Ronald E. Yates's Blog, page 46

Writing for Nonreaders in the Post-Print Era

Today, I am reposting a commentary I wrote while I was the Dean of the College of Media at the University of Illinois. At the time I taught classes in journalism and shared this with my students. It still resonates with me even though I wrote it about ten years ago. Please enjoy and feel free to comment.

Recently a professor (I won’t say who) created an outline for a new course called: “Writing for Nonreaders in the Post-Print Era.”

The course carried the following description:

“As print takes its place alongside smoke signals, cuneiform, and hollering, there has emerged a new literary age, one in which writers no longer need to feel encumbered by the paper cuts, reading, and excessive use of words traditionally associated with the writing trade. Writing for Nonreaders in the Postprint Era focuses on the creation of short-form prose that is not intended to be reproduced on pulp fibers.

“Instant messaging. Tweeting. Blogging. Facebook & Google+ updates. Pinning. These 21st-century literary genres are defining a new “Lost Generation” of minimalists who would much rather watch Modern Family on their iPhones than toil over long-winded articles and short stories.

Students will acquire the tools needed to make their tweets glimmer with a complete lack of forethought, their Facebook updates ring with self-importance, and their blog entries shimmer with literary pithiness. All without the restraints of writing in complete sentences. w00t! w00t! 

Throughout the course, a further paring down of the Hemingway/Stein school of minimalism will be emphasized, limiting the superfluous use of nouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, conjunctions, gerunds, and other literary pitfalls.”

Prerequisites

Students must have completed at least two of the following.:

ENG: 232WR—Advanced Tweeting: The Elements of Droll
LIT: 223—Early-21st-Century Literature: 140 Characters or Less
ENG: 102—Staring Blankly at Handheld Devices While Others Are Talking
ENG: 301—Advanced Blog and Book Skimming
ENG: 231WR—Facebook Wall Alliteration and Assonance
LIT: 202—The Literary Merits of LoLcats
LIT: 209—Internet-Age Surrealistic Narcissism and Self-Absorption

There is obviously some truth at work here. When one talks to editors in the world of book publishing it is apparent that we are definitely entering the post-print era. Few students I talk with tell me they actually read a book for pleasure. It is always for a class.

When I ask students about John Steinbeck, William Faulkner, Thomas Wolfe, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Lillian Hellman, Dorothy Parker—even Earnest Hemmingway, only a few can tell me much about these authors and what they wrote. If they have read these writers at all it is because some American Literature teacher in high school assigned them to read one of their books or essays.

Take some time over a weekend to read a good book—one that tells a story, not some self-absorbed treatise on how to find your spiritual center or why you are so important, I tell students. You might actually enjoy it—and without a doubt, you will learn something.

When I discuss writing with journalism students, who should have a keen interest in writing well, I tell them that the best way to learn to write well is to read good writing. They should then learn to imitate that writing—not copy or plagiarize it—but imitate it. Eventually, they will develop their own style of writing, but most important, they will become better writers simply because they have developed a life-long romance with and respect for the English language.

So while Facebook, Google+ and My Yahoo may be places to chat and hook up; while the blogosphere is a place where tedious pontificators can congregate with little if any accountability for truth; and while twittering is the latest e-rage, they are all poor substitutes for substantive literature, fine journalism or intelligent conversation.

The university is the place where an appreciation for good literature, fine journalism, and intelligent conversation should be cultivated and enjoyed. It is, after all, one of the few times when students will actually have the time to take pleasure in these things.

Once they enter the world of gainful employment, their focus will shift to one of survival, meeting deadlines and accumulating “stuff.”

Reading well will be considerably more challenging. And one can only hope that they will not find themselves “Writing for Nonreaders in the Post-Print Era.”

 

Update: Is Afghanistan 2021 a Reprise of Vietnam 1975?

America’s 20-year war in Afghanistan with an enemy and a people still stuck in the Middle Ages has ended.

Finally.

And just as it was 47 years ago in a place called Vietnam, it did not end in victory.

That became clear on Sunday when Taliban forces entered Kabul essentially unimpeded by a collapsing Afghan army. On the way, they released thousands of Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from a prison on the outskirts of the capital.

Early on in the conflict, America’s military crushed Al Qaeda and neutralized the Taliban. But for the past ten years or so, the war was little more than a holding action against an enemy that worked assiduously to consolidate its power via a loose alliance of warlords and their private armies.

As they did, the Taliban kept gaining more and more territory until by early this year, it controlled almost four-fifths of the country’s landmass.

Fighting the Taliban, like fighting the Viet Cong in Vietnam, was like trying to kill a cobra by hacking at its tail. American and coalition forces could never cut off the head of the snake because there really wasn’t one–or if there was, they never found it.

In April 1975, I watched the communist North Vietnamese Army move inexorably south from Hue, Da Nang, Nha Trang, and Cam Ranh Bay until they were on the outskirts of Bien Hoa, just 25 miles from Saigon.

Under terms of the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, North Vietnamese troops were not supposed to be south of the 17th parallel.

But they were, and they were moving fast.

The U.S. Congress ignored pleas for help by the South Vietnamese government and America’s ambassador in Saigon. For those who may have forgotten, in April 1975, then-U.S. Sen. Joe Biden argued against $1 billion in emergency aid for South Vietnam, insisting that the South Vietnamese military might use the money.

Today, Biden is president, and his actions vis-à-vis Afghanistan are receiving fitting criticism—especially for what appears to be a mounting humanitarian crisis.

Some 400,000 Afghani civilians have been forced from their homes since the start of the year, 250,000 of them since May. Families are camping out in a Kabul park with little or no shelter, having escaped violence elsewhere in the country. In all, some 2.9 million Afghan civilians have been displaced since the war began in 2001.

Taliban forces now control all of Afghanistan in the wake of America’s decision to withdraw. Thousands of Afghan soldiers in what Biden bragged a couple of months ago was a “well-equipped and trained” Afghan army of 300,000, were seen frantically discarding their uniforms and weapons and running for safety as Taliban forces entered Kabul.

I watched soldiers in the South Vietnamese army do the same thing 47 years ago as the NVA entered Saigon.

Was it a disgusting display of rank cowardice? Possibly. But it was also thousands of soldiers recognizing the fact that the war for the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese people was lost. The communist north had won. Why die for a lost cause?

The situation in Afghanistan is hauntingly similar.

“The situation has all the hallmarks of a humanitarian catastrophe,” an official with the U.N. World Food Program’s told reporters.

