Reader feedback

The original purpose for building this website was to create an internet platform to advertise the fact I’d become an author, and to promote my books.

The idea was that my writing would eventually provide me some level of income, but there’s only one small problem — I haven’t written enough material in any particular genre to draw and sustain a large audience, and there’s a lot of competition in this new age of digital publishing.

Long ago the decision was made to sacrifice quantity for quality, so I haven’t tried to produce a steady stream of content on one particular subject. I have tried to focus on writing well, rather than publishing more frequently. Naturally, it was a very rewarding feeling in 2013 when not one or two, but three of my books won awards, but the problem is that awards don’t automatically produce income. The market has been flooded with competition, and not enough people know who I am. I’m no genius when it comes to marketing myself as a writer, but I know that I don’t have enough readers, book reviews, and my work hasn’t gotten much publicity.

This is somewhat difficult to write without sounding like I’m pleading for money, but in order for my work to earn income, I need to sell books and short stories. I have resisted the idea of buttons soliciting donations to support the website, and Patreon accounts. But on the other hand, I don’t have an agent, or a book deal. I don’t get paid six or seven-figure advances on work that hasn’t even been written yet. The two small, independent publishers who have published my work paid fair royalties, but those are based on book sales. To be brutally blunt, if my family depended on my income as a writer to survive, we’d have starved to death about nine years ago.

Fortunately my wife believes in my talent as a writer, and I believe in myself.  The problem is largely one of my own making, I do believe.  Because my six published works range from nonfiction books about religion and philosophy (Divine Evolution and Counterargument for God), a collection of short stories about animal rescue called Always a Next One, plus three detective novels, I haven’t built an audience base that impatiently waits on my next book.

My first novel, Coastal Empire, introduced private detective Robert Mercer and his canine partner, Ox, as they tried to solve the mystery of why someone might steal a person’s identity without stealing their money. Premonition is the sequel to Coastal Empire, and Secondhand Sight is an amateur sleuth novel featuring Dan Harper as the main character. The next Mercer novel, which will be published in 2017, will be called Atheist’s Prayer.

I know from comments that people enjoy reading my blog, or so they claim, but do those same people read my books? If not, why not?

What do you like about my website, and what don’t you like? 

Like anyone else with an ego, of course I enjoy a complimentary review, especially when it is published at Amazon. However, I must admit that I crave constructive criticism, and I pay closer attention to those one and two-star book reviews, especially when it is obvious the person actually read my book. After all, if we fail to learn from our mistakes, we never stop making them. If my next novel isn’t better than anything I’ve written before, I’m not learning enough from my mistakes.

If you read one of my books, did you publish a short review on Amazon? Don’t worry about hurting my feelings, if you didn’t like what you read. Trust me, I’ll get over it.

I’ve been thinking about ways of monetizing the website, but the only thing I’ve decided to do so far is to publish here more often, and ask for your feedback on my writing. Having Atheist’s Prayer published later this year ought to help. Yes, I am committed to seeing that project completed in 2017, and then moving on to Devil’s Breath. I’m committed to working on Atheist’s Prayer every day, until published. Less time squandered on social media, and more time devoted to real work. If I simply went by Google Analytics, I’d write about Georgia Bulldog football every day, but I think there are enough websites already dedicated to that subject.

So…what do I do right? What am I doing wrong? What should I be doing differently?

Your feedback is greatly appreciated.

Secondhand Sight: 2013 Readers’ Favorite finalist

southernprose_cover_SHSSecondhand Sight, my second novel as “Rocky” Leonard, has been named one of six finalists in the Fiction/Horror category in the 2013 Readers’ Favorite International Awards.

This honor would not be possible without the efforts and skill of my editors, proof readers, copy editors, cover designers, and all those who helped me produce these three books that have been deemed worthy of finalist recognition.

This year I’m blessed to have three books remaining in competition in three different categories, with Secondhand Sight joining Always a Next One and Counterargument for God!

One Readers’ Favorite reviewer wrote about this novel:

The plot is deceptively simple because it is so ingenious. Dan’s descent into a manic paranoia is skillfully documented, and one feels for him in the mental confusion that accompanies his visions. The author also includes some interesting thoughts on the nature of dreams, hallucinations, psychometry (psychic revelations via touching objects), and the power of the mind. Murder mystery and paranormal fans will love this book.

finalist-shiny-webLast year I learned the hard way that a five-star review doesn’t guarantee a novel will become a finalist.

