Here's a summary of those predictions. Enjoy:
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
In my continuing examination of the way people of the past predicted the future, here is yet another look at some interesting forecasts from long ago.
Why am I blogging about this? Because, as an author of historical fiction I sometimes wonder what my characters thoughts might be about the future. What kind of world do they envision? What will life be life 100 years hence? How will things like communication and transportation change? What of society, morality, conflict and warfare?
I think adding those kinds of observations to characters in historical fiction novels adds another dimension to their personas. For one thing, all of us wonder at one time or another what the future will bring. Why not the characters we create in our historical novels?
Recently someone sent me an electronic copy of a Ladies' Home Journal article from 1901 that talks about future predictions--what the world will be like in the year 2000, just 14 years ago.
Here's a summary of those predictions. Enjoy:
· There will be 500 million people in the USA. (Close, but no cigar. There are 317 million of us in a world population of 7.1 billion)
· The average American will be 1 - 2 inches taller because of better health due to reforms in medicine, sanitation, food and athletics. (Well done. The average height of American males in 2014 is 5 ft 9.5 in and 5 ft 4 in for females. In 1900 it was 5 ft 7.5 for men and 5 ft 2 in for women. Science says a better diet, better health care, better sanitation are all contributors)
· The letters "C", "X" & "Q" will be abandoned from the alphabet because they are unnecessary. (The last time I looked those letters were still in the alphabet--and quite necessary)
· Hot and cold air to heat/cool a house will come from spigots. (We call them vents today and yes, most homes are heated and cooled by forced air HVAC systems)
· Mosquitoes and flies will be essentially extinct. (Sigh, not quite. The pesky insects are still with us.)
· Foods will not be exposed to air prior to being sold and storekeepers who do expose them will be arrested. (Well, if not arrested, then fined by health and food inspectors--IF they are doing their jobs)
· Coal will not be used for heating or cooking. It will be scarce but not exhausted. (It is neither scarce nor exhausted and it is still used to power electrical plants. So in that respect, this prediction is off the mark--though few, if any, folks use it as fuel for stoves and ovens.)
· No more streetcars in cities. (This is pretty accurate, though some cities are bringing these once ubiquitous urban conveyances back).
· Photographs will be telegraphed from any distance (same day publishing) and will be in color. (Very prescient calculation)
· Trains will go 150 MPH. (NOT in America, sadly. But in Europe and Japan they do)
· Automobiles will be cheaper than horses. (Hmmmm. Not true UNLESS you are talking about a stable of Kentucky Derby winners)
· Everyone will walk 10 miles. A man or woman who cannot walk 10 miles will be considered a weakling. (I would wager that not everyone in today's world can walk 10 miles. Weaklings, I am afraid, abound)
· You will be able to travel from the USA to England in 2 days. (How about in just a few hours? An unfathomable concept back in 1901)
· There will be airships. (There will be, but most today are seen hovering over football stadiums)
· There will be aerial warships and forts on wheels. Fleets of airships, hiding themselves in dense smoky mists, will float over cities and hurl deadly thunderbolts onto unsuspecting foes below. Giant guns will shoot 25 miles or more and destroy entire cities. (Airships no, but squadrons of stealth bombers and fighters capable of launching nuclear weapons that can destroy entire cities are here)
· There will be no more wild animals, except in menageries. The horse will have become practically extinct. Food animals will be bred to expend practically all of their life energy in producing meat, milk, wool and other by-products. (While the prophet here was wrong about wild animals and the horse, he or she was fairly accurate about domestic animals. Not a pleasant existence for many of today's domestic animals)
· Telephones will be everywhere. (Yep...everywhere...and are we better for it? That is up for debate.)
· Grand Opera will be telephoned into private homes. (I assume this prediction is not about the Grand Ole Opry. In any case, music of all kinds is indeed in our homes--via cable, satellite, etc.)
· Store purchases will be made by "tube". Pneumatic tubes, instead of store wagons, will deliver packages and bundles. The same for mail. Fast automobiles will distribute purchases from house to house. (Hmmm. Was this person envisioning Fedex, UPS, etc? Possibly. But thank God the pneumatic tube idea never came to pass. Can you imagine a city linked by millions of pneumatic tubes whisking refrigerators and flat screen TVs from Best Buy or Costco in giant tubes of forced air? I think I would rather live in the Amazon basin)
· Strawberries will be as large as apples. (Why? Will they taste better? I don't think so.)