Vietnamese fleeing south in front of communist forces April 1975 (Ron Yates)

During the fall of South Vietnam, I witnessed tens of thousands of terrified South Vietnamese driven from their homes by violence and war move south along Highway One—some in over-loaded trucks crammed with people and whatever belongings they could carry.

Fifty or 60 miles behind them, the North Vietnamese Army trailed them with tanks and trucks.

Today, we are seeing a replay of that event in Afghanistan.

   Taliban on the Move 

In response, the State Department reduced its staff in the U. S. Embassy in Kabul and has instructed all U.S. personnel to destroy items like documents and electronic devices to “reduce the amount of sensitive material on the property,” according to an internal notice obtained by reporters.

“Please also include items with embassy or agency logos, Americans flags, or items which could be misused in propaganda efforts,” the notice said.

Forty-seven years ago, the same thing happened in the American Embassy in Saigon. Shredding machines were working overtime, bonfires were burning sensitive material inside the vast embassy compound, and embassy staff was being flown out of Tan Son Nhut airport secretly a few at a time.

South Vietnamese who had worked for and with the U.S. military in Vietnam watched in horror as their country fell apart day after day between March and April 1975. Many began fleeing the country a few weeks before the North Vietnamese entered the city—terrified that their cooperation with the Americans would mean certain death.

For many who were left behind during the chaotic evacuation of Saigon, those fears were realized—if not immediately after the NVA entered the city, then months and even years later when they were thrown into communist concentration camps euphemistically referred to as “reeducation camps.”

As events unfold in Afghanistan, I wonder what will happen to the thousands of Afghanis who worked for Americans and their coalition partners. Hundreds of not thousands of Afghanis loyal to the United States and other coalition nations will likely be slaughtered by a ruthless and vengeful Taliban.

The Biden administration says it is prepared to begin evacuation flights for Afghan interpreters and translators who aided the U.S. military effort in the 20-year war — but their destinations are still unknown.

Now, with the Taliban inside of Kabul, there are troubling questions about how to ensure their safety until they can get on planes–if they ever do.

Poor evacuation planning by the Biden administration could potentially affect tens of thousands of Afghans. Several thousand Afghans who worked for the United States — plus their family members — are already in the application pipeline for special immigrant visas. But now that the Taliban are in Kabul and possibly surrounding the U.S. Embassy, you have to wonder how the evacuation apparatus will function.

   Kandahar falls to Taliban

“What this is not — this is not abandonment. This is not an evacuation. This is not the wholesale withdrawal,” State Department spokesman Ned Price insisted Thursday.

It isn’t? It certainly looks that way. And what about those vulnerable 18,000 or so Afghanis who risked their lives working for American and coalition forces as interpreters, drivers, and fixers, etc.?

There are still too many unanswered questions—just as there were in Saigon in 1975. Almost every day leading up to the final evacuation, I was confronted by anguished and panicked Vietnamese worried about how they could get on an evacuation flight before the communist takeover.

How many people are eligible for evacuation in Afghanistan? How will those outside the capital reach safety to be evacuated? To what countries will they be evacuated?

And what of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani?

Not to worry about him. He fled the country Saturday rather than face what might have been certain death at the hands of the Taliban and their Al Qaeda brothers.

So, is Afghanistan 2021 a repeat of South Vietnam 1975?

Panicked Vietnamese try to storm U.S. Embassy, April 29, 1975

Clearly, these are entirely different countries with entirely different issues. The NVA was a highly mechanized, disciplined, and unified professional army. The Taliban is a loose conglomeration of warlords and disparate Afghani tribes, whose members have long memories and who have sworn vengeance against their enemies.

But there are also similarities, and probably the most troubling for me, is what happens to those Afghanis who put their lives and futures on the line by working for Americans?

I know what happened to tens of thousands of Vietnamese who were left behind when U.S. Marine helicopters ferried 1,373 Americans and 5,680 Vietnamese to safety from a chaotic and frenzied Saigon between April 29 and April 30, 1975.

They were abandoned, executed, imprisoned, tortured, and forgotten.

Will things be different in Afghanistan?

 

 

 

 

Is Afghanistan 2021 a Reprise of Vietnam 1975?

In April 1975, I watched the communist North Vietnamese Army move inexorably south from Hue, Da Nang, Nha Trang, and Cam Ranh Bay until they were on the outskirts of Bien Hoa, just 25 miles from Saigon.

Under terms of the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, North Vietnamese troops were not supposed to be south of the 17th parallel.

But they were, and they were moving fast.

The U.S. Congress ignored pleas for help by the South Vietnamese government. For those who may have forgotten, in April 1975, then-U.S. Sen. Joe Biden voted against $1 billion in emergency aid for South Vietnam, insisting that the South Vietnamese military might use the money.

Today, Biden is president, and his actions vis-à-vis Afghanistan are receiving a lot of criticism—especially for what appears to be a mounting humanitarian crisis.

Some 400,000 Afghani civilians have been forced from their homes since the start of the year, 250,000 of them since May. Families are camping out in a Kabul park with little or no shelter, having escaped violence elsewhere in the country. Some 2.9 million Afghan civilians have been displaced since the war began in 2001.

Vietnamese fleeing south in front of communist forces April 1975

“The situation has all the hallmarks of a humanitarian catastrophe,” an official with the U.N. World Food Program’s told reporters.

During the fall of South Vietnam, I watched tens of thousands of terrified South Vietnamese driven from their homes by violence and war move south along Highway One—some in over-loaded trucks crammed with people and whatever belongings they could carry.

Fifty or 60 miles behind them, the North Vietnamese Army was trailing them with tanks and trucks.

Today, I am watching what seems to be a replay of that event in Afghanistan.

Taliban forces are moving very fast toward the capital of Kabul. Like the NVA, which controlled about four-fifths of Vietnam by early April 1975, Taliban forces are edging closer to controlling all of Afghanistan since the harried pull-out of American troops.

   Taliban on the Move toward Kabul

In response, the State Department has reduced its staff in the U. S. Embassy in Kabul and has instructed all U.S. personnel to destroy items like documents and electronic devices to “reduce the amount of sensitive material on the property,” according to an internal notice obtained by reporters.

“Please also include items with embassy or agency logos, Americans flags, or items which could be misused in propaganda efforts,” the notice said.

Forty-seven years ago, the same thing happened in the American Embassy in Saigon. Shredding machines were working overtime, bonfires were burning sensitive material inside the vast embassy compound, and embassy staff was being flown out of Tan Son Nhut airport secretly a few at a time.

