Jean Harkin's Blog, page 4
September 1, 2019
Novelist to be Honored and More Delights
I am thrilled on two counts: to learn that 1) Willa Cather, one of my all-time favorite authors will be honored by a statue of her to replace an older honoree in National Statuary Hall in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.; and 2) the sculptor chosen (from 70 national applicants) to create the bronze statue is a professor at my alma mater, Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska!
Littleton Alston, MFA, is the first African American sculptor to have a piece in the capitol’s statuary hall. His statue of Willa Cather and one of Ponca Chief Standing Bear will replace Nebraska’s current two statues in the collection of 100 from the 50 states.
I continue being thrilled: An anthology of flash fiction, “Itty Bitty Writing Space” launches on Labor Day. I am one of 104 authors who have written 104 stories in this collection—all are under one thousand words. Once you see the cute cover of this book, you might be tempted. Take a look—it’s on Amazon.
Another recent delight for me is a book store I came across in Seaside, Oregon. The open doorway invited me in to Beach Books, an independent book store on the corner of Broadway and Holladay Drive. The upscale look of two floors of neatly shelved books drew me inside. An oversized leather chair awaited me next to a table laid out with fresh new books, some with “recommend” tags on them.
My granddaughter Gwen went skipping off to the kids’ books section, as I settled down to enjoy the first chapter of “Turbulence” by David Szalay (recommended by Hillary.)
A delightful find on the comic page of the local newspaper showed people stampeding past a sign that read “Writers’ Retreat.” They were screaming, “Run! Run! Writing’s too hard!!” (“Pearls Before Swine,” August 28, 2019.)
Littleton Alston, MFA, is the first African American sculptor to have a piece in the capitol’s statuary hall. His statue of Willa Cather and one of Ponca Chief Standing Bear will replace Nebraska’s current two statues in the collection of 100 from the 50 states.
I continue being thrilled: An anthology of flash fiction, “Itty Bitty Writing Space” launches on Labor Day. I am one of 104 authors who have written 104 stories in this collection—all are under one thousand words. Once you see the cute cover of this book, you might be tempted. Take a look—it’s on Amazon.
Another recent delight for me is a book store I came across in Seaside, Oregon. The open doorway invited me in to Beach Books, an independent book store on the corner of Broadway and Holladay Drive. The upscale look of two floors of neatly shelved books drew me inside. An oversized leather chair awaited me next to a table laid out with fresh new books, some with “recommend” tags on them.
My granddaughter Gwen went skipping off to the kids’ books section, as I settled down to enjoy the first chapter of “Turbulence” by David Szalay (recommended by Hillary.)
A delightful find on the comic page of the local newspaper showed people stampeding past a sign that read “Writers’ Retreat.” They were screaming, “Run! Run! Writing’s too hard!!” (“Pearls Before Swine,” August 28, 2019.)
June 25, 2019
Confusions, Contusions, Misspellings
Who knew (probably some of you did) the difference in correct usage between “blond” and “blonde.” “Blond” (no “e”) is always correct as an adjective (blond hair, blond girl.) But an “e” must be added when used as a noun substituted for a female: (Mary Ann is a blonde.) If the person is male, no “e” is needed. (Charlie is a blond.)
On discovering this picky but correct usage, I had to go back to my much-revised novel to add the “e” to three “blonds.”
A tortuous journey, it seems, might be when you’re lost on a road trip, in a hot car with no AC, and screaming kids in the back seat. No, that scene describes a torturous journey. It would be a tortuous drive if the road were twisty, curvy, and serpentine. Add that to the parents’ nightmarish, torturous trip that was like torture.
These informative gems of English usage were provided by Benjamin Dreyer in his book, “Dreyer’s English.” Benjamin is executive managing editor and copy chief of Random House publisher. I’m adding his book to my shelf next to Paul Brians’s “Common Errors in English Usage,” which I’ve quoted in my last two blog posts.
The two books (along with a dictionary and thesaurus) are my writing companions. Benjamin and Paul convey their expert guidance with nurturing and ironic-humored voices. Both authors keep me chuckling, learning, and writing more effectively.
Interestingly, some of the same pointers on correct spelling and usage turn up in both books, so I feel they merit special alerts. Here are a few:
Broach/brooch: To broach a subject is to raise it. A brooch is a decorative jeweled pin.
Discreet/ discrete: Discreet people are careful, proper, wary, and use discretion. Discrete things are distinct and separate.
Flaunt/flout: Flaunt is to show off. Flout is to defy (as with law or rules.)
Flounder/founder: Flounder is to struggle awkwardly. Founder is to sink or fail. A floundering person may eventually founder.
Gamut/gauntlet/gantlet: To “run the gamut” is to proceed through an entire scale or spectrum. To “run the gauntlet” is to run between two lines of people trying to beat you. “Gantlet” is a variation of “gauntlet” that Benjamin finds “fussy and prissy.”
Prescribe/proscribe: A doctor prescribes medical treatment. A dictator proscribes or forbids an activity.
Principal/principle: “Principal” as an adjective means primary or main. As a noun it can mean a primary person, such as a school principal. It can also refer to one’s financial holdings that may earn interest. “Principle” is a fundamental truth or strongly-held conviction.
Imply/infer: (I had this wrong once in my novel—now changed.) To imply is to suggest without stating in so many words. To infer is to draw a conclusion from what is implied. Benjamin recommends, “think of ‘imply’ as an outward action, and ‘infer’ as an inward one.”
In its 2017 edition, the “Chicago Manual of Style” approved the use of “they” as a singular pronoun when the subject’s gender is vague, unknown, or this pronoun preferred. (For example: A student may choose to review whatever book they like. Does anyone want extra cheese on their pizza?) People talk this way, and the singular “they” has been used in writing since the fourteenth century. (Maybe Shakespeare?) Now it’s time to end the awkward “he/she” or “he or she” in writing.
