So I've switched from my usual reading routine of plowing through the classics and the famous names (Tolkien, Hemingway, Capote, etc.) and taken up a totally different style. I bought an audio book of George R. R. Martin's A Game of Thrones. Personally, I think this is ideal if you just want to enjoy a book but if you're more into analyzing writing style (which I have become) it gets a bit boring. However, it's easier to picture the story in your head without having to read the book.
But of course, what everyone (including myself) will talk about concerning this book is the controversy. Yes, there's a lot of gore and a lot of sex. I expected that coming in because I had already watched most of the TV series. But as I got farther and farther into the book I realized that none of it was unnecessary. Sure, the story could have done without so much graphic gory detail or descriptions that were borderline pornographic but I feel like it would have lost something. The detail that Martin committed to every scene was astounding, and with the more uncomfortable scenes came a sense of authenticity. It drives home the point that life in this made-up world is hard, you have to be tough and gritty to survive. Because of it I was easily drawn in, the world became more believable.
One of the most remarkable things about this story though, is the storyline. Even before I'd watched the show or knew the story I knew it was complicated. Complicated doesn't even cover it. It's astounding to me how so much story can fit inside one person's head. I mean, I thought J.K. Rowling's creation of an entire wizarding world was incredible, and even she had an entire real world to build off of. This story is completely made from scratch, with countries and cities and people that seem so utterly real. They have desires and wishes but their behavior isn't so straightforward like it is in other writing. It seems more human and believable. How any writer can pull that off is beyond me.
Over the summer I hope to read more of these books (like, actually read) because his writing style is interesting as well. It can be easily observed that a lot of thought and research went into this book by the way he describes the settings, clothing, and mannerisms. Every detail is purposeful, and sometimes even the tiniest thing can end up being the most important.
If I were to take away one thing from his writing I would definitely say the storyline. While his prose is beautiful, it can become a bit hard to read. This is why the audio book is good because you don't end up stuck on one line and it gives you more opportunity to focus on the story in its entirety. This may be why I found it so astounding because not only does he jump focus from one end of the world to the other, but he keeps it all in context. One minute he might be talking about Robb Stark in the north and his plans to fight the Lannisters and then it will jump to Tywin Lannister thinking about defeating Robb and then John Snow and his beef with the Lannisters for killing his father and then Daenerys Targaryen in the far south planning to overthrow the family currently holding the throne which just so happens to be...you guessed it...the Lannisters!
His breadth of characters and setting is amazing and anyone looking to improve their character building or fixing their plot holes should definitely read this book. That being said, if you're looking for an easy read this is not it. But if you're looking for something incredibly fun and engaging this is definitely the book for you!
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Capote: A Christmas Memory
After reading Truman Capote's "A Christmas Memory", my view on writing short stories is forever changed. While the story itself is long (about 20-some pages), the content is short and sweet. The story focuses around a young boy and an old woman who both live in the same family, though we're not quite sure how they're related. The family has labeled them as 'different' and excluded them in a way, so they find solace in each other. What I find so beautiful about this friendship is that while she could be sixty and he could be ten, they pay no mind to the fifty-some years that separate them, they see themselves as equals. They shop together, bake Christmas cakes together, even get a little tipsy together while trying to finish the last of the expensive liquor they bought to put into the cakes. The rude awakening during this scene occurs when the rest of the family finds the woman and this young boy drunk in the kitchen. They begin to scold the woman for giving the boy alcohol which seems to be the appropriate response, but in the context of the story I was so trapped in the perspective of the boy that my first reaction to it was why would they do that? Personally, I think this speaks to how well the story is written. The character of the boy was portrayed so well that you begin to think like him just enough that incidences like this occur.
Capote once said that this story was one of the best examples of style that he'd ever written, and I certainly agree, but I think it also has characters with the most depth. He never says too much about anyone besides the two main characters, but those two seem like they could truly be real people. As I've studied Capote, I've found that this is where his talents truly lie. Even when he's writing about real people he portrays them as whole and complete people. The older figure in the story, for example, shows maturity as well as a childish side that makes her age unimportant. Within that is also the effortless friendship that seems so natural to both parties that makes the story so much more fun to read.
Lastly, one of my favorite quotes ever comes out of this story. It describes the two cracking and shelling pecans to make fruitcake, the usage of imagery is absolutely gorgeous.