South Vietnamese who had worked for and with the U.S. military in Vietnam watched in horror as their country fell apart day after day between March and April 1975. Many began fleeing the country a few weeks before the North Vietnamese entered the city—terrified that their cooperation with the Americans would mean certain death.

For many who were left behind during the chaotic evacuation of Saigon, those fears were realized—if not immediately after the NVA entered the city, then months and even years later when they were thrown into communist concentration camps euphemistically referred to as “reeducation camps.”

As events unfold in Afghanistan, I wonder what will happen to the thousands of Afghanis who worked for the Americans.

The Biden administration says it is prepared to begin evacuation flights for Afghan interpreters and translators who aided the U.S. military effort in the 20-year war — but their destinations are still unknown. There are lingering questions about how to ensure their safety until they can get on planes.

The evacuation planning could potentially affect tens of thousands of Afghans. Several thousand Afghans who worked for the United States — plus their family members — are already in the application pipeline for special immigrant visas.

Meanwhile, on Thursday, the Taliban took Herat, Afghanistan’s third-largest city. By Friday, the Taliban had taken control of Kandahar, the country’s second-largest city, 300 miles south of Kabul, and considered the birthplace of the Taliban. The Taliban has also seized Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province.

   Kandahar falls to Taliban

“What this is not — this is not abandonment. This is not an evacuation. This is not the wholesale withdrawal,” State Department spokesman Ned Price said Thursday. “What this is, is a reduction in the size of our civilian footprint. This is a drawdown of civilian Americans who will, in many cases, be able to perform their important functions elsewhere, whether that’s in the United States or elsewhere in the region.”

Okay, but what about those vulnerable 18,000 or so Afghanis who risked their lives working for American and coalition forces as interpreters, drivers, and fixers, etc.?

There are still too many unanswered questions—just as there were in Saigon in 1975. Almost every day leading up to the final evacuation, I was confronted by Vietnamese apprehensive about how they could get on an evacuation flight before the communist takeover.

How many people are eligible for evacuation in Afghanistan? How will those outside the capital reach safety to be evacuated, and to what countries will they be evacuated?

And what of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani? The Taliban have demanded that Ghani resign in exchange for a reduction in violence and to lay the groundwork for a transitional government. But Ghani has said he is the country’s democratically elected leader and will remain so until negotiations between the Taliban and Afghan government conclude.

Today that seems like an increasingly distant reality.

So, is Afghanistan 2021 a repeat of South Vietnam 1975?

Panicked Vietnamese try to storm U.S. Embassy, April 29, 1975

Clearly, these are entirely different countries with entirely different issues. The NVA was a highly mechanized, disciplined, and unified professional army. The Taliban is a loose conglomeration of warlords and disparate Afghani tribes.

But there are also similarities, and probably the most troubling for me, is what happens to those Afghanis who put their lives and futures on the line by working for Americans?

I know what happened to tens of thousands of Vietnamese who were left behind when U.S. Marine helicopters ferried 1,373 Americans, 5,680 Vietnamese to safety from a chaotic and frenzied Saigon between April 29 and April 30, 1975.

They were abandoned, executed, imprisoned, tortured, and forgotten.

Will things be different in Afghanistan?

 

 

 

 

A New School Prayer

This has been around awhile, but I just read it again and I thought I would share it with my followers. Whether you agree or not with the prayer’s premise it seems sad that this is where we are as a country.

One common misconception is that the Supreme Court has ruled that praying in school is not allowed. In fact, what is impermissible is a school’s sponsorship of a religious message. Praying in school is not against the law. In fact, the U.S. Constitution guarantees students the right to pray in public schools; it is a protected form of free speech. 

A student can pray on the school bus, in the corridors, in the cafeteria, in their student-run Bible club, at the flagpole, sports stadium, and elsewhere on school grounds. They can even pray silently before and after class in the classroom. However, they are not allowed to pray only one religion’s prayers at the exclusion of other religions as an organized part of the school schedule.

Prayers in public schools cannot be solely from a single religious faith group because, as the Supreme Court has ruled “that sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.”

Of course, some argue that the negative attitude of local school boards toward prayer in public schools in the wake of that Supreme Court ruling has had a chilling effect on children who want to pray. That may be what prompted somebody (nobody knows exactly who) to pen the following “New School Prayer” a few years ago.

A New School Prayer

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.

If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
It becomes a Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That’s no offense; it’s a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone, we must meditate,
God’s name is prohibited by the state.

We’re allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues, and cheeks.
They’ve outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the ‘unwed daddy,’ our Senior King.
It’s “inappropriate” to teach right from wrong,
We’re taught that such “judgments” do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.

It’s scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school’s a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!

Amen

Test Your Knowledge of the Vietnam War

The Vietnam War ended 47 years ago on April 30, 1975. For those of us who lived through it and the turmoil it created in the United States, it still seems like yesterday. For those of you who view the war as ancient history, here’s a chance to test your knowledge.

Few wars in American history are as misunderstood and filled with misinformation and disinformation as the undeclared war in Vietnam. For example one of the enduring myths about Vietnam is that the war was fought predominantly by draftees. In fact, according to statistics kept by the US Army, and corroborated by other sources, only 25% of the troops who served in combat roles in Vietnam were drafted into military service.

Another myth is that a higher percentage of poor black soldiers fought the Vietnam War than middle class white soldiers. In fact, Pentagon figures show that of the troops who deployed to Vietnam during the years of American involvement, including the crews of the US Navy ships which served offshore in the conflict, about 50 percent came from middle-class backgrounds, were better educated than in any of America’s preceding wars (79% had a high school diploma), and were overwhelmingly white (88%). Of all the combat deaths suffered by American forces over the course of the war, 86% were white.

Take this test to see how much you know about the war that divided our country more than any other war since the Civil War in 1861-65.

Click on the link below.

http://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-events/vietnam-war-quiz.htm.

A Peek at My High School Yearbook: How on Earth Did I Pass my FBI Background Check?

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh is once again under attack, this time by a group of seven socialist-Democrat Senators who claimed this week that recently released material from the FBI shows the agency failed to “fully investigate” Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings after being nominated by President Donald Trump. The group is pushing for Kavanaugh’s impeachment.

Stay tuned. The hateful obsession with Justice Kavanaugh seems to have no statute of limitation. It just keeps going on and on.

Do you remember the intense scrutiny Justice Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook received from the Senate Judicial Committee in 2018? What horrendous secrets and activities were hidden on those pages? What horrible things did Brett Kavanaugh do as a teenager?

