http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/samheath/5614 A fellow who usually says kind things about me recently wrote for his blog that I only believe in those things I can see. Well, he has obviously missed much of what I have written about those things I believe and cannot see. While I consider myself to be a fairly normal &ldquo;show me&rdquo; kind of person when it comes to claims of the supernatural, I cannot see what it is that makes me alive, I cannot see whatever it is that animates at birth and departs at death. But apart from the claims of religion and philosophical sophistry the fact that I am alive is proof enough of there being things real enough though not seen without need of other scientific proofs than the fact they just are. There are a host of things beyond our physical senses, which makes sense because scientists insist a full 94% of the universe is unknown and perhaps even unknowable. That leaves a lot of room for both scientific and philosophical speculation. And while there are mysteries galore in the universe there remain many mysteries right here on our own planet. I applaud those who bend their efforts in searching for Atlantis and the meaning of strange markings in stone throughout the world. I want to know about Atlantis, I want to know about the pyramids, the Sphinx, and Stonehenge; I want to know if there really are ghosts, I want to know where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going, if anywhere. One of my favorite radio programs was &ldquo;I Love a Mystery.&rdquo; And I do love a mystery. But among the many mysteries still open to exploration is that of various writers. In the field of literature there are many mysteries that keep Litt classes in the colleges and universities humming. As a writer and author there are few things I enjoy more than the great works of great writers. But getting into the minds of some of these great writers is often a real challenge; but it is a challenge that draws those like me as the moth to the flame. For example, it isn&rsquo;t always great writing skills that make a great writer. As with any art there are the prerequisites of learning the mechanical discipline of writing; grammar and syntax are essential to communicating thoughts by written expression. We will forgive the lack of these things in a love letter, but we require a writer to have the requisite skills essential to expressing their thoughts. However, I learned long ago to refuse a critique of things written by friends. I found most do not want an honest critique, but wish to be flattered. As to a mystery in literature some have expressed wonder that some years ago I wrote a critique of Harper Lee&rsquo;s &ldquo;To Kill A Mockingbird;&rdquo; but I did so on behalf of children. You see, I found something in the novel other literary critics had missed and I was compelled to address this &ldquo;mystery.&rdquo; In Thomas Mallon&rsquo;s New Yorker column about TKM he wrote: &ldquo;Late in 1960, in commenting on the book&rsquo;s success, Flannery O&rsquo;Connor declared, &lsquo;It&rsquo;s interesting that all the folks that are buying it don&rsquo;t know they&rsquo;re reading a child&rsquo;s book.&rsquo; &ldquo; But I recognized this in TKM, which is why I wrote the critique of the novel on behalf of children. Unlike the preposterous claim for the film that it &ldquo;showed the story through the eyes of children&rdquo; nothing could have been further from the truth. It was an adult film for adults. Some have criticized me for being so favorably inclined toward Harper Lee because of rumors about her personal life and her close association with Truman Capote. But such critics miss the truth of O&rsquo;Connor&rsquo;s pointed comment about TKM being a child&rsquo;s book; and one has to go back and relive their childhood in order to enter into the real story of TKM, a story about and for children seen and understood through the eyes of children; a near impossibility for so many adults that have fallen into the very kind of cynicism addressed by Mr. Raymond in the book, that when children grow up they will no longer weep over injustice. Commenting on why Harper Lee did not write again after the phenomenal success of TKM Mallon wrote: &ldquo;The greatest mystery, of course, is why Lee never published a second novel, and whether she even got very far in writing one. Absent some late-life efflorescence, &lsquo;To Kill a Mockingbird&rsquo; will be it for her, despite a once professed desire to become &lsquo;the Jane Austen of south Alabama&rsquo; and a claim, in the years just after the novel&rsquo;s publication, to be spending between six and twelve hours a day at her desk. As time went on, her editor grew impatient, and her agents became anxious. Eventually, they stopped asking. Shields attributes to Alice the report that, sometime in the nineteen-seventies, &lsquo;just as Nelle was finishing the novel, a burglar broke into her apartment and stole the manuscript.&rsquo; What Lee may share most with Capote&mdash;who was forever promising and not delivering &lsquo;Answered Prayers&rsquo;&mdash;is a kind of flamboyant silence, the typewriter they once passed back and forth under the summer sun having become, for both of them, thirty years later, too hot not to cool down.