· Roses will be as large as cabbage heads and come in many colors, such as black, blue and green. (I have nothing against multi-colored roses, but why as large as cabbage heads? Will they look better? I doubt it. Who wants a black rose?)
· Oranges will grow in Philadelphia because science will have discovered how to raise in cold climates many fruits now confined to much hotter climates. (Was this person envisioning "hot house" vegetables and fruit that have little or no flavor?)
· Few drugs will be swallowed or taken into the stomach. Drugs needed for the lungs, for instance, will be applied directly to those organs through the skin and flesh. They will be carried with electric current applied without pain to the outside skin of the body. The living body will to all medical purposes be transparent. Not only will it be possible for a physician to actually see a living, throbbing heart inside the chest, but he will be able to magnify and photograph any part of it...via rays of invisible light. (This prediction is really quite amazing. Almost everything it suggests is fact today.)
· Man will see around the world. Persons and things of all kinds will be brought within focus of cameras connected electrically with screens at opposite ends of circuits, thousands of miles at a span. American audiences in their theaters will view upon huge curtains before them the coronations of kings in Europe or the progress of battles in the Orient. (Another prescient forecast, possibly foreseeing satellite TV broadcasts that we take for granted today.)
· A university education will be free to every man and woman. Poor students will be given free board, free clothing and free books if ambitious and actually unable to meet their school and college expenses. The very poor will, when necessary, get free rides to and from school and free lunches between sessions. In vacation time poor children will be taken on trips to various parts of the world. Etiquette and housekeeping will be important studies in the public schools. (Interesting ideas...some of which have indeed been adopted. I am not so sure about those etiquette and housekeeping classes though.)
So what do you think? How accurate was the Ladies' Home Journal of 1901? I give them an "E" for Effort.
Friday, September 26, 2014
A few weeks ago I wrote a blog post that discussed how people in the past predicted the future and I promised a sequel. Here it is with another sequel to follow.
Back in 1895 several prominent newspaper editors were asked to speculate on what newspapers would look like in the 20th Century. Some of their predictions were quite uncanny, and some were, well, a bit off the mark.
Here are a couple of examples:
· Felix Agnus, Editor of the Baltimore American: “Today I saw a new invention that distributes written messages to its customers, the matter clearly printed on convenient sheets. The inventor tells me he can afford to place these at a very moderate cost in offices or in homes. All it needs is a long roll of paper. It does the rest. Now what is to prevent the people of the next century from having their news continuously? As soon as an event occurs it is broadcast over the wires and is immediately printed by the automatic machine. How will a newspaper published once a day compete with a scheme such as that?”
Sounds a lot like something we used to call a telex machine. They never made it into homes, at least not on a large scale, but they were in just about every newsroom in the world.
· Then there was this prediction from A.G. Boynton, editor of the Detroit Free Press: “Keeping...with the limits of the possible, this much is safe to forecast….there will be great and marked progress in independence—that the newspaper of the twentieth century will not be tied, as the newspaper of the nineteenth century is far too often, to a party, a sect or a creed."
Sadly, Mr. Boynton's vision of today's newspaper has proven to be more aspiration than reality. News today is too often skewed by reporters, editors, producers and publishers to fit their own political agendas or world views. I should acknowledge, however, that for a while in the 20th Century the concept of trying to achieve some form of objectivity and fairness in reporting was rigidly adhered to in the best newspapers. At least it was at the newspapers I worked at.
Mr. Boynton's predictions and others appeared in an article that appeared in the Tacoma Daily News March 30, 1895.
We are able to enjoy this 120-year-old article because of Readex, a company that for seven decades has specialized in providing access to primary source research materials such as early American Newspapers. Here is a link to the Readex blog: http://www.readex.com/blog and a link to the actual article:
Many of these editors had already personally witnessed amazing advancements in newspaper publishing, the Readex article pointed out. They had seen newspapers progress from the old Washington hand press to enormous printing presses capable of producing tens of thousands of newspapers in just a few hours; from the Pony Express and stage coach to the telephone and telegraph; from hand-setting type to typesetting linotype machines and the halftone photo reproduction process.
And while some of the predictions may seem a little quaint, given The Internet and today's 24-hour news cycles, I am amazed at how prescient these editors were.