The answers must reside somewhere in the pages of his yearbook.

Then, I began to wonder about my old high school yearbook. What reproachful and censorious information did it contain about me?

So, I pulled my high school yearbook off the shelf the other day and took a careful look at it. Afterward, I wondered how I passed the FBI background check for my U.S. Army Security Agency Top Secret & Crypto security clearance back in the 1960s.

There were some pretty spicy comments in there, especially from former girlfriends. One girl even thanked me because in the biology class we took together “you knew all the answers.”

  My Yearbook

I can only assume she meant answers to biology tests. Of course, in today’s hyper-sensitive world that cryptic statement could mean a lot of things. Ahem.

Other girlfriends said they were happy to have known me and thanked me for the “good times” we had together. What did they mean by THAT? Did I do something inappropriate? Hmmmm. Well, let me see. There were those times when we used to “make out” in the backseat on double dates. . . .

Sometimes we even (gasp) drank 3.2% beer that I used to buy illegally (uh oh!) before I was 18—the drinking age in Kansas. I don’t ever recall barfing or ralfing after a few cans of the insipid stuff like Judge Kavanaugh has been accused of doing, but I’m sure all of us (our girlfriends included) got a buzz on. Then we had to consume mass quantities of Sen-Sen mints before going home to hide the telltale beer pong on our breaths.

I have wracked my brain trying to recall any gang rape parties that I might have attended, and for the life of me, I can’t recollect any. I am pretty sure I never attended any in which I was the featured attraction. Of course, something as hazy and ambiguous as a gang rape is undeniably challenging to recall. I do remember going to a lot of “sock hops” in the high school gym during which guys and girls removed their shoes (gulp) and danced in our socks (how salacious and naughty).

Then there were those evenings at Winstead’s in Kansas City’s Country Club Plaza where several of us unruly and rowdy couples would stuff ourselves into a booth and be crushed against one another while we drank malted-milks and wolfed down fries and steakburgers. I do recall once dropping ketchup on my date’s new crinoline pink and white poodle skirt. Boy, was she pissed! But she still gave me a goodnight kiss when I walked her to her door. So all was well. At least, I think it was. . . .

Okay, back to my yearbook. It was called “The Indian.” I know, I know. Not politically correct. In fact, those of us who attended Shawnee-Mission North (my high school in the Overland Park, Kansas suburbs of Kansas City) were called “The Indians” as opposed to some politically safe name like the Wildcats or the Cyclones.

Were we really “Indians?” I’m pretty sure there wasn’t one real Native American in the entire student body. It was, without a doubt, the most shocking form of cultural appropriation, and for that, I apologize. But wait! Shawnee-Mission North is still “The Indians,” and the logo is still a Native American wearing a war bonnet. Oh well. No need to apologize, after all. That association won’t get me denounced and pilloried by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But back to my misspent youth when I was going to all of those risqué sock hops, making out in the back seat of jalopies, having “good times” with girlfriends, and providing them with “all the answers.”

Given all of the terrible things I did when I was 16, 17, and even 18, I wonder how I was able to live a mostly efficacious and praiseworthy life—first as an intelligence operative in the U.S. Army, then as a foreign correspondent for the Chicago Tribune, and then as a Professor and Dean of journalism at the University of Illinois. Will wonders never cease?

I can only imagine what my life would have been like had I been subjected to the same rapacious grilling that Judge Kavanaugh endured at the hands of some of the members of the Senate Judicial Committee.

If all of my teenage years had been disclosed publicly, I’m pretty sure I would have been disqualified by the Court of Public Opinion, let alone from the Supreme Court of the United States.

But wait. I don’t even have a law degree. Oh, well. Never mind.

 

 

 

 

 

The Diminished Meaning of the Word “Hero”

Our society seems obsessed with labels. Take the word “Hero,” for example. It is applied in the most absurd and inappropriate ways to people who don’t deserve that distinction.

When Whitney Houston died in 2012, for example, I couldn’t believe people were calling her a “hero.”

Why? Because she was a wonderfully talented singer who eventually threw her life and career away with a deadly addiction to different drugs such crystal meth, marijuana, cocaine, and pills such as Xanax, Flexeril, and Benadryl?

How exactly does that make her a “hero?” It doesn’t. It doesn’t even make her a good role model.

And what about others who have been accorded the “hero” appellation?

Remember US Airways Capt. Chesley Sullenberger, who in 2009 landed his plane full of passengers on New York’s Hudson River after his engines conked out? Sullenberger was quickly labeled “hero”–a term he says is not appropriate.

U.S. Airways pilot Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger 

“That didn’t quite fit my situation, which was thrust upon me suddenly,” he said. “Certainly, my crew and I were up to the task. But I’m not sure it quite crosses the threshold of heroism. I think the idea of a hero is important. But sometimes in our culture, we overuse the word, and by overusing it, we diminish it.”

The Pittsburgh-based Carnegie Hero Fund Commission defines a hero as “someone who voluntarily leaves a point of safety to assume life risk to save or attempt to save the life of another.”

“When the engines stopped on US Airways Flight 1549 in January 2009,” Commission president, Mark Laskow wrote, “Capt. Sullenberger was not in a place of safety. On the contrary, he was in the same peril as the passengers whose lives he saved with his piloting skill. He did not have the opportunity to make a moral choice to take on the risk — it ‘was thrust upon him. I do not doubt that if he did have such a choice, he would not have hesitated to place himself in danger to save his passengers. That just wasn’t the actual situation in which he found himself.”

Once upon a time, I served in the U.S. Army. I did my job and did it pretty well as my various awards, and eventual promotion to Sergeant attests. But I was no “hero.” I volunteered, I did my job, and I left with an honorable discharge. When a soldier, marine, airman or sailor puts on his or her uniform, they are just doing their jobs.

Today, we apply the word “hero” to all servicemen and women who serve in the armed forces. How often do we hear people refer to “our heroes in Afghanistan?” They are not heroes. They are servicemen and women, and they are doing their duty serving their nation. When they are injured, wounded, or even killed they are casualties, but not necessarily heroes.

A hero is a person who goes above and beyond the call of duty and puts him or herself in harm’s way to perform an act of selfless gallantry. You might argue that servicemen and women put themselves in harm’s way on a daily basis, but that is their job–and they volunteered for that job. So how does that make “ALL” servicemen and women “heroes?”

It doesn’t.