&rdquo; For my part I concluded Harper Lee did not write again because she had been betrayed by Hollywood. As masterful as the film is in its own right it did not tell the real story of the children; it was not their story and it told an adult story for adults. But the book is a child&rsquo;s book. In writing her literary masterpiece Harper Lee succeeded in going back and re-living her life as a child. And one can only understand and appreciate her story when read through the eyes of a child; something most people would have extreme difficulty trying to do as adults. Sam Clemens was a master at describing childhood; but the characters of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn come alive only when understood through the minds of children. In just such a manner one must read TKM. That so many adults found the novel striking a responsive chord in their hearts, so much so as to win a Pulitzer is a comment on the longing most adults have to go back and re-capture the innocence of their own childhood, a time when good and evil have no ambiguity but right is right and wrong is wrong, a time when fair play discriminates between bullies and good people. In writing my own novel about childhood, &ldquo;Donnie and Jean, an angel&rsquo;s story,&rdquo; I took four very long years to do so. My storyboard was a house filled with the photos and mementos of the past, of Pearl Harbor and WWII, of Bakersfield during that era. No one but another driven writer compelled to tell a story can possibly understand what is involved with depriving yourself of society, secluding yourself, becoming a virtual recluse while actually living the very characters you are describing in a book. And then after some twelve-hundred pages of manuscript finally arriving at the 500 pages to be published. Harper Lee in her one interview said a writer writes to please themselves. And there is no harsher taskmaster for a writer than you. But unlike Harper Lee I have been for the most part a writer of non-fiction. While writing many short pieces of fiction writing a novel was completely out of character for me; and had it not been for so many loving people in my life like my maternal great-grandmother and grandparents I would not have undertaken such a work. But the book is a memorial to these wonderful people and those like Jean who were so important in my life as a child. And this is the thing that motivated Harper Lee to tell her own story. Both Harper Lee and I understand a child&rsquo;s world. We both know some things can only be understood by the wisdom of a child. There is an astonishing kind of understanding we have as children that is too often lost in the process of growing up. But Harper Lee knew only the innocence of a little girl could disperse that lynch mob, even as I understood the civilizing influence Jean had on Donnie. But to go back and try to live our lives as children once more, describing the various people and influences on our lives as children is something very few are driven, compelled to do. So I make no apology for my critique of TKM on behalf of children, and was quite pleased to have been asked to do a book signing of the critique at Russo&rsquo;s Marketplace Books when TKM was the featured book for Bakersfield readers. Children have no voice in their defense of childhood, in defense of cherishing the innocence of childhood except the voice of adults. That Harper Lee and I were blessed by good people in our lives, good people that cherished and encouraged us is something sadly missing in the lives of too many children today. I will continue to write because most of my writing is non-fiction. I would not subject myself to another labor like that of my one novel. Perhaps Harper Lee could not face what she knew it would take for her to tell another story. If that was the case I certainly understand it. Perhaps she felt betrayed by Hollywood, and perhaps she said all she needed to say in her one interview with Roy Newquist in 1964: N. Are you working on another novel at present? Lee: Yes, and it goes slowly, ever so slowly. You know, many writers really don&rsquo;t like to write. I think this the chief complaint of so many. They hate to write; they do it under the compulsion that makes any artist the victim he is, but they loathe the process of sitting down trying to turn thoughts into reasonable sentences. I like to write. Sometimes I&rsquo;m afraid that I like it too much because when I get into work I don&rsquo;t want to leave it. As a result I&rsquo;ll go for days and days without leaving the house or wherever I happen to be. I&rsquo;ll go out long enough to get papers and pick up some food and that&rsquo;s it. It&rsquo;s strange, but instead of hating writing I love it too much&hellip;. If you find Harper Lee contradictory in some of her remarks in this one interview she gave it is not surprising. The human heart in conflict with itself raises many contradictions. For those of us who are compelled to attempt working out these contradictions within ourselves in written expression it is both a mystery and a never ending work in progress; but I continue to love a mystery. A fellow who usually says kind things about me recently wrote for his blog that I only believe in those things I can see. Well, he has obviously missed much of what I have written about those things I believe and cannot see. While I consider myself to be a fairly normal &ldquo;show me&rdquo; kind of person when it comes to claims of the supernatural, I cannot see what it is that makes me alive, I cannot see whatever it is that animates at birth and departs at death. But apart from the claims of religion and philosophical sophistry the fact that I am alive is proof enough of there being things real enough though not seen without need of other scientific proofs than the fact they just are. There are a host of things beyond our physical senses, which makes sense because scientists insist a full 94% of the universe is unknown and perhaps even unknowable. That leaves a lot of room for both scientific and philosophical speculation. And while there are mysteries galore in the universe there remain many mysteries right here on our own planet. I applaud those who bend their efforts in searching for Atlantis and the meaning of strange markings in stone throughout the world. I want to know about Atlantis, I want to know about the pyramids, the Sphinx, and Stonehenge; I want to know if there really are ghosts, I want to know where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going, if anywhere. One of my favorite radio programs was &ldquo;I Love a Mystery.