Here are some easily misspelled words that almost look right. The correct spelling is in parentheses:
Ad nauseum (ad nauseam), barbituate (barbiturate), expresso (espresso), concensus (consensus), dachsund (dachshund), damnit (dammit), diptheria (diphtheria), elegaic (elegiac), fuschia (fuchsia)
Miniscule (minuscule), non sequiter (non sequitur), perjorative (pejorative), perservere (persevere), perogative (prerogative), restauranteur (restaurateur), sacreligious (sacrilegious), sieze (seize), seperate (separate), straight jacket (straitjacket), supercede (supersede), wierd (weird), withold (withhold),
Remember! The correct spellings above are in parentheses. Interestingly, my spell check tried to change some of the misspelled words as I typed. And in some cases the spell check did not detect a misspelling. So be wary!
On discovering this picky but correct usage, I had to go back to my much-revised novel to add the “e” to three “blonds.”
A tortuous journey, it seems, might be when you’re lost on a road trip, in a hot car with no AC, and screaming kids in the back seat. No, that scene describes a torturous journey. It would be a tortuous drive if the road were twisty, curvy, and serpentine. Add that to the parents’ nightmarish, torturous trip that was like torture.
These informative gems of English usage were provided by Benjamin Dreyer in his book, “Dreyer’s English.” Benjamin is executive managing editor and copy chief of Random House publisher. I’m adding his book to my shelf next to Paul Brians’s “Common Errors in English Usage,” which I’ve quoted in my last two blog posts.
The two books (along with a dictionary and thesaurus) are my writing companions. Benjamin and Paul convey their expert guidance with nurturing and ironic-humored voices. Both authors keep me chuckling, learning, and writing more effectively.
Interestingly, some of the same pointers on correct spelling and usage turn up in both books, so I feel they merit special alerts. Here are a few:
Broach/brooch: To broach a subject is to raise it. A brooch is a decorative jeweled pin.
Discreet/ discrete: Discreet people are careful, proper, wary, and use discretion. Discrete things are distinct and separate.
Flaunt/flout: Flaunt is to show off. Flout is to defy (as with law or rules.)
Flounder/founder: Flounder is to struggle awkwardly. Founder is to sink or fail. A floundering person may eventually founder.
Gamut/gauntlet/gantlet: To “run the gamut” is to proceed through an entire scale or spectrum. To “run the gauntlet” is to run between two lines of people trying to beat you. “Gantlet” is a variation of “gauntlet” that Benjamin finds “fussy and prissy.”
Prescribe/proscribe: A doctor prescribes medical treatment. A dictator proscribes or forbids an activity.
Principal/principle: “Principal” as an adjective means primary or main. As a noun it can mean a primary person, such as a school principal. It can also refer to one’s financial holdings that may earn interest. “Principle” is a fundamental truth or strongly-held conviction.
Imply/infer: (I had this wrong once in my novel—now changed.) To imply is to suggest without stating in so many words. To infer is to draw a conclusion from what is implied. Benjamin recommends, “think of ‘imply’ as an outward action, and ‘infer’ as an inward one.”
In its 2017 edition, the “Chicago Manual of Style” approved the use of “they” as a singular pronoun when the subject’s gender is vague, unknown, or this pronoun preferred. (For example: A student may choose to review whatever book they like. Does anyone want extra cheese on their pizza?) People talk this way, and the singular “they” has been used in writing since the fourteenth century. (Maybe Shakespeare?) Now it’s time to end the awkward “he/she” or “he or she” in writing.
Here are some easily misspelled words that almost look right. The correct spelling is in parentheses:
Ad nauseum (ad nauseam), barbituate (barbiturate), expresso (espresso), concensus (consensus), dachsund (dachshund), damnit (dammit), diptheria (diphtheria), elegaic (elegiac), fuschia (fuchsia)
Miniscule (minuscule), non sequiter (non sequitur), perjorative (pejorative), perservere (persevere), perogative (prerogative), restauranteur (restaurateur), sacreligious (sacrilegious), sieze (seize), seperate (separate), straight jacket (straitjacket), supercede (supersede), wierd (weird), withold (withhold),
Remember! The correct spellings above are in parentheses. Interestingly, my spell check tried to change some of the misspelled words as I typed. And in some cases the spell check did not detect a misspelling. So be wary!
May 29, 2019
Bloopers-- Part 2
Hi again! I’m back to blogging now that my novel is in shape to seek a publisher (thanks to formatting expert and occasional typo hunter, Sheila Deeth, and of course, my editor Teri Brown.)
Last month I blogged about common errors I sometimes make or need to be wary of. My reference was “Common Errors in English Usage” by Paul Brians. Now I continue the thread with Brians’s book as a guide:
I made a big booboo in a short story soon to be published in an anthology! I referred to an elderly gentleman with shaggy gray hair as “grizzly.” In my defense, I knew he wasn’t “grisly” (horrible.) But then he wasn’t exactly a grizzly bear either. I hope the book editors have changed the word to “grizzled” (having gray hair) by now.
Another blunder I’m apt to fall into is “just desserts.” This is wrong; correctly, what someone deserves is “just deserts,” spelled like an arid stretch of sand but pronounced like a sweet treat at the end of a meal. Maybe think of the added ‘s’ as extra sugar.
A crazy idea can be commonly described as “hairbrained,” but the original word was “harebrained” (silly as a hare or rabbit.)
If you use the word “infinite” in your writing, you are most likely exaggerating. If you simply mean too numerous to count, use “innumerable.” Brians cautions against “implying infinity when mere billions are involved.” He is often drolly humorous.
New to me is a rule for using “intense” and “intensive.” Brians notes “intense” should be used when describing an internal characteristic, such as “intense study,” “intense effort.” But an outside force can be described as “intensive,” such as “intensive bombing.”
