The balm of the familiar

Rebecca Lee

Sometimes a book wins literary acclaim and may even become a bestseller because of its originality. We are drawn to the book because it is unlike anything we have ever read before. Yet, let's face it, mostly we choose books that have what Rebecca Lee calls "the balm of the familiar."

She makes this comment in her book How Words Get Good. "Readers know what they are getting, and that's the way they like it," she writes.

Most of us readers like the authors we like, and we are a little anxious about trying authors we have never read before. Further, we like characters who are familiar to us. Had Arthur Conan Doyle dropped Sherlock Holmes after one story, we would not have heard of him today. Doyle, in fact, tried to kill off Holmes, but the character's popularity forced the author to bring him back. Readers liked Sherlock Holmes more than they liked his creator.

Robert B. Parker may have died, but his detective, Spenser, lives on in novels written by other people. So it goes with James Bond and other characters. We like familiar characters. Their creators, it seems, are expendable.

An old man and his dog

So many plots are complicated, full of subplots, twists and turns. But sometimes simplicity works best, as in the case of When the Cranes Fly South (2025) by Lisa Ridzen.

The Swedish author gives us a simple and poignant story about an 89-year-old man with little left to live for other than his memories and Sisten, his elkhound, who sleeps next to him. His wife has dementia and no longer remembers him. He remembers her by keeping her scarf in a jar, opening it now and then to catch her scent.

Bo has always had anger issues, and he struggles to control it when Hans, his son, insists he must take Sisten away from him because he is no longer able to take proper care of the dog. As for Bo, he is taken care of by a series of caregivers who come in several times a day. They leave little notes about Bo and his care, which are interspersed between sections of the novel.

And that is pretty much it. Yet Ridzen writes with such power and sensitivity that readers will find this simple tale totally engrossing.

The best candy shop

Maya Angelou

"The best candy shop a child can be left alone in is the library." So said author Maya Angelou.

A memory that sticks with me through the decades is of a mother, a woman I knew, walking into a public library with her three children and carrying a large box full of books. While she fed the books into the book return, she released her children to find new books. Now and then a child would return with an armload of books and deposit them in the box, then go back to look for more books. Soon enough the box was full again, and the family left for home.

Years later, one of these children, a classmate of my son, became the class valedictorian. No surprise there.

To this family, the library truly was the "best candy shop" in the sense Maya Angelou spoke about. These children could take anything they wanted and all they wanted. They chose books galore to satisfy their own individual sweet tooth. They did not get fat. They got smart.

One bad turn

Nothing could stop her now. She was meant to succeed. Her task was holy.

Peter Robinson, The First Cut

Revenge is sweet, or so they say. But it can turn sour, as Peter Robinson shows in The First Cut (1990), written before his Inspector Banks series became so popular.

The story is about two young women, or so it first appears. Kirsten is a student slashed within an inch of her life when she goes out alone at night. Martha comes to Whitby, England, with murder on her mind. She aims to kill the so-called Student Slasher.

Soon enough it becomes clear to any reader that these are one and the same woman. Through hypnosis, Kirsten thinks she remembers enough about her assailant to find him and kill him. Unfortunately innocent men have to die first. Is one serial killer really better than another?

There are many ways this novel could have ended. Robinson chooses perhaps the simplest one. But is it the best one?

Booksellers versus book buyers

Jeff Deutsch

In his book In Praise of Good Bookstores, Jeff Deutsch lists some of the criteria necessary for a bookstore to be profitable. Here are the first three:

1. Nearly 20 percent of the inventory must consist of products other than books.

2. The books on the shelves must be mostly from the major presses.

3. Stores must leave books on their shelves no longer than four months.

Each of these may work in the favor of bookstores and their bottom line, yet each of them works against those who may actually be their best customers, people who buy lots of books.

Bookstores commonly sell coffee, pastries, greeting cards, magazines, calendars, gift items and a variety of other non-book products. I bought a cup of tea in a bookstore last week. For many stores, these sales keep them in business. But for those of us who go to bookstores to look at books, it often means going to the rear of the store to find what we are looking for.

The big presses publish most of the best sellers and the most famous authors. Yet serious readers are often frustrated when they cannot find less-promoted books by lesser known authors. You can order them, of course, if you know about them, but most of us prefer to hold a book in our hands before committing to buying it.

Even those who shop for books several times a month rarely see every book in the store. I, for example, rarely look at books on the bottom shelves simply because of the inconvenience. Thus it can easily take more than four months for a book to find its reader. Often I don't even hear about a book that sounds interesting until more than a year after it has been published. By then, finding it in a bookstore can be impossible. I must turn to Amazon or order the book from a store.

And so, the rules that make sense for bookstores don't make sense for some of their best customers.

The past catches up

Sometimes the past just won’t stay in the past. Such is the case in Megan Miranda’s 2020 thriller The Girl from Widow Hills.

Twenty years before little Arden Maynor was found in a storm drainage pipe after having gone missing in a storm several days before while sleepwalking. For 20 years she has been trying to escape all the hoopla.

Now with a new name, Olivia, and living in a new state, she tries to live a newlife working for a hospital. Then, sleepwalking once again, she discovers the body of the very man who rescued her those 20 years before. Who might have murdered him? Could she, unknowingly, be the killer?

The more things happen, including the disappearance and death of a friend, the more it seems what happened in Widow Hills is involved in what is happening now. But how is that possible?

Miranda keeps the suspense bubbling in this unconventional thriller. It is never entirely convincing that Olivia would try so hard to keep little Arden in the past, but once you accept that premise, the novel proves a good one.

Strangers become family

When David Baldacci writes a standalone novel, you can usually predict it will be very different from his series books. That is, there will probably be no spies, no assassins and no murderers.

And there you have Strangers in Time, his 2025 novel. But this does not mean the story lacks all the excitement of a typical Baldacci novel. It is just more PG rated.

The persistent German bombing of London during World War II destroyed families as well as buildings. Baldacci brings together three people left alone by the war, creating a new family out of perfect strangers.