Here is James Elverson, editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer:
· “The chief characteristic of the twentieth century newspaper must necessarily be correlated with the twentieth century scientific inventions….If the flying machine is perfected, every first class reporter will have one. If the air ship is a success, they will distribute tons of newspapers daily. If telegraphy becomes an exact science, the inmost heart of man will be revealed daily to the public. If Esoteric Buddhism gathers the world to its bosom and Mahatmas drops messages about the present, past and the future through newspaper roofs from the desert of Gobi, then every first-class newspaper will have its staff of Mahatmas to preach ethics to its readers. Pneumatic tubes may distance trains; photo scopes may reproduce pictures 10,000 miles away, and possibly the kinescope may be so adapted that every reader may have one in his house in which to view the scenes of which he reads in his favorite newspaper, the photographic strips therefore being issued as supplements. Possibly we shall not use type any more, but by some complex arrangement issue rolls that shall run through phonographs. Then, as the twentieth century man sits down to breakfast he can have the news read to him while he sees every event in the kinescope, and at the same time he can swallow his morning meal.”
Sounds a lot like watching CNN or FOX while eating your oatmeal. And don't forget, this was BEFORE the invention of radio or television.
Percy S. Heath, editor of the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette may have foreseen the ubiquitous "Op Ed" page of today's newspaper
· “A forum, where the people may go with ideas and grievances, and appeal to public opinion. This to my mind will be the feature and the characteristic of the future newspaper. I believe the forceful utterances of the press will come direct from the people; that the intelligent reader is becoming every day a man or woman of opinion, of fixed ideas, and that sentiment will be expressed more and more freely through the press by those not directly connected with it. There will be less arbitrary editorial expression. The ‘fourth page’ will contain that thought of the reader which up to this time the editor has sought to forestall or anticipate.”
Charles W. Knapp, editor of the St. Louis Republic seems here to presage the way many of us customize the news we get from our online newspapers.
· To fulfill its mission perfectly, (the newspaper) will be issued not once, or twice, but half a dozen times every day. Perhaps also the great fin de siècle newspaper of the twentieth century will be issued in several different editions varying radically in the character of their contents, so as to meet the varying wants of different classes of subscribers and at the same time obviate the undue enlargement of its size. It is bound to be more comprehensive in the exhaustive completeness of its information than the newspaper of today, but it will not be necessary for every reader to take the whole daily encyclopedia. Those who wish will have the opportunity to designate certain classes of news to be sent to them, and in some degree every subscriber will have the privilege of ordering his newspaper made to fit his own individual and particular wants."
George A. Robertson, editor of the Cleveland World sees newspapers using several "new" inventions to collect and disseminate news faster. He also sees the use of more photography. However, his vision falls a little short when it comes to his altruistic view of the 20th Century newspaper.
· “Already within sight are numerous remarkable inventions that will be made use of to improve the newspaper of the future. A machine is already patented and in limited use that sends messages by wire ten times as fast as the present telegraphic code and these messages are automatically written out as they arrive. This will be employed by the coming newspaper in improving its news facilities. A machine for transforming pictures by wire will be fully perfected within the near future and there will be such a cheapening of engraving processes that newspapers will be much more fully and beautifully illustrated than at present. Telegraphic accounts of happenings in all parts of the world will be accompanied, as received, with engravings ready to be dropped into the forms….Sensationalism is on the wane and the time will come early in the next century when the newspaper that lies will be considered as despicable as the man who does the same thing now. The twentieth century newspaper will not be entirely composed of the record of the ‘evil that men do,’ but some the good things will be mentioned also.”
Finally here is Frank A. Richardson, editor of the Baltimore Sun. While I applaud his optimism concerning the human condition and his laudable vision of scrupulous and truthful editors, there are far too few of these trustworthy souls toiling in today's newsrooms.
· “As mankind with the march of time becomes more noble and elevated, the newspaper, which is at once the leader and the follower of public sentiment, must share in this. Therefore I should say the newspaper of the twentieth century must be conducted on a higher plane. Its great aim must be to instruct and purify, rather than merely amuse for an idle hour and increase its circulation by pandering to the baser instincts of humanity. There are a few striking instances among the leading newspapers of this day where the desire for gain is not made the paramount consideration. In the twentieth century this will become more and more apparent, for incentives to the contrary course which exist now will disappear. The newspaper of the next century will be guided by the hand of strictest truth and honor, for policy, if not conscience, will make it so.”
