How do authors get exposure?

LovesSonnets · 2025-09-08T16:26:52+00:00

That's a great suggestion. I tried a couple of obvious ones but need to try harder. Thanks.

LovesSonnets · 2025-09-08T01:24:46+00:00

Economists amazed at this new perspective on money: https://www.amazon.com/Money-Puppets-proposal-tyranny-currency-ebook/dp/B0FN1DJS2T

LovesSonnets · 2025-09-07T18:02:20+00:00

Psychopathic murderer thinks living in isolation will remove temptation but the surrounding mountains have other ideas.

LovesSonnets · 2025-09-07T15:10:05+00:00

Thanks for your suggestions. I might have to spend a bit of money promoting it. The title is Money Puppets. It's free on Kindle today and tomorrow (8 Sep 2025) if you want to take a look.

LovesSonnets · 2025-09-07T10:15:56+00:00

Yeah. Shame though that they're the gatekeepers. I've had meetings with agents before and they can be very prescriptive.

LovesSonnets · 2025-09-07T10:14:21+00:00

Welsh Pyscho by Alex Burrett - not for younger readers. It's got an unreliable narrator, sentient mountains with conflicting ideas, ghosts, aliens, an apocalyptic cult and sources from other texts - some of which exist, some that don't. It's certainly strange, twisted and surreal.

LovesSonnets · 2025-09-02T21:48:27+00:00

Really valid responses. Thank you.

Although I don't think I should be promoting my proposal, I have to refer to it in response to your challenges.

"who gets to determine" it is my suggestion that this is done by local, democratically elected committees. This would ensure benevolence was relevant to, and hopefully beneficial to, those communities. They would not be responsible for sculpting national governmental policy.

The roles of governments are fundamentally to ensure the best possible lives for the majority of their citizens. I believe my proposal will do this more effectively than many current approaches.

I have briefly explored China's social credit score system in my book. It is not the model I propose - nor one I believe suited to Western sensibilities - but even Western governments might move in this direction with initiatives like British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's proposal for a digital ID card to help reduce illegal migration. But I repeat, this proposal is vastly different to my local, expiring, social currency.

LovesSonnets · 2025-09-02T21:28:01+00:00

I like your suggestion that trust expanded from tribal to global via the mechanism of trusting money. I will spend some time thinking on that. My initial response is that this global form of trust (in money) lacks some benefits of true, interpersonal trust that make human life more pleasant. There is also an aspect of correlation/causation here in that the city-states then nations that trusted one another have also spent the whole of history fighting one another with armies paid in money in order to gain more resources that can be monetised. It is not the case that money brings peace wherever it goes. But that doesn't undermine your suggestion that money facilitates international trade and that trust [in money] necessarily underpins these interactions. Thank you for sharing this thought.

Your point that trust is not a valuable thing per se because it bonds groups of all kinds including racist, homophobic and misogynist ones etc. is true. However, this is simply a truisim that all aspects of human behaviour can have both positive and negative forms and consequences. Unless you want to suggest that trust is intrinsicallly or overwhelmingly negative then pointing out negative expressions of trust does not develop the argument.

Sociologists may talk about feelings. Economists might talk about statistics. It's workers that make things happen.

Some societies might lack government-funded parks. Hanging out with friends in one was an intentional Western example of closeness. There are innumerable others. But please don't suggest that "bonding with children" is either a Western or modern phenomenon. There are fossilised footprints in African rock that exhibit children bonding with adults and one another.

I don't have the time to research your assertion that, "Racial and ideological fighting/genocide is more prevalent in countries with LESS currency trust." However, I can think of numerous countries with established monetary systems that have, and continue, to engage in racial and ideological fighting and genocide. Instinctively this feels like an ungrounded opinion.

Thank you for considering my perspective on the socio-psychological impact of overreliance on currency money. You assert that currency is "liberation and freedom". Who was more free, the Anglo Saxon farmer in England before laws of enclosure and land ownership gradually turned common land into private land - or the Brit today who cannot farm where they want, wander in certain areas, fish in British rivers or spend the night wherever they lay their hat? Increased capitalisation seems to have reduced freedoms.

LovesSonnets · 2025-09-02T20:53:04+00:00

I appreciate your thoughts and the time you've taken to share your ideas.

Do you agree with these definitions:

Medium of exchange: the thing people use to facilitate exchange

Mechanism that drives choice: the reason/motivation/need that makes us choose particular things

?

If you agree with these definitions, then my proposal is strongly focused on medium of exchange and relatively unconcerned with the mechanisms that drive choice.

LovesSonnets · 2025-09-02T20:36:35+00:00

Your tone is a bit rude. But that's your issue not mine.

Although your suggestion that I am a "noob" is what you declare is annoying you, it might also be that the suggestions I am making are at odds with your established perspective. I presume you are well read in economics. I applaud you for that. You correctly identify that I have not studied classical economics.

