Recovered:
06-05-2006, 02:49 PM
ddgryphon
Arhythmic Bathtub Dancer
Wolfmont Publishing
Anybody got anything on this group?
Looks like a vanity press to me, but I'd like something definite in that area before I go off on them.
Thanks.
__________________
06-05-2006, 03:08 PM
CaoPaux
Mostly Harmless
http://www.wolfmont.com/
*wince*
I'm not sure where to start.... Let's just say that any place which devotes a full page to "famous self-publishers" is a place to avoid. IMHO.
__________________
CAO
06-14-2006, 04:22 AM
Beirdd
Just FYI
Wolfmont's last two releases have been (1) a co-op release (Seven By Seven) and (2) a standard, commercial or "traditional" release (Under a Raging Moon).
The page that is mentioned is put there for those who are so adamant that those who self-publish or small-press publish cannot succeed. I am the owner of Wolfmont, in case you haven't figured that out by now, and I provide self-publishing (or vanity, if you prefer), co-op publishing and commercial publishing.
I do NOT accept just anything that comes in over the transom. I turn down work that is inappropriate or not ready for publication, in my opinion.
As for the quality of the work I do publish, check out Midwest Book Review on Seven By Seven. As Under a Raging Moon has only been released this month, I don't have a review from them yet, on it.
Oh, heck... here it is:
Seven By Seven
B. J. Bourg et al
Wolfmont Publishing
PO Box 205, Ranger, GA 30734
0977840207 $13.95 www.wolfmont.com
Expertly compiled and edited by Tony Burton, Seven By Seven: Seven Deadly Tales Of The Seven Deadly Sins By Seven Deadly Authors is a 194-page anthology of 49 "flash fiction" pieces contributed by seven gifted writers, each of whose succinct and polished stories feature one of the seven deadly sins. Showcasing works pertaining to Lust, Gluttony, Sloth, Greed, Wrath, Envy, and Pride, each represented by the literary and storytelling skills of B.J. Bourg, Kimberly Brown, Deborah Elliott-Upton, John M. Floyd, Sunny Frazier, Gary Hoffman, and Frank Zafiro. Brief but memorable stories that will linger in the mind and imagination, Seven By Seven is enthusiastically recommended reading.
I understand your incredulity about the self-publishers page, I suppose, but if you investigated those on the list a little bit more you might be surprised. Then again, maybe not.
I'll happily give anyone who inquires answers to as many questions as I can (within reason! My time is limited like anyone else's.) If you have a particular question with regard to distribution, royalties, book formats available, etc., I'm happy to answer them.
I'll be up front with you right now and say that I won't be releasing a lot of commercially published books each year because, quite frankly, I'm a small-press publisher with a staff of ONE, and at present, don't have the resources to risk on that many commercial releases. And it takes a lot of time to do it right, too.
I get this sort of response occasionally from people (Self-publishing - YUK!), and I've learned to deal with it, although occasionally the ignorance astounds me.
Just as an observation - there are a lot of vanity and self-published books out there that are crap, and should never have been published, IMHO. There are almost as many commercially-published books that fit the same mold, unfortunately. Again, IMHO.
Beirdd
Beirdd
06-14-2006, 07:33 AM
Aconite
Full sun to light shade
Mod Squad Member
Beirdd, please cite examples of where anyone in this thread has been "so adamant that those who self-publish or small-press publish cannot succeed."
Members of this board typically don't have a problem with self-publishing or small-press publishing per se. I like to see those who are going that route be educated about what the real ins and outs are, so they can make a good decision about whether or not it's right for them. That's not being adamant that they can't succeed. And, to be honest, when a publisher like you comes here and starts immediately talking about how "you people" have it all wrong, and going on about how commercial publication isn't all it's cracked up to be, either, that sends up red flags for me. Just FYI.
__________________
06-14-2006, 08:13 AM
Beirdd
Lighten up, Aconite...
I didn't say anyone HERE had that issue. But obviously it bothered someone (see the *wince* below in the post to which I replied). Wasn't addressing the PAGE to anyone, merely it's mention, which someone else already did. And some people DO have that problem - I've been chewed out in at least one group by someone who was absolutely LIVID because I had the gall to offer to review small-press and self-published books in my ezine. How DARE I do such a thing! Why that was only encouraging the sniveling little no-talent hacks!