Perhaps the most troubling part of this story is the fact that of the 13 newspapers polled in this 1895 exercise, only four are still being published today. That none of the editors could foresee the demise of their own newspapers is not surprising to me.
The 1890s were an optimistic decade in American history with a young nation just beginning to flex its political and economic muscles on the world stage.
Given the gloomy, often deplorable world we live in today with its poverty and wars waged by religious fanatics like ISIL with its beheadings and mutilation of innocents; its pervasive drug use; the decline of the traditional family; the inexorable secularization of society and with it the relentless obliteration of morality, integrity and civility; I wonder how today's 21st Century editors would foretell the world of the 22d Century.
With much less optimism I would wager.
Friday, September 19, 2014
I recently received the results of a poll asking that very question. It was produced by a company called Grammarly, a leading automated proofreader.
The results are sure to set off some interesting (read: heated & intense) discussions among writers of both genders.
I won't keep you in suspense. The result of the poll of some 3,000 men and women world-wide is that women are better writers than men by a margin of 59% to 41%.
Ahem. I am sure there are plenty of male colleagues who beg to differ. And I am sure there are plenty of female scribblers who are saying: "See, I told you so!"
So just how did Grammarly arrive at this staggering conclusion?
Women, the poll said, tend to be more descriptive in their writing, and spend more time developing a greater variety of characters than men.
Perhaps as a result, women are generally regarded to be superior writers, the survey concluded.
Note the qualifiers in that sentence: "perhaps" and "generally."
On the other hand, male writers get to the point faster, and both sexes are more likely than not to write about people like themselves, the poll added.
OK, now let's do a little parsing here.
First, let's not forget that the poll was highly subjective and I have no idea if the 3,000 men and women polled were split equally between the sexes.
Having said that there were some interesting results.
For example, one question asked which of the sexes are likely to spend more time developing characters and which will get to the point faster.
The answer? 83 percent of the respondents said that women were likely to spend more time developing characters and just 17 per cent said they would get to the point faster.
As for men, 44 percent of respondents said that men would spend significant time developing character and 56 per cent said men would get to the point of the story faster.
Before going on, I should explain just what Grammarly is. According to the company, the software program uses elite natural language processing technology to check writing for more than 250 types of spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. It delivers a passive learning experience that identifies writing patterns and sends users personal recommendations to help understand their most common mistakes and opportunities to develop their writing skills.
Grammarly is also the creator of GrammoWriMo, a collaborative writing project to celebrate National Novel Writing Month (November). Last year the project brought together more than 300 writers from 27 countries and 44 U.S. states to create a group novel, which was then sold as an e-book on Amazon and benefitted the Make-A-Wish Foundation
Now, back to the poll. Another question asked if men are more likely to write about people (using pronouns such as "she," "me," "hers," or "we") or things (using determiners such as "the," "a," "some," or "more").
Fifty-six percent said men were more likely to write about people and 44 percent they were more likely to write about things.
On the other hand, 68 percent said women were more likely to write about people and just 32 percent said they were more likely to write about things.
I am not sure what that means. I have never seen a successful novel yet that focuses entirely on "people" or entirely on "things." I would assume that any good story would give sufficient attention to both.
The results of one question seemed to run counter to what I would regard as crisp and clear writing. That had to do with sentence length.
The question asked which, men or women, were more likely to write long, descriptive sentences, or simple, straightforward sentences.
The answer: 34 percent of men wrote long sentences and 66 percent wrote short sentences. For women the percentages were quite different. The poll revealed that 76 percent of women wrote long, descriptive sentences while just 24 percent wrote short, snappy sentences.
Once again, I am not sure why those results indicate that women are superior writers. I prefer, like Ernest Hemingway, to write shorter, crisper sentences--though if William Faulkner were queried I am sure he would say just the opposite.
Is the Grammarly poll conclusive? Hardly. But I am sure it will make for some interesting conversation at book fairs, writing conferences and in college literature classes.
Conclusive or not, I give Grammarly props for tackling a potentially fractious topic.
Check out this link to Grammarly: http://www.grammarly.com/
Check out this link to Grammarly: http://www.grammarly.com/
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
I just returned from the Kansas Book Festival, where I was one of 30 writers from a variety of genres invited to be "presenting authors" at the day-long event.
The state of Kansas doesn't mess around when it comes to supporting the festival.
