Ronald E. Yates's Blog, page 97

Journalistic Method: Observation Techniques for Authors (Part 1)

Without doubt, one of the best places to learn the craft of writing is in the professional newsroom.

The number of successful authors of fiction and non-fiction books, who began their careers as journalists, is remarkable. Here is a list of 10 (It could be 50 or 100):

Charles Dickens
Samuel Clements (Mark Twain)
Ken Follett
Thomas Thompson
Ernest Hemingway
Edna Buchanan
George Orwell
Graham Greene
PG Wodehouse
Tom Wolfe

Someone once asked Ernest Hemingway where he learned to write. His answer: working as a general assignment reporter for the Kansas City Star from 1917 to 1918.

[image error] Ernest Hemingway

“Everything I needed to know about writing I learned from the Kansas City Star style sheet,” Hemingway once said.

The first paragraph of that style sheet reflects Hemingway’s writing style. It begins: “Use short sentences. Use short first paragraphs. Use vigorous English. Be positive, not negative.”

The advice may seem simplistic, but it is far from it. One of the first things I learned as a young journalist (coincidentally, at the Kansas City Star) was how to write succinctly and clearly and how to gather information accurately.

Hemingway did all of those things–and he did them well, both as a journalist and later as a Nobel Prize winning novelist.

Not far behind those skills is something called Journalistic Method. That is a fancy phrase for how a journalist works.

That is what I want to talk about today. In parts 2 and 3 of my blog on Journalistic Method I will get into some of the other skill sets such as the aforementioned ability to write succinctly and clearly, how to gather information accurately, and how to organize it and present it in a compelling way. Those who write novels can learn a lot from the skills required to produce excellent journalism.

Journalism is an empirical discipline. What do I mean by that?

It means, like science, it is a search for truth. It means you use trial and error, observation and analysis to find the truth.

The Dictionary defines empiricism it this way: Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws. Guided by practical experience and not theory.

It’s also how journalists go about finding stories.

For the scientist, empiricism means arriving at a truth via observation and experimentation. For the journalist the empirical tools are: Observation and Interviewing.

[image error]

The best writers, whether they are journalists, novelists or authors of non-fiction books, are the best observers.

Observation is the basis of everything.

Take this story from Asia about a Buddhist sage walking with two students through the forest. He stops suddenly and looks up at a tree.

“What do you observe in the tree?” He asks the first student. The first student’s eyes lock on the tree. Suddenly his face lights up.

“I see a bird in the tree, master” he says, sure his powers of observation in finding the small bird in the tree’s thick green foliage will please his religious teacher.

“What do you see?” the aged priest asks the other student.

The second student pauses, his eyes fixed on the tree for several moments.

Finally, the second student speaks: “I see a bird with red, yellow and black feathers sitting on a dead limb. A green tree snake is crawling on a limb just behind the bird.”

That is observation. Observation is an active, not a passive process.

Legend has it that the ancient Druids forced candidates for the priesthood to study an oak tree and capture its every feature. Then the candidate would be questioned about the tree. If the candidate failed to describe the tree accurately, he would be nailed to it.

Druidic discipline is not practiced in newsrooms, but the precision of observation it was intended to encourage should be. Not every good reporter is a good writer, but every good writer is a good reporter. Reporting IS observation.

Of the qualities that distinguish good from bad writing, three depend directly on observation. They are clarity, precision, and appeal to the senses. The others—pacing and transition—lend grace and power to the expression of what you have observed.

Clarity, precision and appeal to the senses seldom are achieved just by looking or listening. You usually have to seek out information that is not readily apparent.

The reporter’s main research tool is interviewing. All reporters interview; but few interview as well as they might. Fewer still get beyond the interview to other sources of information and understanding.

[image error]

Documents, the records of business, government and personal life, can be invaluable in answering questions and providing detail. Even the methods of social science offer help for the writer who would be a better observer.

A keen observer understands the importance of detail and texture, as well as the use of precise language. That means a dearth of adjectives and heavy on action verbs—fueled by detailed observation.

My advice: To write well, first see well.

Good observation depends on two things: concentration and analysis. As a writer you must be an observer by occupation. That means you’re always on the job. Everything you see, hear, smell, taste and touch is potentially material you can use in a story.

Flies take off backwards. So in order to swat one, you must strike slightly behind it. That’s a detail a writer should be able to pick up on. Other people see flies; a writer sees how they move.

No two people, no two situations, no two oak trees are identical. Your job is to sort out the important differences. You must get in the habit of concentrating on what is going on around you. It is hard work.

How do you do it?

Look for the significant detail.
Look for the revealing anecdote.
Look with your mind, as well as your eyes, open.
Prepare before you start to look.

Henry James once said: “Be one on whom nothing is lost.”

Listen to people talk. Listen to what they say and how they say it. Most of us don’t listen. Most of us are busy thinking about what WE want to say while someone else is talking. As a result, we misunderstand, misinterpret and worse, misquote.

Note things that others take for granted. For example, the excessive neatness of a bureaucrat’s desk may reveal not efficiency, but the fact that he or she has nothing to do! A pretentious private library may contain books with uncut pages!

So what’s the difference between a novelist and a reporter?  Besides the fact that one writes fiction and the other doesn’t (or shouldn’t), their goals are similar: to create compelling stories that people will want to read, learn from or be entertained by.

You must describe! You cannot rely on imagination to give you the crusty feel of crisp frozen ground underfoot or the razor-drag of chill air across your face. You must see these things; know them, before you can communicate them.

Writers are verbal creatures. But they must observe vividly. Good writers write after the fact, not from inspiration. They write what they have seen—and what they have seen well!

 

 

 

America, the Neo-Tribal Nation

It is unsettling and sad to witness what is happening in our great country today.

Never in my lifetime—and I’m older than Methuselah in dog years—have I ever witnessed such hysteria over the occupant of the White House. No, not even during Watergate—in which a real crime WAS committed, albeit a two-bit burglary. I covered the fallout from the Watergate break in, so I know of what I speak.

What bothers me about the frenzy on the left is its capitulation to identity politics rather than to the rational and intelligent liberal ideology that used to define the Democrat party.

What attracted me to the Democrat party when I was young and guileless was its issue-oriented, logical approach to dealing with the nation’s social and economic problems. I can still remember a time when voting for a Democrat didn’t mean you were embracing socialism and by definition, extreme loathing and disgust for anybody who was not a Democrat.

Sadly, those days are gone given the Democrat party’s wholehearted embrace of socialism and identity politics.

What do I mean by identity politics?

