Many years ago, when I first started writing novels, I clipped bits of articles on the subject and stuck them on the wall above my computer. The number of clippings grew and I taped them together until I had several strings of these gems of wisdom from published authors. One day, in a bout of office cleaning--and finding many of the clippings were yellow with age--I pulled them all down and read them. And then I learned the secret of success as a writer: Persistence.
Article after article mentioned persistence as an important--if not the most important--ingredient. And I'm living proof that it's true. In December, Avalon Books will publish SOUTHERN STAR, a romance novel a friend and I wrote twenty-six years ago.
Of course, it's not exactly the same book. Besides a few title changes, and an entirely new scene added, I improved it over the years, as I learned my craft. But the characters, the plot, the complications which led to the HEA ending, remained the same. Without going through the fat file containing copies of my letters and the rejections, I can't tell you how many times I submitted the book to publishers since 1984, but, just since 2002, (when I began to keep track on three-by-five cards) it went out nineteen times. In fact, Avalon rejected it twice.
What this tells me is that, when you have a good story, you should never give up trying to sell it.
Sure, I had to add cell phones and update the language and references, but I never gave up my belief in the worth of the core romance. I just had to keep trying until the right person--even in this difficult time for the publishing industry--saw what I saw and liked it.
Since 1984, I've sold nine other romance novels (including my very first one (which I wrote in 1975 and sold in 1986), so maybe I'm just a slow learner. But this one is particularly gratifying to me, and I hope my experience will inspire other writers to hold to their vision. A writer who hasn't sold her novel isn't a failure. She's a not-yet-published author, and time and persistence may make her dreams come true, as they did for me.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
ACTING AND WRITING
I'm back to blogging after a four-month break in which I practiced my other hobby: acting. I didn't just have a small role in the Moss Hart and George S Kaufman comedy THE MAN WHO CAME TO DINNER. I produced and directed it.
I had two friends who helped because, like me, they believed in the play and wanted to see it performed (as well as act in it). However, the burden of doing everything--or seeing that it got done--fell almost exclusively on my shoulders. My wonderful husband built the set and the mummy-case, but I was producer, publicity person and director all at once. I had to find furniture for the set, design the newspaper ad, prepare and print the program, hire the restaurant for the cast party (and the two lunches I provided for the cast), join the Desert Theatre League and make sure the judges had free tickets, pay the royalty for the play, get people to sell tickets, people to provide props, costumes and makeup, and also keep track of every expense. There were almost fifty receipts just from Lowe's and Home Depot for building the set. I barely slept at night. I'd wake up at five a.m. and not be able to go back to sleep because my mind whirled with all the things I had to do that day.
The play was performed Thursday through Sunday, June 10-13, on the ballroom stage here in our residential complex, and it was a great success, with people claiming it was the best they'd ever seen here. Four playgoers left their names and e-mail addresses so they could be notified of our next one.
The point, however, is that many writers are good actors and actors frequently write good books. My writer friends here are also good actors, and that's certainly true among stage and screen actors who write books. My theory for why this is so is based on the fact that good authors often visualize the scenes they write, "act it out" in their minds. And actors, having appeared in some good plays, begin to have a feel for what makes an interesting premise or scene.
I don't think I'll direct another play, but my next project is to combine these elements. I've just been elected chairman of Repertory Players, a group of actors who perform short "staged readings" at free shows here four times a year. Furthermore, I'm going to urge the Writers Circle (the club I started four years ago) to write short skits and one-act plays that will be performed by those actors. And, as if you hadn't already guessed, some members are already in both groups.
Meanwhile, I'm back to writing both mystery and romantic suspense books and looking forward to a busy, fun year.
I had two friends who helped because, like me, they believed in the play and wanted to see it performed (as well as act in it). However, the burden of doing everything--or seeing that it got done--fell almost exclusively on my shoulders. My wonderful husband built the set and the mummy-case, but I was producer, publicity person and director all at once. I had to find furniture for the set, design the newspaper ad, prepare and print the program, hire the restaurant for the cast party (and the two lunches I provided for the cast), join the Desert Theatre League and make sure the judges had free tickets, pay the royalty for the play, get people to sell tickets, people to provide props, costumes and makeup, and also keep track of every expense. There were almost fifty receipts just from Lowe's and Home Depot for building the set. I barely slept at night. I'd wake up at five a.m. and not be able to go back to sleep because my mind whirled with all the things I had to do that day.