These include Charlie,an orphan who must do whatever he can to survive, including theft; Molly, a girl from a wealthy family who returns from the country to find both parents missing; and Ignatius, a bookseller/air raid warden broken-hearted from the death of his wife.

A mystery or two surrounds each of these characters, but together they solve them all.

Obscure books can have a future

Readers are almost alway particular to some obscure author or another, and so, as long as a book is available in Earth's big bookstore (which I construe as every bookstore and every used book store and every library in the world), it has a chance of finding a new audience.

Jane Smiley, 13 Ways of Looking at the Novel

Jane Smiley

There's a lot to like about the long Jane Smiley sentence printed above. Let's take it apart.

"Readers are almost always particular to some obscure author or another ..."

Many readers stick with the best-sellers, reading the same books as everybody else. But Smiley is talking about those more serious readers who discover particular authors and then wonder why everybody else isn't reading their books.

In my younger days, as I've written about previously, I was fond of Edward Lewis Wallant and D. Keith Mano. Why, I wondered, weren't their novels best-sellers? Today few people have even heard of them. More recently I have become enamored with Dexter Palmer and Olaf Olafsson. Why aren't other people reading them, too?

You probably feel the same way about "some obscure author or another."

"... Earth's big bookstore (which I construe as every bookstore and every used book store and every library in the world) ..."

Sadly, neither bookstores nor public libraries keep books around for very long. They need to make room for newer books. Meanwhile used book stores keep disappearing. Yet, as I wrote about a few days ago, people hate to throw out books after they have finished with them. Thus older books by some of those obscure authors can still be found in thrift shops, garage sales, estate sales and other places.

"... it has a chance of finding a new audience."

Some obscure books don't find their audience when first published. Yet books can actually last a long time, and only partly because people hate to destroy them. Sooner or later, as in the case of Moby-Dick and many other classics, they can find their readers. Obscurity doesn't always last forever.

Making a book

Writing, at least on the professional level, is a group effort. We don't normally think of it that way, of course. If someone's name is on the book, the magazine article or the newspaper story, that is the person who gets the credit — or the blame. Yet there are others, usually many others, who are involved.

Rebecca Lee makes this clear in her 2022 book How Words Get Good. Her expertise is book publishing, and in her career she has been involved in many of the steps in the process of making words good, now including writing a book herself.

Even though authors are the ones whose names are on the books, they need help. They need agents to find someone to publish their work, for example. They need editors. Many authors are terrible spellers. They make mistakes of all kinds, and writers are often the last ones to notice their own mistakes. (I know this from sad experience.)

And then there are proof readers. What is the difference between a copy editor and a proof reader?  Lee tells us. Essentially, a copy editor gets a manuscript ready to be printed. A proof reader checks for errors made by the printer. Does the printed work match what was supposed to be printed?

Lee even devotes chapters to footnotes (her own footnotes are superb, well worth reading), cover designs, blurbs, fonts and what happens when books go out of print. Her book covers an amazing amount of territory — probably too much, actually — and it is a wonderful resource for anyone wondering what goes into making a book.

Feelings attached

But it (a story) exists not as words written in books but as images with feelings attached.

Jane Smiley, 13 Ways of Looking at the Novel

"Images with feelings attached." I like that phrase. 

A few days ago I posted something on the subject of how reading a book a second time is different from reading it the first time ("Same book, different experience," Aug. 17, 2026). This is what Jane Smiley is talking about in the line above quoted from her book, 13 Ways of Looking at the Novel.

Marlon Brando
 in a scene from The Godfather

I think this is one reason movies based on novels we have read tend to be so disappointing. The images in the films conflict with the images left in our mind from the novels. Because film images are so powerful, they tend to overpower those in novels. I read Mario Puzo's novel The Godfather before I saw the movie, yet ever after it has been the movie images that come to mind, not those I had while reading the book. I can't even remember how the novel differed from the movie.

One way to rekindle those original images is to reread the novel, although even then the images in your mind will be different from those you had when you first read the book, and they also may be heavily influenced by the movie.

Yet we still usually want to watch movies adapted from novels we love. We always hope against hope that the images in the film will conform with the images that linger with us from reading the book. Unless the film is really, really good, as The Godfather is, we are usually disappointed.

A distinctive style

Thomas Hart Benton's artistic style is so distinct that even an art amateur like myself can recognize one of his paintings easily. Yet, as Justin Wolff tells us in Thomas Hart Benton: A Life (2012), it took years for him to develop that style. Look at his early paintings and they look nothing like those we know him for.

Benton was the son of U.S. Senator Thomas Hart Benton, who wanted his son and namesake to follow in his footsteps. Instead the younger Benton went his own way, lived in poverty for years and eventually found the style that made him more famous than his father.

Benton called himself a realist, known for his murals that seem to shimmer. His images, while stationary, seem to writhe. Nobody has adequately described Thomas Hart Benton paintings, yet they are instantly recognizable.

Benton met and married Rita, the love of his life,  and she stuck with him through his years of poverty, his heavy drinking, his carousing and his failures, protecting his image as well as his images, selling and promoting his paintings.

It may be difficult to believe that Jackson Pollock, known for his abstract drip paintings, was his student, as well as one of his closest friends. Benton's hot-and-cold relationship with President Harry S. Truman also makes fascinating reading. Benton wanted Truman's approval, yet Truman tended to say what he felt, not necessarily what others wanted him to say.

What I find hard to swallow in Wolff's biography is his conclusion that Benton should have been more like Pollock, more open to abstract expressionism. True, Benton may have been out of step with many of his contemporaries, but he ultimately found his style, and that style served him well.

Library longings

Susan Sontag

Susan Sontag once called her personal library an archive of longings. Can this be true, not just for her but for everyone who reads? Perhaps.

You have heard it said that you are what you eat. Can we also say, "You are what you read?" No, I don't think so. But we might say, "You would like to be what you read."

This is sort of the point of James Thurber's famous short story "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty." Mitty is an ordinary man who imagines himself the hero of a variety of adventures, in part as a result of what he reads.

And so, those who read thrillers, mysteries and adventure stories probably imagine themselves the hero. How would they solve the crime or defeat the bad guys or get out of an impossible situation?