I know that I’m very fortunate for this opportunity.

Coastal Empire never made it this far.



Digital publishing and Amazon

How do I love Amazon? Let me count the ways…

If it weren’t for Amazon, I don’t believe that I would have a published book for sale today. Because of this internet conglomerate, I have two detective novels and two nonfiction books available for purchase, as you read these words.

Yes, and David Gaughran’s book Let’s Get Digital were also instrumental in getting my books published without an agent or contract with a major publisher, but without the market spawned by Amazon with the introduction of the Kindle, the demand for e-books would never have been created in the first place.

Therefore, in my mind, Amazon ultimately deserves a share of credit for any success I will enjoy as an author.

Amazon created the Kindle Select program, where a book may be enrolled for special treatment over a period of three months.

My short story collection Always a Next One was put into Kindle Select. During the time in that program, I’ve found my book marketed ubiquitously online, everywhere from American Thinker to an Australian television station website.

It’s extremely gratifying to find a well-placed, attractive ad for your product, especially an advertisement that you didn’t have to buy.

At this point in my writing career, exposure to my work is most important. “Free” advertising is invaluable. The Kindle Select program has been a great way to get my book cover visible all over the internet, where many eyes have found an adorable puppy looking back at them.

But that’s not all Amazon has done besides creating a market and offering a subscription service to help sell books.

Recently, for the third time in as many months, some algorithm in Amazon’s marketing software generated an automatic email and sent it to me.

Interestingly, the subject of the email was Secondhand Sight, the title given my most recent novel.

It was no coincidence.

Amazon was marketing my book, trying to sell a copy to me!

Even better, there were twelve novels in total from the Mystery and Suspense category, which their marketing widget had obviously recognized as my preference.

Secondhand Sight had received top billing, and Coastal Empire was the second book offered in the email. Apparently the widgets track how many times a potential customer has viewed a particular product. True, my competition in the offering did not include Michael Connelly, Dean Koontz, or James Patterson, but so what?

The important point was that my novels were marketed in the email, and prominently featured. Highlighted. Most importantly, I didn’t pay a dime, beg on bended knee, or do anything of which I’m aware to get Amazon to promote them.

It just happened, a most pleasant surprise, apparently a free benefit from doing business with the 800 pound gorilla in the market.

And all this time, I thought big corporations were evil and heartless.

Getting a free promotion from the market leader in the e-book business is like receiving a tastefully expensive Christmas present from someone I barely know.

Honestly, I do not anticipate that millions of potential customers were blasted that same email. I suspect that a rather small, select number of Amazon customers who had the same basic search patterns in Mystery and Suspense novels were the ones who received a similar advertisement.

To me, it wouldn’t matter if the same email was sent to 12,000 possible readers or only a dozen…or fewer. Even if I turned out to be the only recipient of that email, the message meant that somebody other than me is actively marketing my book, thanks to good old-fashioned capitalism.

After all, if my book sells, Amazon gets a small cut. It’s worth every penny, too.

Is this a great country, or what?

Charles Darwin and Creation, the movie

Movie Poster for "Creation"After reading an article in the UK Telegraph claiming that a film about Charles Darwin titled Creation had been deemed too controversial by distributors in America because it advocated evolution theory, I got suckered into watching it.

Hey, at least it was free on HBO.

In the Telegraph article by Showbiz editor Anita Singh, the film’s producer Jeremy Thomas was quoted as saying:

The film has no distributor in America. It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it’s because of what the film is about. People have been saying this is the best film they’ve seen all year, yet nobody in the US has picked it up. It is unbelievable to us that this is still a really hot potato in America. There’s still a great belief that He made the world in six days. It’s quite difficult for we in the UK to imagine religion in America. We live in a country which is no longer so religious. But in the US, outside of New York and LA, religion rules. Charles Darwin is, I suppose, the hero of the film. But we tried to make the film in a very even-handed way. Darwin wasn’t saying ‘kill all religion’, he never said such a thing, but he is a totem for people.

Sounds like a tired cliche–Darwin good, religion bad. Was the moviemaker correct in his assessment?  Why weren’t distributors fighting over the rights to the film in America?