&rdquo; And I do love a mystery. But among the many mysteries still open to exploration is that of various writers. In the field of literature there are many mysteries that keep Litt classes in the colleges and universities humming. As a writer and author there are few things I enjoy more than the great works of great writers. But getting into the minds of some of these great writers is often a real challenge; but it is a challenge that draws those like me as the moth to the flame. For example, it isn&rsquo;t always great writing skills that make a great writer. As with any art there are the prerequisites of learning the mechanical discipline of writing; grammar and syntax are essential to communicating thoughts by written expression. We will forgive the lack of these things in a love letter, but we require a writer to have the requisite skills essential to expressing their thoughts. However, I learned long ago to refuse a critique of things written by friends. I found most do not want an honest critique, but wish to be flattered. As to a mystery in literature some have expressed wonder that some years ago I wrote a critique of Harper Lee&rsquo;s &ldquo;To Kill A Mockingbird;&rdquo; but I did so on behalf of children. You see, I found something in the novel other literary critics had missed and I was compelled to address this &ldquo;mystery.&rdquo; In Thomas Mallon&rsquo;s New Yorker column about TKM he wrote: &ldquo;Late in 1960, in commenting on the book&rsquo;s success, Flannery O&rsquo;Connor declared, &lsquo;It&rsquo;s interesting that all the folks that are buying it don&rsquo;t know they&rsquo;re reading a child&rsquo;s book.&rsquo; &ldquo; But I recognized this in TKM, which is why I wrote the critique of the novel on behalf of children. Unlike the preposterous claim for the film that it &ldquo;showed the story through the eyes of children&rdquo; nothing could have been further from the truth. It was an adult film for adults. Some have criticized me for being so favorably inclined toward Harper Lee because of rumors about her personal life and her close association with Truman Capote. But such critics miss the truth of O&rsquo;Connor&rsquo;s pointed comment about TKM being a child&rsquo;s book; and one has to go back and relive their childhood in order to enter into the real story of TKM, a story about and for children seen and understood through the eyes of children; a near impossibility for so many adults that have fallen into the very kind of cynicism addressed by Mr. Raymond in the book, that when children grow up they will no longer weep over injustice. Commenting on why Harper Lee did not write again after the phenomenal success of TKM Mallon wrote: &ldquo;The greatest mystery, of course, is why Lee never published a second novel, and whether she even got very far in writing one. Absent some late-life efflorescence, &lsquo;To Kill a Mockingbird&rsquo; will be it for her, despite a once professed desire to become &lsquo;the Jane Austen of south Alabama&rsquo; and a claim, in the years just after the novel&rsquo;s publication, to be spending between six and twelve hours a day at her desk. As time went on, her editor grew impatient, and her agents became anxious. Eventually, they stopped asking. Shields attributes to Alice the report that, sometime in the nineteen-seventies, &lsquo;just as Nelle was finishing the novel, a burglar broke into her apartment and stole the manuscript.&rsquo; What Lee may share most with Capote&mdash;who was forever promising and not delivering &lsquo;Answered Prayers&rsquo;&mdash;is a kind of flamboyant silence, the typewriter they once passed back and forth under the summer sun having become, for both of them, thirty years later, too hot not to cool down.&rdquo; For my part I concluded Harper Lee did not write again because she had been betrayed by Hollywood. As masterful as the film is in its own right it did not tell the real story of the children; it was not their story and it told an adult story for adults. But the book is a child&rsquo;s book. In writing her literary masterpiece Harper Lee succeeded in going back and re-living her life as a child. And one can only understand and appreciate her story when read through the eyes of a child; something most people would have extreme difficulty trying to do as adults. Sam Clemens was a master at describing childhood; but the characters of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn come alive only when understood through the minds of children. In just such a manner one must read TKM. That so many adults found the novel striking a responsive chord in their hearts, so much so as to win a Pulitzer is a comment on the longing most adults have to go back and re-capture the innocence of their own