It is held in the venerable 149-year-old State Capitol building in Topeka with authors making 50-minute presentations followed by Q & A sessions throughout the day in the hallowed Senate and House Chambers as well as the courtroom of the Kansas Supreme Court.
|State Capitol Building: Venue of the Kansas Book Festival|
Spectators sit at the original 1885 handmade Kansas wild cherry wood desks in the Senate and House surrounded by ornate bronze columns plated with copper and silver; and carved white Italian marble walls inlaid with silver panels.
Not a bad venue for a bunch of scribblers to perform in.
This was the fourth year of the festival which was started by Kansas First Lady Mary Brownback in 2011.
The criteria used by the Selection Committee to choose presenting authors for the festival were these: The author was either a Kansas writer, a former Kansas author, an author who wrote a book that dealt with Kansas in some way, or a native Kansan.
However, ultimately the selection committee made its selections based on the quality of the work--which is the way it should be.
"We want to have quality books by quality authors at the Festival," Mary Brownback told me. "We think we have achieved that."
Here is a link to this year's Kansas Book Festival Presenting Authors:
The mission of the Kansas Book Festival is to promote literacy and a life-long love of reading among people of all ages. In addition to the annual book festival, the festival also sponsors a children’s writing contest, and awards more than $10,000 annually in grants to public and school libraries across the state. More information about the festival is available at www.kansasbookfestival.com.
This was the second book festival I have attended in the past four months. The first was the L. A. Times Festival of Books held on the campus of the University of Southern California.
I found both festivals useful and rewarding. At the L.A. Times event I signed more than 100 of my books (Book #1 in my Finding Billy Battles Trilogy) for readers. Because it was so large with something like 50,000 people in attendance each of its two days, I didn't get an opportunity to talk with many fellow authors.
The Kansas Book Festival, which attracts about 4,000 for the one-day event provided greater opportunities to talk with other authors, but the book signings were less fruitful. Nevertheless authors should always take advantage of any opportunity to talk with readers, no matter how few show up for a book signing.
Without readers authors are nothing. Readers provide critical feedback, often ask questions we may never have thought to ask ourselves, and most of all, they provide validation for what we produce.
If you are an author and you have never attended a book festival to sign your books or to interact with the reading public and other writers, you are missing a valuable opportunity.
|Talking about my book at the Kansas Book Festival|
It is one thing to sit in the solitude of one's home or office and pound away on your computer (or typewriter for those who still do that). It is quite another to leave that sanctuary and actually meet people who read books--perhaps even some that you write.
Some may think participating in an online "virtual book tour" or perhaps writing a blog is all you need to do.
It is not. There is no substitute for face to face, person to person communication. And where better to do that than at an event geared to bring authors and readers together.
There are hundreds of these events throughout the United States every year. Find one near you and go. It may be the best marketing tool you will ever use.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Nobody ever said doing good journalism is easy--or safe.
In fact, reporters and photographers who have spent any significant time covering war, revolution, political upheaval, and natural disaster are keenly aware that when they arrive in war ravaged places like Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria, they may not return home in one piece or even alive.
That is the hard reality of the job. It is one that every correspondent and photographer must grapple with before he or she accepts a dangerous assignment.
There is little doubt that James Foley and Steven Sotloff, the two freelance American journalists who were beheaded by their Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) captors, knew the risks they were taking in going to places like Iraq and Syria.
Since 1992, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 1,074 reporters and photographers have been killed world-wide covering the news.
"Why do you guys do it." a friend asked me recently, "when you obviously know how dangerous it is in those places?"
Marie Colvin, the Sunday Times correspondent killed in Syria in 2012 may have answered that question as well as anyone:
“Our mission is to speak the truth to power. We send home that first rough draft of history. We can and do make a difference in exposing the horrors of war and especially the atrocities that befall civilians.”
Most correspondents and photographers I have known would answer the question in a similar way.
|Marie Colvin Killed in 2012|
My answer, when asked why I used to jump on a plane and head for a war torn country, was that I was doing it to bear witness.
If reporters and photographers aren't there to cover the carnage, atrocities and suffering caused by war then how will the world know what is happening? Who will speak for those ground up by the violence, displaced from their homes, murdered for their political or religious beliefs?
In my case, during a 25 year career with the Chicago Tribune in Asia and Latin America, I often found myself wondering why I was putting myself in danger in order to write a story that was likely to wind up in the bottom of somebody's bird cage.