Capote once said that this story was one of the best examples of style that he'd ever written, and I certainly agree, but I think it also has characters with the most depth. He never says too much about anyone besides the two main characters, but those two seem like they could truly be real people. As I've studied Capote, I've found that this is where his talents truly lie. Even when he's writing about real people he portrays them as whole and complete people. The older figure in the story, for example, shows maturity as well as a childish side that makes her age unimportant. Within that is also the effortless friendship that seems so natural to both parties that makes the story so much more fun to read.
Lastly, one of my favorite quotes ever comes out of this story. It describes the two cracking and shelling pecans to make fruitcake, the usage of imagery is absolutely gorgeous.
“Our backs hurt from gathering them: how hard they were to find (the main crop having been shaken off the trees and sold by the orchard’s owners, who are not us) among the concealing leaves, the frosted, deceiving grass. Caarackle! A cheery crunch, scraps of miniature thunder sound as the shells collapse and the golden mound of sweet oily ivory meat mounts in the milk-glass bowl...The kitchen is growing dark. Dusk turns the window into a mirror: our reflections mingle with the rising moon as we work by the fireside in the firelight.”
This is certainly something I'd love to emulate someday. If anyone is interested in writing quality short stories I beg you to read this it is truly a masterpiece in terms of character development and style.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Hemingway part 3: A breakdown of "Snows"
As I've mentioned before, probably my favorite story of Hemingway's so far is "The Snows of Kilimanjaro". So I've decided to focus on three elements of the story: the exposition, formatting, and point of view. It's probably his most uniquely formatted as well as chilling. It's about a dying man and his wife who are on a safari in Africa (a common theme for Hemingway). However, to preface the story there's a small blurb at the top of the page that reads "Kilimanjaro is a snow-covered mountain, 19,710 feet high, and is said to be the highest mountain in Africa. Its western summit is called the Masai "Ngàje Ngài," the House of God. Close to the western summit there is the dried and frozen carcass of a leopard. No one had explained what the leopard was seeking at that altitude.". It's a bit chilling, and it gives the introduction a bit of a darker tone. It would make sense then that the first sentence "'The marvellous thing is that it's painless,' he said. 'That's how you know when it starts.'". We can readily assume that whomever he is, he is probably talking about death. As you read on you discover he's lying in a cot underneath a mimosa tree, (which according to Wikipedia is actually indigenous to southern Asia, I wonder if that's important) and talking to his wife. Their relationship is indroduced as strained and they seem to argue a lot. However, it seems that he is dying and she's standing in the way of the one thing he wants: a drink.
From there we're introduced to Hemingway's first change in format. He switches to writing in italics (in this book it's italicized, originally it may have been something else) and proceeds to describe in detail a scene completely unrelated to the story he's presented. When I read the story, it seemed like he might connect the two images but the second time around it seems to be memories of the dying man. If that is the case, what purpose do they serve and what exactly is happening to him? They could just be memories or flashbacks, but I like to think it's more of a drawn-out way of showing the reader that the man is going to die. Some people say that when you die your life flashes before your eyes, and I believe that's what Hemingway is trying to show but over a longer span of time. This way, he gets to recognize his regrets - whether it's something he did or didn't do. I find that to be a fascinating idea. Humans seem to be fascinated with death, coming up with all sorts of ways to explain it or describe it because nobody can actually talk about what death is like. Therefore writers and artists have to conceptualize on their own about what death must be like, and this is Hemingway's version.
The third element that makes this story so fascinating is that it's all written in the third person, but you also see flashes of what's happening in the man's head. When Hemingway changes format is when we see this change in perspective as well as a few pieces during the story that's happening in the present. His perspective is used mostly to provide exposition or background information about his wife. Additionally you catch a glimpse of what death feels like from his perspective, which Hemingway describes as a figure physically creeping on top of him that smelled of rot and other foul things. I just loved that, how Hemingway again captures this idea in multiple ways. As you've probably guessed the story ends with the man dying in the middle of the night. What Hemingway does is very interesting. The end of the story begins with the man being carried out of his tent to a small cart where he takes a ride with a man named Compton. It's a beautifully written scene full of gorgeous landscapes, but the curious part of it is the last sentence.
"Compile turned is head and grinned and pointed and there, ahead, all he could see, as wide as all the world, great, high, and unbelievably white in the sun, was the square top of Kilimanjaro. And then he knew that was where he was going." At this point, it all seems to click, the title, the blurb at the beginning, the ideas of death. Interestingly enough, Hemingway switches the perspective in the last paragraph to that of the wife, while still in 3rd person, because she is the one that finds the man dead. In the end, Hemingway expertly ties the whole story together with a nice little bow at the close of this story. He introduces the reader with just the right tone, experiements with format and perspective, and weaves these macabre tones thoughout the entire work. I hope you can see why it's one of my favorites!