Of course, this was from someone who had never published a book anywhere, in any fashion, but that didn't keep him from ranting.
Nowhere in my post did I say "you people". I did say "you" because I was addressing the post directly before mine. That's what "reply" means. I "replied" to the none-too-subtle jab. If it didn't apply to you, then good for you! I don't know how it could have applied to you, Aconite, since I didn't even know you existed until you jumped to the defensive.
Read my post in its entirety, for goodness sake! Nowhere did I say anything about commercial publishing not being what it should be. I said that some books on BOTH sides of the issue probably shouldn't have been published. And I daresay most people would agree with me on that. If you don't, that's your option.
What's the matter, did you read and reply before waking up completely? Or was it something else that put you on the prod?
Beirdd
Beirdd
06-14-2006, 08:14 AM
Aconite
Full sun to light shade
Mod Squad Member
Have you considered how professional such a response makes you sound?
__________________
06-14-2006, 08:27 AM
Beirdd
Have YOU considered?
First of all, how annoying it is to have assumptions made about the business you run, and have those assumptions publicly proclaimed, even in a mildly snide fashion such as:
*wince*
I'm not sure where to start.... Let's just say that any place which devotes a full page to "famous self-publishers" is a place to avoid. IMHO.
I think the defense of my business practices was entirely in order, given that statement.
Secondly, how annoying it is to have someone read parts of a post and reply to those small parts without seeming to read the whole thing? Context is an important thing.
Anyone who really wants to know about what I do can ask me, or ask the people I've worked with.
Beirdd
06-14-2006, 08:32 AM
Aconite
Full sun to light shade
Mod Squad Member
Beirdd, I realize you probably won't take this well, but I feel I need to try anyway. Whether you realize it or not, the way you came onto this board, and the things you said and the way you said them, closely match the pattern of several publishers we've learned to be wary of. Those behaviors have become red flags for people evaluating the professionalism of a company. We're forming an impression of your company you probably don't intend for us to have.
Take that for what it's worth.
__________________
06-14-2006, 08:46 AM
Beirdd
Actually I can accept that much more easily than the first thing you said to me. I understand it. And I hope you can understand that when I see my company spoken of in nasty and/or condescending tones by someone who has never even spoken to me or asked me about my publishing policies, it gets under my skin as well. Or when someone reads my post and misquotes it, then takes me to task for what I supposedly said.
I'm serious about publishing, and about writing. They are not hobbies to me - both are my livelihood.
I shudder when I see the things that some vanity publishers put out. What a waste of paper and time and for goodness sake, the author's money! So, to the idea that SOME vanity publishers are creeps, thieves and liars, I make no rebuttal. But I dislike broad-brush painting that smears me at the same time, just because I do vanity publishing in addition to co-op and commercial publishing. That's it in a nutshell.
Perhaps I'm just as sensitive to those kind of things as the other members of this board are to what I said that are supposed to have sent up the red flags. (I'm not sure what they are.)
Beirdd
06-14-2006, 08:48 AM
Kate Thornton
One of the Locals
I bought Wolfmont Publishing's "Seven by Seven" - and I think it is a terrific anthology of mystery/crime stories based on the 'seven sins' - well done by seven authors (2 of whom I had read before) and edited by Tony Burton.
It's a trade paperback and I certainly feel I got my money's worth. I buy a lot of mystery anthologies because I write a lot of mystery shorts - I had nothing to do with this one, other than having heard it was good. I have bought several books from Wolfmont - as a consumer, they satisfied me.
I will buy 'Under a Raging Moon' when it comes out because I know the author's other work and respect it.
I think if I had anything book length ready for publication, I would inquire with them. If they put out a call for anthology submissions, I would respond.
Kate
__________________
Kate Thornton
06-14-2006, 10:57 AM
CaoPaux
Mostly Harmless
I winced at a great many things on your website. I chose the famous self-published page as an example because it repeats the same myths and half-truths we see trumpeted by hundreds of Self-Publishing is Revolutionary!!!11!! folks who don t know the first thing about how to get a book on a shelf.
Remembrance of Things Past, by Marcel Proust, 1920 s = Irrelevant to the current state of the industry.
Ulysses, by James Joyce, 1922, Same.