I think I know the answer. The movie wasn’t controversial.

It was boring.

That’s only when it wasn’t depressing as hell. Morose would be far too cheerful a word to describe this film. Besides, the premise for his complaint was completely untrue.

In reality, Darwin’s theory of natural selection is now so venerated worldwide it is typically considered above question or criticism, even here in America.

Let me be brutally honest here for a moment–if one wants their viewing experience to be a two hour exercise of wallowing in abject misery, then feel free to watch this movie, by all means. It felt like work to me.

Don’t get me wrong. The actors did a fine job. Ditto the cinematographer.

However, the script was a recipe for clinical depression. It was definitely not a “happy” movie.

The fact Creation lacked joy or was horribly misnamed wasn’t what bothered me about it, though. It even had a few redeeming qualities. Several times the film echoed my “Darwin” arguments, in my forthcoming book, “Counterarguments for God.”

For example, the movie alluded to the problems of incest and the adverse effect it has on speciation theory. The script implied that Darwin believed the premature death of his child could be attributed to genetic defect, resulting from his mildly incestuous relationship to his wife.

The film wasn’t worthless. It just wasn’t worth paying to see, in my opinion, unless you needed an excuse for popping a Xanax after the fact.

It bothered me a little bit that the father of evolution theory was depicted in the movie as a hallucinating, spoiled, bitter aristocrat haunted by the ghost of his dead child. It wasn’t a very flattering portrayal, to say the least.

Darwin is presented as a half-crazed man angry with God, seeking revenge for the death of his daughter, rather than a man of science whom we are now taught to respect as a genius.

Here’s my “Cliff Notes” summary of the plot:

Charles Darwin had a daughter named Annie. She liked to hear her father tell morbid stories about a young orangutan named Jenny who lived in deplorable conditions in the local zoo. Jenny died a very sad and pathetic death. Annie also got sick and died while listening to her father recount the depressing tale of Jenny. Charles tried to bargain with God to save Annie, and turned on God when he didn’t get his wish granted. From his observations of nature, Darwin concluded that life sucks, and then you die, and Annie was nothing but a part of that process. Darwin also decided that God probably didn’t exist, and corrupted his wife, making her his accomplice. He wrote a famous book that ultimately convinced a lot of people he was right and the Bible was wrong. The End.

Had I been suicidal, enduring this movie could have pushed me over the edge. There was no happy ending. There weren’t even many happy moments.

Don’t misunderstand—the movie was very well-acted, and beautifully filmed.

It was just a boring movie on a tragic and depressing subject. However, that’s beside the point.

I come here not to praise the film, or to bury it.

This post isn’t intended to be a movie review.

Instead, I wanted to dissect the Telegraph article–the one that critiqued a movie review from a Christian website. That’s where the story gets interesting.

According to Ms. Singh, a post found at website had:

…described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as “a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder”. His “half-baked theory” directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to “atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering”, the site stated.

Wow! Rather inflammatory rhetoric, isn’t it? Perhaps even a little bit over the top?

Well, yeah. There’s only one problem.

It isn’t true. None of it.

Here’s a link to the actual review. Please note that Ms. Singh put quite a few words in quotes.

Based on her usage, one would normally assume the review in question actually contained “half-baked theory”, “atrocities”, “racist” and “genetic engineering,” since Ms. Singh put quotation marks around those specific words in her critique.

Please note that those words didn’t appear in the review.

None of them. I’ve double-checked.

Before going further, allow me to stipulate if those exacts are to be found elsewhere on the site, Ms. Singh should have provided a link to them to avoid confusion. However, I couldn’t find them.

It would appear that Ms. Singh deliberately and maliciously misquoted the content from the Christian review site.

Now, why would she do that? I wish I could say.

I can’t speak to her motive. But I can clear up this “misunderstanding” about the content of the review in question.

What the review actually said was:

CREATION is a beautifully made, poignant movie that is very emotional and moving. The filmmakers have done a great job of painting Darwin as a man reluctant to “kill God,” thereby creating empathy for him. Add in a tragic loss of his child and suffering from poor health, and the movie turns Darwin into something of a “Rocky” underdog for whom viewers are supposed to root. When Darwin decides to be true to his convictions, the filmmakers have very adeptly made it be that his decision to write the book is a turning point for him and for all of the world.