It means that each of us belongs to a sub-group defined by race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Let’s look at the behavior of the Democrat party in the last couple of Presidential elections. Instead of focusing on broad issues such as jobs and income growth, Democrats catered to members of different sub-groups, promising to give them power.

Did Hillary Clinton offer the middle class (strangled by the Obama administration’s focus on the nation’s professed social ills) an agenda for which they could vote? No, she catered to sub-groups hoping that they would coalesce enough to send her to victory. It didn’t work.

In essence, the Democrats apparently want to divide us into competing tribes, each with its own agenda, its own set of grievances, and its own view of what America should look like.

[image error]

The problem with that is this: if one or two tribes win, then the others lose. The result is now a country that is tearing itself apart, ripping away the very fabric of our nation, and destroying the excellent idea that makes America unique in world history.

Look at what it says on the nation’s Great Seal: “E Pluribus Unum”—Out of Many, One.”

Think about what that means. Out of many peoples, races, religions, languages, and ancestries has emerged a single people and nation.

We used to talk about America being the great melting pot—a fusion of different cultures, ethnicities, and nationalities.

[image error]

That is no longer politically correct. Today we are taught there is no need to assimilate, to “become an American.” Instead, we each have our own identity: African-American, Mexican-American, Transgender, LGBT, Muslim, Evangelical, Jew, Democrat, Republican, etc.

This is neo-tribalism, in which we are identified by what sub-group or tribe to which we belong. We are no longer “Americans.” We are something else.

That means instead of thinking about the whole and the many, we think about ourselves and what sub-group we belong to first and the country last, if at all.

It means that instead of allowing reasonable debate about issues, those who belong to a sub-group JUST WANT TO WIN. Debate is no longer a means to a solution. In their minds violence, rioting, burning, destroying property, shouting down those who don’t agree with them, and ignoring freedom of speech is the new modus operandi.

Concepts that we were once taught to respect and cherish such as freedom of speech, the rule of law, the nuclear family, patriotism, adherence to religion and belief in God are under assault by a profane and secular left.

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Marilynne Robinson has said it very well:

“At the outset, we were fortunate to have a group of people write essential documents that gave us a good deal to think about.  And I think that a lot of the higher quality of American discourse, when it has been high, is out of respect for the fact that these are valuable things that impose respect for people of other views.

“And, at this point, things have deteriorated to the point that it is morally wrong to have an attitude of presumptive respect toward someone you disagree with. That’s just bizarre, and it’s obviously not a formula for civilized society.”

I am saddened when I hear those on the left say that our Constitution is no longer germane, that our traditions are not noble, that our Bill of Rights is irrelevant, and that we do not live in an exceptional country.

[image error]

I remember listening to what President John F. Kennedy said during his 1961 inauguration speech. It still resonates with me today. (Yes, saw that speech on TV and I voted for Kennedy).

“My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

I took those words to heart. I joined the U.S. Army and served four years gathering intelligence for the National Security Agency. Others joined Kennedy’s Peace Corps and went to third world countries to help people produce clean water, build decent housing, and eliminate illiteracy.

I am proud of my service to this country. I hate seeing it ripped apart today by self-centered politicians and others who put their political party and themselves before country, who feel it is acceptable to ignore the results of a legitimate election, and who want to use any means possible to remove the candidate they didn’t vote for from office.

That is exactly what we see today when Democrats howl for Donald Trump’s political lynching—which is what an impeachment is.

The way to remove a president from office is with the ballot, not by decree, violence, or a political coup d’état.

I hope it is not too late.

 

 

 

Coming this Summer: Book #3 in the Finding Billy Battles Trilogy

During the past couple of months, I have received frequent inquiries from readers who ask when Book #3 (Working Title: “The Lost Years of Billy Battles”) will be available.

First, let me thank those faithful fans of the Finding Billy Battles Trilogy for their interest and encouragement.­ Your support means a lot as I trudge ahead writing this last chapter in Billy’s long and astounding life.

All I can tell you at this point is that I am about sixty percent finished with Book #3 and my objective is to have the book finished and published late this summer.

As to the story, without giving away too much, I can tell you Billy and Katharina have some harrowing adventures in Mexico during that country’s bloody revolution. Later, some horrific events cause Billy to vanish. What happened? Why did he disappear? Where did he go? How long was he gone?

Those are questions you will find the answers to in “The Lost Years of Billy Battles,” the final book in the Finding Billy Battles Trilogy.

In the meantime, stay tuned for periodic updates, information on pre-publication orders, and how to receive signed copies.

Whining Media & White House Press Briefings

Last week the Trump White House hinted that it might suspend the daily on-camera press briefings by Sean Spicer and Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

“Maybe the best thing to do would be to cancel all future ‘press briefings’ and hand out written responses for the sake of accuracy???” President Trump wrote on Twitter last Friday.

Why was President Trump considering such a drastic move? Because “it is not possible” for his staff to speak with “perfect accuracy” to the American public, Trump said.

However, another reason, according to administration officials and Republican members of Congress, is that the news media have discarded any sense of objectivity and are in attack mode against a president a majority of reporters do not like and in some cases, actually hate.

In any case, the response by the reporters in the White House press corps to the suggestion of terminating the White House press briefing was nothing short of hysterical.

How could Trump do this? It is an affront to the freedom of the press. It is an attack on the First Amendment. It shows disrespect for the news media. In infringes on the right of the American people to know, etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseam.

[image error] Press Spokesman Sean Spicer

The hand-wringing went on and on as did the whining.

Jeff Mason, president of the White House Correspondents’ Association and a White House reporter for Reuters, said in a statement last Friday that ending the briefings would “threaten” government accountability.

“White House briefings and press conferences provide substantive and symbolic opportunities for journalists to pose questions to officials at the highest levels of the U.S. government,” he said. “That exercise, conducted in full view of our republic’s citizens, is clearly in line with the spirit of the First Amendment. Doing away with briefings would reduce accountability, transparency, and the opportunity for Americans to see that, in the U.S. system, no political figure is above being questioned.”

Oh, boo hoo.

Anybody who watches the briefings and then reads or watches what is reported can see that the coverage is almost always negative. Seldom, if ever, are there stories about Trump’s accomplishments.

How many stories have you seen that say consumer confidence is at a 16-year high; that small business confidence is at a twelve-year high; that business confidence, on the whole, is surging since Trump entered the White House?

[image error]

And what about this? Despite historic Democrat obstructionism, President Trump has worked with Congress to pass more legislation (28 laws) in his first 100 days than any President since Truman.

