Search options (Page 14 of 32)

It was.  And thank you!  I keep on visiting the pages just because of that.  You will have to tell me what you think when you read them.  I'll be starting reviewing again after tax day and then when I'm caught up with that I'll start posting the 4th novel in the series.  So everyone has a chance to binge read the first three while I do that.  Hugs.

Thank you, Jack!

I don't plan to get rich from my writing (although it would be nice).  A few good readers like yourself is all I ask for.  I hope you have Kindle Unlimited, so you can continue reading it for free; if not, $0.99 won't kill you.  They don't seem to have author's copies at Kindle.  I've had to use my Kindle Unlimited to get my e-copies.  I hope you continue reading and enjoying.

I will be soon posting my next novel, "Time for Exile," starring Heather with strong supporting roles by Rhiannon, Barbara, Diane Witherspoon (who you meet later in "Love in Exile."), and Jeb Hardwick.  The usual cast of characters is there--Rosalyn, Ioseff, Lido.  It is very rough and will probably undergo revisions before I start posting.  Like other, earlier, books, it needs stylistic revisions that reflect the progress of my writing. I strongly suggest reading "Love in Exile" and "Out of Exile" first, if you can.  And "Exile's End," too, now posted on Inkitt and just 18 reads from being subjected to The Algorithm which determines what the crowd wisdom is on publishing it.  The first four books is really one continuous story, starting at Rhiannon's exile, her return, the mystery surrounding her father's madness and her mother's death, and who the real culprit for the latter is, if not who everyone thinks it is.  Of course, everyone could be right.  After that, there is a murder mystery starring our heroes, but it will have to be revised after all the twists in turns of the tetralogy.  Yes, I'm going to be one busy bee for the next few years.

Start picking off imaginary spiders from her, then, when she asks, tell her what you're doing.  Or whip out a switchblade and start cleaning your nails. Works for me. lol

At least until the end of March.  May take longer.  Don't want to rush things.  And thank you!

Progress, my friends.  I have finished my re-write of "The Loves of Rhiannon."  I will be reformatting it--starting chapters on separate pages--adding an acknowledgment page and an introduction.  I will be looking for cover art.  Any suggestions?  There is a website where you can buy/subscribe to cover art, thus, getting around copyright restrictions, and of course, I can always hire an artist.

I will be re-issuing "Out of Exile."  Yeah, I know it's a little early for that, but I didn't have an introduction or acknowledgement page, or give credit for references, and they won't let me add one, so a second edition ("new and improved" lol).

Soon, unless Inkitt decides to publish it, I will be taking my novel there down too and publishing it through Kindle.

So, in a few weeks (can't tell you when), all the present Rhiannon novels will be off their sites and only available through Kindle.  So, please, if you want to read them here and offer suggestions, time is running out.

Also, I will be posting the third novel in the series, and there will be a spoiler in it.  Can't help that.  Originally, I was writing one novel, but now, it's three, as fifteen hundred plus pages is a bit much.  (Of course, after I made that decision, I found a fantasy novel of that length at B&N.  Do I regret my decision?  Naw.  It's cool being the author of a series.)

Then, of course, there is the fourth, which is set in the same universe, has the same characters, but is not part of the continuing story line.  After all the evolution of the first three novels, it will undergo major changes, as some characters should be replaced by the main ones.  (I've stuck to the Star Trek seven:  Rhiannon, Heather, Rosalyn, Jeb Hardwick, Barbara Carruthers, Diane Witherspoon, and Hevyedd.)

Oh, and this doesn't count the novel about the love affair between Rhiannon's son, Pryderi, and Callista, the New Prydain slave girl sent by Queen Branwen to seduce him.  (It's now several stories combined by transitions into one.)

The third novel is multiple 3rd-person POV, for a change.  So we will see thing from the perspective of each of the Magnificient Seven.

Onward and Upward!

Congrats, jack.  Where can we find this masterpiece?  And enjoy your rest.

