Note about the donation to Association Gregory Lemarchal from the sales of One Breath at a Time.
For clarity I am stating here the changes that I’ve had to make compared to what is stated in the author’s note, in the novel.
Sales made from Kindle Unlimited do not have a fixed income as do sales from the regular Kindle program. The income we make on sales via Kindle Unlimited vary according to the budget that Amazon gives KDP each month (i.e. 10 millions, 11 millions) which are shared amongst the books available through KDP’s Kindle Unlimited program. For June and July, each One Breath at a Time sold by KU earned about 1,20 dollars royalties against about 4 dollars in average (royalties at 30% and royalties at 70% mixed) for regular Kindle sales.
I never paid much attention before to how KDP really worked because A) I only had two books enrolled and I barely sold 5 books a month then. And B): because I didn’t give out anything from my sales. It went to my account so I didn’t look further into it.
Now that One Breath at a Time is published and with it, my desire to give a little bit out of it to AGL, I’ve had to look deeper into it.
To make matters worst, starting July 1st 2015, they will pay authors by the pages read. Yeah…easy, uh? Lol, so now instead of selling for example 20 books by KU, I have my reports in pages 6000, 8000 etc… I don’t know yet if this is going to be a good or a bad thing in the long run for us, authors, since reports for July will be available on August 15th.
Anyway, in regards to those facts, I have decided, for Q2 (April/May/June) to give out to AGL 2$ from the paperbacks sale, 1$ from the Kindle sales, as stated in the author’s note, but only 50 cents from the KU sales until further notice. For Q3 I may give out one third of the KU earnings then, or try to count the pages read to figure out how many books were sold and then do the 50 cents each. I’ll see what is the most beneficial for AGL, or, the easiest for me, perhaps. It is getting complicated, isn’t it? Lol
Just wanted to state things clearly so people know where their money is going and how. If you really want to help AGL then, buy the Kindle version or even better, the paperback version. ;)
Have a great day,
Today I'm still very upset over a review I had yesterday for Fire and Ice. The fact that it's bad is not the point, to tell the truth. Lynne Pierce is not the first person not to like Fire and Ice or to put 3 stars (although her review reads more like one star). Liking the story or not is about people's personal tastes and to each their own. It's okay not to like it. It's okay to say you didn't like the ending, or that it crosses a line you don't like being crossed. Some said so and it was their right and I was never upset by those reviews.
What upsets me is spreading wrong facts about my novel because you read it so long ago that you don't even remember it. I know for a fact that Lynne Pierce finished reading Fire and Ice on August 9th. She wrote so herself in her yahoo group Lesfic_Unbound. Yet the review came out yesterday. Five months later. Obviously, Miss Pierce didn't like the story and just as well willingly forgot about it. It's her right too, but then either she should not have reviewed it, or checked her facts before saying things such as "The continuity editor truly failed in this story because a cat named Liloo is introduced in the present, then later in the book it’s revealed that the cat died years before. Perhaps every cat was named Liloo"
It's written black on white in the book. When the name Liloo is first mentioned for the much alive black and white cat, Charlie says that, "officially, it's Lil'loo" but she doesn't explain more. Later in the book, at Charlie's house, when Emma wonders about the many pictures of Lil'loo, compared to the other cats. Charlie points out that "it's Liloo on some of the pictures", a black and white cat that died years ago. She named the next black and white she had in "replacement" Lil'loo (little Liloo). It's all in the book, you just have to read it.
I can take the comment about the wording or awkward sentences. There are places where the wording is odd, which is probably due to the author not being a native English speaker. Because it's all true. I'm progressing with each new novel but I'm not there yet, so I accept it and try to do best with each new story.
But that other comment, I'm still wondering what she is talking about. That doesn’t explain the rest. The main characters know things about each other’s lives that they have no way of knowing or at least aren’t explained in the story. They use odd cues that make no sense to decide if someone is a lesbian. No, not gaydar, peculiar ideas. This, honestly, I have no idea what it's about. I was very down yesterday while talking to my friend about this review, and I talked about the Liloo thing then she, (my friend), brought up this part of the review to me. She told me herself "that part I didn't really get what she was talking about". But then, okay, she's my friend, so I'll give it to you, we may be biased. She's my guinea pig though, (reads all my drafts), and she's the one who tells me about inconsistencies and stuff that's wrong so... But anyway. Maybe Lynne refers to the out of comission truck scene? There's a banter between the two girls. Charlie (who Emma knows is gay by now) fiddles in the hood but has no idea what she's doing and Emma, in all her naivety says, "Really? I'd have thought that, um..." she stops herself but Charlie says it, "That I could fix trucks 'cause I'm a lesbian?" In case it's not clear, she's messing with her, because it's an old cliché that lesbian can repair cars and like sports and do boy stuffs, or how women with short hairs are lesbians, or blue is for boys and pink is for girsl etc... And in the book, right after that, the currently straigtht Emma who, on the other hand, knows her way around cars, fixes the truck, and says that she likes cars (her uncle is a mechanic) and Charlie mischievously says, "So you're a lesbian, then?" It is a BANTER. They're teasing each other, well, Charlie is teasing Emma who admits that she "made a wrong assumption and that it was cliché". But it was a banter, Charlie was not STATING that Emma was a lesbian. So I don't know. I'd ask Lynne what she meant but I doubt she remembers enough to tell me.