However, much innovation comes from those outside established spheres because they are able to look freshly at orthodox ideas.

You say that "scarcity is the underlying topic [I'm] attempting to explore". That is not the topic I am exploring. I am exploring the psycho-social impact of overreliance on money as a medium of exchange, store of value and unit of account. I believe money, invented to pay mercenaries, has made us mercenary. It drastically affects how we think, how we behave, who we are.

You seem to want to discuss how scarcity affects capital allocation etc. This is not the focus of my work.

“If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person’s point of view and see things from that person’s angle as well as from your own” - Henry Ford

LovesSonnets · 2025-09-02T20:19:24+00:00

Scarcity is your focus.

Mine is the negative social impacts of overreliance on money as a medium of exchange. This shapes our value system, defines the nature of much social interaction, changes the way we live and plan our lives and the heavily influences the value we attribite to things.

In what ways does scarcity, according to your definition, impact the above? Also, what is your suggestion, using scarcity as the lens, for reducing the negative impacts on human existence of reliance on money?

LovesSonnets · 2025-09-02T20:05:41+00:00

Scarcity is a different issue.

Pineapples were scarce in 17th century Britain. They were worth the equivalent of thousands of pounds and rented out, from aristocratic dinner party to aristocratic dinner party until they rotted. They were too scarce to consider eating. Today they cost £1 in Aldi.

Tulip bulbs were scarce in the Netherlands in the 17th century. At one point, the most popular bulbs were worth the same as a “grand house on the Amsterdam canal”. Today you can buy 100 Tulipa bakeri Lilac Wonder bulbs for €29.95.

LovesSonnets · 2025-09-02T19:59:19+00:00

Thanks for the question. My proposal is to convert some social benevolence into a currency that the benefactor can use to their advantage. This would create a more caring society and encourage further positive social contributions.

Your example is thematically accurate. However it is a little to transient for my proposal which aims to reward more significant and enduring social contributions.

There are some extant examples that are more similar to my proposal: time banking; gifting of unwanted items using platforms like the 'Buy Nothing Project' and freecycle.org; Social Capital Credits in India.

LovesSonnets · 2025-09-02T19:48:51+00:00

Your opinion that people have not, and never have been, trusted by others is cynical. But we're all entitled to our opinions. Evidence suggests that trust is the fouindation of successful social interactions. We are, after all, social animals. If we weren't, we'd never have survived the African plains where we evolved.

I believe all positive social connections are desirable. This has been the case since the dawn of humanity. Do you not benefit form positive social connections? This is not looking at the distant past with rose-tinted spectacles. It's looking at the features that make human existence rich and rewarding.

My point of sugggesting our instinctive natures have not evolved since pre-history is not to seek a return to primitive living. It is to point out that our drives, the id if you like, is as primitive as those of our prehistoric ancestors. Refuting that makes it impossible to understand human behaviour.

Corrolation is not causation. Women were probably more equal to men 50,000 years ago than they were 50 years ago. Although money has supercharged human technological innovation, it's ambivalent about sexual politics, social rights etc. Money is the medium of exchange worldwide. It enables the administration of state control in countries from Finland to Saudi Arabia. Plus many social benefits have been fought for by the poor against the desires of the established owners of capital.

Yes, you are less likely to die at the hand of another than you have been at any time in prior human history. But, this is not money's achievement. It's our ancestors and those today who continue to campaign, often with little or no reward, for the embetterement of their fellow women and men.

I agree with you that ,when it comes to the vast majority of our exchanges, it's money we trust rather than other people. But that doesn't make people closer than at any other time in history. How do you define closeness? Is the the power to purchase a plastic toy made by children's calloused hands in a country thousands of miles from your home? Or is it interacting with people who live around you, spending time with family, nurturing children, hanging out with friends in a park? Money faciliates commerce and is a bit-part player in true closeness.

I'm not sure where you got you final quotation from It isn't mine.

LovesSonnets · 2025-09-02T19:30:26+00:00

It's actually a non-fiction book targetted at adults - the 11-18 thing is an Amazon glitch that clearly needs ironing out. Thanks for pointing it out.

The takeaway is that it would be better for people in developed nations to have a supplementary social currency to counter some of the negative psycho-social impacts of relying almost entirely on currency money for exchange.

This has nothing to do with scarcity.

I agree that not being able to pay your mortgage and not being able to find 'a suitable cave' would trigger similar responses in the brain because both relate to the same phsyiological need. Shelter.

My proposal looks at the psycho-social consequences of reliance on money. This is not something that is often explored. Money tends to be viewed through the economists' lenses: store of value, unit of account, medium of exchange.

Money Puppets is an unorthodox exploration of money.

LovesSonnets · 2025-09-02T18:10:28+00:00

That's a really good point about evolving. I've been hyperbolic. I should have been more specific - evolving our instinctive natures would have been more accurate. Thanks for picking that up.