childhood, a time when good and evil have no ambiguity but right is right and wrong is wrong, a time when fair play discriminates between bullies and good people. In writing my own novel about childhood, &ldquo;Donnie and Jean, an angel&rsquo;s story,&rdquo; I took four very long years to do so. My storyboard was a house filled with the photos and mementos of the past, of Pearl Harbor and WWII, of Bakersfield during that era. No one but another driven writer compelled to tell a story can possibly understand what is involved with depriving yourself of society, secluding yourself, becoming a virtual recluse while actually living the very characters you are describing in a book. And then after some twelve-hundred pages of manuscript finally arriving at the 500 pages to be published. Harper Lee in her one interview said a writer writes to please themselves. And there is no harsher taskmaster for a writer than you. But unlike Harper Lee I have been for the most part a writer of non-fiction. While writing many short pieces of fiction writing a novel was completely out of character for me; and had it not been for so many loving people in my life like my maternal great-grandmother and grandparents I would not have undertaken such a work. But the book is a memorial to these wonderful people and those like Jean who were so important in my life as a child. And this is the thing that motivated Harper Lee to tell her own story. Both Harper Lee and I understand a child&rsquo;s world. We both know some things can only be understood by the wisdom of a child. There is an astonishing kind of understanding we have as children that is too often lost in the process of growing up. But Harper Lee knew only the innocence of a little girl could disperse that lynch mob, even as I understood the civilizing influence Jean had on Donnie. But to go back and try to live our lives as children once more, describing the various people and influences on our lives as children is something very few are driven, compelled to do. So I make no apology for my critique of TKM on behalf of children, and was quite pleased to have been asked to do a book signing of the critique at Russo&rsquo;s Marketplace Books when TKM was the featured book for Bakersfield readers. Children have no voice in their defense of childhood, in defense of cherishing the innocence of childhood except the voice of adults. That Harper Lee and I were blessed by good people in our lives, good people that cherished and encouraged us is something sadly missing in the lives of too many children today. I will continue to write because most of my writing is non-fiction. I would not subject myself to another labor like that of my one novel. Perhaps Harper Lee could not face what she knew it would take for her to tell another story. If that was the case I certainly understand it. Perhaps she felt betrayed by Hollywood, and perhaps she said all she needed to say in her one interview with Roy Newquist in 1964: N. Are you working on another novel at present? Lee: Yes, and it goes slowly, ever so slowly. You know, many writers really don&rsquo;t like to write. I think this the chief complaint of so many. They hate to write; they do it under the compulsion that makes any artist the victim he is, but they loathe the process of sitting down trying to turn thoughts into reasonable sentences. I like to write. Sometimes I&rsquo;m afraid that I like it too much because when I get into work I don&rsquo;t want to leave it. As a result I&rsquo;ll go for days and days without leaving the house or wherever I happen to be. I&rsquo;ll go out long enough to get papers and pick up some food and that&rsquo;s it. It&rsquo;s strange, but instead of hating writing I love it too much&hellip;. If you find Harper Lee contradictory in some of her remarks in this one interview she gave it is not surprising. The human heart in conflict with itself raises many contradictions. For those of us who are compelled to attempt working out these contradictions within ourselves in written expression it is both a mystery and a never ending work in progress; but I continue to love a mystery. en-us <p><strong><em>Dear Sir, I find your postings to be very informative, intellectual and somewhat provocative (which is what</em>  believe <em>you want) and I read every single word. However, you should know that writing a "booklet" is not the purpose of blogging and very few of my fellow bloggers  will bother to slog all the way through it to the end. I, for one, look forward to receiving your further missives, but I hope they will be MUCH shorter in order to conform to this type of "literature". This is merely a constructive criticism and i will happily follow your future postings.</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>Jim Richards</em></strong></p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/samheath/5614/#c_56302 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/samheath/5614/#c_56302 <p><strong><em>Dear Sir, I find your postings to be very informative, intellectual and somewhat provocative (which is what</em>  believe <em>you want) and I read every single word. However, you should know that writing a "booklet" is not the purpose of blogging and very few of my fellow bloggers  will bother to slog all the way through it to the end. I, for one, look forward to receiving your further missives, but I hope they will be MUCH shorter in order to conform to this type of "literature". This is merely a constructive criticism and i will happily follow your future postings.