I sometimes wear a baseball cap when I go shopping. On the front, it identifies me as a U.S. Army Veteran–a fact that I am very proud of. Sometimes people see that and thank me for my service. When that happens, I often feel a bit awkward. Yes, I did serve four years on active duty and another four in the reserves. But I don’t feel anybody owes me a “thank you.” I volunteered for the U. S. Army, and I did the job I was assigned to do. I am certainly no “hero” because of it.

Do you want to know what a hero is? Here is a hero. His name was Roy P. Benavidez. Not long ago someone sent me an e-mail that contained the fantastic story of his life.

In 1965 Benavidez was sent to South Vietnam as a Green Beret advisor to an ARVN infantry regiment. He stepped on a landmine during a patrol and was evacuated to the United States, where doctors at Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC) concluded he would never walk again and began preparing his medical discharge papers.

      Master Sergeant Roy P. Benavidez

But Benavidez, who was known by the radio call sign as “Tango Mike Mike” (“That Mean Mexican”) was not ready to accept that diagnosis.

Against doctors’ orders, he began an unsanctioned nightly training ritual in an attempt to redevelop his ability to walk. Climbing out of bed at night, Benavidez would crawl using his elbows and chin to a wall near his bedside and (with the encouragement of his fellow patients, many of whom were permanently paralyzed or missing limbs), he would prop himself against the wall and attempt to lift himself up unaided.

After several months of excruciating practice that by his own admission often left him in tears, he was able to push himself up the wall with his ankles and legs. After more than a year of hospitalization, Benavidez walked out of the hospital in July 1966, with his wife at his side, determined to return to combat in Vietnam.

Benavidez returned to Fort Bragg to begin training for the elite Studies and Observations Group (SOG). Despite continuing pain from his wounds, he became a member of the 5th Special Forces Group and returned to South Vietnam in January 1968.

That’s when this man’s incredible story of heroism began. This is what his Medal of Honor Citation says:

“On the morning of 2 May 1968, a 12-man Special Forces Reconnaissance Team was inserted by helicopters in a dense jungle area west of Loc Ninh, Vietnam to gather intelligence information about confirmed large-scale enemy activity. This area was controlled and routinely patrolled by the North Vietnamese Army. After a short period of time on the ground, the team met heavy enemy resistance and requested emergency extraction.

  “Three helicopters attempted extraction but were unable to land due to intense enemy small arms and anti-aircraft fire. Sergeant Benavidez was at the Forward Operating Base in Loc Ninh monitoring the operation by radio when these helicopters returned to off-load wounded crewmembers and to assess aircraft damage.

  “Sergeant Benavidez voluntarily boarded a returning aircraft to assist in another extraction attempt. Realizing that all the team members were either dead or wounded and unable to move to the pickup zone, he directed the aircraft to a nearby clearing where he jumped from the hovering helicopter and ran approximately 75 meters under withering small arms fire to the crippled team.

  “When he reached the leader’s body, Sergeant Benavidez was severely wounded by small arms fire in the abdomen and grenade fragments in his back. At nearly the same moment, the aircraft pilot was mortally wounded, and his helicopter crashed. Although in extremely critical condition due to his multiple wounds, Sergeant Benavidez secured the classified documents and made his way back to the wreckage, where he aided the wounded out of the overturned aircraft and gathered the stunned survivors into a defensive perimeter.  

“Prior to reaching the team’s position he was wounded in his right leg, face, and head. Despite these painful injuries, he took charge, repositioning the team members and directing their fire to facilitate the landing of an extraction aircraft, and the loading of wounded and dead team members. He then threw smoke canisters to direct the aircraft to the team’s position. Despite his severe wounds and under intense enemy fire, he carried and dragged half of the wounded team members to the awaiting aircraft. He then provided protective fire by running alongside the aircraft as it moved to pick up the remaining team members. As the enemy’s fire intensified, he hurried to recover the body and classified documents on the dead team leader.

  “Under increasing enemy automatic weapons and grenade fire, he moved around the perimeter distributing water and ammunition to his weary men, re-instilling in them a will to live and fight. Facing a buildup of enemy opposition with a beleaguered team, Sergeant Benavidez mustered his strength, began calling in tactical air strikes and directed the fire from supporting gunships to suppress the enemy’s fire and so permit another extraction attempt.

  “He was wounded again in his thigh by small arms fire while administering first aid to a wounded team member just before another extraction helicopter was able to land. His indomitable spirit kept him going as he began to ferry his comrades to the craft. On his second trip with the wounded, he was clubbed from behind by an enemy soldier. In the ensuing hand-to-hand combat, he sustained additional wounds to his head and arms before killing his adversary. “

  He then continued under devastating fire to carry the wounded to the helicopter. Upon reaching the aircraft, he spotted and killed two enemy soldiers who were rushing the craft from an angle that prevented the aircraft door gunner from firing upon them. With little strength remaining, he made one last trip to the perimeter to ensure that all classified material had been collected or destroyed, and to bring in the remaining wounded. Only then, in extremely serious condition from numerous wounds and loss of blood, did he allow himself to be pulled into the extraction aircraft.

  “Sergeant Benavidez’ gallant choice to join voluntarily his comrades who were in critical straits, to expose himself constantly to withering enemy fire, and his refusal to be stopped despite numerous severe wounds, saved the lives of at least eight men. His fearless personal leadership, tenacious devotion to duty, and extremely valorous actions in the face of overwhelming odds were in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflect the utmost credit on him and the United States Army.” 

The citation stops short of telling what happened when the helicopter reached its base. Benavidez was put into a body bag, and as it was being zipped up, using what little strength he had left, he spits on the face of the medic to show he wasn’t dead.

Roy Benavidez died on November 29, 1998, at the age of 63 at Brooke Army Medical Center, after suffering respiratory failure and complications of diabetes. He was buried with full military honors at Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery.

Now THAT is the definition of a HERO!

For those who want to see and hear more about Master Sergeant Roy P. Benavidez, you can do so by clicking on the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ7968BbMnU&feature=player_embedded

 

 

 

 

Q & A with Novel PASTimes Part 2

I was recently interviewed online by NovelPASTimes http://www.novelpastimes.com/ a blog for Historical Fiction Lovers. Here is Part Two.What would you like readers to gain from reading your book(s)?Because the Finding Billy Battles trilogy is historical fiction and is set in the 19th and 2oth Centuries, I would like readers to get a sense of the time and place of the story. I would like them to have an appreciation of the way people lived, how they thought, and how they dealt with both adversity and triumph in a very different era. Finally, I would like readers to finish my books and think to themselves: “Damn, I didn’t want that story to end!” All historical fiction is, I think, a mixture of truth and story. Accuracy is beyond our reach since we have to imagine conversations and thoughts, but as novelists, we struggle to present an authentic, believable past whether or not our characters ever existed. When you talk about the Billy Battles novels being “faction,” do you have something more specific in mind?