Speaking of intense, Brians delivers a paragraph on “intensifiers”—adverbs often used to emphasize or intensify other adverbs or adjectives: “fantastically beautiful,” “incredibly loud,” “amazingly smart.” Brians’s advice: Use them with caution. Try to find stronger or more precise words to describe your meaning, or use a fresh metaphor as a comparison.
I dare to mention a confusing pair of words: “Affect” and “effect.” One is a verb, the other a noun. “When you affect a situation, you have an effect on it.” But wait! “Affect” with accent on the first syllable is a noun meaning “emotions.” And “effect” can be a verb, in the sense of causing something: “effecting a change.”
Brians concludes, “Hey, nobody ever said English was logical; just memorize it and get on with your life.”
Last month I blogged about common errors I sometimes make or need to be wary of. My reference was “Common Errors in English Usage” by Paul Brians. Now I continue the thread with Brians’s book as a guide:
I made a big booboo in a short story soon to be published in an anthology! I referred to an elderly gentleman with shaggy gray hair as “grizzly.” In my defense, I knew he wasn’t “grisly” (horrible.) But then he wasn’t exactly a grizzly bear either. I hope the book editors have changed the word to “grizzled” (having gray hair) by now.
Another blunder I’m apt to fall into is “just desserts.” This is wrong; correctly, what someone deserves is “just deserts,” spelled like an arid stretch of sand but pronounced like a sweet treat at the end of a meal. Maybe think of the added ‘s’ as extra sugar.
A crazy idea can be commonly described as “hairbrained,” but the original word was “harebrained” (silly as a hare or rabbit.)
If you use the word “infinite” in your writing, you are most likely exaggerating. If you simply mean too numerous to count, use “innumerable.” Brians cautions against “implying infinity when mere billions are involved.” He is often drolly humorous.
New to me is a rule for using “intense” and “intensive.” Brians notes “intense” should be used when describing an internal characteristic, such as “intense study,” “intense effort.” But an outside force can be described as “intensive,” such as “intensive bombing.”
Speaking of intense, Brians delivers a paragraph on “intensifiers”—adverbs often used to emphasize or intensify other adverbs or adjectives: “fantastically beautiful,” “incredibly loud,” “amazingly smart.” Brians’s advice: Use them with caution. Try to find stronger or more precise words to describe your meaning, or use a fresh metaphor as a comparison.
I dare to mention a confusing pair of words: “Affect” and “effect.” One is a verb, the other a noun. “When you affect a situation, you have an effect on it.” But wait! “Affect” with accent on the first syllable is a noun meaning “emotions.” And “effect” can be a verb, in the sense of causing something: “effecting a change.”
Brians concludes, “Hey, nobody ever said English was logical; just memorize it and get on with your life.”
Bloopers-- Part 2
Hi again! I’m back to blogging now that my novel is in shape to seek a publisher (thanks to formatting expert and occasional typo hunter, Sheila Deeth, and of course, my editor Teri Brown.)
Last month I blogged about common errors I sometimes make or need to be wary of. My reference was “Common Errors in English Usage” by Paul Brians. Now I continue the thread with Brians’s book as a guide:
I made a big booboo in a short story soon to be published in an anthology! I referred to an elderly gentleman with shaggy gray hair as “grizzly.” In my defense, I knew he wasn’t “grisly” (horrible.) But then he wasn’t exactly a grizzly bear either. I hope the book editors have changed the word to “grizzled” (having gray hair) by now.
Another blunder I’m apt to fall into is “just desserts.” This is wrong; correctly, what someone deserves is “just deserts,” spelled like an arid stretch of sand but pronounced like a sweet treat at the end of a meal. Maybe think of the added ‘s’ as extra sugar.
A crazy idea can be commonly described as “hairbrained,” but the original word was “harebrained” (silly as a hare or rabbit.)
If you use the word “infinite” in your writing, you are most likely exaggerating. If you simply mean too numerous to count, use “innumerable.” Brians cautions against “implying infinity when mere billions are involved.” He is often drolly humorous.
New to me is a rule for using “intense” and “intensive.” Brians notes “intense” should be used when describing an internal characteristic, such as “intense study,” “intense effort.” But an outside force can be described as “intensive,” such as “intensive bombing.”
Speaking of intense, Brians delivers a paragraph on “intensifiers”—adverbs often used to emphasize or intensify other adverbs or adjectives: “fantastically beautiful,” “incredibly loud,” “amazingly smart.” Brians’s advice: Use them with caution. Try to find stronger or more precise words to describe your meaning, or use a fresh metaphor as a comparison.
I dare to mention a confusing pair of words: “Affect” and “effect.” One is a verb, the other a noun. “When you affect a situation, you have an effect on it.” But wait! “Affect” with accent on the first syllable is a noun meaning “emotions.” And “effect” can be a verb, in the sense of causing something: “effecting a change.”
Brians concludes, “Hey, nobody ever said English was logical; just memorize it and get on with your life.”
Last month I blogged about common errors I sometimes make or need to be wary of. My reference was “Common Errors in English Usage” by Paul Brians. Now I continue the thread with Brians’s book as a guide:
I made a big booboo in a short story soon to be published in an anthology! I referred to an elderly gentleman with shaggy gray hair as “grizzly.” In my defense, I knew he wasn’t “grisly” (horrible.) But then he wasn’t exactly a grizzly bear either. I hope the book editors have changed the word to “grizzled” (having gray hair) by now.
Another blunder I’m apt to fall into is “just desserts.” This is wrong; correctly, what someone deserves is “just deserts,” spelled like an arid stretch of sand but pronounced like a sweet treat at the end of a meal. Maybe think of the added ‘s’ as extra sugar.