The play was performed Thursday through Sunday, June 10-13, on the ballroom stage here in our residential complex, and it was a great success, with people claiming it was the best they'd ever seen here. Four playgoers left their names and e-mail addresses so they could be notified of our next one.
The point, however, is that many writers are good actors and actors frequently write good books. My writer friends here are also good actors, and that's certainly true among stage and screen actors who write books. My theory for why this is so is based on the fact that good authors often visualize the scenes they write, "act it out" in their minds. And actors, having appeared in some good plays, begin to have a feel for what makes an interesting premise or scene.
I don't think I'll direct another play, but my next project is to combine these elements. I've just been elected chairman of Repertory Players, a group of actors who perform short "staged readings" at free shows here four times a year. Furthermore, I'm going to urge the Writers Circle (the club I started four years ago) to write short skits and one-act plays that will be performed by those actors. And, as if you hadn't already guessed, some members are already in both groups.
Meanwhile, I'm back to writing both mystery and romantic suspense books and looking forward to a busy, fun year.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
AVATAR - The Movie
As recent subscribers to Netflix, we've seen more movies in the last three months than in all of last year. But we do like movies and I think we're caught up. But with all the hype going around, we decided not to wait for the DVD but go to see AVATAR in the theatre. In 3-D at the IMAX. What a waste of $22.
In all honesty, I have to admit that, according to the polls, 82% of viewers liked the film. But you and I both know that movies these days are made for teenagers. That's why they open on Fridays: 'cause the kids have a big allowance and no school the next day. Plus they go two or three times. But again, to be fair, perhaps most adults liked it too. I'm just not one of them. What can I say? I write romance and mystery novels, not science fiction or fantasy, and that's plainly what AVATAR is. So shoot me.
We went early, stood in a long line and got seats right in the center. It was quite dark, as if filmed in green and brown, and I didn't see much difference between seeing it with or without the special glasses. As we left the building, my husband said the right word for the experience: ordeal. Like me, he wanted it to be over long before it was. In my opinion, when the audience starts thinking it should be over, it's too long. I don't care how many awards it gets, 162 minutes requires more romance and/or mystery and a whole lot less weirdness, constant action and violence. Even as science fiction, this is no STAR WARS, which I liked.
I especially hated the natives having tails. What was that all about? I doubt that--if humans mated with natives--they'd have tails. Unless they used them (and they didn't in this film) I believe appendages tend to disappear. I also didn't find the blue people attractive or worthy of my sympathy. Some say the film is a metaphor for what conquering people (us) do to indigenous people in foreign lands. However, although they're right, and I don't condone what we did to the Indians or what the British and Dutch did in South Africa, we didn't do it with gigantic military weapons. And all to get a mineral called "unobtanium." Now, that I loved!
The Internet is full of reviews of the film, and, just to show I'm not the only person who wasn't starstruck by the computer wizardry, here are some of their comments:
"If you like graphics and special effects, you'll love it."
"Adjectives like beautiful and breathtaking have been thrown at it, but I'll add a third B, Boring."
"...everything about the story, the setting, the dialog, and the parts that aren't purely visual, is awful."
"DANCES WITH WOLVES in outer space."
"...doing the Funky Chicken with aliens."
"Enough toys to please all the kids in the audience."
"A big, dumb movie built to make money... it resists serious criticism. You might as well analyze a beach ball."
"...overlong, dramatically two-dimensional, smug and simplistic."
And my favorite: "Like staring at the world's most expensive screen-saver."
In all honesty, I have to admit that, according to the polls, 82% of viewers liked the film. But you and I both know that movies these days are made for teenagers. That's why they open on Fridays: 'cause the kids have a big allowance and no school the next day. Plus they go two or three times. But again, to be fair, perhaps most adults liked it too. I'm just not one of them. What can I say? I write romance and mystery novels, not science fiction or fantasy, and that's plainly what AVATAR is. So shoot me.