That’s tricky. I call my work “Faction,” because it is both fact and fiction. Some of the events in the book–especially those dealing with real people, did happen. Was my character directly involved in them? No. However, members of my family were native Kansans, and some of the experiences I write about did happen. Of course, I have woven some of my own experiences into the storyline also. I think it is essential to weave as many of your own experiences as you can into the storyline. That gives the story a ring of truth or credibility if you will. Novelists ask readers to suspend belief when it comes to things their characters do, but if you are writing historical fiction especially, you must be faithful to the time and place in which the story takes place.

What caused you to make that shift away from journalism to a mix of fact and fiction?

It wasn’t a sudden shift. I always knew I wanted to write novels, but as a foreign correspondent I just never found the time. Then, in 1997 I left the Chicago Tribune to write a corporate biography of Japan’s Kikkoman Corp (the soy sauce maker which also happens to be Japan’s oldest continuously operating company dating back to 1630). When that was finished, I was offered a full, tenured professorship at the University of Illinois teaching journalism. A couple of years later I was made the Dean of the College of Media—so once again, no time to write my novels. Finally, in 2010, I left the university, moved to California, and began my novel-writing career.

Thanks for joining us here on Favorite PASTimes. Do you have any final words for readers or writers?

 Yes!  For Readers : Please DON’T STOP READING! Those of us who love telling stories need you. And when you read a book, don’t be shy. Write a review on Amazon, Goodreads, Barnes & Noble, etc., and let us know what you liked and didn’t like about a book. I value the reviews I get from Amazon Verified Purchase customers more than I do from professional or editorial reviewers. After all, customers spent money on the book and that gives them the right to tell the author what they think. For Writers: Please Keep Writing. The world needs good storytellers today more than ever. I know that many who write are frustrated by letters of rejection from agents and publishers. Don’t be discouraged. If you can’t get a book before the reading public going the traditional publishing route, consider self or indie publishing. Publish on Demand (POD) books are everywhere these days and so are e-books. Writers today don’t have to consider a rejection letter the last word in their aspiration to publish. You have options to reach readers that didn’t exist 10 or even five years ago. There are also scores of contests in which you can enter your books so you can measure your work with that of your peers. As I mentioned earlier, Chanticleer is an excellent example, as the Book Excellence Award which my books have won, as well as the New Apple Literary Award and the New York Big Book Award, where my books were also achieved recognition.

Having said that, I never wrote my books in pursuit of awards. I wrote them because I enjoyed writing them. And, I must be honest. Many self-published books are not well done. The writing may be of poor quality; the covers are often inferior, and the proofreading and editing are shoddy. Frankly, some books should never have made it off the printing press or into an e-file. However, there are enough gems coming from self-published authors to offset the marginal efforts.

 My advice to beginners: Give yourself time to learn the craft of writing. How do you do that? Read, read, read. If you want to write well, read well. Learn from the best; imitate (and I don’t mean plagiarize). Listen to the words! You don’t have to spend thousands of dollars on writing seminars, conferences, etc. Gifted writing can’t be taught. It must be learned. And we learn from doing it; from experience. To be a good writer you need to be confident in your ability to use the tools of the craft: research, vocabulary, grammar, style, plot, pacing, and story. A confident writer is typically a good writer. We gain confidence by being successful in our work–no matter what work we do. We also learn from failure. Why was a book rejected 40 times? Why isn’t it selling on Amazon or Goodreads or Barnes and Noble? There must be a reason. Find out what it is and learn from it. Then go back to work and make the book better.And remember: Writing is a discipline that you can learn at any age. Unlike ballet or basketball or modeling, writing is not something that if you missed doing at 16, 18, or 20, you could never do again. You are NEVER too old to begin writing! I recall interviewing Pulitzer and Nobel Prize-winning author Pearl S. Buck once. It was late fall, 1971, and at the time she was living in Vermont Pearl S. Buck

We were talking on the phone, and suddenly she began describing her backyard and what she said was the first snow of the season.”You should see this, Ron. From my office window, I am watching a leisurely shower of white crystals floating, drifting, and landing softly onto a carpet of jade. I wish you could see it.”

“I do,” I said. “Thanks for showing me.” I never forgot that conversation with the first American female Nobel laureate. She was 79 and still writing.Finally, writing–as difficult as it is–should also be fun. When you turn a beautiful phrase or create a vivid scene, you should feel a little flutter in your heart, a shiver in your soul. If you do, that means you have struck an evocative chord with your writing. Nothing is more rewarding than that!  Write On!

 