So we're back at why I'm so pissed and upset about this review. You may think I'm just some "angry customer who's yelling because she didn't get the good review" but, believe it or not, when I sent my book (paperback) to Lynne, on the other side of the ocean; I knew it wasn't going to be a good review. I read her reviews and sometimes, even books that I (or plenty of people have loved), don't get such great reviews. Plus I'll willingly admit that Fire and Ice is not my best story, definitely not my favorite so I'm not trying by any means to defend my baby. It's not that. Like I said, I wasn't expecting a stellar review, but I was expecting a fair review. And I didn't get that.
So, giving her review on Amazon the title "Spend your money elsewhere" is extremely harsh considering that Lynne Pierce can't even remember the book enough that she wrote wrong stuffs about it. With all due respect to her this is, to me, a lack of respect not only for me but for all the people involved in creating this book.
I may get the whole community on my back on this one because Lynne Pierce is an important figure, but I stand by what I said. It's disrespectul, and that review title on Amazon, ouch, extremely harsh, all things considered.
What does the typical lesbian wear? I know, this sounds like a stupid question, right? Like there's a typical lesbian. But according to most lesfic books I've read this year, there is one, and she doesn't wear bras, ever. I think either one or both characters from the novels I've read this year wore, at some point in the book, no bra, sometimes no panties either. And I'm like WTF? First few times it made me smile but now I'm more like, "Come on?" everytime that sentence comes up "and she wore no bra". To me it seems kind of ridiculous but, maybe I'm wrong. What do you guys wear?
I know that, for my part, it's impossible not to wear a bra, it'd kill my back. Let's not even think about not wearing panties, (except when I'm in my night outfit of course). So what do you guys think about this issue?
As some of you know I am heavily involved in Animal Protection Associations here in France. Yesterday, on Sunday 27th, there was a big protest against bullfighting in Rodilhan, a small town in the south of France. It was a very important date because two years ago, in that same village, over 90 peaceful protesters invaded the arena, hoping to stop the massacre of young bulls (the Rodilhan festival puts up young bulls against young matadors). Those protesters sat in the middle of the arena, tying themselves with bicycle chains and stuff like that. What happens next will never be forgotten or forgiven, huge trial is about to start early January because those peaceful protesters, never hitting back took blow after blow, they were pulled away from the arenas in such violence never seen before. Kicked, hit, spat on, insulted, women were violated in different ways, bras being torn apart, dragged on the floor almost naked. All this under the amused gaze of the town’s mayor (who can even be seen helping the “aficionados,”) and also the regional prefect who was reprimanded and cast away by then president Nicolas Sarkozy, only to be reinstated one year later by no other than Mr Manuel Valls, our current minister of interior, chief of police. Since the presidential election last year and Mr Hollande naming him minister of interior, the protesters against bullfight have been constantly teargazed, tased, and brutalized because Manuel Valls is a self-proclaimed aficionado. He’s abusing his powers to prevent us from doing basically anything. We can’t even just sit down and protest without being ejected and gazed, yesterday proved that again.
Yesterday was historical as well because for the first time we were not alone. American friends were here, mostly, Friends of Animal. Here is the link to the article they have made as they’ve returned home.
I was there yesterday, I have bruises, I was teargazed, my skin is still burning today because of all the gas I received in the face and neck and hair, everywhere. Down below is a picture of me lying in the field with other “bodies” lying down in the background. You can see on Facebook on the CRAC Europe page more pictures of yesterday’s battle, it sometimes seemed like a war only our weapons were slogans and signs against flashball guns, teargas, tasers and billys while the real criminals were torturing young bulls freely in this f*****g arena.
If I have put the link for the FoA review of yesterday’s event it’s because, more than being easier for you my international friends, its also lets you know you can do something, or actually nothing as they’re talking about a boycott of France or at least the areas in which Bullfight is authorized, because yes, in 90% of the country it’s not allowed, you can go to prison for two years and have to pay a 30,000€ fine as its considered “cruelty against animals”. Yet a ‘glitch’ in the constitution has been “created” to allow the perverted aficionados to fulfill their sadistic “passion” under the pretext of cultural tradition.
So I, as a French citizen, completely encourage the boycott of tourism in these areas. I even fairly encourage the boycott of French products and letting the French government know why. As you all know, it’s always about money. If they feel threatened economically speaking, then, politics might have to do something whether or not they like it.
Help if you can, even just by spreading the word about this barbaric “culture” that is corrida (bullfight). Bullfight is a shame. Torture is not culture. Spread the word my friends.