Legally Blonde, by Amanda Brown, Plume Books (div of Penguin). Self-published when and with who?
The Adventures of Peter Rabbit, by Beatrix Potter, 1901, again, too old to be relevant.
A Time to Kill, by John Grisham, Wynwood Press, (NOT self-published).
The Wealthy Barber, by David Chilton. Originally self-published (not vanity), now pubbed by an imprint of Crown. That is, found fame through a commercial publisher.
Etc., etc.
If you wish to convince folks that self-publishing will bring them modern-day fame and fortune, I suggest limiting your list to authors who 1) pubbed after 1950 and 2) are still self-published.
And, if you wish, I'll expound upon why I winced at the rest of your site.
__________________
CAO
06-14-2006, 12:46 PM
Popeyesays
Board fanatic
I would simply ask what kind of distribution your published books had?
And suggest you might seperate imprints at least between your self-published book service and your small print efforts.
Regards,
Scott
__________________
06-14-2006, 02:26 PM
Beirdd
First to Cao
If you read you will see that I didn't say that those who succeeded or became successful did so while self-publishing. I said that it was a doorway for them, or a springboard, if you will.
I'm so glad you are the one with the power and authority to declare what is relevant and what is irrelevant! When did God abdicate and make you a deity? However, even if a couple of the examples are older than the others, there are many others which are modern. Actually, I refrained from putting up many which are older than those.
Since you choose to reject anything older as irrelevant (May God have mercy on your parents when they reach their dotage!), Amanda Brown originally self-published Legally Blonde, and it was 1 1/2 years after the movie was made before Plume took up the book.
In fact, A Time to Kill was originally self-published by Grisham. It was NOT his best book nor his most famous, but it was self-published. It was picked up by a traditional publisher after his name became established by his other novels.
And as you say, The Wealthy Barber was self-published. Glad you admitted it.
In truth, you and I know that I'm not going to change your mind. You have already made up your mind, and I can't confuse you with the facts. I shouldn't have wasted my time with your post, but I felt a small necessity. Your opinion, like those of most who are mired in their own self-worth and opinions, means nothing to me. I know that what I'm doing is worthwhile and I know I'm not being deceptive. I really couldn't care less why you winced at this point.
I wish you well.
Beirdd
06-14-2006, 02:42 PM
Beirdd
For Popeyesays
My recently published books are distributed through Ingram's and Baker & Taylor. They are presently being sold in the United States and Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Africa. Of course, this means they are available through Amazon, B&N, B. Dalton, Hastings, Blackwell, and so forth.
My first two were not. They were very much learning experiences, to be truthful.
Thank you for a factual question, rather than one based upon emotion.
As for your suggestion, that is welcomed, as well. However, at this time I intend to keep them under the same imprint. Since I don't intend to take on any "junk", I don't want to label things that authors pay to have published as inferior. (I've honestly rejected more MSs than I've published.) I know many people say if a MS is good enough it would be picked up by a "traditional" publisher. I don't think that's always true - and I don't think the books that are picked up by traditional publishers are always good, either. Every editor makes mistakes in what he or she chooses or rejects. I'm sure all those who rejected the Rowling books are kicking themselves now.
If an author looks at the books I've published and says, "I don't want to be under the same imprint as a self-published author!", then they and their ego are free to go elsewhere. I'm a small press, anyway, and I doubt I'll handle more than four or five titles a year (commercially/traditionally published), at least at this point.
Thanks for your input.
Beirdd
Beirdd
06-14-2006, 02:46 PM
Sassenach
Inexplicability Assessment
Free advice. Stop talking before you really embarass yourself. Petulance isn't something one seeks in a publisher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirdd
:::snipped:::
I'm so glad you are the one with the power and authority to declare what is relevant and what is irrelevant! When did God abdicate and make you a deity? However, even if a couple of the examples are older than the others, there are many others which are modern. Actually, I refrained from putting up many which are older than those.
Since you choose to reject anything older as irrelevant (May God have mercy on your parents when they reach their dotage!)
:::snipped:::
__________________
06-14-2006, 02:51 PM
Aconite
Full sun to light shade
Mod Squad Member
This gets tossed around the 'Net a lot, but no, it really wasn't self-published. It was published by a small press--Wynwood--and picked up by a big house after The Firm was optioned and then filmed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirdd
In fact, A Time to Kill was originally self-published by Grisham. It was NOT his best book nor his most famous, but it was self-published. It was picked up by a traditional publisher after his name became established by his other novels.