A crazy idea can be commonly described as “hairbrained,” but the original word was “harebrained” (silly as a hare or rabbit.)
If you use the word “infinite” in your writing, you are most likely exaggerating. If you simply mean too numerous to count, use “innumerable.” Brians cautions against “implying infinity when mere billions are involved.” He is often drolly humorous.
New to me is a rule for using “intense” and “intensive.” Brians notes “intense” should be used when describing an internal characteristic, such as “intense study,” “intense effort.” But an outside force can be described as “intensive,” such as “intensive bombing.”
Speaking of intense, Brians delivers a paragraph on “intensifiers”—adverbs often used to emphasize or intensify other adverbs or adjectives: “fantastically beautiful,” “incredibly loud,” “amazingly smart.” Brians’s advice: Use them with caution. Try to find stronger or more precise words to describe your meaning, or use a fresh metaphor as a comparison.
I dare to mention a confusing pair of words: “Affect” and “effect.” One is a verb, the other a noun. “When you affect a situation, you have an effect on it.” But wait! “Affect” with accent on the first syllable is a noun meaning “emotions.” And “effect” can be a verb, in the sense of causing something: “effecting a change.”
Brians concludes, “Hey, nobody ever said English was logical; just memorize it and get on with your life.”
April 3, 2019
Pardon My Common Errors!
Wow—spring already, and I’m just getting back to blogging. I’ve been perusing (not skimming or scanning) a handy and enjoyable book, “Common Errors in English Usage,” by Paul Brians. Indeed, the English language can be quirky and confusing, with words so easy to mishear and interpret wrongly.
Some words are so close in sound and meaning, they are susceptible to wrong usage.
Examples: Purposely and purposefully; besides and beside; credible and credulous.
A writer must be careful to choose (and spell correctly) the exact word to carry the meaning and tone. So Brians’s book has been helpful and enlightening to me.
Here are some gleanings from the first fifty pages I felt especially applicable to me. And I hope you will pardon my common errors in the past, possibly some of the following:
“Alright” has become common, but traditionalists prefer the actually correct two-word form, “all right.”
“Anchors away” certainly seems right and makes sense for a boat or ship moving away from shore. But the correct expression, according to Brians, is “anchors aweigh,” as the anchors are pulled up (weighed) by chains.
One vowel makes a difference between “auger” as a tool for digging holes, and “augur” meaning “foretell.”
It’s a difference between ears and mouth that differentiate the homophones “aural” (hearing) and “oral” (relating to the mouth.)
Here’s one I’ve definitely misused: It’s not “baited breath” despite your fragrant toothpaste. It’s “bated breath,” meaning “held” or “abated.”
I always have to check this one: “Capitol” is always a building. Cities and all other uses are “capital.” Maybe I can remember with Brians’s tip: Congress—with an o—always meets in the Capitol—with an o. But Congress doesn’t meet in state capitols! So perhaps I'll have to remember there is an o in dome on a building.
I don’t usually write about “card sharps” except maybe once—in that story about Las Vegas. I mistakenly would have used “card sharks” because they do seem stealthy.
I should have remembered this one from my civil engineer husband: “Cement” is the gray powder that needs mixing with sand, water, and gravel to become the “concrete” surface we drive and walk on.
I had to check my novel to make sure I hadn’t used “chaise lounge” instead of the correct French term “chaise longue” (pronounced shez-long, with a hard g on the end.)
“Chomp at the bit” is slangy. It’s correctly “champ at the bit,” meaning “gnash.”
Did you know someone cannot make a “concerted effort” alone? In concert means with a group. A person can make a “concentrated effort.”
A “continual action” can be interrupted. A “continuous action” cannot.
In addition to word usage, Brians also gives handy guidelines for punctuation. As for commas, colons, and semi-colons, one of those is required if a sentence or phrase needs a pause. Brians advises how to choose the correct punctuation mark.
I hope you’re interested in this blog on usage and not feeling like you “could NOT care less.” I will continue this review of Brians’s book in future blogs, so I hope my readers “can care less,” which means you DO care, at least somewhat.
Thanks for reading and commenting. And I hope caring!
Some words are so close in sound and meaning, they are susceptible to wrong usage.
Examples: Purposely and purposefully; besides and beside; credible and credulous.
A writer must be careful to choose (and spell correctly) the exact word to carry the meaning and tone. So Brians’s book has been helpful and enlightening to me.
Here are some gleanings from the first fifty pages I felt especially applicable to me. And I hope you will pardon my common errors in the past, possibly some of the following:
“Alright” has become common, but traditionalists prefer the actually correct two-word form, “all right.”
“Anchors away” certainly seems right and makes sense for a boat or ship moving away from shore. But the correct expression, according to Brians, is “anchors aweigh,” as the anchors are pulled up (weighed) by chains.
One vowel makes a difference between “auger” as a tool for digging holes, and “augur” meaning “foretell.”
It’s a difference between ears and mouth that differentiate the homophones “aural” (hearing) and “oral” (relating to the mouth.)
Here’s one I’ve definitely misused: It’s not “baited breath” despite your fragrant toothpaste. It’s “bated breath,” meaning “held” or “abated.”
I always have to check this one: “Capitol” is always a building. Cities and all other uses are “capital.” Maybe I can remember with Brians’s tip: Congress—with an o—always meets in the Capitol—with an o. But Congress doesn’t meet in state capitols! So perhaps I'll have to remember there is an o in dome on a building.
I don’t usually write about “card sharps” except maybe once—in that story about Las Vegas. I mistakenly would have used “card sharks” because they do seem stealthy.
I should have remembered this one from my civil engineer husband: “Cement” is the gray powder that needs mixing with sand, water, and gravel to become the “concrete” surface we drive and walk on.
I had to check my novel to make sure I hadn’t used “chaise lounge” instead of the correct French term “chaise longue” (pronounced shez-long, with a hard g on the end.)