Yes, that includes Obama, upon whom the mainstream media bestowed sainthood.

But wait, we aren’t finished. President Trump signed 30 executive orders during his first 100 days. By comparison, President Obama signed 19 executive orders during his first 100 days; President George W. Bush signed 11 executive orders during his first 100 days, and President Clinton signed 13 executive orders during his first 100 days.

And we aren’t finished yet. President Trump signed 13 Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions in his first 100 days, more than any other President in history. These resolutions nullified unnecessary regulations and blocked agencies from reissuing them.

Of course, you didn’t see stories that reported these accomplishments. Why? Because God forbid that the media report anything that gives the current occupant of the people’s house any credit at all.

Someone said recently that if reporters witnessed Trump walking on water, they would report that he can’t swim.

I cannot abide whining reporters who feel they are endowed with special rights beyond the privilege of the First Amendment and the vital responsibility to report the news fairly and impartially.

[image error] Deputy Press Spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders

I did the job for 27 years with the Chicago Tribune in one of the toughest newspaper towns in the country, and I regularly dealt with criticism from politicians and others who didn’t like what I wrote. I was called names, threatened with law suits and occasionally harassed.

After I had written one story about a Chicago mafia figure, I got a phone call in which the man on the other end threatened to kill me, cut me up into small pieces and set my remains afloat in Lake Michigan in forty-seven Mason jars. It was the most creative critique of my journalistic prowess I ever received, and to this day I still treasure it.

How did I deal with it? I just grew a thicker skin and moved on to the next story. It is sad to see the “wussification” of journalists today.

When the President criticizes you, get over it and keep doing your damned job! Believe me; the public feels no sympathy for you.

Do I support ending the White House press briefings? No, I do not.

I believe that since Donald Trump took the oath of office, the briefings have become the greatest show on earth. The repartee between the growling anti-Trump reporters and the Spicer—Huckabee tag team is fascinating, if not always enlightening.

But seriously, folks, I believe the press briefings serve a useful purpose, providing openness and transparency of the Executive Branch—something that was sorely missing during the eight years of the Obama administration.

My advice to reporters who feel “threatened” by Donald Trump? Get a Kevlar vest and show up at the briefings ready to do battle on behalf of the American people—and avoid propagandizing in your stories whatever left or right wing ideology you may endorse.

 

 

 

 

 

An Old Letter from El Salvador

Between 1980 and 1982 I spent a lot of time for the Chicago Tribune in Central American countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua–all of which were involved in some vicious uprisings and revolutions. From time to time I will post one of the stories I wrote from these places. The following story was one I wrote from San Salvador. 

SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador—In 1937, a year after Juan Chong arrived in San Salvador from Hong Kong and opened the Canton China Bar and Restaurant, an American journalist dropped in for a drink.

“I think he was from New York,” said Chong, shifting his 80-year-old frame in the ancient wicker chair behind the bar. “New York World. Yes, yes, that was it.’

Chong, his ancient brown eyes peering out from behind wire-rimmed bifocals perched on his nose, examined the reporter sitting across the bar from him.

[image error]

“You American?” he asked. The reporter nodded.

“You know something?  You’re the first American journalist to come in here since 1937. You work for New York World, too?”

“The Chicago Tribune,” the reporter answered. “The New York World died a long time ago.”

“You come to write about the war, right?” Chong asked. The reporter nodded again.

”There had been some trouble just before that other reporter showed up,” Chong said, recharging his memory cells with a shot of vodka. “Some peasants up north had shot a couple of soldiers. There was talk of another rebellion like the Matanza.” (The Matanza, or “slaughter,” had occurred In 1931 and 1932, when some 32,000 men, women, and children were killed by government forces after an ill-fated uprising by the Trotskyite Indian named Farabundi Marti).

“We were all very excited about It, Chong said, igniting an ancient pipe.”But this American journalist, he was not. He said Americans didn’t care about little revolutions in little countries.”

Then, eyeing the reporter before him, Chong said, “I guess Americans think differently now, eh?”

Indeed they do. The little unimportant banana republic visited so long ago by the New York reporter is suddenly front and center in the eyes of American foreign policymakers.

Today, the whole world Is watching to see how the United States handles Itself in an 11-year-old  revolution pitting left-wing guerrillas of the FMLN (Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front) against the four-man, civilian-military junta of  President Jose Napoleon Duarte that is backed by Washington.

And unlike 1937, when just one American reporter wandered into town to take a quick look around, San Salvador is a city overrun with journalists from all over the world.

[image error]

Most stay at the 235-room Camino Real Hotel, which has evolved into a kind of unofficial media headquarters for anybody covering the hostilities here.

Besides a well-stocked bar, where foreign correspondents tend to gather evenings in clusters to discuss (well, argue) solutions to El Salvador’s problems, the Camino Real offers a  government-run telex room for filing stories and messages.

[image error]

It is not just camaraderie and the dubious benefits of flock journalism that lure journalists to the Camino Real – It Is safety.

“This is the hotel for the International Press,” explained William, the head bellhop. “Neither the left nor the right would be so stupid as to attack this hotel. This is neutral territory.”         ·

Most journalists feel a little naked In El Salvador. Since the fighting began in 1980, five foreign correspondents and photographers have died – not to mention the two dozen or more El Salvadoran journalists who have been tortured or murdered. Conversations in the Camino Real bar tend to be sprinkled with bravado and twists of gallows humor as reporters attempt to put such things out of their minds the way they have always done in war.

Like in Viet Nam, for example, and Cambodia. Except that in the Camino Real bar, Viet Nam and Cambodia are taboo subjects. Most of those covering the war In El Salvador, it seems, did not work In Southeast Asia, and there is a perverse, albeit unnecessary, need on their part to convince Viet Nam-era reporters, that this war is more dangerous than their war.

There is indeed something much more ominous about this conflict, with its incessant decapitations, mass murders, and disappearances.

But it is impossible to apply a Bo Derek kind of scale to war. People get blown up. They lose arms and legs and feet and hands. They die. Who is to say El Salvador rates a ten on the danger scale while Nicaragua and Angola and Cambodia are only 8s? Such comparisons are not only absurd; they are obscene. Suffice it to say that thus far El Salvador, with Its 30,000 dead, is still far from the 1.3 million soldiers and civilians killed In Viet Nam (including 105 journalists).

[image error]

There does seem to be something about El Salvador’s tragic conflict that makes you look over your shoulder a lot.

Perhaps it’s that there are so many fanatic fringe elements in this New Jersey-sized nation of five million running around flaunting machine guns, machetes, and machismo.