The fact that the movie is so well done is what makes it the most dangerous. Mud, nicely wrapped with a bow, is still mud. A lie that there is no God and that somehow we have randomly shown up here on Earth as an accident is still a lie, even if it’s well written and well-acted.

Clearly, the reviewer was not a big fan of the movie.

Nor was I, but that’s beside the point.

The point is that in the Telegraph article Ms. Singh egregiously misrepresents what the review actually said, and apparently on purpose.

That is my point.

My wife has asked me, more than once, this simple question: why do I care?

Why do I bother writing provocative or inflammatory articles such as this? This article probably won’t help sell a detective novel or a supernatural thriller. It may even hurt sales.

Why write about evolution, science and religion, if all I really want to do is write my novels as Rocky Leonard? Fair question. As usual, she’s quite right. This blog entry could alienate some potential buyers of my books.

On the other hand, it might not.

My reason for publishing this piece in spite of potentially negative consequences is also simple: I can’t abide a false claim that goes unchallenged.

Quid est veritas? What is truth?

I don’t suggest that I always know, or recognize the truth for what it is.

However, when I’m pretty convinced the truth is not what someone is telling, I can’t turn a blind eye.

I’m just not wired that way.

Coastal Empire earns solid review from Independent Professional Book Reviewers

Melissa Brown Levine wrote this review of Coastal Empire for Independent Professional Book Reviewers:

In author Rocky Leonard’s debut novel, Coastal Empire, Savannah private detective Robert Mercer, finds himself in the middle of an elaborate, illegal real estate scheme after taking a job to track a suspected philanderer. What begins as a simple case soon becomes a tangled web of fraud and murder. Mercer risks his on life as he works to save the remaining targets on the criminals’ list. This story has a complicated plot that moves in unexpected directions.

After receiving a thank you card from a jeweler in Atlanta, Sarah Reid hires Robert Mercer to find out if her husband, Barry Reid, a prominent local real estate agent, is cheating on her. Mercer accepts the job and spends a couple of days in Atlanta searching for the man who sent the thank you card. During his investigation, Mercer meets Kelly, a woman who originally presents herself as an employee of the jewelry store, but who Mercer later discovers is a significant figure in his case.

Upon his return to Savannah, Mercer meets Nick Mason when Nick runs out into the middle of the street as Mercer and his dog Ox are making their way home. This chance meeting turns into a partnership when Nick informs Mercer of strange real estate transactions involving multi-million dollar properties and a local attorney. When the men discover that the owners of two of those properties were killed just months after a real estate trust on their properties was set up, they investigate the key players in the scheme. Barry Reid happens to be one of them.

Leonard has created an intriguing storyline that demands the reader keep up with each twist and insertion of new information in order to comprehend fully what the characters are up against. Mercer emerges as a powerful force in the book, as he makes capturing the criminals and saving prospective victims his mission. His intelligence, military background, and compassion make Mercer an attractive lead and a solid anchor for future books in the Robert Mercer mystery series. There are many characters in this book whose roles must be defined and connected to the main plot. Fortunately, Leonard successfully connects all of the dots and doesn’t leave a single loose thread as the story ends.

Coastal Empire is a terrific start to the Robert Mercer mystery series and a strong first effort from a new author.

Mental masturbation

When someone goes out of his or her way to ask me to do something very specific, I usually try to accommodate them, especially if the request is reasonable. Though I’ve been quite busy editing the draft of my coming novel Secondhand Sight, my friend Sean made a point of asking me to read Free Will by Sam Harris.

I protested that I was busy writing and editing my novel. Readers of my first Robert Mercer mystery, titled Coastal Empire, have been clamoring for the sequel, which won’t come after Secondhand Sight. I don’t want interest to wane, while I’m screwing around reading another writer’s book.

Sean persuaded me by countering that the Harris book was short, and an “easy read.”

So I splurged on Amazon, shelling out $3.99 for the Kindle edition.

What a sucker I am!

Oh, it was short, all right. And an easy read. But more importantly, the book proved to be an utter waste of my time and money.

Love ya, Sean, but I should have just kept writing.

Do not assume that I fail to appreciate Sam Harris as a writer. On the contrary, I thought his book The End of Faith was quite good, though I disagreed with most of his conclusions. It was quite brave of Harris to admit that he believes in a spiritual facet of the universe that inexplicably exists, but cannot be defined in conventional, scientific terms.