Once again, Marie Colvin was right on the money back in 2010 when she said:
""We always have to ask ourselves whether the level of risk is worth the story. What is bravery, and what is bravado? Journalists covering combat shoulder great responsibilities and face difficult choices. Sometimes they pay the ultimate price."
In the case of correspondents of my generation the countries where the ultimate price was paid were places like Vietnam, Cambodia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Angola, and the Balkans.
During the 20 or so years that I toiled abroad six of my friends were killed covering war, revolution and coups d'état.
Each time that happened, I questioned why I was exposing myself to a similar fate.
|Yates Covering Cambodia & Vietnam|
And each time my answer was the same: I felt a responsibility to tell the world what I was witnessing. Only then could enough pressure be brought to bear to end the carnage or help the brutalized civilian non-combatants with the basics of life: food, water, shelter and medical care.
That's no doubt what motivated Foley and Sotloff to expose themselves to the dangers they faced in Syria.
The barbarians who brutally took the lives of these two men are the very reasons why reporters and photographers feel compelled to cover war. These savages need to be exposed for what they are and what they represent.
Look back at World War II. What if there had been courageous reporters able to write about the Nazi death camps or the horrendous atrocities committed by the Imperial Japanese Army against millions of Chinese, Filipinos and allied POWs?
There is no way of knowing if stories appearing in newspapers or on radio networks of the time would have stopped what the Nazis and the Japanese were doing. It was total war, after all.
But something tells me that by bearing witness some lives would have been saved.
I can recall an incident in El Salvador when a government officer was about to execute an anti-government guerrilla captured after a battle near a ramshackle village. He pointed a German made G-3 rifle at the back of the kneeling guerrilla's head and seemed about ready to pull the trigger, when he noticed me standing nearby watching him.
He quickly pointed his rifle to the ground and instead of shooting the guerrilla, kicked him in the back and sent him sprawling to the ground.
"Put him in the prisoner compound," he barked. Then he smiled at me and walked away.
Did my presence save that man's life? I have no idea. But at least, for that one brief moment, a life was spared.
Can journalists stop wars and other forms of violence and mayhem?
No, and anybody who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. But what journalists can do is make readers, viewers and listeners aware of what is happening in places like Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan.
That is our job. We are the messengers. The job of those we bring the message to is to use that information to inhibit and impede the kind of barbarism and brutality we are seeing today in Iraq and Syria.
Here is my rule when it comes to dangerous assignments.
When the risks associated with reporting a story are weighed against whatever benefits might be derived from the story and the risks outweigh the benefits, my rule is simple: leave and live to report another day.
No story is worth your life.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
One of the more enduring activities of human beings has always been to imagine what the future will bring. We all do it, some more than others.
It's what separates us from the rest of earth's creatures, most of which are too consumed with daily survival to think past their last meal or their next one.
As authors of historical fiction we invent characters and put them in various bygone eras. Then we create conflict for them to deal with, people to love and to hate, obstacles to overcome, tragedy to rise above, and joyous moments to take pleasure in.
But how often do we have our characters speculate about what the world will look like in the future?
Not often, I am sure. And the reason is probably the same one I gave for earth's "other" creatures. Our characters are often dealing with one conflict after another or just trying to survive. What the world will look like one hundred, two hundred or three hundred years is simply not within their intellectual compass.
Authors who write science fiction and specifically books about time travel think about these things all the time. I do and I don't even write science fiction (though I do enjoy a good time travel story when I find one).
So what has all of this got to do with historical novels? you may be asking.
I think having characters wonder about the future either via dialogue or in unspoken reflection adds another dimension to the people we create in eras such as the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, the Enlightenment or, in the case of my book, the 19th Century.
So how might we do that? Well, considering that truth is always stranger than fiction, you might examine predictions made about the future from some pretty famous and creative people.
Recently someone sent me a copy of a story that appeared in the 1911 edition of the now defunct Miami Metropolis newspaper.
|Thomas Alva Edison|
The story was an interview with none other than Thomas Edison in which America's most famous inventor made some rather astounding predictions about the future. Some were quite accurate and some were, shall we say, a bit off target.
For example, he rather amazingly predicts the e-book reader and at the same time predicts by 2011 we will be able to transmute metals and turn iron into gold. Ahem....
Here is that article in its entirety. Enjoy.
"What will the world be a hundred years hence?