Right-wing death squads armed with razor-sharp machetes and rifles roam the city streets looking for “subversives.

Left-wing guerrillas blow up somebody’s house or place of business just about every night. And out on the streets, you learn to examine every car that passes you for the barrel of a rifle or pistol pointed at your belly.

“I don’t think El Salvador has ever been more unhealthy,” said Chong, relighting his pipe. “People don’t come to my place after eight at night anymore because they are afraid somebody is going to throw a bomb through the door. People are scared.  I’ve never seen them so scared.”

Outside the Canton China Bar and Restaurant, three government soldiers with semi -automatic rifles slung over their shoulders stood on the corner talking. Chong watched them for a moment.

“When I left China, it was during the Japanese occupation of Manchuria,” he said. “The war was terrible. I wanted to find a peaceful place to live, so I came to Central America. What a mistake. Of course, I’m too damned old now to care. But sometimes when I see bodies in the streets with their heads chopped off, I think I should have stayed In China.”

(POSTSCRIPT: More than 75,000 civilians died at the hands of death squads and government forces, and another 4,000 were killed by guerillas during the civil war in El Salvador (1980-1992). The 12 years of violence were punctuated by three well-known atrocities: the 1980 assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero that sparked the conflict, the rape, and murder of three American Maryknoll Nuns and a lay missionary that caused international outrage and the 1989 Jesuits Massacre that finally compelled the international community to intervene. Some 550,000 people lost their homes, and another 500,000 fled the country as refugees during the war. In 1992, The Chapultepec Peace Agreement was signed by the combatants in Mexico City, formally ending the bloody conflict.) 

 

What if readers hate your characters?

Do readers like the characters you create? Do they have redeeming qualities even if they do terrible things? Do readers “bond” with your characters? Are they sympathetic or pathetic? What makes a “likeable” character?

Today, author and writing coach Marylee MacDonald raises those questions and provides some revealing answers in her latest blog post.

I am pleased to re-post her always enlightening comments on writing today.

Read on. You will not be disappointed.

  What The Heck Are Likable Characters?

by Marylee MacDonald

Have you heard the term “likable characters” tossed around in your book group or circle of writing friends? If you’ve been in the writing biz any length of time, you may have even received e-mails from agents: “I didn’t find the protagonist likable” or “I just didn’t fall in love with your character.”

[image error] Can you create a character as likable as Jane Eyre? Readers feel a bond with her, and they’re rooting for her to find a way past the roadblocks to her happiness. Image from Flickr via The British Library

 

Fifteen or twenty years ago, I’d never heard the term “likable characters”. Then I began hearing it, and hearing it more often as my friends and I tried to find agents.

For a long time I struggled to discern the meaning of “likable characters.” Now I understand that agents and editors use “likable characters” to describe a feeling of distaste.

“Likable characters” is shorthand for “I got no pleasure from reading about these people.” The term is a signal that the agent would not enjoy living vicariously with your imaginary friend.

The Importance Of The Reader Bond

Agents, and readers in general, want to like and bond with your characters, especially your main character. In this blog post I’m going to talk about character likability and reader bonding.

What makes readers like some characters and detest others? I’m not speaking about villains here. We all know that a good villain is one readers love to hate. I’m talking about protagonists. These are the folks readers are supposed to cheer for. Flawed they may be, but on the whole our protagonists must capture readers’ hearts.

In case you’d like more on this subject, I’ve put together a free report on creating fictional characters. TIPS ON CREATING MEMORABLE CHARACTERS

An Empathy Exercise On Likable Characters

Let’s start with an empathy exercise, meaning let’s see how it feels to stand in published author’s shoes. Imagine you’re the author of a published book, and you’re glancing through Goodreads to find out how average readers feel about your latest offering. (At the bottom of this page, you’ll find the authors’ names.)

Writer #1

These stories are dreary and devoid of any joy, humor, hope or beauty.
What’s the point of wasting time in a book where you can’t relate to any of the characters??!
…the stories are…brutal in a deep, almost subconscious, unintentional way, and they lack empathy

 Writer #2

Some stories are developed enough to impart quiet wisdom; others, though, are mere sketches, with one-dimensional characters and pat, trite resolutions.

 Writer #3

I disliked the character of Abby and despised her mother-in-law…
I kept reading hoping that the plot would lead to some redemption—did not happen.
Why should I care about these shallow characters that I haven’t developed any kind of connection to?

 Writer #4

He writes dialogue as if he hasn’t actually talked to another person in months, much less a woman in her twenties, like his main character.
The characters are pretty unbelievable. All the female characters are described as beautiful but mostly neurotic or actually insane.

Writer #5

The female characters are terribly drawn, with a misogynistic undertone…
Plotless, misogynistic garbage with a dismal worldview.
Not much depth to the characters, especially the women –the term “misogynist” frequently came to mind.

What did you think as you read these verdicts? Punch in the gut, right? So, listen up because you don’t want these kinds of comments about your book.

Create Likable Characters Right From The Start

One of the biggest puzzles for all authors is how to make readers and agents fall in love with our characters. We love our imaginary people, warts and all. Our characters are our children. But, readers do not necessarily have to love the little brat throwing a tantrum in the grocery store. Readers lead busy lives, and they make snap judgments. They won’t wade through an entire book waiting for the payoff–the day when the brat turns into an angel.

To be blunt about it, readers do not like characters who are negative, nasty, bitter, stuck, depressed, or hopeless. This makes common sense. If we have a friend caught in an endless loop of negativity, we give up on them. It’s no fun to hang out.

When you’re writing, try to avoid having the following:

shallow characters;
clichéd characters;
misogynists, racists, or homophobes.

[image error] How does your book portray women? Are the women people in their own right or are they projections of cultural stereotypes.

The Issues of Misogyny and Stereotypical Females

Let’s start with the issue of misogyny. Readers say that Writers #4 and #5 objectify women. Is each of these (male) authors attempting to create a misogynist like Humbert Humbert in Nabokov’s Lolita?

“Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul.”

The opening of Lolita is one of the most evocative first lines in fiction. We forgive Humbert Humbert, the old reprobate, because he is unrepentant, and because he is funny and self-aware. One difference between his book and the two books maligned by the reviewers above could be this: Right from the beginning, Lolita is a particular girl, not an amalgam of body parts.

In workshop manuscripts I often see women reduced to a few physical characteristics, those that might ignite that Humbertian flame in a man. Even so, I’m sorry to see readers faulting Junot Díaz. (Oops! I let the cat out of the bag.) He’s really one of our finest writers. Maybe it’s as one of the Goodreads’ reviewers said: Díaz himself has admitted he can’t write women.