The “Fourth Horseman” clearly departed from Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins on that point.  Harris said he prefers the term “mysticism” to “spiritualism” to describe this phenomena he accepts, because he believes the latter term has more “gravitas.”

But Harris does not believe in the concept of free will. To argue his point, he curiously makes the claim that if he had changed places with Stephen Hayes on July 23, 2007, he would have participated in the brutal assault on Dr. William Petit and the murder of his entire family because he would have had no choice in the matter. Actually, Harris did not say “he” would have committed the murders, but if we assume the space inhabited by the molecules and atoms shared the exact same experiences, environmental influences and genetic makeup as Hayes, from birth until that moment, then “he” would have done the same thing.

The philosophical argument is utter nonsense, sophistry at its worst — or, as the title of this article crudely described it, mental masturbation. It’s a complete waste of time to entertain the idea.

It doesn’t qualify as theory or hypothesis; it’s not even clever conjecture. It presumes the unknowable, the untestable, and ultimately the unbelievable.

Harris is making the claim that at every possible point in his imaginary life as Stephen Hayes, he would have made all the same choices, precisely because he had no choice. The idea is not only moronic, it’s immoral. In his argument that free will is merely an illusion, Harris is absolving Hayes of any responsibility for his actions in committing several despicable murders, in spite of any argument he might attempt to the contrary.

In my debate with the formidable Ed Buckner, former president of American Atheists, I vehemently argued that Harris’ argument against to the concept of free will was baseless and without merit well prior to reading his short, useless little book.

My point was simple — there was nothing in anyone’s genetic makeup, life experiences, or environmental pressures that forced those in attendance to sacrifice their Saturday afternoon in order to hear two grown men waste several hours of a beautiful afternoon, in an almost pointless debate about whether or not God exists.

The argument was pointless in the sense that both of us knew going in that there was little if any chance of persuading the other man that he was wrong. Ed didn’t appear to even listen to most of what I said. We both knew we both lacked any real scientific evidence to back our arguments, or defeat the other guys.

Our real challenge was to win over the audience. Except that was not really my goal, either. My only goal was not to fail completely.

I didn’t expect many in the audience to come with an open mind. My goal was to plant seeds of doubt, to persuade the atheists in attendance to really become a free thinker, and open their mind to the possibility of God. It doesn’t even have to be “my” God.

I’ve often said, get your own.

Only time will tell if our debate had any impact on anyone who attended.

But let’s be absolutely clear about a couple of things — I definitely had a choice whether or not to accept Ed’s challenge and meet him in debate by oral arguments. Attendance was not mandatory. Those in the audience also exercised their free will, when they chose to attend the event on a beautiful Saturday afternoon.

The argument that free will is an illusion is a silly one, and without merit.

I knew exactly what I was getting into when I accepted Ed’s challenge. I knew the odds were not in my favor, given his vast experience in debate, and my virginity with the art form. Yet I chose to meet him on his chosen field of battle, mostly because I was curious to learn if there was something he knew or believed that I hadn’t already considered. I risked humiliation, because my curiosity got the best of me. I have no regrets.

On the other hand, having now been there, done that, and I will go on record as saying that I have no intention of doing it again. I predict, should this opportunity ever arise again, I will once again exercise my free will, and this time, I state without equivocation beforehand that I will almost certainly only consider another debate of that nature when Hell becomes exothermic and freezes over.

Don’t get me wrong — I like Ed just fine, and I am not saying this because I think I lost our debate. Nor am I saying that was my last word on the matter.

However, next time, the debate will take place on my chosen battlefield — on the pages of a book. When I have more than a couple of hours to marshal my thoughts and put them all into writing, there won’t be much left to argue afterward.

But I will be fair. The title will be The Argument about God, as opposed to The Argument for God.

I plan to present the best arguments for both sides. When it has been published, you may choose to exercise your free will in deciding whether or not to read it. The book will be written, unless I stop breathing before it’s finished.

I’ve already decided. Of my own free will.

[Hat tip to Sean T. for inspiring this article]


Kickstarting the Fonehook

I’m in the late stages of producing the completed first draft of my next novel to be published by Each Voice Publishing, which I’m calling Secondhand Sight, but occasionally I take a break and come up for air….Okay, so the truth is that I occasionally stop screwing around and get some real work done, but that’s another story.