“Chomp at the bit” is slangy. It’s correctly “champ at the bit,” meaning “gnash.”
Did you know someone cannot make a “concerted effort” alone? In concert means with a group. A person can make a “concentrated effort.”
A “continual action” can be interrupted. A “continuous action” cannot.
In addition to word usage, Brians also gives handy guidelines for punctuation. As for commas, colons, and semi-colons, one of those is required if a sentence or phrase needs a pause. Brians advises how to choose the correct punctuation mark.
I hope you’re interested in this blog on usage and not feeling like you “could NOT care less.” I will continue this review of Brians’s book in future blogs, so I hope my readers “can care less,” which means you DO care, at least somewhat.
Thanks for reading and commenting. And I hope caring!
December 17, 2018
Books for Mom and Mum
Two recent books I’ve read and one I helped write and publish are all dedicated to mothers—American moms and English mums.
Susan Orlean’s “The Library Book” is dedicated “For Edith Orlean, my past, Austin Gillespie, my future.” Edith Orlean is the author’s late mother who brought to mind magical visits to the neighborhood library in her childhood. Orlean remembered from those library adventures, “I could have anything I wanted.” Better than a candy store!
As an adult, Orlean became curious and wanted to write about the Los Angeles library fire catastrophe in 1986. Her memories of library afternoons with her mom were reignited. At the end of “The Library Book”, released in May 2018, Orlean wrote, “Mom, I made a book for you.”
A book dedicated to an English mum is “The Death of Mrs. Westaway.” Author Ruth Ware wrote on the dedication page, “For my mum. Always.” May 2018.
The theme of this novel circles about family identity and a confusion of mothers. Harriet Westaway misses her mother, and is bereft, alone, broke, and in desperate straits after her mum is killed by a hit-and-run driver in front of their home in Brighton, England. She receives a mysterious note regarding an inheritance from an assumed grandmother and is drawn into a family intrigue despite believing the connection is a fake.
On Sunday, Dec. 16, my writing group surprised our leader’s mum, Jessie Collins (visiting from England,) with a book dedicated to her in celebration of her 90th birthday. The book titled “Fine Lines” is a collection of stories, essays, and poems written and published by The Writers’ Mill authors, including poems and stories by Jessie herself.
Creating this anthology from writing to publishing to surprise presentation, was a wonderful experience for Writers’ Mill members. It was Sheila Deeth’s idea to gather her mum’s writings about aging and memories, and those from group members who entered our “Growing Older” themed contest into a book to celebrate Jessie’s special birthday. Other writings from the group on the theme of aging are also included.
Sheila managed preliminary formatting and editing, then brought the almost-finished product to our November meeting. Projecting the computer files on a screen, she encouraged final revisions from the group, along with selection of cover photo and design. With bated breath, we all watched the screen as Sheila clicked the button to “publish” e-book and print versions on kdp.amazon.
“Mum” was the word as Sheila and the rest of the group managed to keep “Fine Lines” a secret from Jessie until she arrived at our December group meeting. Jessie’s surprised expression when she saw the photo of herself on the book cover was even better than we could have anticipated.
Susan Orlean’s “The Library Book” is dedicated “For Edith Orlean, my past, Austin Gillespie, my future.” Edith Orlean is the author’s late mother who brought to mind magical visits to the neighborhood library in her childhood. Orlean remembered from those library adventures, “I could have anything I wanted.” Better than a candy store!
As an adult, Orlean became curious and wanted to write about the Los Angeles library fire catastrophe in 1986. Her memories of library afternoons with her mom were reignited. At the end of “The Library Book”, released in May 2018, Orlean wrote, “Mom, I made a book for you.”
A book dedicated to an English mum is “The Death of Mrs. Westaway.” Author Ruth Ware wrote on the dedication page, “For my mum. Always.” May 2018.
The theme of this novel circles about family identity and a confusion of mothers. Harriet Westaway misses her mother, and is bereft, alone, broke, and in desperate straits after her mum is killed by a hit-and-run driver in front of their home in Brighton, England. She receives a mysterious note regarding an inheritance from an assumed grandmother and is drawn into a family intrigue despite believing the connection is a fake.
On Sunday, Dec. 16, my writing group surprised our leader’s mum, Jessie Collins (visiting from England,) with a book dedicated to her in celebration of her 90th birthday. The book titled “Fine Lines” is a collection of stories, essays, and poems written and published by The Writers’ Mill authors, including poems and stories by Jessie herself.
Creating this anthology from writing to publishing to surprise presentation, was a wonderful experience for Writers’ Mill members. It was Sheila Deeth’s idea to gather her mum’s writings about aging and memories, and those from group members who entered our “Growing Older” themed contest into a book to celebrate Jessie’s special birthday. Other writings from the group on the theme of aging are also included.
Sheila managed preliminary formatting and editing, then brought the almost-finished product to our November meeting. Projecting the computer files on a screen, she encouraged final revisions from the group, along with selection of cover photo and design. With bated breath, we all watched the screen as Sheila clicked the button to “publish” e-book and print versions on kdp.amazon.
“Mum” was the word as Sheila and the rest of the group managed to keep “Fine Lines” a secret from Jessie until she arrived at our December group meeting. Jessie’s surprised expression when she saw the photo of herself on the book cover was even better than we could have anticipated.
October 29, 2018
Selecting and Rejecting Books
Inside my local bookstore, I take for granted walls and interior shelves brimming with books. One day, with an eagle’s focused viewpoint, I was awestruck by the vast number of books lining one single wall. And 2,000 new books published every day! With so many choices, how does a person choose a single book to read?
I surveyed reader friends to find out what attracts them to books and what turns them off.