If a male writer can’t write women, that’s a problem. The female half of his readership won’t make a strong emotional connection with the characters he creates. It’s all too easy for men to project their sexual fantasies onto women, and women can spot that a mile away.

It may also be true that readers’ tastes have changed. Nabokov was a writer of his time. As writers in our contemporary world, we know that words have the power to wound. It’s not a matter of political correctness, but of empathy. We want to have empathy for all the characters in our books, to have that kind of deep understanding that creates a close author-reader bond.

By the same token, women writers need to watch out for creating shrill, bitchy females. The evil mother-in-law. The catty sisters. If you read between the lines of what the readers above are saying, you’ll see that readers don’t like stereotypical females. These characters hearken back to the way we felt about cliquish girls in seventh grade.

Let’s endow our characters of all genders, races and sexual orientations with the dignity and complexity of real people. If we do that, we can give readers what they desire.

Readers want to see themselves in the characters they’re reading about. If a woman can’t recognize herself in a book she’s reading, that creates a problem for the author. Bad reviews.

Readers Want To See Themselves

If readers want to read about folks who are, in some way, “like” them, then it follows that these characters must be “likable.” This doesn’t mean characters have to be Miss Goody Two-Shoes, but it does mean the characters should have positive characteristics.

Why? Because readers are more likely to bond with goodhearted characters. Characters who have a pure heart also generally have a conscience. Conscience and purity are admirable qualities that spill over into other aspects of a book. A character with integrity allows you, the author, to plant a moral compass at the very center of your plot. Readers who crave redemptive endings will be looking for that.

The Imaginary World

We’re writers, but we’re readers, too. As readers we step outside our ordinary lives. We accept the writer’s invitation to live inside her or his world. In exchange for the gift of our time and attention, we want several things:

characters from whom we cannot look away;
characters we can like, admire, and cheer for;
characters who show something pure about themselves;
characters who are multi-dimensional;
and characters with whom we can identify.

Take yourself back to childhood, and remember the characters you loved and the magic you found in books. If you can create that same magic for readers, you’ll earn their loyalty.

Answer Key

Writer #1 is Alice Munro, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature. This beloved Canadian writer obviously hasn’t won over everyone.

Writer #2 is Maeve Binchy. This prolific and bestselling author may have gotten a bit lazy.

Writer #3 is Anne Tyler. Anne Tyler is one of my favorite authors, and I’ve often used her novel, Ladder of Years, as an example of how to plot. Her latest book, A Spool of Blue Thread, didn’t grab readers the way her earlier books did. Note that readers react to the female characters the way they would to people they actually know.

Writer #4 is Jonathan Franzen. Readers panned his latest book Purity. “He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Letters, the German Akademie der Kunste, and the French Ordre des Arts et des Lettres.”

Writer #5 is Junot Díaz. ” He is the author of the critically acclaimed Drown, The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, which won the 2008 Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Critics Circle Award, and This Is How You Lose Her, a New York Times bestseller and National Book Award finalist. He is the recipient of a MacArthur “Genius” Fellowship, PEN/Malamud Award, Dayton Literary Peace Prize, Guggenheim Fellowship, and PEN/O. Henry Award.”

You can find more of Marylee’s thoughts on writing at her blog: www.maryleemacdonaldauthor.com

 

Colleges are no longer the cradle of free speech…they are just cradles.

What has happened to America’s once free-thinking universities?

What has happened to campuses that once fostered wide open debates on all topics, not just those deemed “safe” by school administrators or those that partisan and blinkered professors favor and endorse?

Since when did students at colleges need to be provided with “safe spaces” where controversial ideas and political philosophies they may not agree with are not to be debated or even mentioned?

[image error]

What happened to the idea of bringing controversial viewpoints, concepts, and theories into the academy where they can be thoroughly and rationally examined and considered?

In short, what happened to the notion of academic freedom, which in essence says that scholars and students should have the freedom to teach or communicate ideas or facts (including those that are inconvenient to external political groups or authorities) without being targeted for repression, termination, physical attack, or imprisonment.

It appears that the concept of academic freedom, which has its roots in the medieval European university, is on a respirator in the United States.

Conservative speakers are under fire on college campuses, and critics say school officials who should be fostering a climate of intellectual diversity are instead siding with violent groups out to shut down free speech.

The ongoing controversy at the University of California, Berkeley involving a planned speech by conservative pundit Ann Coulter is the latest example of a school caught between provocative speech and the threat of reactionary violence.

“You cannot impose arbitrary and harassing restrictions on the exercise of a Constitutional right,” Coulter said during a recent television interview.

[image error]             Ann Coulter

School officials wanted to avoid a replay of the Milo Yiannopoulos incident a few months ago, in which masked vandals did more than $100,000 worth of damage, setting fires and breaking windows in protest of the anticipated speech by the conservative pundit.

That was followed by a violent attack on conservative author Charles Murray during a speech at Vermont’s Middlebury College.

Many are blaming the violent protests targeting conservative speakers on the alt-left group Antifa. Critics say Antifa, a group that calls itself “anti-fascist,” has sparked violence on college campuses across the country to further its far left agenda.

The great irony of groups like Antifa is that they are the “book burners” of today. They are behaving like the Brown Shirts of 1930s Germany who shut down free speech, burned books they found anathema to their twisted philosophy, torched buildings, and employed physical violence that led to injury and death.

[image error] Antifa = Today’s Nazi Brown Shirts

In the UC Berkeley riots that broke out recently, pictures and video were tweeted out of rioters beating people with “Antifa” flagpoles and then drenching them with pepper spray. Naturally, cowardly Antifa rioters, like ISIS terrorists, wear masks to conceal their identity.

Kyle Shideler, Director of the Threat Information Office at the Washington D.C.-based think tank Center for Security Policy, says Antifa traces its roots back to Antifaschistische Aktion, the street fighting wing of the German Communist Party in the 1920s and 1930s.

The question is this: who are the real fascists? Conservatives who are prohibited from exercising their free speech rights? Or the Antifa androids out to muzzle anybody who thinks and speaks counter to what they consider “correct speech?”

“Increasingly college campuses have become bastions for radical leftist politics, Shideler said. “If an individual’s freedom of expression is viewed as inherently ‘unsafe’ or ‘dangerous’ by these colleges, then it creates a milieu where the violent resistance to such speech is regarded as legitimate. Antifa routinely takes credit for such violent activities.”