</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>Jim Richards</em></strong></p> Jimr is right. If I see novels written I just pass them by. They may very well have a lot of good info in them but I will never know because I don't have the time&nbsp;to read it. I have to admit that most of your blogs I have never read because of their length. I'm not trying to be mean. I'm just seconding Jimr's constructive criticism. There are a few other &quot;authors&quot; whom I never read either for the same reason, like JamesKing. I don't think he ever posts any of his own words. He just finds crap about the confederate flag that he can cut and paste onto this site for propaganda purposes. And they are always veeeeerrrryy long. So his blogs don't get much attention either. http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/samheath/5614/#c_56489 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/samheath/5614/#c_56489 Jimr is right. If I see novels written I just pass them by. They may very well have a lot of good info in them but I will never know because I don't have the time&nbsp;to read it. I have to admit that most of your blogs I have never read because of their length. I'm not trying to be mean. I'm just seconding Jimr's constructive criticism. There are a few other &quot;authors&quot; whom I never read either for the same reason, like JamesKing. I don't think he ever posts any of his own words. He just finds crap about the confederate flag that he can cut and paste onto this site for propaganda purposes. And they are always veeeeerrrryy long. So his blogs don't get much attention either. <p><strong><em>Blaze, apparently our admonitions regarding this gentleman's "novels" either fell on deaf ears, or he is only WRITING but not READING as you can see from his latest lengthy post today! "You can lead a horse to water.....etc."</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>Jim Richards</em></strong></p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/samheath/5614/#c_57007 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/samheath/5614/#c_57007 <p><strong><em>Blaze, apparently our admonitions regarding this gentleman's "novels" either fell on deaf ears, or he is only WRITING but not READING as you can see from his latest lengthy post today! "You can lead a horse to water.....etc."</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>Jim Richards</em></strong></p> <p>I&nbsp; agree. Short or long&nbsp; blogs; it doesn't matter. It's the content: and I can learn something new and make new friends, and also, get&nbsp; to experience opinions that are different, and frankly, it open my eyes to different perspectives that I might not have otherwise thought about, The Tehachapi News blog site is cool, ands gives us all an opportunity to voice our opinions, and share our hobbies and thoughts.&nbsp; What I most dislike about it are the people who are just mean spirited and view the world with a &quot;my way, or hit the highway&quot; perspective. I love writing and writers, so blog on. I'll keep writing and sharing just the same.</p> <p>Everyone on this site has a little bit of writer in them, or they wouldn't be here. Blog on!</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/samheath/5614/#c_57208 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/samheath/5614/#c_57208 <p>I&nbsp; agree. Short or long&nbsp; blogs; it doesn't matter. It's the content: and I can learn something new and make new friends, and also, get&nbsp; to experience opinions that are different, and frankly, it open my eyes to different perspectives that I might not have otherwise thought about, The Tehachapi News blog site is cool, ands gives us all an opportunity to voice our opinions, and share our hobbies and thoughts.&nbsp; What I most dislike about it are the people who are just mean spirited and view the world with a &quot;my way, or hit the highway&quot; perspective. I love writing and writers, so blog on. I'll keep writing and sharing just the same.</p> <p>Everyone on this site has a little bit of writer in them, or they wouldn't be here. Blog on!</p> Jmr and Blaze......blogs must be going to your head (you and I spend a lot of time here, obviously). Come on, we can't take ourselves so seriously. No one here is (or are) the "blog police," although I guess there is nothing wrong with being "blog critics." In reading comments about this persons writing, I just sensed quite a bit of arrogance in "us" deciding what is good and not good in a blog. So, does everyone need to conform to the critic's standards? Conformity is not necessarily a virtue. http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/samheath/5614/#c_57226 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/samheath/5614/#c_57226 Jmr and Blaze......blogs must be going to your head (you and I spend a lot of time here, obviously). Come on, we can't take ourselves so seriously. No one here is (or are) the "blog police," although I guess there is nothing wrong with being "blog critics." In reading comments about this persons writing, I just sensed quite a bit of arrogance in "us" deciding what is good and not good in a blog. So, does everyone need to conform to the critic's standards? Conformity is not necessarily a virtue. I agree with Christine, Nyralathotep and Active4People...  Blog on!!! http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/samheath/5614/#c_57228 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/samheath/5614/#c_57228 I agree with Christine, Nyralathotep and Active4People...  Blog on!!!