My study shows that seeking out FAVORITE AUTHORS is the most frequent route to choosing a book. Second best-trod path follows BOOK REVIEWS from major newspapers and magazines and READER REVIEWS on Goodreads and Amazon. Sometimes recommendations from FRIENDS are good ways to find books.
Libraries figure importantly in helping readers select books: New arrivals on display, newsletter reviews, and suggestions from librarians. Many readers don’t have unlimited space to store books, so they check out books from the library rather than buying them.
BOOK COVERS? Books facing outward on shelves attract more attention. One reader mentioned that eye-catching, mysterious, or colorful covers will cause her to check out the title, then peruse the book. Another reader likes covers picturing a dog or cat.
TITLES? One person noted that short or extra-long titles pique interest.
AWARD WINNERS? One reader looks for Pulitzer or Nobel Prize winners.
WRITING STYLE? One person said she investigates the inside of a book for good writing, great dialog, and especially for good description. A reader of mostly nonfiction looks at writing style. He notes that histories written after WWII tend to have a more engaging writing style and more updated information. He also looks for objectivity rather than “proving a point” in nonfiction.
COVER BLURBS? Recommendations and teasers on front and back book covers are assumed by authors to be vitally important to readers. Two responders mentioned blurbs.
REJECTION: What do readers avoid in selecting books? Individuals’ responses follow:
TITLES: Anything with “Girl” or “Wife” or “Daughter” in the title.
COVERS: Those that copy the woman’s silhouette style featured on the cover of Chris Cleave’s popular novel “Little Bee”; romance novels showing “heaving breasts.”
REVIEWS: A book that “everyone is reading” or “good for you” or “should read.” I personally avoid most books on the best-seller lists.
TOPICS: Subject matter that is painfully close to home; stories involved with exotic cultures. I am steering clear of heartbreaking WWII novels for a while (after reading many excellent ones.)
AUTHORS: To be kind and fair, I won’t mention names of authors that I and some of my friends avoid. I mention three that have fans as well as detractors: John Grisham, Barbara Kingsolver, and James Patterson.
OTHER: Any book over 500 pages; any book that hasn’t spiked interest in the first 50 pages.
SERENDIPITY: Sometimes a favorite book is one discovered while looking for something else, or a book that is loaned or gifted by another reader.
Happy reading to all!
I surveyed reader friends to find out what attracts them to books and what turns them off.
My study shows that seeking out FAVORITE AUTHORS is the most frequent route to choosing a book. Second best-trod path follows BOOK REVIEWS from major newspapers and magazines and READER REVIEWS on Goodreads and Amazon. Sometimes recommendations from FRIENDS are good ways to find books.
Libraries figure importantly in helping readers select books: New arrivals on display, newsletter reviews, and suggestions from librarians. Many readers don’t have unlimited space to store books, so they check out books from the library rather than buying them.
BOOK COVERS? Books facing outward on shelves attract more attention. One reader mentioned that eye-catching, mysterious, or colorful covers will cause her to check out the title, then peruse the book. Another reader likes covers picturing a dog or cat.
TITLES? One person noted that short or extra-long titles pique interest.
AWARD WINNERS? One reader looks for Pulitzer or Nobel Prize winners.
WRITING STYLE? One person said she investigates the inside of a book for good writing, great dialog, and especially for good description. A reader of mostly nonfiction looks at writing style. He notes that histories written after WWII tend to have a more engaging writing style and more updated information. He also looks for objectivity rather than “proving a point” in nonfiction.
COVER BLURBS? Recommendations and teasers on front and back book covers are assumed by authors to be vitally important to readers. Two responders mentioned blurbs.
REJECTION: What do readers avoid in selecting books? Individuals’ responses follow:
TITLES: Anything with “Girl” or “Wife” or “Daughter” in the title.
COVERS: Those that copy the woman’s silhouette style featured on the cover of Chris Cleave’s popular novel “Little Bee”; romance novels showing “heaving breasts.”
REVIEWS: A book that “everyone is reading” or “good for you” or “should read.” I personally avoid most books on the best-seller lists.
TOPICS: Subject matter that is painfully close to home; stories involved with exotic cultures. I am steering clear of heartbreaking WWII novels for a while (after reading many excellent ones.)
AUTHORS: To be kind and fair, I won’t mention names of authors that I and some of my friends avoid. I mention three that have fans as well as detractors: John Grisham, Barbara Kingsolver, and James Patterson.
OTHER: Any book over 500 pages; any book that hasn’t spiked interest in the first 50 pages.
SERENDIPITY: Sometimes a favorite book is one discovered while looking for something else, or a book that is loaned or gifted by another reader.
Happy reading to all!
July 23, 2018
Pultizer Prompt: Try Cli Fi!
My last blog post lambasted this year’s Pulitzer Prize for Fiction—a supposedly humorous (to some) novel that had no connection to real life in America or current worldwide issues. (I thought the purpose of the Pulitzer award is to honor a book focused on American life, culture, or values.)
If I were to select a future framework for the Pulitzer fiction award I would nominate a book classified in the growing genre of cli-fi: Fiction based on climate change. That is certainly a current and heated subject (pun intended.) Cli-fi sometimes borders on sci-fi but it is more literary and more centered on human intentions and motivations. Cli-fi writings run the gamut from dystopias to thrillers to YA humor.
I am currently reading “Flight Behavior” a best-seller and award-winner by Barbara Kingsolver. Climate change disrupts a rural Tennessee farm family and displaces Monarch butterflies from their natural wintering grounds in Mexico. Desperation links the family and butterflies.
Another best-seller is Nathaniel Rich’s “Odds Against Tomorrow” in which a disaster statistician ponders nature and essentials vs. greed and materialism.
Other cli-fi novels by popular authors include “The Road” by Cormac McCarthy, an environmental apocalypse.
“The Year of the Flood” by Margaret Atwood. Environmental ravages of resources running out, genetic experiments, and wasteland of the internet.