Those who read romances probably imagine themselves involved in similar love affairs.

Those reading the Bible long to be better than they are. They probably imagine Jesus telling them, "Well done, good and faithful servant."

A few weeks ago I wrote about Marilyn Monroe liking to be photographed reading a James Joyce novel. Perhaps she longed to be someone who actually read and understood James Joyce novels.

Want to know what someone longs for? Look at their books.

The Oxford comma

Until I read Anne Curzan's Says Who? I didn't know the term "the Oxford comma." I was well aware of the question the term refers to, but I didn't recall hearing the term itself previously.

The question, which most people never think about and is important mainly to writers and editors, is this: When words are printed in a series, should there be a comma before the and?

That is, should the title of the Steve Martin-John Candy movie be Planes, Trains and Automobiles," as it actually is, or should it have been called Planes, Trains, and Automobiles? Who cares? you ask. Well, those in the word business do care.

I have a newspaper background, and so I almost always eliminate this comma. (I do include it in quotations.)  In newspapers we try to save space wherever we can, and even a little comma takes up space. Why bother with an unnecessary comma?

The trouble is, sometimes the comma is necessary. Curzan gives an example, often cited. A book dedication supposedly read, "This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God." Without the comma, the dedication suggests that God and Ayn Rand are the author's parents. That is probably not the case. And so a comma is needed.

But take another phrase mentioned by Curzan: "my brother, the doctor, and the nurse." The comma indicates the brother is a doctor. If that is not the case, the comma is misleading and should have been left out.

It is called the Oxford comma because way back in 1893 Oxford University Press adopted a style that this comma be included in any series. The Associated Press thinks differently, and most U.S. newspapers follow the AP Stylebook.

Yet, as the two examples above show us, the comma is sometimes needed. Other times it should be left out. Most of the time, of course, it doesn't matter at all. Do whatever you please.

What if ...?

The late Clifford D. Simak, like other science fiction writers, started his stories with an idea. In his case, the more outlandish the better.

Reading the nine stories that make up All the Traps of Earth and Other Stories (1962), one can imagine him wondering, "What if ....?"

What if the creatures on a distant planet conquer others by sacrificing themselves? ("Drop Dead")

What if an alien on Earth gets drunk by listening to the sad stories all humans have to tell? ("Crying Jag")

What if chemically-induced homesickness were the only way people could be persuaded to leave their home planet and travel in space? ("Condition of Employment")

What if a time machine leaves explorers stranded thousands of years in the past? ("Project Mastodon")

What if aliens from another planet seem to be perfect baby sitters, accepting no payment because they are stealing the youth from their charges? ("The Sitters")

And so it goes in these totally unbelievable, yet entertaining, tales.

Yet I notice that the shorter his short stories are, the better they usually are. Sometimes he packs too many "what ifs" into a story, as in "Installment Plan," and it becomes too much to manage. One or two weird ideas per story seem to work better.

You guys

Is the phrase "you guys" offensive to women or not? It is hard to know, for one hears some women complain about it while other women use it themselves when talking to other women.

A "guy," of course, is understood to be a male. If there is a sign on a door in a restaurant that says "Guys," women do not enter. Yet one may hear female servers in that very restaurant address a table of female diners as "you guys."

Even more confusing is the expanding use of the word "bro" in conversation. It is an abbreviation of brother, a masculine reference. Yet increasingly one hears both men and women using the term when addressing women, as well as men.

Should we go with the flow and consider both "you guys" and "bro" to be genderless terms? Or should we pay attention to that shrinking number of women who are offended? I try to avoid both terms in all contexts.

As for the phrase "you guys," that is just another consequence of the problem English gives us because the word you can be both singular and plural. We may know it to be true, but it just doesn't seem right when we use it as plural. We want to add something. And so, depending upon where you are in the world, you may hear "you all" or "y'll" or "youse" or "you'uns" or whatever. The phrase "you guys" may turn out to be the winner, crossing state lines and international boundaries.

The end of writing?

Heather Cass White

Writing itself is a technology, and a fairly recent one, that decimated older forms of communication and experience, and created new ones that shape the world as we currently understand it.

Heather Cass White, Books Promiscuously Read

We probably don't think of writing as a technology, yet for most of human history, writing did not exist. Human beings made do, however. Then it existed but only for an educated few. Eventually it became widespread, Wherever there are schools, children learn to write. The world is better because of writing, but is literacy essential for civilization to continue?

Not all technology lasts forever. The wheel and fire may be permanent. The eight-track tape not so much. What about writing? It seems inconceivable that writing could become lost, but there are disturbing signs.

One is the fact that children are no longer being taught to sign their own names. Today most writing is done using keyboards, and most reading is done with words reproduced on keyboards. Young people today cannot read their grandmother's letters or diaries. They may never want to, of course, but historians and biographers of the future may need to. What if they can't? For that matter, what if nobody cares?

So many college graduates know little about history or great books. Other than texting, they do little writing. Artificial intelligence can do the writing for them. Why bother?

It seems unlikely that writing — or reading — will disappear altogether any time soon, but it seems conceivable that a return to the Middle Ages could be possible, a time when only the educated few know how to read and write. Most people, because of new technology, won't need to.

White writes, "If reading disappears, something else will take its place. Not its precise place; if reading were lost, much that is valuable would be lost. But we would get over it, or successive generations would, and whatever replaced it would have advantages we can't imagine."

Before literacy, most people didn't miss it, just as we didn't miss home computers or cell phones until they became a necessary part of modern living. What Heather Cass White says about the disappearance of writing is disturbing, but it could be true.

Testing who belongs

The common denominator of all slang, whether it be the speech of adolescents or the jive talk of musicians, is that it tests who belongs to the group and who is an intruder. That is because slang is fully intelligible only to the initiated.

Peter Farb, Word Play

Most slang starts with the young, who normally have two contradictory impulses going on at the same time. On the one hand, they want to be accepted as adults doing adult things — driving, drinking, smoking, having sex, enjoying independence, having secrets, whatever — while at the same time they want all the benefits of youth and being with each other, distant from their parents and other adults.