We went early, stood in a long line and got seats right in the center. It was quite dark, as if filmed in green and brown, and I didn't see much difference between seeing it with or without the special glasses. As we left the building, my husband said the right word for the experience: ordeal. Like me, he wanted it to be over long before it was. In my opinion, when the audience starts thinking it should be over, it's too long. I don't care how many awards it gets, 162 minutes requires more romance and/or mystery and a whole lot less weirdness, constant action and violence. Even as science fiction, this is no STAR WARS, which I liked.
I especially hated the natives having tails. What was that all about? I doubt that--if humans mated with natives--they'd have tails. Unless they used them (and they didn't in this film) I believe appendages tend to disappear. I also didn't find the blue people attractive or worthy of my sympathy. Some say the film is a metaphor for what conquering people (us) do to indigenous people in foreign lands. However, although they're right, and I don't condone what we did to the Indians or what the British and Dutch did in South Africa, we didn't do it with gigantic military weapons. And all to get a mineral called "unobtanium." Now, that I loved!
The Internet is full of reviews of the film, and, just to show I'm not the only person who wasn't starstruck by the computer wizardry, here are some of their comments:
"If you like graphics and special effects, you'll love it."
"Adjectives like beautiful and breathtaking have been thrown at it, but I'll add a third B, Boring."
"...everything about the story, the setting, the dialog, and the parts that aren't purely visual, is awful."
"DANCES WITH WOLVES in outer space."
"...doing the Funky Chicken with aliens."
"Enough toys to please all the kids in the audience."
"A big, dumb movie built to make money... it resists serious criticism. You might as well analyze a beach ball."
"...overlong, dramatically two-dimensional, smug and simplistic."
And my favorite: "Like staring at the world's most expensive screen-saver."
Friday, January 15, 2010
BLOOPERS, BLUNDERS AND BOO-BOOS
As a former proofreader for a national magazine, I'm perhaps more aware of literary blunders than your casual reader. But, in these days of difficulty getting published, writers need to be more scrupulous than ever so that an editor won't find her "pet peeve" of author mistakes in your manuscript.
If I were an editor, my Top Ten List of No-nos would be the following because I've seen them too often.
1. Could've - could of. There is no legitimate reason to use "could of." I've seen it in printed books and it apparently stems from the author having missed an English class in grade school. He/she means "could've" which is a contraction of the two words, "could" and "have." Example: "I could've been a contender." "I could have danced all night."
2. It's - its. "It's" with an apostrophe, is a contraction of "it is" or "it has." Example: "It's in your best interest to stop doing that now." "Its," without an apostrophe, is a possessive. Example: "That book, even with its tattered cover, belongs in your library."
3. doctors - apple's. While we're on the subject of apostrophes, please remember that a plural word needs none. Example: "The apples were ripe and the doctors ate them." If you put an apostrophe before the "s" you have turned the word into a possessive. Example: "The doctor's time was limited."
4. Nauseated - nauseous. Nauseated is how you feel when something makes you ill. Example: "I was nauseated by the odor coming from the landfill." Nauseous is an adjective describing the thing that makes you ill. Example: "The landfill gave off a nauseous odor."
5. Try to - try and. Technically, there is no "try and." If your character is going to try to do something, use "try to," not "try and." Example: "I will try to help you." However, if you say "try and," you imply you'll succeed. But what if you don't succeed? You've told a lie.
6. I couldn't care less - I could care less. Once again, the second construction should never be used. After all, if you could care less, then you must care somewhat. But you're trying to say that you care so little, it would be impossible for you to care any less than you do.
7. lose - loose. Look them up in the dictionary. To lose something is to no longer have it. Example: "I don't want to lose the lovely watch you gave me." Something which is "loose" is not lost but of an unstable consistency. Example: "The watch slipped off my wrist because the band was too loose."
8. incidents - incidentses. The latter is not a word. One event is an "incident." Two or more events are "incidents." There is no such word as "incidentses."