Q & A with Novel PASTimes Part 1

I was recently interviewed online by NovelPASTimes http://www.novelpastimes.com , a blog for Historical Fiction Lovers.  Here is Part One. Tell us a little about what you write.I write both fiction and non-fiction. Currently, my books fall into the historical-fiction/action-adventure categories. My previous books have been journalism textbooks, a corporate biography of Japan’s Kikkoman Corporation, and a compilation of columns I wrote while covering Japan. My writing for the past few years has been devoted to historical fiction. “Finding Billy Battles” was the first in a trilogy of novels about William Fitzroy Raglan Battles, his early days in 19th Century Kansas, and his eventual journeys and adventures in the Far East, Latin America, and Europe. Subsequently, I have added Books #2 & #3 to the series. Book #3 was published in 2018 and I am proud to say in 2019, it won the all-around Best Book of the Year Award from the Chanticleer International Book Awards as well as the Grand Prize in the Goethe Historical Fiction Awards. Currently, I am finishing a novel about foreign correspondents in Asia entitled: “Asia Hands” and I have outlined a prequel to my Finding Billy Battles Trilogy that focuses on Billy’s “shadow-riding” cousin, Charley Higgins, who skirted the law during most of his life, but who was one of Billy’s most loyal friends. After those two projects, I will probably spend time writing my own adventures as a foreign correspondent in Asia and Latin America. Are you a full-time writer or do you hold a day job? Writing is my day job. I have been a full-time writer since graduating from the University of Kansas and joining the Chicago Tribune in 1969. I have written thousands of newspaper, magazine, and opinion columns from more than 65 different countries. As a dean and professor at the University of Illinois, I wrote textbooks, newspaper columns, and articles in various magazines and journals.What is the biggest challenge/obstacle you face in protecting your writing time?The biggest obstacle in protecting my writing time is Southern California. The weather here is almost always beautiful and sunny. The fact that I live in the Southern California wine country just north of San Diego doesn’t help either. The temptation to get out of the house, go to the beach or enjoy a long leisurely lunch at one of the nearby wineries is sometimes too great to ignore.  What historical time periods interest you the most and how have you immersed yourself in a particular period or epoch?Growing up in rural Kansas I was always fascinated by the state’s 19th Century history. Kansas was a pivotal state before the Civil War because it entered the union as a free state and was populated–especially in the Northeast–by abolitionists.  Kansas was a terminus for the Underground Railroad. After the Civil War, it became about as wild and violent as any state in the union. Cattle drives from Texas, wild cow towns, outlaws, legendary lawmen and fraudsters of every stripe gave the state a wicked reputation. At the same time, the 19th Century in America was a time of fantastic growth, invention, progress, and expansion.  For some, such as Native Americans, this growth was not a pleasant experience, and in some cases, it was quite deadly. For others, the possibilities seemed limitless. Prosperity seemed restricted only by one’s determination and effort. Introduce us briefly to the main characters in your most recent book. William Fitzroy Raglan Battles  is the main character in the book. His father is killed during the Civil War, so he is reared by his mother, Hannelore, a second-generation German-American woman who has to be both mother and father to her only son. It is a tall order, but Billy grows up correctly and is seemingly on the right path. His mother, a hardy and resilient woman, makes a decent living as a dressmaker in Lawrence, Kansas. An ardent believer in the value of a good education, she insists that Billy attend the newly minted University of Kansas in Lawrence. She is a powerful influence in his life, as are several other people he meets along the way. There is Luther Longley, an African-American former army scout who Billy and his mother meet at Ft. Dodge in 1866. He escorts them the 300 miles to Lawrence and winds up being a close friend to both Billy and his mother. There is Horace Hawes, publisher and editor of the Lawrence Union newspaper who takes Billy with him to start a new paper in Dodge City.  There is Ben Minot, a typesetter and former Northern Army Sharpshooter, who still carries a mini ball in his body from the war and a load of antipathy toward The Confederacy. There is Signore DiFranco, the Italian political exile Billy meets in Dodge City. There is Mallie McNab, the girl Billy meets falls in love with, marries, and with whom he hopes to live out his life. There is the afore-mentioned Charley Higgins, Billy’s first cousin, who sometimes treads just south of the law, but who is also Billy’s most devoted compañero de Armas. Then there is the Bledsoe family– notably Nate Bledsoe, who blames Billy for the deaths of his mother and brother and who swears vengeance. Book one of the trilogy ends with Billy meeting the widow Katharina von Schreiber, a mysterious baroness who in Book #2 propels Billy into a series of misadventures and dubious situations. What drew you to write this story?I was intrigued with the idea of a 19th Century Kansas boy forced to deal with a string of tragedies and misadventures who eventually makes his way to the Far East in search of himself. How would he handle himself in such strange places as French Indochina, the Spanish-controlled Philippines, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.?  I spent most of my career as a foreign correspondent in Asia, and I often wondered what it would have been like to have been in that part of the world in the 19th Century. This book gives me (and my readers) an opportunity to find out. Tell us a bit about Book #3 in the trilogy.“The Lost Years of Billy Battles” picks up Billy’s life in 1914 in Chicago where he is working as an assistant managing editor for a newspaper and enjoying a rather sedate life. Then, one morning the telephone rings, and Billy is suddenly thrust back into a life of peril and adventure in Mexico during its revolution, and as the world is on the verge of World War I. In places like Veracruz, Billy comes into conflict with German spies and a passel of shady characters. Later he meets up with some old friends from his days in Kansas, joins the U.S. Army’s hunt for Pancho Villa, and eventually winds up back in French Indochina and the Philippines. Events conspire to embroil him in a variety of disputes, conflicts, and struggles–events with which a Kansas sand cutter is hardly equipped to deal. How will he do? You will have to read Book #3 to find out! A reader once asked me this question, and I thought it was a good one. Is there ever a time when you feel like your work is truly finished and complete?I don’t know if that ever happens. I do know that at some point, YOU MUST LET IT GO! Writing a book is a bit like rearing a child. Eventually, after you have imbued the child with as much of your worldly experience and wisdom as he or she can grasp and absorb you have to allow your creation to encounter the world. It’s the same with books.  Writers can fiddle with plots, characters, endings, and beginnings ad nauseam and never feel the book is ever finished. My advice. JUST FINISH THE DAMNED BOOK! Get over it and get the book out into the public domain. Readers will let you know if you have finished the book–and if they like it. If you could be a character from your favorite historical novel, who would you be?Woodrow Call from Lonesome Dove OR John Blackthorne from Shogun.  What is the most significant misconception the general public has about authors?I don’t know if those who do not write for a living understand just how difficult writing is. Many believe that writers work from inspiration and that the words merely leap onto the page (or into the computer). In fact, while inspiration is a beautiful thing, it is not what makes a good writer or book. Writing requires significant research, whether fiction or non-fiction. It needs a facility for organization and a keen sense of plot, pacing, and story.  I don’t believe writers are “born.” They evolve as a result of significant experience in the craft. Finally, not all writers are brooding, intractable alcoholics or unbearable misanthropes who feel their creations contain irrevocable and definitive truths that most of humanity is too stupid to comprehend. In fact, most successful writers are excellent storytellers, and they like nothing more than to have their stories read by as many people as possible–even if those stories don’t always possess immutable truths.  Ernest Hemingway once said: “Hell, there’s nothing hard about writing. You just sit at your typewriter and bleed.” END OF PART ONE. READ PART TWO TOMORROW  

 

An Uncommon Love of Words & Writing

This is a re-post of a blog post I did a while back. It is one of those timeless pieces about a one-of-a-kind journalism professor and his love of words and writing. Take a look. I bet you will find it fascinating and helpful. In any case, I hope you enjoy it.

A while back a friend sent me an excellent column about a professor at my alma mater: the William Allen White School of Journalism at the University of Kansas.

The professor’s name was John Bremner, a native of Australia and ordained Catholic priest who left the priesthood to become a journalist. (“Proof that purgatory exists,” he once told me.)

While I never had the late Professor Bremner (he died in 1987) for a class, he made his presence known in the newsroom of the University Daily Kansan where I was the editor-in-chief. He often would stick his head in the door of my office and say something like: “Good paper today, Ron.”

Those were the days I liked. But all too often I heard things like:

“The lead story on page one makes about as much sense as a wallaby giving a sermon,” which was Prof. Bremner’s way of saying it made no sense at all!