Youth slang helps them with the latter. They invent terms that become significant only to themselves. The fact that their parents don't know what they are saying is part of the fun. When adults begin to understand youth slang, and worse begin to use it themselves, the young must invent new slang. Thus virtually every generation of young people comes up with new slang terms that they enjoy repeating over and over again.

Some slang terms eventually become part of the language — the word cool, for example — but when this happens they cease to be slang. As Peter Farb says, the purpose of slang is to designate who belongs to the group and who doesn't. Once it enters the dictionary, the word belongs to everyone.

As Farb suggests, older groups such as musicians can also develop slang terms, although when older people do it it usually becomes jargon, rather than true slang. Most businesses, most hobbyists, most adult groups of any kind develop jargon of some kind. Jargon makes the activity easier, whatever that activity may be. Those on the outside have no use for these terms and may not even be curious about them.

Yet as with slang, jargon also tests who belongs to the group and who doesn't.

The burden of being alone

The title of Liz Moore's magnificent 2012 novel Heft describes both a main character, 550-pound Arthur Opp, and the weighty truth Moore writes about: people need people.

Arthur was once a college professor. Now he just sits at home and eats. He sends out for whatever he needs. But he also pines for a shy former student, Charlene, the closest he has ever come to a love affair. He lost his job because of her, even though she was no longer his student by then and even though they were more friends than lovers. Over the years they have written letters to each other, letters each has treasured and saved and read over and over again.

Arthur finally hears from Charlene for the first time in years. Thinking she might come to visit, he begins to shape up — or at least to get his house in better shape. He hires Yolanda, a pregnant teenager, to clean his house. It turns out that she needs him as much as he needs her.

Meanwhile Charlene has an addiction of her own. She has become an alcoholic, and Kel, her teenage son, cares for her more than she cares for him. Kel is an outstanding high school athlete who thinks he may have a future in professional baseball. His mother's suicide makes this lonely boy even lonelier. He begins the search for his father. Is he the man he has always thought of as his father, the man who abandoned the family years before? Or could it be Arthur Opp?

Without ever bringing Arthur and Kel together, although there is the promise of their meeting when the novel closes, Moore writes poignantly about how much they need each other. Or at least, like Charlene and Yolanda, they need someone.

Same book, different experience

Rereading can be a tricky process, in which, for better or worse, you're brought face-to-face with both the present and the past. It's different than reading, more layered, more nuanced, with implications about how we've changed.

David L. Ulin, The Lost Art of Reading

I am rereading a book of science fiction short stories I first read when I was a teenager. (More on this book in a few days.) The comment above by David L. Ulin rings true for me. The nine stories in the book have remain unchanged since 1962, yet the passing decades have changed me quite a bit.

And not only am I a different person than I was in 1962, but the world has changed dramatically since then. The stories still read like science fiction — talking robots, time travel, travel to other planets, aliens from other planets living on Earth next to humans — yet they sound like 1962. Centuries may have passed in the stories, but the names, the speech patterns and the attitudes are those of America in the middle of the 20th century. In one story a character is shocked that it will cost $78.90 to fix a tractor. This is a story taking place in the distant future, yet just 65 years after the book was published $78.90 sounds downright cheap to fix almost anything.

I find the stories entertaining, yet they probably don't shock and amaze me as they once did. As I read them I try to be a teenager again in the belief that I might enjoy them more.

Anne Fadiman

In his book Ulin quotes Anne Fadiman on the distinction between reading and rereading: "The former had more velocity; the latter had more depth. The former shut out the world in order to focus on the story; the latter dragged in the world in order to assess the story. The former was more fun; the latter was more cynical."

Each of her points makes sense to me.  And then comes her final point about rereading a book,  "... I saw the book through the complicating lens of adulthood, I also saw it through the memory of the first time I'd read it."

How true.

A lifetime guilt

Guilt can last a long time, a lifetime in fact.

In The Stolen Child (2024), Ann Hood gives us a story about Nick Burns, a man dying of cancer in 1974, who wants resolution and perhaps grace before he dies. As an American soldier in a trench in France during World War I, he was handed a newborn baby boy by a female artist on whose land the trench was located. Then she disappeared.

What is a man at war supposed to do with a baby? And so he abandoned the newborn, hoping somebody else would find him and take care of him. Now near death, he desperately wants to discover what happened to that baby.

He hires Jenny, a college dropout with her own demons, to accompany him to Europe to try to find the man the baby may have become. 

The more serious guilt in this story would seem to belong to the mother who, because of her desire for artistic success, abandoned her baby in a battlefield trench, yet Hood mostly ignores her to focus on Nick. Even Nick doesn't blame the mother. He blames only himself. Everyone is responsible only for his own actions.

Hood's title, taken from a Yeats poem, is misleading, for the child is never actually stolen — abandoned certainly and passed around a bit, but not stolen. What happens to the child, to Nick and especially to Jenny, who eventually becomes the book's central character, makes a fascinating story.

Life and love

Life is not simple, nor love inevitable.

Niall Williams, As It Is in Heaven

Niall Williams demonstrates the above line, found early in As It Is in Heaven (1999), in the novel itself. He also demonstrates its flip side: Love is not simple, nor life inevitable.

Both life and love are precious treasures, not to be taken casually, Williams tells us through his novel, as lyrical a love story as one is likely to find.

Philip Griffin loses both his wife and daughter in a tragic accident early in the story. Now, dying of cancer, he worries about his lonely son, Stephen, a 28-year-old teacher whose life seems to have already hit a dead end. The two men say little to each other as they play lengthy games of chess, yet Philip notices signs that his introverted son may actually be in love.

Stephen has become infatuated with a beautiful Italian violinist, stranded in Ireland by a lover. He goes to her recitals, even when it means ignoring his teaching duties. Gabriella finally notices him, and a relationship develops, though having been burned, she is reluctant to commit herself to a man. And let's face it, Stephen is not the man of most women's dreams. She returns to Italy, pregnant with Stephen's baby.