9. roll - role. As a noun, a "roll" can be a small pastry. As a verb it means moving or turning. Example: "He let the car roll down the hill." "Role" is a noun which describes a part you might play in a film or in life. Examples: "The role required me to exit the stage." or, "I'm tired of playing the role of your wicked stepmother."
10. titled - entitled. When you give a book a title, you have "titled" it. Example: "I titled my book MASQUERADE." "Entitled" means something is owed or expected. Example: "As the eldest I'm entitled to the largest piece."
11. I hope I don't have to tell you that--unless you're writing dialogue in the voice of an illiterate character--you should never write, "Me and my brother," "Her and I," "we was," or "she don't." But I often see "myself" used instead of "me." Don't try to get fancy. Wrong: "She gave the book to John and myself." Right: "She gave the book to John and me." If John was gone, you'd say "She gave the book to me," wouldn't you?
12. farther - further. "Farther" refers to physical distances. Example: "The house we sought was farther down the road." Use "further" to indicate figurative distances. Example: "We had to look further among the possible suspects in the murder."
13. breath - breathe. "Breath" is a noun. Example: "He took my breath away." Breathe" is a verb. Example: "It's so hot, I can hardly breathe."
Well, I see my Top Ten list turned into a Baker's dozen, but I found it hard to choose fewer than thirteen. Writers seem to invent more bloopers every year. Two wonderful (and inexpensive) books on the subject are MORTAL SYNTAX and GRAMMAR SNOBS ARE GREAT BIG MEANIES, by June Casagrande. Her website, grammarsnobs.com, contains her weekly newspaper column, the "grammar lesson of the week," and her Blog. All contain useful information, written in a lively style. And, for punctuation, I recommend EATS, SHOOTS AND LEAVES by Lynne Truss.
If you have some pet grammar peeves, leave a comment. And may your writing contain no bloopers, blunders or boo-boos.
If I were an editor, my Top Ten List of No-nos would be the following because I've seen them too often.
1. Could've - could of. There is no legitimate reason to use "could of." I've seen it in printed books and it apparently stems from the author having missed an English class in grade school. He/she means "could've" which is a contraction of the two words, "could" and "have." Example: "I could've been a contender." "I could have danced all night."
2. It's - its. "It's" with an apostrophe, is a contraction of "it is" or "it has." Example: "It's in your best interest to stop doing that now." "Its," without an apostrophe, is a possessive. Example: "That book, even with its tattered cover, belongs in your library."
3. doctors - apple's. While we're on the subject of apostrophes, please remember that a plural word needs none. Example: "The apples were ripe and the doctors ate them." If you put an apostrophe before the "s" you have turned the word into a possessive. Example: "The doctor's time was limited."
4. Nauseated - nauseous. Nauseated is how you feel when something makes you ill. Example: "I was nauseated by the odor coming from the landfill." Nauseous is an adjective describing the thing that makes you ill. Example: "The landfill gave off a nauseous odor."
5. Try to - try and. Technically, there is no "try and." If your character is going to try to do something, use "try to," not "try and." Example: "I will try to help you." However, if you say "try and," you imply you'll succeed. But what if you don't succeed? You've told a lie.
6. I couldn't care less - I could care less. Once again, the second construction should never be used. After all, if you could care less, then you must care somewhat. But you're trying to say that you care so little, it would be impossible for you to care any less than you do.
7. lose - loose. Look them up in the dictionary. To lose something is to no longer have it. Example: "I don't want to lose the lovely watch you gave me." Something which is "loose" is not lost but of an unstable consistency. Example: "The watch slipped off my wrist because the band was too loose."
8. incidents - incidentses. The latter is not a word. One event is an "incident." Two or more events are "incidents." There is no such word as "incidentses."
9. roll - role. As a noun, a "roll" can be a small pastry. As a verb it means moving or turning. Example: "He let the car roll down the hill." "Role" is a noun which describes a part you might play in a film or in life. Examples: "The role required me to exit the stage." or, "I'm tired of playing the role of your wicked stepmother."