__________________
06-14-2006, 03:08 PM
Beirdd
I guess it depends on how you define "self publish". According to Grisham, who by the way doesn't recommend self-publishing (I have to be honest here), he paid to have it published. By self-publish, I don't usually mean that a person establishes their own publishing house and imprint. Sometimes that happens, but not always.
Beirdd
06-14-2006, 03:21 PM
roach
rpia
Please cite where he said this. Also, you mentioned that Amanda Brown self-published, could you please cite where this is confirmed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirdd
I guess it depends on how you define "self publish". According to Grisham, who by the way doesn't recommend self-publishing (I have to be honest here), he paid to have it published. By self-publish, I don't usually mean that a person establishes their own publishing house and imprint. Sometimes that happens, but not always.
ETA: It seems that the entry on Self-publishing at Wikipedia perpetuates the Grisham myth. Are there any wiki-editors around who could fix that?
__________________
06-14-2006, 03:41 PM
Kasey Mackenzie
Blonde & Bookxum
You really should dial down the attitude a notch (or ten) and stop trying to pass off inaccurate information to people who know better. It took a very simple google search to reach John Grisham's official Random House website where his biography specifically states this: "Getting up at 5 a.m. every day to get in several hours of writing time before heading off to work, Grisham spent three years on A Time to Kill and finished it in 1987. Initially rejected by many publishers, it was eventually bought by Wynwood press, who gave it a modest 5,000 copy printing and published it in June 1988."Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirdd
I guess it depends on how you define "self publish". According to Grisham, who by the way doesn't recommend self-publishing (I have to be honest here), he paid to have it published. By self-publish, I don't usually mean that a person establishes their own publishing house and imprint. Sometimes that happens, but not always.
Interestingly enough, it does not mention self-publishing. If you are referring to the little tidbit that floats around about him selling some copies out of the back of his trunk, a self-publisher that does not Grisham make.
Edited to add: Further googling unearthed this interview with John Grisham himself where he states that he was not self-published. Scroll down to the second question from Slushpile.
__________________
06-14-2006, 04:24 PM
Beirdd
Replies and attitude
As to attitude, I thought I was giving at about the same rate that I received, but I can lower that if it makes you happier.
OK. Grisham. My sources were primarily two, though I've seen it in other places. One was the Wikipedia citation already mentioned by another poster, and the other was an author who (intererestingly enough) was bashing self-publishing, knows Grisham personally (he says) and said that Grisham DID self-publish, but now hates it. I took that as a confirmation of the Wikipedia entry. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly remove it. In fact, I'll remove it now, since it's being so hotly contested. No biggie for me. There are too many others to have to lean on Grisham.
As for Amanda Brown, on an NPR Morning Edition show on June 13, 2005 Gloria Hillard quoted Amanda Brown, and she spoke of how she self-published, using First Books. Depending on whether or not you enjoyed the movie about the indefatigable Elle Woods, that may or may not be a good recommendation.
Beirdd
06-15-2006, 09:15 AM
Sassenach
Inexplicability Assessment
It's not a matter of either of those, but the way you're representing yourself and your business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirdd
As to attitude, I thought I was giving at about the same rate that I received, but I can lower that if it makes you happier.
__________________
06-15-2006, 09:37 AM
James D. Macdonald
Dawnolite Sparklecow
Absolute Sage
Legally Blonde was vanity-published through AuthorHouse.
__________________
06-15-2006, 10:47 AM
James D. Macdonald
Dawnolite Sparklecow
Absolute Sage
Another book that needs to come off the self-published success stories page is Strunk & White's The Elements of Style.
William Strunk originally had his class notes printed and distributed to his students at Cornell, where he was an instructor. Yes, this was self-published, for certain values of the term, but it was really because the Xerox machine hadn't been invented in 1918.
Strunk & White, the revision done by E.B. White (one of Strunk's students, since gone on to become an editor at The New Yorker), was published by Macmillan and Company. Hardly self-published.