Are universities doing enough to stop the violence? Are they holding those responsible for the violence accountable?

It doesn’t look like it.

UC Berkeley admitted in a recent interview that a university employee who took part in the February riots and who later boasted in a tweet about beating up a Trump supporter at the event remains on the university payroll.

By not taking the proper steps to stop the violence, some say, universities are letting those suppressing free speech win the war against the First Amendment.

[image error]

It is setting a dangerous precedent in a nation that has traditionally championed the right to assemble peacefully and speak freely.

Manhattan Institute fellow Heather MacDonald, who writes about police and law enforcement in America, said when she was on her way to a roundtable at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California, she had to be escorted past throngs of protesters.

“There was a blockade of 250 and 300 students who prevented other students from entering.  I gave my talk to an almost empty room. During the talk the protesters banged on the plate glass windows,” said MacDonald. She said there was a Facebook posting ahead of her event that called for protesters to “shut down the white supremacist fascist Heather MacDonald.”

Ultimately, she said, they got their wish.

“It was the threat of brute force,” she said, “The police decided they couldn’t guarantee our safety and I was told it was over and I was hustled out of the building under police protection.”

Is it time for the Trump Administration or Congress to step in?

“I think an argument can be made that there is a compelling government interest in restoring safety and free exchange of ideas on college campuses, or at a minimum, in reducing or ending government funding for institutions of higher education which refuse to defend student and faculties free speech rights,” said Shideler.

Have we reached the point in American history that people must risk life and limb in order the exercise their rights under the First Amendment?

As a former professor and dean at the University of Illinois, I find myself wondering how effective universities are in educating students if they decide that only one side of a political or social or economic issue is allowed to be taught and discussed.

One has to wonder where the press is on this issue. After all, if any entity in our country should be concerned about the lack of free speech on college campuses, it should be the news media which is free precisely because there is a First Amendment, not in spite of it.

I am sad to say that America is rapidly becoming an intolerant nation that I no longer recognize.

 

Rave Reviews Book Club Springtime Book & Blog Block Party

[image error]

Greetings and welcome to the Rave Reviews Book Club Springtime Book & Blog Block Party @ The ForeignCorrespondent Blog coming to you from Murrieta, California.

[image error]  Casa Yates, Murrieta, Ca.

As a thank you for stopping by I am giving away:

Three (3) e-book or softcover copies of Finding Billy Battles (Book 1 of the Finding Billy Battles Trilogy)

Three (3) e-book or softcover copies of The Improbable Journeys of Billy Battles (Book 2 of the Finding Billy Battles Trilogy)

Here is the Amazon link to both books: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B001KHDVZI/-/e/B00KQAYMA8/

Number of winners: 6

Below you will find a little information about my award-winning trilogy as well as some suggestions and thoughts on writing and some information about an upcoming book signing.

Feel free to check out the rest of my blog for past posts on writing and other topics as well as a recent interview about writing Historical Fiction I did on the New Books Network.  Interview re Historical Fiction on the New Books Network

About the Finding Billy Battles Trilogy

The Improbable Journeys of Billy Battles is the award-winning second book in the exciting and adventure-filled Finding Billy Battles trilogy. It begins in 1894 after Billy has suffered the tragic loss of his wife. He is aboard the S.S. China; an ocean-going steamer headed for French Indochina where he hopes to find an old friend as well as some solace in his disastrous and heartrending life.

On the way, he meets Katharina von Schreiber, a recently widowed and mysterious German baroness. The two form an unlikely bond that leads them both from one perilous escapade to another. Eventually, Billy is inadvertently embroiled in the revolt against the French in Indochina. In so doing he is perhaps the first American to become entangled in a country that will eventually be known as Vietnam. Later, he finds himself in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War and the brutal Philippine-American war that followed.

The Improbable Journeys of Billy Battles, like Book 1 (Finding Billy Battles), incorporates distinctly accurate historical fact with fiction. Both books are meticulously researched down to the last detail so readers not only find themselves immersed in a compelling story, but are exposed to historical events and real people that make the worlds of the late 19th and early 20th  centuries come alive. It won the 2016 New Apple E-Book Award in the Action/Adventure category. Book 1 in the series is currently a finalist for the Laramie Award.

[image error]

Before writing the Finding Billy Battles trilogy, I spent some 27 years as a foreign correspondent for the Chicago Tribune. During that time I lived and worked in Asia and Latin America, including most of the places in which my books are set. Therefore, descriptions of cities such as Saigon, Manila, Hong Kong, etc. are based on my personal experiences and observations. Also, during that time, I covered several wars, revolutions, and popular uprisings which greatly aided in the descriptions of conflict that occasionally arise in the trilogy.

My purpose in writing the trilogy (I am currently working on Book #3 and plan to have it available in summer 2017) was to tell a compelling story that, while fiction, is grounded in historical fact. As such, I was careful to use the vernacular of the time and to describe places and events as they were in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There is no great literary message in the books, other than to demonstrate that many people in the past lived remarkable lives filled with adventure, sadness, struggle, joy, and love just as today. They were not, as so often portrayed in the black and white photographs of the time, wooden, lifeless figures without vivacity and depth. It was a time when the notions of “honor,” “fidelity,” and “duty” were guiding principles in most people’s lives.

The Finding Billy Battles trilogy is targeted at readers who enjoy accurate historical fiction topped off with a generous helping of action and adventure. It takes readers to an earlier time devoid of the relentless intrusion of cell phones, the swiftness of air travel, the soulless anonymity of The Internet that is inexorably extinguishing person to person interaction, the insipidness of today’s fast food culture, and an overindulged, self-centered society that craves and demands instant gratification.

Despite the dearth of the modern conveniences we take for granted today, people who lived during Billy’s prime were not dominated by and yoked to technology the way too many of us are today. They were less harried and stressed and more disposed to stop and smell the flowers than their 21st-century counterparts.

If there is one message, my books have it is this: Reading a book is a lot like life; you live it one page at a time.

  Some Thoughts on Writing

I have been writing, in one form or another, for most of my life. I learned the techniques and skills of writing by toiling for almost 30 years in the harsh and stressful world of journalism.

I was in some pretty good company. Ernest Hemingway began his writing career as a journalist. So did Rudyard Kipling, George Orwell, Graham Greene, Charles Dickens, Evelyn Waugh, Joan Didion, Norman Mailer, Hunter S. Thompson, Jack London, Annie Proulx, Stephen Crane, John Steinbeck, James Agee, Lillian Ross, and Mark Twain.[image error]

For 13 years I taught journalism and writing at the University of Illinois after leaving the world of professional journalism. During that time, I managed to condense my thoughts on writing into a structure suitable for the classroom.