Life not being simple, nor love inevitable, the reader doesn't know how this will turn out. This is not your typical romance novel, after all. Midway in the book, Williams tells us, "Gabriella Castoldi shared with Stephen Griffin the expectation of failure and the familiarity of despair." Readers of literary novels share these expectations. One must wait for the very end to discover whether both life and love are possible for Stephen and Gabriella.

Novelist as scientist

Jane Smiley

When Jane Smiley argues, as she does in 13 Ways of Looking at the Novel, that a novelist is like a scientist, who is more likely to be offended. the novelist or the scientist?

On the surface, a novelist and a scientist are very different people. If you ever got a college degree, it was probably either a bachelor of arts or a bachelor of science degree. A novelist does art. A scientist does, well, science. There have most likely been novelists who did science and scientists who have written novels, but for the most part they think differently. They do different kinds of things.

Still, Smiley may have a point.

A scientist works with a hypothesis. "A novel is a hypothesis," she writes.

Both a novelist and a scientist are observers. They both ask "what if" questions. A chemist may wonder what happens if a little of this chemical is added to a certain chemical compound. A novelist may wonder what happens if a major character dies in the second chapter.

And so there are similarities, as Smiley observes. Even so, scientific results are supposed to be reproducible. What one scientist discovers upon doing an experiment, another scientist is supposed to be able to find when doing the same experiment. Novelists, however, are expected to discover something entirely different each time. Or else we wouldn't pay any attention to them.

Garbage words

Remember that what you're likely noticing and reacting to is the word's frequency, not its grammaticality.

Anne Curzan, Says Who?

When people talk, unlike when they write, their sentences often contain useless words and sounds. The most common are "like" and "you know." Others say "right" or "um" or favorite vulgar words. When we are talking and trying to think of what we want to say next, we insert these things to hold our place or to fill in the blanks.

And there are those who are overly fond of certain cliches. "At the end of the day" seems popular these days.

It is these pointless words and expressions that Anne Curzan is talking about in the line quoted above from her book Says Who? Usually, as she observes, it is the frequency of their use that bothers listeners, not the words themselves or how they are used in the sentence. She's right.

If someone said "you know" once every 10 sentences we might not even notice. But there are some people who can put two or three "you knows"  in a single sentence. Not only do we notice, but many of us get downright annoyed. Sometimes when I hear someone talking, I ignore what they are saying and just count the "you knows." Yet speakers probably don’t even notice how often they are using the phrase.

It's natural that our speech should be different from our writing. When you are writing something, even a simple text, you have extra time to think, and you also don't want to take the extra time to write "like" and "you know" every few words. Speech, however, gives us little time to think, and if we pause too long, our speech may get interrupted by someone else, as so often happens in conversation.  And so we put in those garbage words and sounds to hold our place. We may not even notice, but if we do it often enough it is certain that other people will.

More about the octopus

In The Soul of the Octopus, Sy Montgomery told us amazing things about this eight-legged, nine-brained sea creature. Now in Secrets of the Octopus, she tells us more — and shows us lots of pictures besides.

Montgomery is a skilled nature writer who, in her long career has written about many different animals, including cheetahs, tigers, hummingbirds, pigs, apes and hawks. Yet none of them amazed her the way the octopus has. Even after two books (actually three, for she also wrote a children's book), one wonders if she is through talking about them.

There are so many incredible things about octopuses. Though they lack bones, they can walk bipedally. They can change color in an instant to blend in with their surroundings. Some can take the form of various fish and other sea creatures to fool predators. Many of them are cannibals, usually the female eating the male after mating. They can solve puzzles, open jars and escape through impossibly small holes. Not only do they have personalities, but each of their legs may have a different personality.

They are incredibly smart. And they live brief lives, some of them less than a year. And so, not only can they in some ways rival human intelligence, they can do so in less time than it takes a human child to learn to talk.

Octopuses come in many different breeds and many different colors. Most live solitary lives, unusual for intelligent creatures, yet other breeds live in communities. Some octopuses are smaller than a human hand, while others are larger than a human being. Usually the bigger they are, the longer they live.

This is a National Geographic book, so you know the photographs are of high quality. It is a relatively short book, even with so many pages of photos, but it is loaded with information about one of nature's most unusual creatures.

Language debates

Debates about language are almost always about something more than language.

Anne Curzan, Says Who?

Anne Curzan

What linguist Anne Curzan says about language debates being about something more than language seems profound to me. 

It could be geography, for example. What do you call a sandwich in a long bun? Is it a sub, a hoagie, a grinder, a hero or something else? It depends upon where you are from. Not too many people argue about sandwiches, but there other words or speech patterns or accents that can cause anger — or ridicule that leads to anger.

British people and American people make fun of each other, or insult each other, because of how they say or spell English words. Is it theater or theatre? Is it a trunk or a boot? 

The debate can be generational. When we were in school we learned one thing. Now they are saying something else. What's wrong with people today? Why are they ruining our language?

Or the debate can be political. We even have the term "political correctness." We are pressured to say something in a certain way, even though we are really thinking, and most everyone else is thinking, something else. 

When Democrats use the word democracy they clearly do not mean the same thing Republicans do when they use the same word. The same goes for fascism and many other words.

In YouTube videos, I hear the f-word all the time. Yet people often are not allowed to say the word rape. They must say grape instead. They say corn instead of porn.

There is the continuing debate about pronouns. We are pressured to accept certain euphemisms. Some words can be said by some people but not by others. Some words, like retarded, cannot be said at all.

Someone, it seems, is always trying to control what you say and how you say it. And it is only partly about language.

Conversations with a killer

The titles of some novels are revealing. Others not so much. The title of Georges Simenon mystery Maigret and the Killer (1969) made me stop. Heroes in detective novels normally catch killers, but this title suggests a relationship. There must be something going on between Inspector Maigret of the Paris police and the killer he is looking for.

Simenon cleverly resolves both the mystery of the murder and the mystery of the title.

Maigret and his wife are enjoying an evening with his doctor friend when the doctor is called to help the victim of a stabbing on a nearby sidewalk. It immediately becomes Maigret's business, too, especially when the victim dies.