__________________
06-15-2006, 12:07 PM
CaoPaux
Mostly Harmless
The page is labeled “famous_selfpub”, named “Self-publishing and Small-press Successes”, and titled “Winners who self-published or small-press published”. How are you not intimating that the authors listed became famous via self-publishing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirdd
First to Cao
If you read you will see that I didn't say that those who succeeded or became successful did so while self-publishing. I said that it was a doorway for them, or a springboard, if you will.
It has nothing to do with power and/or authority; ‘tis a fact that the structure and function of the industry has changed drastically over the past century. Add to that the inherent differences between publishing in the U.S. versus England/Europe, and it’s simple to separate apples from oranges.Quote:
I'm so glad you are the one with the power and authority to declare what is relevant and what is irrelevant!
She didn’t, and I'm content to remain a mere minion. Fortunately, a divine intellect is not required to find, much less understand, the wealth of information regarding how modern publishing works. I suggest starting here:Quote:
When did God abdicate and make you a deity?
http://www.sfwa.org/beware/vanitypublishers.html
http://www.sfwa.org/beware/printondemand.html
http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20586
I look forward to seeing them.Quote:
However, even if a couple of the examples are older than the others, there are many others which are modern.
That is good, for reasons already explained.Quote:
Actually, I refrained from putting up many which are older than those.
1) 1stBooks/Authorhouse is vanity, not self-publishing. 2) Her book wasn't even “published” by 1stbooks until the movie was released. http://starbulletin.com/2001/07/08/features/story2.html Therefore, her fame is not due to self-publishing by any stretch of the imagination.Quote:
Since you choose to reject anything older as irrelevant (May God have mercy on your parents when they reach their dotage!), Amanda Brown originally self-published Legally Blonde, and it was 1 1/2 years after the movie was made before Plume took up the book.
This myth is well debunked elsewhere.Quote:
In fact, A Time to Kill was originally self-published by Grisham. It was NOT his best book nor his most famous, but it was self-published. It was picked up by a traditional publisher after his name became established by his other novels.
But do you admit that self-publishing for the financial seminar circuit is an entirely different model than the Success Through Self-Publishing that you are selling?Quote:
And as you say, The Wealthy Barber was self-published. Glad you admitted it.
That I can agree with.Quote:
In truth, you and I know that I'm not going to change your mind.
There is confusion over facts, here, but it's not mine.Quote:
You have already made up your mind, and I can't confuse you with the facts.
My initial opinion was that, based on a wince-inducing webpage, your company was not a good choice for a writer seeking to be gainfully published. Your responses have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.Quote:
I shouldn't have wasted my time with your post, but I felt a small necessity. Your opinion, like those of most who are mired in their own self-worth and opinions, means nothing to me.
Deliberately deceptive, no. But it would behoove you to gain more understanding of the industry so you can avoid misleading your clients through ignorance.Quote:
I know that what I'm doing is worthwhile and I know I'm not being deceptive.
That’s too bad. Correcting errors of fact and format would improve your credibility.Quote:
I really couldn't care less why you winced at this point.
And I you. I look forward to tracking your progress.Quote:
I wish you well.
__________________
CAO
06-15-2006, 04:03 PM
HapiSofi
Board fanatic
Absolute Sage
Here are some knowledgeable sorts who've commented on the unreliability of the "successfully self-published authors" list:
Scrivener's Error
Making Light
Nick Mamatas
Michelle Sagara
To quote from Making Light's "More Linguistic Markers":
Never get your advice about self-publishing from a source that feeds you a long list of famous authors who were supposedly self-published. Medium-length lists are bad too. They're all variants of the same original list, and are a marker for bad advice about self-publishing.
Where did this original list come from? This is predictable: it was compiled by a guy who markets a book about what a swell thing it is to self-publish your work. ...
(Much pungent commentary regretfully snipped)
The author list isn't so much an indication of a specific scam as it is a warning that you're in the land of overhyped and underinformed self-publishing advice. Think of it as a road sign on the information highway that says CLUELESSNESS IN PROGRESS HERE.
Basically, if you've heard of a contemporary author's work, it's not because they self-published it. It's because a real publishing house with a real marketing department and a real distribution deal published and sold the work in vast quantities.
Onward, then, to Mr. Beirdd's remarks at AW:
I'm serious about them too. Tell me: how many copies have you sold so far this year?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirdd
I'm serious about publishing, and about writing. They are not hobbies to me - both are my livelihood.