So allow me to share my views on what writing is.

Writing is both an art and a craft. To be a good writer, you must first master the tools of the craft. What are those? They are vocabulary, grammar, research, style, plot, pacing, and story.

Words are your essential tools. They are your implements in the same way hammers, saws, bubble levels, squares, screwdrivers, and tape measures are the tools a carpenter must possess.

Then comes grammar. Just as carpenters must learn to respect and skillfully master their tools, so too must writers learn to skillfully manipulate words and respect the language.

If you don’t respect the language, you will never succeed as a writer.

You must also give yourself time to learn the art and craft of writing. You don’t learn how to be a writer by sitting alone in a room and squeezing your brain for inspiration the way you wring water from a sponge.

One of the first steps to becoming a good writer is by reading. Read, read, and read. As I used to tell my students, “If you want to write well, read well.”

Learn from the best; imitate (and I don’t mean to plagiarize). Listen to the words! Words speak to us from the written page, IF we let them, IF we allow our eyes to open our inner ears.

Gifted writing can’t be taught. It must be learned.

And we learn from doing it; from experience. That’s how we gain confidence.

Let me repeat that because it is SO VERY IMPORTANT. To be a good writer you need to be confident in your ability to use the tools of the craft: vocabulary, grammar, research, 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.

Once you master the Craft of Writing…the fundamentals, the mechanics, the “donkey” work, then you are ready to move on to the Art of Writing.

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 simply leap onto the blank page (or into yawning maul of the computer).

[image error]

Ernest Hemingway once said: “There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed.”

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 over time as a result of significant experience in the craft.

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 obtuse 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.

And storytelling is not limited to fiction. Storytelling in non-fiction or journalism is just as important.

When I was young, I used to write lots of short stories. Were they any good? No. But for a person who wants to be a writer they were my way of practicing. Sort of like practicing the piano or the flute or some other instrument. The more you practice, the better and more accomplished you become.

Somerset Maugham, the author of such classics as The Razor’s Edge, The Moon and Sixpence, and Of Human Bondage, had this to say about writing:

“If you can tell stories, create characters, devise incidents, and have sincerity and passion, it doesn’t matter a damn how you write.”

Book Signing April 22 @ Barnes & Noble

If you are in the Southern California area Saturday, April 22 I invite you to stop by for a book signing at the Barnes & Noble Bookstore in Temecula, which is about forty minutes north of San Diego. Click the link below for more information on the event.

Book Signing April 22 @ Barnes & Noble

[image error] [image error]

Finally, please leave a comment on anything you have seen or read here in order to qualify for my give-aways!

 

 

 

 

 

The Rules of Writing: There Are None!

For writers and those who are struggling to be writers, there is no shortage of rules, guidelines, tenets, and imperatives all calculated to turn you into a bestselling author.

They are often daunting and overwhelming and in some cases a bit terrifying.

But mostly, they are unnecessary.

Yes, I said it. Rules of writing are gratuitous, redundant, and pointless.

“What is he saying?” You might be asking yourself. “Has he gone off his mental reservation? Did somebody steal his rudder? Is he weak north of his ears?”

I have been writing, in one form or another, for most of my life. I learned the techniques and skills of writing by toiling for almost 30 years in the relentless and stressful world of journalism.

I was in some pretty good company. Ernest Hemingway began his writing career as a journalist—in fact, we both began our journalistic careers at the Kansas City Star.

Other successful authors who started as newspaper hacks include Rudyard Kipling, George Orwell, Graham Greene, Charles Dickens, Evelyn Waugh, Joan Didion, Norman Mailer, Hunter S. Thompson, Jack London, Annie Proulx, Stephen Crane, John Steinbeck, James Agee, Lillian Ross, and Mark Twain.

For 13 years I taught journalism and writing at the University of Illinois after leaving the world of professional journalism. During that time, I managed to condense my thoughts on writing into a structure suitable for the classroom.

So allow me to share my views on what writing is. What I am about to say here are not stringent rules or rigorous imperatives.

Don’t forget. There are no rules. Look at my comments as suggestions or musings, but not as edicts or diktats. [image error]Writing is both an art and a craft. To be a good writer, you must first master the tools of the craft. What are those? They are vocabulary, grammar, research, style, plot, pacing, and story.

Words are your essential tools. They are your implements in the same way hammers, saws, bubble levels, squares, screwdrivers, and tape measures are the tools a carpenter must possess.

Then comes grammar. Just as carpenters must learn to respect and skillfully master their tools, so too must writers learn to skillfully manipulate words and respect the language.

If you don’t respect the language, you will never succeed as a writer.

You must also give yourself time to learn the art and craft of writing. You don’t learn how to be a writer by sitting alone in a room and squeezing your brain for inspiration the way you wring water from a sponge.

One of the first steps to becoming a good writer is by reading. Read, read, and read. As I used to tell my students, “If you want to write well, read well.”

Learn from the best; imitate (and I don’t mean to plagiarize). Listen to the words! Words speak to us from the written page, IF we let them IF we allow our eyes to open our inner ears.

Gifted writing can’t be taught. It must be learned.

And we learn from doing it; from experience. That’s how we gain confidence.

Let me repeat that because it is SO VERY IMPORTANT. To be a good writer, you must be confident in your ability to use the tools of the craft: vocabulary, grammar, research, 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.

Once you master the Craft of Writing, the fundamentals, the mechanics, the “donkey” work, then you are ready to move on to the Art of Writing.

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 simply leap onto the blank page (or into the motherboard and central processing unit of a computer).

Ernest Hemingway once said: “There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed.”

[image error]          Ernest Hemingway

What’s a typewriter? You might ask. That’s a topic for another post when I discuss ancient writing implements.

But I digress. 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 requires a facility for organization and a keen sense of plot, pacing, and story.

I don’t believe writers are “born.”

They evolve over time as a result of significant experience in the craft.

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 obtuse 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.

And storytelling is not limited to fiction. Storytelling in non-fiction or journalism is just as important.

When I was young, I used to write lots of short stories. Were they any good? No. But for a person who wants to be a writer they were my way of practicing. Sort of like practicing the piano or the flute or some other instrument. The more you practice, the better and more accomplished you become.

Somerset Maugham, the author of such classics as The Razor’s Edge, The Moon and Sixpence, and Of Human Bondage, had this to say about writing:

“If you can tell stories, create characters, devise incidents, and have sincerity and passion, it doesn’t matter a damn how you write.”