10. titled - entitled. When you give a book a title, you have "titled" it. Example: "I titled my book MASQUERADE." "Entitled" means something is owed or expected. Example: "As the eldest I'm entitled to the largest piece."
11. I hope I don't have to tell you that--unless you're writing dialogue in the voice of an illiterate character--you should never write, "Me and my brother," "Her and I," "we was," or "she don't." But I often see "myself" used instead of "me." Don't try to get fancy. Wrong: "She gave the book to John and myself." Right: "She gave the book to John and me." If John was gone, you'd say "She gave the book to me," wouldn't you?
12. farther - further. "Farther" refers to physical distances. Example: "The house we sought was farther down the road." Use "further" to indicate figurative distances. Example: "We had to look further among the possible suspects in the murder."
13. breath - breathe. "Breath" is a noun. Example: "He took my breath away." Breathe" is a verb. Example: "It's so hot, I can hardly breathe."
Well, I see my Top Ten list turned into a Baker's dozen, but I found it hard to choose fewer than thirteen. Writers seem to invent more bloopers every year. Two wonderful (and inexpensive) books on the subject are MORTAL SYNTAX and GRAMMAR SNOBS ARE GREAT BIG MEANIES, by June Casagrande. Her website, grammarsnobs.com, contains her weekly newspaper column, the "grammar lesson of the week," and her Blog. All contain useful information, written in a lively style. And, for punctuation, I recommend EATS, SHOOTS AND LEAVES by Lynne Truss.
If you have some pet grammar peeves, leave a comment. And may your writing contain no bloopers, blunders or boo-boos.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
NAMES - TWO
Last August I posted an article about names, especially strange names. So I read with interest something on the subject in Time Magazine's December 7th issue. According to that, if you want to keep your kid out of prison, name him Michael, not Maxwell. In a study reported in Social Science Quarterly, people with unpopular names have a higher risk of criminality than people with popular ones.
This was not only news to me, but surprising news at that. In fact, I would have thought just the opposite might be true. But no. The researchers took records of over 15,000 boys and their names and tracked the crimes committed when the boys were adolescents. Boys with popular names, like Michael, committed the fewest crimes. Those with less popular names, like Preston or Alec. committed the most. The theory is that a familiar name leads to greater social acceptance, which leads to greater self-acceptance, and that leads to better behavior.
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I'm just reporting this and, obviously, there are exceptions by the dozens of people with unusual names becoming famous for their good behavior, like, say, Barak Obama.
But, leaving the names of real people, let's talk about names of occupations. Remember when a janitor was a janitor and not a "building custodian"? Or a secretary was not an "administrative assistant?" Not that I object to people getting their self-esteem anyway they can. The one that really bugs me, though, is "Human Resources Department" instead of the old-fashioned "Personnel." Personnel was certainly shorter, and I don't think anyone was confused about what it meant. However, as I stated in one of my yet-to-be-published novels:
"Human Resources is rather scary. It makes me feel that, if I were to work for that company and somehow fail to perform adequately, I could end up on the cafeteria menu as 'Burger of the Month.'"
And then there's the word "zest." How did lemon or orange peel morph into zest? According to the dictionary, it hasn't, but every TV cooking show host talks about adding "zest" to a recipe, when really all she's doing is grating lemon or orange peel. I felt relieved that not everyone has fallen for this "uppity" name when I read in the November issue of Sunset Magazine a recipe that called for "grated orange peel."
And as a cooking magazine, Sunset is high on the list of food experts. They have their own kitchens where every recipe is tested before it's printed in the magazine. In fact, years ago, when I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area, I knew the people who owned the magazine, went through their kitchens myself, and got to taste the results of their testing. I remember it well. Yummy!
So don't call it zest - call it by its real name: grated lemon (or orange) peel - and strike a blow for truth in labeling.
This was not only news to me, but surprising news at that. In fact, I would have thought just the opposite might be true. But no. The researchers took records of over 15,000 boys and their names and tracked the crimes committed when the boys were adolescents. Boys with popular names, like Michael, committed the fewest crimes. Those with less popular names, like Preston or Alec. committed the most. The theory is that a familiar name leads to greater social acceptance, which leads to greater self-acceptance, and that leads to better behavior.