None but a wizard dare raise the curtain and disclose the secrets of the future; and what wizard can do it with so sure a hand as Mr. Thomas Alva Edison, who has wrested so many secrets from jealous Nature? He alone of all men who live has the necessary courage and gift of foresight, and he has not shrunk from the venture.
Already, Mr. Edison tells us, the steam engine is emitting its last gasps. A century hence it will be as remote as antiquity as the lumbering coach of Tudor days, which took a week to travel from Yorkshire to London. In the year 2011 such railway trains as survive will be driven at incredible speed by electricity (which will also be the motive force of all the world's machinery), generated by "hydraulic" wheels.
But the traveler of the future, says a writer in Answers, will largely scorn such earth crawling. He will fly through the air, swifter than any swallow, at a speed of two hundred miles an hour, in colossal machines, which will enable him to breakfast in London, transact business in Paris and eat his luncheon in Cheapside.
The house of the next century will be furnished from basement to attic with steel, at a sixth of the present cost — of steel so light that it will be as easy to move a sideboard as it is today to lift a drawing room chair. The baby of the twenty-first century will be rocked in a steel cradle; his father will sit in a steel chair at a steel dining table, and his mother's boudoir will be sumptuously equipped with steel furnishings, converted by cunning varnishes to the semblance of rosewood, or mahogany, or any other wood her ladyship fancies.
Books of the coming century will all be printed leaves of nickel, so light to hold that the reader can enjoy a small library in a single volume. A book two inches thick will contain forty thousand pages, the equivalent of a hundred volumes; six inches in aggregate thickness, it would suffice for all the contents of the Encyclopedia Britannica. And each volume would weigh less than a pound.
Already Mr. Edison can produce a pound weight of these nickel leaves, more flexible than paper and ten times as durable, at a cost of five shillings. In a hundred years' time the cost will probably be reduced to a tenth.
More amazing still, this American wizard sounds the death knell of gold as a precious metal. "Gold," he says, "has even now but a few years to live. The day is near when bars of it will be as common and as cheap as bars of iron or blocks of steel.
"We are already on the verge of discovering the secret of transmuting metals, which are all substantially the same in matter, though combined in different proportions."
Before long it will be an easy matter to convert a truck load of iron bars into as many bars of virgin gold.
In the magical days to come there is no reason why our great liners should not be of solid gold from stem to stern; why we should not ride in golden taxicabs, or substituted gold for steel in our drawing room suites. Only steel will be the more durable, and thus the cheaper in the long run."
Golden ocean liners and cabs? I think we can all be thankful that Edison missed the boat (and the taxi) on that one.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
I began reading the late Elmore Leonard's books before I knew anything about writing or that I wanted to be a writer. Back then, a lot of his books were westerns filled with gritty characters, powerful stories, and tough, convincing dialogue.
I remember reading Last Stand at Sabre River and Hombre, both of which were made into successful movies. Later, after Leonard had moved from westerns to crime and suspense stories, I read Mr. Majestyk, The Big Bounce and the Moonshine War.
For the past four years I have watched with great pleasure the TV series "Justified," based on Leonard's book "Raylan" and partly written by Leonard. Season five is coming. I encourage you to take a look. It is writing at its best. And Timothy Olyphant as Raylan Givens is great.
Elmore Leonard was a writer's writer. Not only could he spin a great story, he could create characters you loved to hate or hated to love and some you simply learned to tolerate because they made the other characters interesting.
If you like reading William Faulkner, you probably will not like reading Elmore Leonard. As brilliant as it was, Faulkner's stream-of-conscious narration probably drove Leonard nuts. He believed the writer should never get in the way of the story. (NOTE: See “Hooptedoodle″ at the end of Leonard's rules)
I am not sure when Leonard wrote his 10 Rule of Writing, but I found them a few years ago and filed them away.
Some of you may already know those 10 rules, but I am betting a lot of you don't. So let me share them with you today. Read them, consider them and most of all, try to follow them when you write your own books.
I think you will be glad you did.
Here they are:
- Never open a book with weather.
If it’s only to create atmosphere, and not a character’s reaction to the weather, you don’t want to go on too long. The reader is apt to leaf ahead looking for people. There are exceptions. If you happen to be Barry Lopez, who has more ways to describe ice and snow than an Eskimo, you can do all the weather reporting you want.
- Avoid prologues.