And that leads me to Ann Rice’s Non-Advice to Writers. Ann Rice is a best-selling American author of gothic fiction, including books such as The Vampire Chronicles, Feast of All Saints, Servant of the Bones, Exit to Eden, and Belinda.

[image error]                             Ann Rice

Here is what she says about giving advice to writers:

“On giving writers advice, offering “rules.” I’m asked a lot about this, and people bring great lists of rules for writers to the page all the time. What do I think? I can’t say it loud enough. There are NO RULES for all writers! And never let anyone tell you that there are. Writers are individuals; we each do it in our own way.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you that you’re not a “real” writer because you don’t follow their rules! I can’t tell you how much harm was done to me early in life by others judging me in that way. I was told in college I wasn’t a “real” writer because I composed on a typewriter; I was condemned later on in damn near apocalyptic terms for “not writing every day.”

“Real writers” are those who become “real writers.” That’s all there is to it. And again, we each do it in our own way. For me, stubbornness has been as important as any talent I might possess. I ultimately ignored the people who condemned me, ridiculed me and sought to discourage me. I laughed or cried over it in secret; and went right on writing what I wanted to write, the way I wanted to write it.

I knew of no other way to become the writer of my dreams. If you want to be a writer, go for it. Critics are a dime a dozen, and people who would love to see you fail are everywhere. Just keep on going; keep doing what works for you. Keep believing in yourself.” 

Ann Rice has said it well. You must believe in yourself and your work because if you don’t, who will?

Some Thoughts About Books & Reading

There is an anonymous quote about books and reading them that I recall from my English Literature class at the University of Kansas several centuries ago. It goes like this:

“Anyone who says they have only one life to live must not know how to read a book.”

The meaning is clear. Reading books allows us to experience the world through the eyes of others—whether those eyes are the author’s or those of the characters the author creates. Stories well told allow us to live many lives.

Another unidentified sentiment about books says: “A good book on your shelf is a friend that turns its back on you and remains a friend.”

I agree.

[image error]

Some of us had the good fortune to have parents who loved books and who took the time to introduce us to them. My mother did that for me, and every time I think of the gift of reading she gave me I am reminded of a poem I once read:

“You may have tangible wealth untold;

Caskets of jewels and coffers of gold.

Richer than I you can never be –

I had a mother who read to me.”–Strickland Gillilan

I find that reading a book is like life. You take it one page at a time.

Below I have compiled some quotes about books and reading that you may find enlightening, stimulating and witty.

Take a look.

“Never judge a book by its movie.” ~J.W. Eagan

“Books are the windows through which the soul looks out.  A home without books is like a room without windows.”–Henry Ward Beecher

“To acquire the habit of reading is to construct for yourself a refuge from almost all the miseries of life.”–W. Somerset Maugham

“My imagination doesn’t require anything more of the book than to provide a framework within which it can wander.”–Alphonse Daudet

“A room without books is like a body without a soul.”–Cicero

“To gain glory by books you must not only possess them but know them; their lodgings must be in your brain and not on your book-shelf.”–Francesco Petrarch

“Never judge a cover by its book.”–Fran Lebowitz

[image error]

“To read a book for the first time is to make an acquaintance with a new friend; to read it for a second time is to meet an old one.”–Chinese Saying

“The printing-press is either the greatest blessing or the greatest curse of modern times, one sometimes forgets which.”–James M. Barrie

“Do you want to get new ideas?  Read old books.  Do you want to find old ideas?  Read new ones.”–Edward Bulwer-Lytton

“We become so used to having the famous books around, most of the time we look at them as though they were statues of generals in public parks.”–George P. Elliot

“There is a great deal of difference between an eager man who wants to read a book and a tired man who wants a book to read.” G.K. Chesterton

“Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.” Charles W. Eliot

“The books that the world calls immoral are books that show the world its own shame.”–Oscar Wilde

“When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.”–Desiderius Erasmus

“I divide all readers into two classes:  those who read to remember and those who read to forget.”–William Lyon Phelps

“Always read something that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.”–P.J. O’Rourke

“When you re-read a classic you do not see more in the book than you did before; you see more in you than there was before.”–Clifton Fadiman

“The book-lover needs most to be reminded that man’s business here is to know for the sake of living, not to live for the sake of knowing.”–Frederic Harrison

[image error]

“My test of a good novel is dreading to begin the last chapter.” Thomas Helm

“No two people read the same book.”–Edmund Wilson

“You know you’ve read a good book when you turn the last page and feel a little as if you have lost a friend.” Paul Sweeney

“You can never be too thin, too rich, or have too many books.”–Carter Burden

“Fiction reveals truths that reality obscures.” Jessamyn West

“What refuge is there for the victim who is oppressed with the feeling that there are a thousand new books he ought to read, while life is only long enough for him to attempt to read a hundred?”–Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

“Books are lighthouses erected in the great sea of time.” E.P. Whipple

“I would be most content if my children grew up to be the kind of people who think decorating consists mostly of building enough bookshelves.”–Anna Quindlen

“A truly great book should be read in youth, again in maturity, and once more in old age, as a fine building should be seen by morning light, at noon, and by moonlight.”–Robertson Davies

“There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them.” Joseph Brodsky

“Any book that is important ought to be at once read through twice…because we are not in the same temper and disposition on both readings.”–Arthur Schopenhauer

“Some books are undeservedly forgotten; none are undeservedly remembered.” –W.H. Auden

“Having your book turned into a movie is like seeing your oxen turned into bouillon cubes.” John LeCarre

[image error]

 

“Books worth reading are worth re-reading.”–Holbrook Jackson

“The best service a book can render you is not to impart truth, but to make you think it out for yourself.”–Elbert Hubbard

“The sole substitute for an experience which we have not ourselves lived through is art and literature.”–Alexander Solzhenitsyn

“When we are collecting books, we are collecting happiness.”–Vincent Starrett

“The trouble with the publishing business is that too many people who have half a mind to write a book do so.“–William Targ

“Books may be burned and cities sacked, but truth, like the yearning for freedom, lives in the hearts of humble men.”–Franklin D. Roosevelt,

“People say that life is the thing, but I prefer reading.”–Logan Pearsall Smith

“The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can’t read them.”–Mark Twain

“Books are the cosmography of man, a world in themselves.”

–Holbrook Jackson, The Anatomy of Bibliomania(1930)

“A good book should leave you… slightly exhausted at the end. You live several lives while reading it.”–William Styron