The point of this article is to talk about the crowd funding phenomenon, and a new invention called the Fonehook. The idea to write it originated when I checked my email and found a very polite query from a gentleman named Anthony, who read something I’d published. He asked me to review his new product he’s trying to market, a simple platform designed to safely hold your IPod, IPhone, Android, or other smart device.

The product is clever, inexpensive, and designed well enough to do the job. Prepare the double-sided tape, put two screws into the wall, attach the Fonehook and tighten the screws, and that baby isn’t going anywhere. The only drawbacks to the deal are that you have to buy in a minimum quantity of five Fonehooks for $20, and the screws apparently aren’t included. You’d probably want more than one of these wall hangers for phones anyway, but may not have a use for all five.

The ones you don’t use, you can give away to family and friends. A small package of wood screws can be obtained from a hardware store for a dollar or two. Problem solved.

This product reminded that my son’s smart phone has a cracked screen precisely for the reason he didn’t have a safe place for it when it wasn’t in his pocket. After spending several hundred dollars for his fancy phone and IPod, it’s certainly worth $20 to protect them.

My curiosity led to a test drive around the Fonehook website, a slick promotional tool for the product. There I noticed a button for his Kickstarter campaign and followed the link.

Hours earlier, I’d been at that very website, pondering my own campaign to raise funds intended to garner reviews and pay for marketing and advertising the novel. For the uninitiated, Kickstarter is one of several websites dedicated to “crowd funding” projects ranging from inventions such as Anthony Johnston’s Fonehook to publishing efforts, movies, art, games, music, theater, and other categories of interest.

The way it works is pretty simple. First, you calculate the amount you need to properly fund a project. Next, you formulate a campaign to raise that amount. People come to the website, evaluate your campaign, then decide whether or not to make a pledge of support. If the target amount is reached, the campaign is funded and executed. If the entrepreneur fails to generate enough pledges to meet his goal, nobody pays anything. The project never gets off the ground.

Other sites will provide partial funding, but the Kickstarter philosophy is that you calculate what you need for success. Trying to get by with partial funding is a recipe for disaster. Some campaigns have funded several hundred percent above the goal amount; others expire before reaching their target.

Anthony’s target is relatively modest. His campaign has 57 days remaining for him to raise another $13,705 (at time of this publication). The problem is that by my calculations, he needs about 685 more people to pledge at least $20 to realize his dream.

Even though I don’t own an IPod or IPhone, I’m seriously considering pledging $20 just to help Anthony get his business off the ground, to realize his dream. I may even buy a smart phone later this year, just so I’ll need a Fonehook.

Of course, Mr. Johnston will still need 684 more people to follow suit in order to purse his dream. Perhaps one or two readers of this article will feel the same way as me and follow my lead. With Kickstarter, the risk is practically non-existent. His potential market will decide whether or not his original fundraising target was reasonable or unrealistic.

I wish him every success. After all, I’m seriously considering following his example. The worst thing that could happen is that I would set an unattainable goal and fail to raise enough money, but I will still have a book in any event. The only question will be if I can raise enough money to properly market it. Since I would need less than half of the Fonehook goal, I’m strongly pulling for him to succeed. It will bolster my confidence to follow his lead.

Unless Mr. Johnston’s business model follows the Solyndra example of selling units that cost $6 each for $3, it’s a win/win situation for the aspiring businessman and his potential customer base. You can be sure that I’ll be following the Fonehook campaign closely, as I continue to contemplate my own Kickstarter campaign to raise funds for the promotion of Secondhand Sight.

Captain Kudzu reviews Coastal Empire

David Thornton is a very busy man. He flies airplanes for a living.

David also writes as the Atlanta Conservative Examiner, the National Aviation Examiner, and the Atlanta 2012 Elections Examiner.

Recently, in his capacity as Examiner writer, David seized an opportunity to direct a question to the White House and received a direct response — details of the exchange can be found here.

In his spare time (amazingly, he seems to have some) David writes on his syndicated blog as Captain Kudzu. I’m flattered that he took the time to read and then post his review my novel, Coastal Empire.

I’m beaming with pride, and appreciative of his kind words.