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I'm just reporting this and, obviously, there are exceptions by the dozens of people with unusual names becoming famous for their good behavior, like, say, Barak Obama.
But, leaving the names of real people, let's talk about names of occupations. Remember when a janitor was a janitor and not a "building custodian"? Or a secretary was not an "administrative assistant?" Not that I object to people getting their self-esteem anyway they can. The one that really bugs me, though, is "Human Resources Department" instead of the old-fashioned "Personnel." Personnel was certainly shorter, and I don't think anyone was confused about what it meant. However, as I stated in one of my yet-to-be-published novels:
"Human Resources is rather scary. It makes me feel that, if I were to work for that company and somehow fail to perform adequately, I could end up on the cafeteria menu as 'Burger of the Month.'"
And then there's the word "zest." How did lemon or orange peel morph into zest? According to the dictionary, it hasn't, but every TV cooking show host talks about adding "zest" to a recipe, when really all she's doing is grating lemon or orange peel. I felt relieved that not everyone has fallen for this "uppity" name when I read in the November issue of Sunset Magazine a recipe that called for "grated orange peel."
And as a cooking magazine, Sunset is high on the list of food experts. They have their own kitchens where every recipe is tested before it's printed in the magazine. In fact, years ago, when I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area, I knew the people who owned the magazine, went through their kitchens myself, and got to taste the results of their testing. I remember it well. Yummy!
So don't call it zest - call it by its real name: grated lemon (or orange) peel - and strike a blow for truth in labeling.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
THE HARLEQUIN CONTROVERSY
Those of you who are romance authors know what this is about. For others, let me explain that Harlequin--the premier romance publisher in the world--has just announced they're going into the self-publishing business.
In other words, they plan to solicit authors to pay them to print their books., just as other self-publishing companies--such as Author House, iUniverse and XLibris, etc.--do. Like those companies, dozens of which have proliferated since print-on-demand technology made it possible, they will charge an author anywhere from a few hundred dollars to many thousands of dollars to publish their book in either hard cover or trade paperback. Those books get no editing and no promotion, and some companies charge the authors hefty sums to buy copies of their own books.
A few years ago ago a woman asked me, "Don'tall authors have to pay to get their books published. I was surprised then but not anymore. And now the biggest publisher of all has stooped to that level. Why, when Harlequin is already #1? The word "greed" comes to mind. Or is it jealosy that, when they see so many companies charging authors to get their book in print, they decided to join the crowd rushing to exploit them?
Whether you've been writing for thirty years (as I have) or thirty days, you need to know certain things. Publishers are in business to make money, and the traditional way to do that is to hire editors to read submitted manuscripts and decide which ones to publish based on their belief they can sell sufficient copies of said book to print, ship, advertise and pay the author for having written it. Remember, without authors writing books, publishers have no business. Today, ads by self-publishing companies offer to publish any book for a price, and a beginning writer may think that's the way it's done. But, as a reader, do you really want to spend money for a book that might have been (and probably was) written by a total amateur, which has never been edited (or even looked at) by a professional editor?
Romance Writers of America, Mystery Writers of America, and Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers have all announced that--if Harlequin charges authors to print their books--they will no longer be granted "eligible publisher" status with their members. I hope the pressure being applied by these associations will convince Harlequin to back down. There are far too many badly-written books out there now, and Harlequin will only damage its reputation by adding to the pile.
In other words, they plan to solicit authors to pay them to print their books., just as other self-publishing companies--such as Author House, iUniverse and XLibris, etc.--do. Like those companies, dozens of which have proliferated since print-on-demand technology made it possible, they will charge an author anywhere from a few hundred dollars to many thousands of dollars to publish their book in either hard cover or trade paperback. Those books get no editing and no promotion, and some companies charge the authors hefty sums to buy copies of their own books.