If it's just a doorway or springboard, how can it provide anyone with a livelihood?Quote:
If you read you will see that I didn't say that those who succeeded or became successful did so while self-publishing. I said that it was a doorway for them, or a springboard, if you will.
CaoPaux's authority derives from being right.Quote:
I'm so glad you are the one with the power and authority to declare what is relevant and what is irrelevant!
If you knew enough about publishing to justify soliciting other writers to put their work in your hands, you'd surely be aware how much the industry has changed over the last couple of decades. But if you insist on the validity of your earlier examples, you have an unpleasant surprise awaiting you: there are other reasons why those examples don't work. If you want to discuss them in detail, feel free to say so.
Good thing. The older titles' problems are even more embarrassing. If this were a Warner Brothers cartoon, you'd be standing on air. Look downward at your own risk.Quote:
...even if a couple of the examples are older than the others, there are many others which are modern. Actually, I refrained from putting up many which are older than those.
You're talking to a group of people who collectively know a great deal more about publishing than you do. You're being told, accurately, that what you're doing won't work the way you imagine. It's your call whether that's a worthwhile thing to do with your own writing. The problem is that you're also doing it with other people's writing, and telling them it will work. That's not fair. And once you've been given the opportunity to understand that your program isn't going to succeed, it becomes dishonest as well.Quote:
In truth, you and I know that I'm not going to change your mind. You have already made up your mind, and I can't confuse you with the facts. I shouldn't have wasted my time with your post, but I felt a small necessity. Your opinion, like those of most who are mired in their own self-worth and opinions, means nothing to me. I know that what I'm doing is worthwhile and I know I'm not being deceptive. I really couldn't care less why you winced at this point.
Nice try. What that list means is that you don't have a brick-and-mortar or wire rack distribution deal. Your titles are "available" insofar as they can be ordered via the distributors and online booksellers that will carry absolutely anything.Quote:
My recently published books are distributed through Ingram's and Baker & Taylor. They are presently being sold in the United States and Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Africa. Of course, this means they are available through Amazon, B&N, B. Dalton, Hastings, Blackwell, and so forth.
Child, don't even start.Quote:
Thank you for a factual question, rather than one based upon emotion.
If you think that's something to boast about, you're so close to being a vanity publisher that it's hardly worth making the distinction. I've seen more slush than you would believe. A publisher who printed one slush submission out of a hundred would be nothing short of indiscriminate.Quote:
I've honestly rejected more MSs than I've published.
And your qualifications for saying that are?Quote:
I know many people say if a MS is good enough it would be picked up by a "traditional" publisher. I don't think that's always true -
I'd bet the rent that you've had books rejected and can't tell why. Odds are your book was either not as good as you thought, or not as commercial as you thought, or both.
It's a safe bet that they're better than the ones that don't get picked up.Quote:
and I don't think the books that are picked up by traditional publishers are always good, either.
For every "mistake" an editor makes, there are hundreds and hundreds of rejected writers telling themselves that editors make mistakes.Quote:
Every editor makes mistakes in what he or she chooses or rejects.
If that's your livelihood, you're not getting enough to eat.Quote:
I'm a small press, anyway, and I doubt I'll handle more than four or five titles a year (commercially/traditionally published), at least at this point.
Trust me, the others are just as embarrassing.Quote:
OK. Grisham. My sources were primarily two, though I've seen it in other places. One was the Wikipedia citation already mentioned by another poster, and the other was an author who (intererestingly enough) was bashing self-publishing, knows Grisham personally (he says) and said that Grisham DID self-publish, but now hates it. I took that as a confirmation of the Wikipedia entry. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly remove it. In fact, I'll remove it now, since it's being so hotly contested. No biggie for me. There are too many others to have to lean on Grisham.
And is that your definition of successful self-publication? To repeat my earlier point, your examples don't support your argument. If you or anyone else have heard of those writers, it's not because they were self-published.Quote:
As for Amanda Brown, on an NPR Morning Edition show on June 13, 2005 Gloria Hillard quoted Amanda Brown, and she spoke of how she self-published, using First Books.
__________________
Winner of the Best Drycleaner on the Block Award.
, I decided I’d give my abbreviated take on this thread. 