The young murder victim always carried a tape recorder and had recorded conversations he overheard in public places. Is this the motive for the murder? Did he record something someone didn't want recorded? But then why wasn't the recorder taken by the murderer?

Maigret solves mysteries in mysterious ways, one reason for the lasting appeal of Simenon's novels. This time he knows what the killer looks like before he knows his name, yet he hesitates to publish the photograph. He believes the killer will ultimately come to him.

And so it happens. The killer calls repeatedly to talk with the police inspector, who becomes something of a counselor.  All this ends in a low-key, yet still exciting way that Simenon was known for.

Making a choice

In the 2017 novel The Boat Runner, Devin Murphy tells about a Dutch boy, Jacob Koopman, who comes of age during World War II. Jacob, the first-person narrator, faces the question many Europeans must have faced during the war: Which side should he take?

Before the war, for business reasons, Jacob's father sends him and his brother to a Hitler Youth Camp. His father runs a light bulb factory, and he thinks this will help him win a contract with Volkswagen. And so the boy has early sympathies for the Nazis, strengthened when he later blames the Allies for the death of both his brother and his mother. Yet his father apparently died running from the Germans.

Martin, his uncle, has Jacob help him when he kills Nazi soldiers he is transporting on his boat and when he sinks a German submarine. Jacob eventually joins the German navy and even singlehandedly sinks a British ship, becoming a hero. But when he witnesses the extermination of large numbers of Jews, he thinks differently yet again.

Many of us who read this fine novel may think we, in similar circumstances, would have immediately made the right choice and fought the Nazis. That's easy to think now. At the time it could not have always been that easy. Chances are we, in similar circumstances, would have asked the same kind of questions: How can I best survive? Who is most likely to win? And who is responsible for the deaths of those I loved?

Breaking the shackles of time

What an astonishing thing a book is. It's a flat object made from a tree with flexible parts on which are imprinted lots of funny dark squiggles.

Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan

Just days after writing my post about trying to define what a book is ("What is a book?" July 20), I came upon the definition offered by scientist Carl Sagan on his famous TV series Cosmos.

He calls it "a flat object made from a tree." That's two things I didn't find in the dictionary definition: a "flat object" and "made from a tree." In general, those words describe what we usually think of as a book. Of course, a book doesn't necessary have to be flat, such as a scroll, or made of paper (Clay tablets? A Kindle?). Even so, his words ring true most of the time.

And then he adds, "on which are imprinted lots of funny dark squiggles." If you are illiterate, of course, funny dark squiggles are what you see when you open a book. The same is true when you open a book written in some language you cannot read.

Then Sagan goes on, "But one glance at it and you're inside the mind of another person, maybe somebody dead for thousands of years. Across the millennia, an author is speaking clearly and silently inside your head, directly to you."

Of course, for this to happen, words must be more than squiggles. One must be able to read and understand those squiggles.

Further, he says, "Writing is perhaps the greatest human invention, binding together people who never knew each other, citizens of distant epochs. Books break the shackles of time. A book is proof that humans are capable of working magic."

I like that a man of science, speaking on a show about science, was able to recognize the importance of language, reading, writing and books that made that science, and so much else, possible.

Rules or myths?

Most of us think of dictionaries as authoritative. Whether we are playing Scrabble or just writing a letter, we look to a dictionary, whether online or in print, to tell us how words are spelled, what they mean and even whether they are really words at all.

Yet those who put dictionaries together, if they are any good, look upon the rest of us as the authorities. That is, dictionaries don't dictate what's right or wrong about words. Instead they reflect how words are actually used, what the people who use them mean by them and how most people spell them.

Linguists, if they are any good, do much the same thing. Consider Anne Curzan, a professor at the University of Michigan and the author of Says Who? (2024).

As her title suggests, she doesn't think the traditional language experts are necessarily correct. This is especially true of our English teachers back in the day who chastised us for putting prepositions at the end of sentences or splitting infinitives.

In chapter after chapter, all written with a light touch, Curzan attacks the myths of proper language usage. Her subtitle even includes the word funner, certain to drive a lot of know-it-alls crazy.

Don't get the idea that anything goes with Anne Curzan. The important thing about language is always communicating what you have to say. If the other person doesn't understand what you're saying, you must be doing something wrong. So some language guidelines are necessary.

Yet different standards apply in different situations. You write differently than you talk. Usages that might be fine in a text or email might be out of line in a formal letter or a term paper. She even argues that aesthetics are important. How does it look on the page?

When Curzan uses the word "rule"  she normally puts it in quotation marks, as I just did. Some rules are just suggestions to her. Others are just myths. Whatever works for you works, she seems to be saying. This is your language. You are the authority.

Life with children

There is a passage in Life among the Savages (1953) where Shirley Jackson is asked her occupation. After she repeatedly says "writer," the person asking the question puts down "housewife." That she was both is illustrated in this, one of two amusing books she wrote about her family.

Her fiction consisted mostly of horror stories and ghost stories, and the titles of her family memoirs reflect a similar theme. The other is Raising Demons.

Her children — she gives birth to her third child early in Life among the Savages and a fourth at the end — actually seem typical, especially for the period she writes about. They are rambunctious, imaginative, ornery, sweet and so on, just like the kids in every other family. What's different is Jackson's ability to make the incidents in a typical family's life worth reading about.

She writes about finding a house big enough and affordable enough for her family, about learning to drive (her husband has no interest in driving), about a daughter's imaginary friends, about a son's imaginary and trouble-making classmate, about what happens when everyone in the house is sick at the same time, about the impossibility of finding a reliable housemaid, about trying to go shopping with three children in tow and so forth.

Many of these incidents were excerpted in magazines like Good Housekeeping and Collier's at the time. and deservedly so. Even 75 years later they bring chuckles. For those of us who grew up in the 1950s, they bring memories.

What is a book?

I have an American Heritage College Dictionary, now nearly 20 years old, that lists the first definition of the word book as "A set of pages fastened along one side and encased between protective covers."

For most of us, something like that is probably what comes to mind when we think of a book. Yet this definition, or any definition, leaves something to be desired.