Professor Bremner was a stickler for the proper use of the English language. He could get especially cranky when people who make their livings using it every day, such as journalists, misused the lingua franca.

Prof. John Bremner

In the introduction of his seminal book “Words on Words,” published in 1980, John Bremner had this to say about language:

“Words are my professional life. It was nurtured by the study of classical and modern languages, which was part of the characteristic education of my generation, at least in my native Australia. Unfortunately, such education has become uncharacteristic, especially in the United States. I have witnessed the steady growth of literary ignorance during a career of more than a third of a century as a professional journalist, a professor of journalism and a newspaper consultant.”

He goes on to say: “Many of my students arrive in my writing and editing classes…with an almost total ignorance of English grammar and usage and only a smattering of any foreign language.”

 Those words were probably written in the late 1970s. Believe me, as someone who was until recently a professor at a major university; things have not gotten any better. If anything, they have gotten worse. Sadly, many of my students at the University of Illinois between 1997 and 2010 wrote the English language with the adroitness of a heavy truncheon rather than with the precision of a sharp pen.

During a 1984 seminar for newspaper editors, Bremner told the crowd:

”Jesus Christ once said, ‘Where two or three are gathered together. .’.But he couldn’t have said precisely that. He didn’t speak English. And why would he have said ‘gathered together’? When you have ‘gathered,’ you don’t need ‘together.’ ”

 Not even the Bible was safe from Professor Bremner’s reproach.

In 1952 Bremner earned a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University in New York. When his Columbia class was honored by the journalism school’s alumni association in 1987 for having endowed a scholarship, Professor Bremner was chosen to accept the award. In his acceptance speech, he pointed out all the errors in spelling, syntax, and grammar in the class newsletter. Classic Bremner.

To say John Bremner was an academic legend during his tenure at the University of Kansas is to do him a great disservice. He was an etymological doyen; a philological force; a grammatical guru.

He would have hated that description because he always cautioned me to avoid alliteration whenever possible. “It’s sophomoric,” he once told me. “Unless it is used by a connoisseur.”

Here is the column mentioned above published by Steve Wilson, Executive Editor, of The Paducah (KY) Sun. I hope you will enjoy it, but most of all, be prepared to learn something about words and writing.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

An uncommon love of words

By Steve Wilson

Executive Editor, the Paducah Sun

On a local TV newscast a few days ago, the sports anchor said St. Louis Cardinals’ catcher Yadier Molina had received “the lion’s share of votes” and would be a starter in this summer’s all-star game.

His use of “lion’s share” seemed dubious and sent me back to a favorite book called Words on Words. It’s written by the late John Bremner, an exuberant college professor who was obsessed with the proper use of the English language.

As expected, he had an entry for “lion’s share” that didn’t square with the usage on TV.

“If you use this cliche, know its proper meaning. In one version of the fable, Aesop’s lion got all the meat except a few scraps snatched by the fox. In the other versions, the lion got it all. Properly, the lion’s share means all or almost all of something, not merely a majority.”

Bremner was a charismatic figure – 6-foot-5, 260-pounds, white-bearded, a native Australian who spent the biggest part of his career teaching journalism at the University of Kansas. He also put on seminars for newspaper editors around the country, which is how we met and became friends.

He was an animated instructor, pacing the room, digressing to tell a story about British history one moment, then raging about the confusion caused by a misplaced comma the next. More than once he had thrown open a window in his classroom, waved his white handkerchief, and shouted, “Help, I’m being held captive by a roomful of idiots.”

Such theatrics, he said, were less about ego than connecting with the audience.

“You don’t hold students and professionals by simply filling them with facts and snippets of knowledge. You have to keep them interested, keep them alert.”

He enjoyed pointing out the illogic of many word usages.

“You want the word couple to be singular?” he asked. “All right, the couple was married yesterday. It went to Florida on its honeymoon. OK so far. But it had an argument. So it decided to get a divorce. And it went its separate ways.”

His book is a pleasure to peruse:

Advance planning – Have you planned backward lately?

At the present time – Now.

At this point in time – Now.

Better part of – “She stayed for the better part of an hour” means she stayed for more than a half-hour. Why better? Are the first 30 minutes better than the last 30? Make it “most of the hour.”

Chair – Keep it a noun. What’s wrong with “Smith presided at the meeting” or “Smith was the chairman”? Pretty soon we’ll be saying Smith “podiumed the orchestra” or “pulpited the church.” Some fingers need to be kept in the verbal dikes.

Facilitate – A windy word for “make easier, aid, assist, help.”

Goes without saying – So why say it?

Irregardless – Regardless of the school of “a word is a word if people utilize it,” there is no such word as irregardless.

Precipitate/Precipitous – Though both adjectives derive from the same root (Latin praeceps, headlong), precipitate means excessively hasty and refers to actions, whereas precipitous means extremely steep and refers to physical objects. The bishop who counseled against “precipitous marriage” either was ignorant of the distinction or was jumping to the conclusion that rash decisions lead to rocky adventure.

Split infinitive – Splitting an infinitive means inserting one or more words between the to and the verb, as in “to thoroughly appreciate.” Banning the split infinitive is ridiculous. The so-called rule has no foundation in logic, rhetoric or common sense. Go ahead and split. Let euphony be your guide. Never to split is to seriously stifle.

Toward/Towards – Most authorities consider toward American and towards British. But a case can be made for towards in American usage when the following word begins with a vowel sound. There is sibilant smoothness in “towards evening.”

Ugly scar – Don’t say, “He has an ugly scar on his face.” Drop ugly. Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. Don’t force the reader to subscribe to your sensitivities.

For all his wit and wisdom about editing, one of the most memorable moments of our seminar came at the end when Bremner said he wanted to share a poem by John Ciardi.

He first explained that a widgeon is a duck, a wicopy is a tree and widgeons do not roost in trees. When the editors gave him quizzical looks, he smiled and proceeded to recite the lines from memory:

A widgeon in a wicopy

In which no widgeon ought to be,

A widowed widgeon was.

While in a willow wickiup

A Wichita sat down to sup

With other Wichitas,

And what they whittled as they ate

Included what had been of late

A widgeon’s wing.

‘Twas thus

The widgeon in the wicopy,

In which no widgeon ought to be,

A widowed widgeon was.

When he finished, he told the group in a soft-spoken voice, “If you don’t like that, get out of this business.”

Bremner devoted his life to the best use of words. A tender, alliterative arrangement could make his day.