None of the mass murders since 1972 (maybe since the '30's) have involved automatic weapons.  Yes, often, rifles that mimic, in style, automatic weapons. (In the Isla Vista case, a Glock and a knife.  Half were killed by stabbing.)  In all but one of the mass murders in that time frame, a handgun could have taken out the shooter.  And there are plenty of defenses, even cowering in a bathroom, hoping the shooter won't notice you. (Worked really well at the Pulse, if I recall.) The scenario that most closely resembles yours was the Las Vegas shooting, in which, unless people had their own AR-15's slung over their shoulders, they really wasn't a defense (well, except for an alert security force and a call for an armed posse once the shooting started).  That involved a bump stock, not an automatic weapon.  And yes, I think there is a case for banning or at least restricting bump stocks, including them under the FFA, as long as there isn't a general ban on accessories.  They harm the firing pin of your gun, reduce your accuracy to almost the limiting case, so would "have no rational relationship to the training of the militia," even under the Founders interpretation of 'militia' (like everybody). True automatic weapons are severely limited, banned by several states, and to get one, you have to pass a background check, submit two photo id's and register your weapon (not to mention shell out the $10,000 purchase price, which may be doing more to limit their use than a ban).  You then need a 'love letter' from the local CLEO.  ("Vern's a good old boy; he deserves a machine gun for varmint hunting.") 

Although, in general, arguments that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to modern weapons are unsound (Yes, the 1st Amendment only applies to anything printed on a Gutenberg press--no. smh.  I agree with Justice Gorsuch that, for instance, in the digital age, 4th Amendment rights should extend to electronic communication, how extensively for the whole Court to decide.), the Founders did make a distinction between weapons in common usage among the people ("the militia") and weapons used by the army.  Cannons, for instance.  You had no constitutional right to a cannon.   

The AR-15 is the tomato of the issue.  Under Heller v DC, weapons in "common usage" for self-defense, sports, and hunting were protected under Miller v the US, but "exotic" weapons, e.g., machine guns and assault weapons, weren't.  (Miller, though, was about sawed off shotguns.  Oh, well.)  The trouble is, the AR-15 is both--20% of rile purchases are AR-15's and they are "assault," i.e., "scary," weapons.  It's probably best to leave that up to legislatures, and ban the ones that are black but allow the ones that are pink (pink not being a scary color).  That's what some States have decided to do, and SCOTUS has, so far, declined to speak about it. It is not w/o political peril, not because the NRA has a Kryptonian mind control device in Wayne's closet, but because "the people are the ultimate guardians of liberty," and I think most Americans understand, at a visceral level, the relationship between self-defense, defense of country, and the perrenial struggle against tyranny.  Or maybe they don't won't benevolent and wise men like Trump and Sessons deciding what weapons they get to use.  And let's be clear, that is what we are talking about with gun control at the federal level.

Be safe, Rachel

PS:  Yes, there are people demanding to deprive ordinary citizens of self-defense.

Let's do a substitution, keeping the form of the argument correct.  "Unfortnately, for the majority of congress there is no logic beyond the support of the Sierra Club for their reelection.  Until we, as voters, kick the nitwits out and make it clear that in essence the buying of congress will no longer be tolerated, we will be a nation of high unemployment, economic stagnation, and the inability to internationally compete..."

The fallacy should be clear. (The environmentalist lobby is the one that spends the most money and has had the most success in getting its agenda through.)

And it is the height of arrogance to think that those with different moral principles must be "bought" by corrupt and sinister forces. 

And sure, "automatic" weapons, i.e., "scary weapons," should be subject to some restriction.  Most States require a license to carry in public, and want them concealed, so as to not scare people.  (Although, the common law right is one to open-carry defensive weapons. This would be the "historical protection," as defined by Courts applying Heller v DC, not the right to carry concealed.)  I wouldn't personally carry a rifle slung over my shoulder anywhere but in Pennsylvania, where you can carry a loaded semi-automatic rifle, but not an unloaded handgun. But in general, anywhere that I go where I can be shot, I want the right to shoot back. (And even the CDC concluded that right to carry does not increase danger to the public.)

Some changes in the law will happen because of this latest shooting.  But i found it interesting (citation supplied upon request--see comment about being lazy) that more States respond to mass shooting by making firearms more readily available to ordinary citizens (thus, allowing them greater ability to fight back) than do by increasing restrictions.  (Those that do find unenforceable laws.  The law in NY to register 'assault weapons' have met with 2% compliance; when Stockton passed a law banning 'high capacity' magazines and requring that they be turned in, they had 0% compliance.  This was such a spactacular success that the people of California passed a similar law State wide. Even Australia's gun confiscation has only had a 5% to 20% success rate--depending on whom you talk to.  It's touted success in dropping homicide rates--which were dropping down before--is thus not based on valid causal inferences.)