If the pages are blank, is it still a book? What if the pages are utter nonsense, perhaps typed by one of those infinite number of monkeys?

Does a pamphlet become a book if it is given a more protective cover?

Does a writer's manuscript become a book when it is published or does it become a book if it is placed in a three-ring binder (a protective cover)?

If a novel is published first in a magazine, as so many Charles Dickens novels were, is it a book?

If we listen to a book on some kind of electronic media, can we still count it as a book? What if we read it on a Nook or a Kindle?

Any definition one can come up with can be either too restrictive or not restrictive enough. With a broad definition, as in the American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary, almost any of us can say we have written a book. Ever kept a diary? Ever put a term paper in a stiff cover? Congratulations, you are an author.

On the other hand, the definition can suggest that one of Dickens' serialized novels isn't really a book, at least not yet.

Emma Smith proposes an interesting definition in her book Portable Magic. She writes, "A book becomes a book in the hands of its readers, It is an interactive object. A book that is not handled and read is not really a book at all."

To me, that is utter nonsense. If she were correct, bookstores and libraries contain no books. Those paper objects do not become books until someone takes them home and reads them. Then, apparently, they cease to be books when put back on the shelf. That's like saying a chair isn't really a chair unless someone is sitting in it.

No thanks. I prefer the dictionary definition, as inadequate as it may be.

Magic moments

Once in a great while during the course of our lives, something happens that seems magical. Sarah Addison Allen packs a lot of those magical moments into Lost Lake (2014).

Lost Lake is a small resort in Georgia that has seen better days. Eby, who bought it years before with her late husband, believes it's time to sell. Hardly anyone comes there these days. Then the magic starts.

Kate, her niece who hasn't been to Lost Lake since she was a little girl, returns with her daughter, Devin.  Kate is a young widow whose mother-in-law has been controlling her life for the past year. Now both she and her daughter want to escape.

At Lost Lake she finds Wes, with whom she had played when they were children. He still pines for her.

Meanwhile the few regulars return for a summer stay and decide to throw a goodbye party for Eby. When the town hears about it, everyone shows up, including the man who wants to buy Lost Lake.

The novel has an alligator that only Devin can see, a box hidden for decades in the lake, an aging woman down to her last charm that enables her to seduce any married man she wants and a mute French woman who keeps a chair in her kitchen for the ghost of the boy who killed himself years ago after she rejected him.

There's magic aplenty in Lost Lake, but perhaps the most magical thing about the novel is the way everyone just takes the magic in stride. Magic, like death and taxes, just happens.

Black and blue

The title of Eowyn Ivey's 2025 novel Black Woods Blue Sky was inspired by Marcel Proust. In Swann's Way he wrote, "Now are the woods all black, but still the sky is blue. May you always see a blue sky overhead, my young friend ..."

Those words fit Ivey's novel very well, for it is a story about black woods and blue skies, life at its best and at its worst.

Arthur, raised at first by bears, then adopted by a human couple, doesn't seem to know what he is. Sometimes he wears a bearskin and lives a bear's life. At other times he lives as a man, even if an odd one, in the Alaskan wilderness.

Birdie, a bar maid who drinks almost as much as she serves, lives a wild life while trying to raise her little girl, Emaleen, at the same time. She falls in love with Arthur, a wild man whom she thinks might be able to tame her, and takes Emaleen to live with him. The girl realizes before her mother does that Arthur may be more bear than man.

In the last portion of the novel, Emaleen is a grown young woman who returns to Alaska and, against the advice of others, tries to find Arthur.

Ivey gives us a powerful story of hope and love, while taking us through the black woods at the same time.

Migratory books

Books' intrinsic portability means they are always on the move, always migratory, always displaced.

Emma Smith, Portable Magic

Most of us hate to throw out old books. Instead we give them away when are done with them. We donate them for library book sales. We take them to used book stores.

The condo library, which I oversee, depends upon this difficulty people have to throw out old books, even well-worn books. Instead they donate them to the library, providing "new" books for our shelves, while also leaving me with the responsibility of getting rid of older books. Most I donate for resale elsewhere. Some I must reluctantly recycle.

I hate to write in books, but wouldn't it be nice if each person left a record in each book owned? That is, we could write our name, along with the date the book was acquired and the date it was passed on. At one time, public libraries did something like this. Those who withdrew a book left their names and dates on the library card.

For some books, I think this trail might be very interesting. I own a number of books that were used when I got them. Who owned them before me? How far have these books traveled?

Emma Smith hints at this when she writes above about the portability of books, about their migratory nature. Books remain for years on one particular shelf, but then when their owners die or decide to downsize, they are passed on somebody else, and then perhaps to somebody else. The best books end up in collections, in university libraries, in museums.

Sometimes there have been attempts to save books by destroying them, photocopying them, digitizing them or whatever. Yet the books themselves, though made of paper, can last a very long time with proper care. Books hundreds of years old can still be read. Paper lasts much longer than modern media, which can become outdated within a few years.

If only we could know the history of old books.

Books are for reading

Those who collect books rarely read them. If they want to read the book, they will buy a cheap reading copy. They may not ever open the collectible. Any wear at all decreases its value.

It is something like the person who collects Star Wars action figures. A true collector never takes them out of their boxes. They are toys that are never played with.

This is how I knew I could never be a book collector, even though at one time I had several books worth a little bit of money. I owned a book because I wanted to read it. When I finally sold my first edition of A Is for Alibi for $1,000, the buyer wondered why it was so worn. To me it was never a collectible. I read it, and I loaned to other people to read.

At the same time, and this may sound contradictory, I acquire books I may want to read but know I am unlikely to ever read. But I don't own them because I expect them to increase in value. I own them because I like having them in my library. I like the thought that I might actually get around to reading them someday. I like the sight of them. I like owning them. Some books seem to make me smarter just by being on my shelves.

Perhaps this doesn't make sense. But then neither does keeping a Star Wars action figure in its box.

Books that help us

Emma Smith

All books are really self-help books.