“State of Fear” by Michael Crichton. Suspense and adventure worldwide, fired by global warming and human villains.
"The Secret Wisdom of the Earth" by Christopher Scotton. Coming of age for boys and a coal mining town. Mountaintop removal threatens environment.
“The Bone Clocks” by David Mitchell. Self-interest and planetary survival.
“The Windup Girl” by Paolo Bacigalupi. A biopunk thriller about the effects of climate change.
“The Carbon Diaries 2015” by Saci Lloyd. The UK government imposes a carbon tax. Rationing brings about a new reality.
“Memory of Water” by Emmi Itaranta. Water scarcity and resulting dystopian society.
“A Being Darkly Wise” by John Atcheson. Suspense and adventure in an isolated mountainous area in British Columbia.
“The Lorax” by Dr. Seuss. A beloved children’s fable with a serious message about industrial greed causing environmental collapse.
Other writers of cli-fi novels include T.C. Boyle, Ian McEwan, and Kim Stanley Robinson.
Will there be a cli-fi novel published this year that could be nominated for the 2019 Pultizer Prize in Fiction? Fellow writers, get busy! Read! Write! Publish!
I hope some of the cli-fi books I’ve listed, and others you find, might inspire your reading as well as your writing muses. In addition, there are numerous non-fiction books listed on Wikipedia that can serve as background resources for writing about climate change. Wikipedia lists titles, authors, and aspects of climate change addressed in each book.
If I were to select a future framework for the Pulitzer fiction award I would nominate a book classified in the growing genre of cli-fi: Fiction based on climate change. That is certainly a current and heated subject (pun intended.) Cli-fi sometimes borders on sci-fi but it is more literary and more centered on human intentions and motivations. Cli-fi writings run the gamut from dystopias to thrillers to YA humor.
I am currently reading “Flight Behavior” a best-seller and award-winner by Barbara Kingsolver. Climate change disrupts a rural Tennessee farm family and displaces Monarch butterflies from their natural wintering grounds in Mexico. Desperation links the family and butterflies.
Another best-seller is Nathaniel Rich’s “Odds Against Tomorrow” in which a disaster statistician ponders nature and essentials vs. greed and materialism.
Other cli-fi novels by popular authors include “The Road” by Cormac McCarthy, an environmental apocalypse.
“The Year of the Flood” by Margaret Atwood. Environmental ravages of resources running out, genetic experiments, and wasteland of the internet.
“State of Fear” by Michael Crichton. Suspense and adventure worldwide, fired by global warming and human villains.
"The Secret Wisdom of the Earth" by Christopher Scotton. Coming of age for boys and a coal mining town. Mountaintop removal threatens environment.
“The Bone Clocks” by David Mitchell. Self-interest and planetary survival.
“The Windup Girl” by Paolo Bacigalupi. A biopunk thriller about the effects of climate change.
“The Carbon Diaries 2015” by Saci Lloyd. The UK government imposes a carbon tax. Rationing brings about a new reality.
“Memory of Water” by Emmi Itaranta. Water scarcity and resulting dystopian society.
“A Being Darkly Wise” by John Atcheson. Suspense and adventure in an isolated mountainous area in British Columbia.
“The Lorax” by Dr. Seuss. A beloved children’s fable with a serious message about industrial greed causing environmental collapse.
Other writers of cli-fi novels include T.C. Boyle, Ian McEwan, and Kim Stanley Robinson.
Will there be a cli-fi novel published this year that could be nominated for the 2019 Pultizer Prize in Fiction? Fellow writers, get busy! Read! Write! Publish!
I hope some of the cli-fi books I’ve listed, and others you find, might inspire your reading as well as your writing muses. In addition, there are numerous non-fiction books listed on Wikipedia that can serve as background resources for writing about climate change. Wikipedia lists titles, authors, and aspects of climate change addressed in each book.
May 17, 2018
How Did I Get it So Wrong?
A novel I awarded a mere two stars (“It was OK”) on Goodreads won the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction last month!
“Less” by Andrew Sean Greer is this year’s Pulitzer winner but I would never have predicted such fanfare. Talk about “different strokes for different folks!” The “Post” headline read FINALLY, A COMIC NOVEL GETS ITS DUE. That’s nice. But how funny is this novel really?
Ron Charles in “The Washington Post” exclaims how extraordinary it is for a humorous novel to win where cerebral and solemn usually merit the Pulitzer trophy. Charles describes “Less” as a delightful “unabashed comic novel, a descendant of the great ‘Lucky Jim’ by Kingsley Amis.” (Reprinted in “The Oregonian” May 13.)
My Goodreads review found the premise of this novel funnier than the actual story. A mediocre writer goes on a round-the-world tour of writing conferences, teaching gigs, and guest appearances in order to escape the wedding of his latest lover. The actual scenes and happenings are more bizarre than humorous. I had a few smiles, no chuckles, no big laughs.
Emily Temple on “Literary Hub” online found the Pulitzer award to Greer’s novel “something of a surprise pick.”
A fellow Goodreads member said, “How on earth did this win the Pulitzer? I found it plodding with an uninteresting protagonist.”
In slanted praise of the novel, I wrote in my February 26 review that some metaphors are astonishing, excellent, but others seem to be a stretch. I had a sense of pity for the main character but not enough to really care what happens to him. Time sequences and abrupt intrusions of back story are confusing and add to the chaos of this book.
Back to Charles in “The Washington Post,” he claims that the Pulitzer award to “Less” is a brave choice—and about time that readers stop suspecting the creation of laughter as a “sub-craft.” He reminds us that Shakespeare’s comedies are “as classic as his tragedies” and that our troubled times call for more novels like “Less.”
What do you think, dear readers? I welcome your comments and opinions on “Less” by Andrew Sean Greer as the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction winner. Agree with me or Ron Charles—diversity makes the world spin (or so we once believed.)