A few years ago ago a woman asked me, "Don'tall authors have to pay to get their books published. I was surprised then but not anymore. And now the biggest publisher of all has stooped to that level. Why, when Harlequin is already #1? The word "greed" comes to mind. Or is it jealosy that, when they see so many companies charging authors to get their book in print, they decided to join the crowd rushing to exploit them?
Whether you've been writing for thirty years (as I have) or thirty days, you need to know certain things. Publishers are in business to make money, and the traditional way to do that is to hire editors to read submitted manuscripts and decide which ones to publish based on their belief they can sell sufficient copies of said book to print, ship, advertise and pay the author for having written it. Remember, without authors writing books, publishers have no business. Today, ads by self-publishing companies offer to publish any book for a price, and a beginning writer may think that's the way it's done. But, as a reader, do you really want to spend money for a book that might have been (and probably was) written by a total amateur, which has never been edited (or even looked at) by a professional editor?
Romance Writers of America, Mystery Writers of America, and Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers have all announced that--if Harlequin charges authors to print their books--they will no longer be granted "eligible publisher" status with their members. I hope the pressure being applied by these associations will convince Harlequin to back down. There are far too many badly-written books out there now, and Harlequin will only damage its reputation by adding to the pile.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
WORDS THAT SAVE LIVES
As a writer, I naturally use words, and I want other people - many in fact - to read my words in the books I write. Even if they don't buy my books, but borrow them from friends or the library, I consider myself successful in my chosen career if people read my words. That's my goal, and, perhaps it's a selfish one. But what if words could sve lives?
Research about tjhe different lives lived by children (and adults) in poor families versus middle-class families shows that words make a huge difference in deciding who does well in school and succeeds in life.
What words? Well, any words. In fact, the more words a child hears while growing up, the better. A study in Kansas City showed that by the age of three, a child from a middle-class home heard 20 million more words than a child from an impoverished home.
Were the middle-class parents doing flash-card games to increase their child's vocabulary? No. They were just ordinary words spoken at the breakfast or dinner table. They were words used to a child while he played with blocks, or talking about games or toys, or asking what he did at day-care. Even better: the words of the books read to the child every night before bedtime.
Apparently, we don't use words because we can think: we can think because we have words to use.
What a simple way to lift children out of poverty. Read to them, talk to them. Instead of corporal punishment when a child misbehaves, try conversation. Negotiation, conversation, discussion about the incident will be far better. An important thing that language does for a child is to distance him from his emotions. If he can put a name to his feelings, he can begin to control them. It can give him motivation and the experience of learning new ideas.
Thus, hearing words can help a child succeed in school and keep him out of trouble after school. If fewer children drop out, or resort to violence because they don't know anything better, they can become useful citizens instead of gang members. And that can save lives.
So, if you're a parent or grandparent, talk to the children in your life, read to them. You'll be helping them and society at the same time.
Research about tjhe different lives lived by children (and adults) in poor families versus middle-class families shows that words make a huge difference in deciding who does well in school and succeeds in life.
What words? Well, any words. In fact, the more words a child hears while growing up, the better. A study in Kansas City showed that by the age of three, a child from a middle-class home heard 20 million more words than a child from an impoverished home.
Were the middle-class parents doing flash-card games to increase their child's vocabulary? No. They were just ordinary words spoken at the breakfast or dinner table. They were words used to a child while he played with blocks, or talking about games or toys, or asking what he did at day-care. Even better: the words of the books read to the child every night before bedtime.
Apparently, we don't use words because we can think: we can think because we have words to use.
What a simple way to lift children out of poverty. Read to them, talk to them. Instead of corporal punishment when a child misbehaves, try conversation. Negotiation, conversation, discussion about the incident will be far better. An important thing that language does for a child is to distance him from his emotions. If he can put a name to his feelings, he can begin to control them. It can give him motivation and the experience of learning new ideas.
Thus, hearing words can help a child succeed in school and keep him out of trouble after school. If fewer children drop out, or resort to violence because they don't know anything better, they can become useful citizens instead of gang members. And that can save lives.
So, if you're a parent or grandparent, talk to the children in your life, read to them. You'll be helping them and society at the same time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)