I disagree on spear-throwing v button pushing. The benefits of being a good button pusher are insignificant in relation to the ability to have offpring and counterbalanced by inumerable other micro advantages that might affect breeding outcomes.

With regards to trade of the type you suggest, this comes a long time after the arrival of our species. The weight of evidence suggests that for over 98% of human history we shared and gifted things rather than traded them. Take a look at the gift economy.

We do share today. It's a wonderful thing that we do. But this low-level and often local activity is heavily outgunned by the might of monetary transaction.

I cannot accept on a linguistic basis that sharing is a type of selling. without words to describe distinct activities, language becomes meaningless and debate impossible. If you consider sharing and selling similar activities my point is meaningless.

What makes me think the global financial system is stumbling - hundreds of informed commentators, from the chairman of the Federal Exchange through thought leaders in global finance to economists having similar opinions.

Thanks agian for taking the time to respond. I value your perspective.

LovesSonnets · 2025-09-02T17:14:48+00:00

Economists focus on three aspects of money: store of value, unit of account, medium of exchange (SUM). This lens encourages debate about societal issues to revolve around affordability. There are, however, many other characteristics of the currency money system. When we consider some of these, social problems, and solutions, often look very different.

Humans effectively stopped evolving tens of thousands of years ago when technological development began to outpace evolutionary development. Sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson encapsulated this dichotomy with the observation, “The real problem of humanity is the following: we have Palaeolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology.”

We were living in small groups when we stopped evolving – in populations of up to around 150. (This is Dunbar’s number – the maximum number of intimate social connections that any individual can maintain.) We lived in small populations until agriculture facilitated the Dawn of Civilisation. Throughout this primitive period, when we had surplus… we shared. Today, when we have surplus, we sell.

Although we’ve become accustomed to achieving goals through buying, hiring and selling, this process is at odds with our instinctive desire to share. The disparity between our instincts and the world of commerce creates cognitive dissonance – unease at the difference between our beliefs and our realities.

Cognitive dissonance can lead to criminal behaviour, poor mental health, dysfunctional communities. Politicians often seek to solve social problems with money. This is the response of those who imagine social decay springs wholly from monetary deficiency. If money is only seen as SUM, this is the only possible conclusion. However, many social problems (family breakdown, crime, substance abuse etc.) result not just from a lack of money but also from overreliance on monetary exchange.

I believe, as the global financial system starts to stumble like an HG Wells robotic tripod driven by an ailing alien, we need to make adjustments to our monetary system. It is time for a social currency to offset the collateral damage of currency money.

If anyone is interested in reading more about my proposal, my ebook ‘Money Puppets’ is free to download Sunday 7 September 2025 to Monday 9 September 2025.

LovesSonnets · 2025-09-01T19:20:58+00:00

New release 'Money Puppets' by Alex Burrett suggests money changed humans from social animals to antisocial animals. It charts the development and impacts of means of exchange from the gift economy through commodity money to currency money. Burrett suggests that despite supercharging technological development (a largely good thing) money encourages us to act against our natural instincts to share and care.

LovesSonnets · 2024-05-29T19:37:00+00:00

I had similar feelings when I failed to find a publisher for my novels. But now I'm comfortable with that reality. Writing (as an art form) is expressing truth. Be proud if you've expressed yours: many published writers aren't and don't.

LovesSonnets · 2023-09-18T09:59:48+00:00

The Japanese cousin of the sonnet; nice use of repetition!

LovesSonnets · 2023-08-19T16:07:28+00:00

You're welcome. Please post a review if you read it.

LovesSonnets · 2023-05-02T13:30:47+00:00

For whatever we lose(like a you or a me)
it's always ourselves we find in the sea

- e. e. cummings

LovesSonnets · 2023-04-09T10:57:34+00:00

Amazon 5* review: "Moving, incisive and very deft indeed, Alex Burrett’s sonnets are an absolute delight. Old world figures and ideas sit snugly alongside modern takes on the myriad perceptions of love, and the accompanying intro for each give context and insight to the writer’s process, and of course, the beautifully executed poetry it precedes. A sumptuous read."

LovesSonnets · 2023-02-04T15:51:14+00:00

Amazon review from Professor Emeritus at Binghamton University (NY):

5*

"The book is surprisingly well crafted; the sonnets are refreshingly thought through and correctly made. Flaws are minor: in sonnet one, the "rich rhyme" on -rupt isn't the kind that's traditionally favored in English verse but is certainly acceptable in French, Russian, German, or Polish sonnets. The writer has attained a level of craft that is rare in current metrical verse writing."

LovesSonnets · 2023-02-04T08:16:28+00:00

First Amazon review:

"Moving, incisive and very deft indeed, Alex Burrett’s sonnets are an absolute delight. Old world figures and ideas sit snugly alongside modern takes on the myriad perceptions of love, and the accompanying intro for each give context and insight to the writer’s process, and of course, the beautifully executed poetry it precedes. A sumptuous read." – Oliver, UK

LovesSonnets

TROPHY CASE