A side note: Andrew Sean Greer’s novel, “The Story of a Marriage” is one of my all-time favorite reads.
“Less” by Andrew Sean Greer is this year’s Pulitzer winner but I would never have predicted such fanfare. Talk about “different strokes for different folks!” The “Post” headline read FINALLY, A COMIC NOVEL GETS ITS DUE. That’s nice. But how funny is this novel really?
Ron Charles in “The Washington Post” exclaims how extraordinary it is for a humorous novel to win where cerebral and solemn usually merit the Pulitzer trophy. Charles describes “Less” as a delightful “unabashed comic novel, a descendant of the great ‘Lucky Jim’ by Kingsley Amis.” (Reprinted in “The Oregonian” May 13.)
My Goodreads review found the premise of this novel funnier than the actual story. A mediocre writer goes on a round-the-world tour of writing conferences, teaching gigs, and guest appearances in order to escape the wedding of his latest lover. The actual scenes and happenings are more bizarre than humorous. I had a few smiles, no chuckles, no big laughs.
Emily Temple on “Literary Hub” online found the Pulitzer award to Greer’s novel “something of a surprise pick.”
A fellow Goodreads member said, “How on earth did this win the Pulitzer? I found it plodding with an uninteresting protagonist.”
In slanted praise of the novel, I wrote in my February 26 review that some metaphors are astonishing, excellent, but others seem to be a stretch. I had a sense of pity for the main character but not enough to really care what happens to him. Time sequences and abrupt intrusions of back story are confusing and add to the chaos of this book.
Back to Charles in “The Washington Post,” he claims that the Pulitzer award to “Less” is a brave choice—and about time that readers stop suspecting the creation of laughter as a “sub-craft.” He reminds us that Shakespeare’s comedies are “as classic as his tragedies” and that our troubled times call for more novels like “Less.”
What do you think, dear readers? I welcome your comments and opinions on “Less” by Andrew Sean Greer as the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction winner. Agree with me or Ron Charles—diversity makes the world spin (or so we once believed.)
A side note: Andrew Sean Greer’s novel, “The Story of a Marriage” is one of my all-time favorite reads.
April 25, 2018
Cantankerous Women
As often happens, the last two novels I read shared some commonalities, most notably cantankerous, boisterous women as lead characters: “Freya” by Anthony Quinn and “The Grandma Syndrome” by Judy Greene.
Besides containing intriguing main characters, the books also rode bumpy plot lines. Both novels turned out to be “about” schemes other than predicted by early chapters.
Freya Wyley is a young woman, freshly out of military service in WWII and headed for collegial life and study at Oxford. Funny, ambitious, and brash to the point of rudeness, Freya is reluctant to assume a pedantic role after her worldly experiences of wartime. She wants an exciting career. Her habit of swearing, picked up while in the service, is off-putting in polite English society and the business world of the 1940s-50s.
“Freya” follows her relationship with best friend Nancy and conflicts over men they both fall for, as well as some shady, quirky people Freya tracks down while writing feature stories for various newspapers. The story unravels in a variety of ways, including political intrigue and a theme of justice for gay people.
In “The Grandma Syndrome” Ann Finlayson is a self-centered, forthrightly rude 32-year old career woman in Chicago, suddenly charged with the care and entertainment of an 11-year old niece she hardly knows, while the girl’s mother is away on job interviews. Ann feels burdened with responsibility, all but ignores sweet Valerie, and has no interest in getting better acquainted. Valerie is hurt to the core but decides to pray for Auntie Ann. Thus begins the Christian-centered theme of reforming and converting atheist Ann. Other characters join this challenge.
A more interesting element of “The Grandma Syndrome” is the magical-realism occurrence when Ann falls under the spell of an old woman who curses her with rapid, premature aging into a 70-year old. Looks-conscious Ann can hardly keep up with the hair-dying, nearsightedness, and skin tightening. Can the spell be reversed, and how will it affect her freshly blooming love affair with Bradley at the office? How will these conflicts play out with the Christian theme?
For further information, please check my reviews of these books here on Goodreads.
Besides containing intriguing main characters, the books also rode bumpy plot lines. Both novels turned out to be “about” schemes other than predicted by early chapters.
Freya Wyley is a young woman, freshly out of military service in WWII and headed for collegial life and study at Oxford. Funny, ambitious, and brash to the point of rudeness, Freya is reluctant to assume a pedantic role after her worldly experiences of wartime. She wants an exciting career. Her habit of swearing, picked up while in the service, is off-putting in polite English society and the business world of the 1940s-50s.
“Freya” follows her relationship with best friend Nancy and conflicts over men they both fall for, as well as some shady, quirky people Freya tracks down while writing feature stories for various newspapers. The story unravels in a variety of ways, including political intrigue and a theme of justice for gay people.
In “The Grandma Syndrome” Ann Finlayson is a self-centered, forthrightly rude 32-year old career woman in Chicago, suddenly charged with the care and entertainment of an 11-year old niece she hardly knows, while the girl’s mother is away on job interviews. Ann feels burdened with responsibility, all but ignores sweet Valerie, and has no interest in getting better acquainted. Valerie is hurt to the core but decides to pray for Auntie Ann. Thus begins the Christian-centered theme of reforming and converting atheist Ann. Other characters join this challenge.
A more interesting element of “The Grandma Syndrome” is the magical-realism occurrence when Ann falls under the spell of an old woman who curses her with rapid, premature aging into a 70-year old. Looks-conscious Ann can hardly keep up with the hair-dying, nearsightedness, and skin tightening. Can the spell be reversed, and how will it affect her freshly blooming love affair with Bradley at the office? How will these conflicts play out with the Christian theme?
For further information, please check my reviews of these books here on Goodreads.