Emma Smith, Portable Magic

Self-help books are, of course, a whole category books. They help us — or at least promise to help us — do almost anything: lose weight, improve our looks, build a deck, fight addiction, recover from divorce, whatever. But are all books, in a sense, self-help books, as Emma Smith suggests?

It is an interesting idea. We do, after all, read books to help us in some way, even if we only want to be entertained. We read a history book because we want to know more about that particular part of history. We read a biography because we want to know more about the person who is the subject of the biography.

The Bible is a self-help book. So is Gone with the Wind, Pride and Prejudice, The Sun Also Rises and Gone Girl.

Are there some books that are not self-help books? Probably. Reading some books can hurt us more than they help us. Some books are a total waste of time. Some books are so boring that we either never finish them or we remember nothing from them after we have finished. Some books can help one person but not another.

Most books, if not all books, can be seen as self-help books. Even so, it is good that most books are not categorized in that way. Leave that designation for the likes of these recent releases: Party for One: Perfectly Portioned Recipes Just for You and Just Diagnosed: A Survivor's Guide to Navigating Cancer.

The magic of books

 In Portable Magic (2022), Emma Smith writes about that little piece of magic that is called a book. It is partly a history of books and partly a collection of trivia about books.

She writes about why Marilyn Monroe liked to be photographed with books (right), especially intellectual books such as Ulysses; the moral questions involved in either publishing, selling or reading Hitler's Mein Kampf;  books bound with human skin, and book burning, among many other topics.

Sometimes she contradicts accepted wisdom. The Bible was not actually the first book Gutenberg printed on his printing press. Charles Dickens did not invent the modern Christmas with the publication of A Christmas Carol. More books are destroyed by those who publish them than by anyone else. (What did you think happened to the books the stores can't sell?)

Much of Smith's book is fascinating. Even more of it is deadly dull. One of the magical things about a book is that one is not required to read every word.

Secrets behind secrets

Everyone has secrets. In Chris Pavone's The Expats (2012), the levels upon levels of secrets could destroy a seemingly typical American family — or perhaps save it.

Dexter and Kate have two kids and what might seem like a settled life when Dexter tells his wife they are moving to Luxembourg. His job, which he has never been specific about, is taking him to that European banking capital to help a secret client improve its security.

Kate has her own secrets. Before she married Dexter, she was a CIA agent, who lived by her wits and sometimes survived by killing people. She thinks that life is behind her, even though she strangely misses it. Being a stay-at-home mother is kind of boring.

Then another American couple seems to force friendship upon them. Kate's suspicions lead her to the discovery that Bill and Julia are FBI agents investigating Dexter for possibly stealing millions.

But this is just the beginning of the secrets that keep unraveling right up to the end of this magnificent early novel from Pavone, who has gone on to become a major author of espionage thrillers.

Start with words

The sooner you put words on paper, the happier you will be.

Jane Smiley, 13 Ways of Looking at the Novel

E.M. Forster

Jane Smiley above is talking about writing a novel, but her wisdom applies to many of us who write, even someone who is just writing a letter or an email. The sooner you put words on paper (or on your computer or phone screen), the happier you will be.

That's because rewriting is almost always easier than writing. Start with words, then find better words. I found this to be true when I was a newspaper reporter. When I didn't know how to start a news story, I just started the story. Soon enough it would become clear to me what was most important and how I should actually start it. Meanwhile, having something on paper made me feel better, even when I knew what I had written so far was garbage.

I have found this to be true in other kinds of writing, as well — newspaper columns, editorials, blog posts, sermons, emails, whatever.

"Writing is writing, not planning," Smiley writes. Not that there is anything wrong with planning. Writing comes easier when you know what you want to say before you begin. I have heard some novelists say they don't start writing until they have an outline. They must know the ending before they can start the beginning. Well, that's OK if that's what works for them.

Others of us have only a vague idea of what we want to write until we start writing. Novelist E.M. Forster said it best, I think: "How can I tell you what I think until I see what I say?"

Why people write

How do you explain the fact that so many people write books that are never published? Or they are published, perhaps even financed by the authors themselves, but read by almost no one?

Thousands of books are published each year, yet thousands more are written and unpublished, or started and never finished, or envisioned in someone's mind but never put down on paper. How many people say something like, "I could write a book ..."?

Alfred Kazin

Perhaps the answer to all such queries can be found in the words of literary critic Alfred Kazin: "In a very real sense, the writer writes in order to teach himself; to understand himself, to satisfy himself; the publishing of his ideas, though it brings gratification, is a curious anticlimax."

The actual publication of a book is, in so many instances, truly anticlimactic. This is probably not true of professional writers, those who actually make their living by writing books. If their books are not published, their families don't eat.

Yet for amateur writers — those who write books to see if they can, those who have a story that is burning inside them, those with ideas bursting to get out — the actual writing, not the illusive possibility of publication, is the true objective.

Underground future

When sci-fi writers contemplate an Earth that is no longer inhabitable, they usually think up — sending people into space to start over on another planet. Hugh Howey thought down instead and put his human survivors into silos buried deep underground.

The first novel in the trilogy is Wool (2012). Why wool? Because capital punishment involves sending condemned prisoners out of the silo to clean the few windows with a wool cloth before the poisoned environment kills them. And the windows often need cleaning, it seems.

Another way of keeping down the population is to have a lottery. the winners being permitted to have a child.

Howey kills off one main character after another in the early chapters, and so when Juliette is sentenced to a cleaning we don't know if she will survive or not. But she survives long enough to discover another silo and eventually inspire a better future for her home silo.

The silo goes down 144 floors, meaning that characters must constantly climb or descend using the tiring staircases. There are no elevators. Juliette works way down in the mechanical area when she is chosen as the new sheriff of the silo. The man who thinks he should be the one actually running the silo objects to her selection, leading to her being sent out to clean.

The people of the silo know nothing of past civilizations before the silo was built. Horses and elephants seem mythical to them. They don't even know that there are 49 other silos, at least until Juliette finds one of them. War there has left few survivors, and war threatens her home silo as well. Can she save either or both silos?

Wool is first-rate science fiction, both a great story and an intriguing imagining of a possible future.