They can be annoying, especially a prologue following an introduction that comes after a foreword. But these are ordinarily found in nonfiction. A prologue in a novel is back story, and you can drop it in anywhere you want.
There is a prologue in John Steinbeck’s Sweet Thursday, but it’s O.K. because a character in the book makes the point of what my rules are all about. He says: “I like a lot of talk in a book and I don’t like to have nobody tell me what the guy that’s talking looks like. I want to figure out what he looks like from the way he talks. . . . figure out what the guy’s thinking from what he says. I like some description but not too much of that. . . . Sometimes I want a book to break loose with a bunch of hooptedoodle. . . . Spin up some pretty words maybe or sing a little song with language. That’s nice. But I wish it was set aside so I don’t have to read it. I don’t want hooptedoodle to get mixed up with the story.” (Note: I already violated that rule in my book Finding Billy Battles. Sorry Elmore. I won't do it again.)
- Never use a verb other than “said” to carry dialogue.
The line of dialogue belongs to the character; the verb is the writer sticking his nose in. But said is far less intrusive than grumbled, gasped, cautioned, lied. I once noticed Mary McCarthy ending a line of dialogue with “she asseverated,” and had to stop reading to get the dictionary. (NOTE: I learned this wonderful rule in journalism school at the University or Kansas. It has served me well.)
- Never use an adverb to modify the verb “said” …
…he admonished gravely. To use an adverb this way (or almost any way) is a mortal sin. The writer is now exposing himself in earnest, using a word that distracts and can interrupt the rhythm of the exchange. I have a character in one of my books tell how she used to write historical romances “full of rape and adverbs.” (NOTE: I l also learned this wonderful rule in journalism school at the University or Kansas. As with rule #3, it has served me well.)
- Keep your exclamation points under control.
You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose. If you have the knack of playing with exclaimers the way Tom Wolfe does, you can throw them in by the handful.
- Never use the words “suddenly” or “all hell broke loose.”
This rule doesn’t require an explanation. I have noticed that writers who use “suddenly” tend to exercise less control in the application of exclamation points.
- Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.
Once you start spelling words in dialogue phonetically and loading the page with apostrophes, you won’t be able to stop. Notice the way Annie Proulx captures the flavor of Wyoming voices in her book of short stories Close Range.
- Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.
Which Steinbeck covered. In Ernest Hemingway’s Hills Like White Elephants what do the “American and the girl with him” look like? “She had taken off her hat and put it on the table.” That’s the only reference to a physical description in the story, and yet we see the couple and know them by their tones of voice, with not one adverb in sight.
- Don’t go into great detail describing places and things.
Unless you’re Margaret Atwood and can paint scenes with language or write landscapes in the style of Jim Harrison. But even if you’re good at it, you don’t want descriptions that bring the action, the flow of the story, to a standstill.
- Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.
A rule that came to mind in 1983. Think of what you skip reading a novel: thick paragraphs of prose you can see have too many words in them. What the writer is doing, he’s writing, perpetrating hooptedoodle, perhaps taking another shot at the weather, or has gone into the character’s head, and the reader either knows what the guy’s thinking or doesn’t care. I’ll bet you don’t skip dialogue.
My most important rule is one that sums up the 10.
If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it.
Or, if proper usage gets in the way, it may have to go. I can’t allow what we learned in English composition to disrupt the sound and rhythm of the narrative. It’s my attempt to remain invisible, not distract the reader from the story with obvious writing. (Joseph Conrad said something about words getting in the way of what you want to say.)
If I write in scenes and always from the point of view of a particular character — the one whose view best brings the scene to life — I’m able to concentrate on the voices of the characters telling you who they are and how they feel about what they see and what’s going on, and I’m nowhere in sight.
What Steinbeck did in Sweet Thursday was title his chapters as an indication, though obscure, of what they cover. “Whom the Gods Love They Drive Nuts” is one, “Lousy Wednesday” another.
The third chapter is titled “Hooptedoodle 1″ and the 38th chapter “Hooptedoodle 2″ as warnings to the reader, as if Steinbeck is saying: “Here’s where you’ll see me taking flights of fancy with my writing, and it won’t get in the way of the story. Skip them if you want.”
Sweet Thursday came out in 1954, when I was just beginning to be published, and I’ve never forgotten that prologue.
Did I read the hooptedoodle chapters? Every word.
Thank you Elmore Leonard. RIP