart...

Published on

AOFM, also known as DH - my dear hubby, has worked his magic on one of my contemporaries that hasn't gotten enough attention.  It's a good book that needs more readers.  To attract readers, I first tried a name change.  The books was originally entitled "E-mail Enticement".  In retrospect, I think that one did sound a little like a legal textbook.  (Though not as much as the first title I wanted to give it, which was "Criminal Sexual Communication".)  Poor little E-mail didn't get much love.

Not so terribly long ago, I retitled it, thinking it would "entice" more interest.  The second title was:  "The Billionaire's E-mail Seduction."  Under that title, it garnered a little more love, but not much.  It cried out for more tweaking - something more drastic than just a new title.  E-mail demanded a new COVER. That meant that I needed to do a little enticing of my own - or a lot, as the case may be.  AOFM doesn't work cheap, you know - but then he's worth the best of everything.

Yesterday, my DH did a yummy new cover for "E-mail" and I can't wait for y'all to see it.  Did I mention that it's yummy?  Yep, that's right - I'm pushing books with the bare-chested hunks again.  After all, the goal of a cover is to get a reader to stop long enough to read the description and check out the sample and then - hopefully - to press the buy button.   But they won't buy if they don't stop long enough to look and I do believe my DH's new cover will get anyone who boogles by to stop, ogle, and check out the book.

The new title for E-mail - in keeping with our newly adopted theme - is "Dangerous Relations:  Seducing The Billionaire."  The theme or subtitle of "Dangerous Relations" will tie together all our contemporaries right where they take place - at the intersection of love and the law. 

Amazon got the new page and title for the book up by this morning, but I'm still waiting for the cover.  It's a lot like waiting for a baby to arrive - I know it'll be beautiful and I am way anxious to share. Don't forget to check it out because it's awesomely quackalicious - with a cherry on top!

Published on

I enjoy reading historicals and I adore writing them.  But to me history is mood and it's part of the world I create for each book.  I can alter events, rearrange them or create them out of whole cloth.  In my books everything exists to advance the story so that it follows my muse's twisted inclinations. It'll be a winding road, but it will end happily, every time.  To get there I may create language, events or people that bear no relation to the history we learned in school.  Ultimately, in a QA tale, everything exists to serve the romance and that includes history.  That irritates the heck out of some folks, but I believe there are books enough to cater to every taste. 

Regardless of my history as mood philosophy, my historicals still far outsell my contemporaries.  In fact, overall in the romance world everywhere - historicals tend to far outsell contemporaries.  And that bothers me.  It bothers me a lot.  There are some great contemporary writers and some fabulous stories set in our very own era.  I like to think that some of those fabulous contemporaries, a couple of them to date, are mine.  And just like my historicals - my "now" is apt to look and feel a lot different because from over the top, everything looks better. 

I wish we could give contemporaries their own month.  Better yet, why not give them their own season.  Yes, I think Spring should be the era of now.

As we anticipate the "Spring Into A Contemporary" movement, we're sprucing up our contemporaries with brand new titles.  To be more accurate - we're adding a subtitle.  The change has already been made to one book - Griffin's is now - Dangerous Relations:  Griffin's Law.   We'll be changing the other one - now titled The Billionaire's E-mail Seduction -- shortly.  The covers of both books will catch up soon too. 

Why the change?  It came about because we were tinkering with the title of my WIP, which is - you guessed it - a contemporary.  I'd been calling it "The Office Ink" or "The Office Ink Spells Murder".  But while the book centers around a murder - it's mostly a romance.  This murder occurs at a family law firm.  After my dearest hubby suggested the subtitle, I realized that not only does it suit "Office Ink," it also suits all my contemporaries. 

My contemporaries are all focused on what happens when love intersects with the law.  Dangerous Relations describes events for the lovers and events surrounding the lovers.  It's a great "hook" for all of the books and we hope the "hook" reels in more readers to check out how now looks from over the top. 

We haven't settled on a firm title for E-mail yet.  Adding the subtitle to the front of E-mail would produce a title of unwieldy length.  It's current title is already a little wordy.  I'm thinking of "Dangerous Relations: Tempting The Billionaire" or "Dangerous Relations:  Seducing The Billionaire"  or "Dangerous Relations:  Enticing The Billionaire." But that title is still up in the air. 

I do hope that more readers will make it a point to pick up a contemporary - particularly one of mine!  It'll remind all of us that all the excitement, spark and sizzle of love didn't end with the Regency era.  Love is as timeless and eternal as forever. We may live in "now" rather than "then," but we still deserve a happy ending - and some quacking good fun reaching it. 

Join us at QA Romances this year and SPRING INTO A CONTEMPORARY!!!

Published on

This is a brief post to give a big ole' 5 out of 5 quacks to Neil Simon's "Death By Murder." It's available for your Kindle Fire through Amazon Prime and I heartily reccommend it.

If you've ever been a fan of detective stories or murder mysteries it's a must see. The film is a comedy wrapped in a mystery wrapped in a comedy. The plot revolves around an eccentric's invitation to the top 5 detectives in the world. The recluse invites the best in the biz to his creepy old mansion to solve a murder that's about to be committed - if they don't all kill each other first.

The cast is first rate. I have to give mad props to the late Peter Falk's work, but David Niven was good and Truman Capote was exceptional. Nancy Walker was even in this one and - as always - was fabulous. This work is Simon at his finest which is mighty, mighty fine indeed.

The ending will have every mystery fan screaming, "Yes, Yes. That's true. That's absolutely true." And just when you think it's solved - perhaps it's not, not quite.

This one is a must see and you will love it. That's a guarantee.

Of course, this is the Crazy Duck Lady's opinion and everyone knows - I'm quackers.