From there we're introduced to Hemingway's first change in format. He switches to writing in italics (in this book it's italicized, originally it may have been something else) and proceeds to describe in detail a scene completely unrelated to the story he's presented. When I read the story, it seemed like he might connect the two images but the second time around it seems to be memories of the dying man. If that is the case, what purpose do they serve and what exactly is happening to him? They could just be memories or flashbacks, but I like to think it's more of a drawn-out way of showing the reader that the man is going to die. Some people say that when you die your life flashes before your eyes, and I believe that's what Hemingway is trying to show but over a longer span of time. This way, he gets to recognize his regrets - whether it's something he did or didn't do. I find that to be a fascinating idea. Humans seem to be fascinated with death, coming up with all sorts of ways to explain it or describe it because nobody can actually talk about what death is like. Therefore writers and artists have to conceptualize on their own about what death must be like, and this is Hemingway's version.
The third element that makes this story so fascinating is that it's all written in the third person, but you also see flashes of what's happening in the man's head. When Hemingway changes format is when we see this change in perspective as well as a few pieces during the story that's happening in the present. His perspective is used mostly to provide exposition or background information about his wife. Additionally you catch a glimpse of what death feels like from his perspective, which Hemingway describes as a figure physically creeping on top of him that smelled of rot and other foul things. I just loved that, how Hemingway again captures this idea in multiple ways. As you've probably guessed the story ends with the man dying in the middle of the night. What Hemingway does is very interesting. The end of the story begins with the man being carried out of his tent to a small cart where he takes a ride with a man named Compton. It's a beautifully written scene full of gorgeous landscapes, but the curious part of it is the last sentence.
"Compile turned is head and grinned and pointed and there, ahead, all he could see, as wide as all the world, great, high, and unbelievably white in the sun, was the square top of Kilimanjaro. And then he knew that was where he was going." At this point, it all seems to click, the title, the blurb at the beginning, the ideas of death. Interestingly enough, Hemingway switches the perspective in the last paragraph to that of the wife, while still in 3rd person, because she is the one that finds the man dead. In the end, Hemingway expertly ties the whole story together with a nice little bow at the close of this story. He introduces the reader with just the right tone, experiements with format and perspective, and weaves these macabre tones thoughout the entire work. I hope you can see why it's one of my favorites!
Sunday, March 8, 2015
More Hemingway!!
The past few weeks I've been speeding through this book! I've reached a lot of the shorter stories, some of which are one or two pages long. One of which was incredibly fascinating, it's called "Old Man at the Bridge" and it describes a conversation between a narrator and on old man. As the story progresses Hemingway adds subtle details to the picture, but he doesn't actually tell a story. This begs the question: what makes a story? In this case, there isn't a solid story that is told but rather bits and pieces that could potentially make a story. In a way Hemingway relies on the reader to form the story themselves. You're given information, and what you do with that information creates the story for you as a reader.
Another story that I absolutely fell in love with was "The Snows of Kilimanjaro". It's beautifully written and flips between past and present in the form of flashbacks. Hemingway flips between the two without warning, which follows the stream of consciousness of a dying man. Personally, I love that kind of writing because it's so human. It's abstract, but it's a relatable human experience that doesn't need a lot of explanation. For example Hemingway jumps between one simply with: "Now in his mind he saw a railway station at Karagatch and he was standing with his pack and that was the headlight of the Simplon-Orient cutting the dark now and he was leaving Thrace then after the retreat." There's not a lot of explanation, but Hemingway forces you to go along this journey with him. I'd like to learn how to write like that because it forces the reader to suspend their belief and allow the writer to guide them along this journey they've created.
Additionally, I think that the way Hemingway describes death in the story is so abstract and yet so clear. Throughout the story the main character seems to feel waves of death wash over him, and has moments of certainty that he is going to die. It's a terrifying concept, but he's totally calm about it. He accepts death and remembers the things he'd always wanted to do. However, it isn't until the end that Hemingway shows the scary side of death, when the main character fights and doesn't want to die. He describes death creeping up on his bed, smelling of rot and paralyzing him with fear, but that too passes.
Hemingway ends the story with his wife finding him dead, after he has this beautiful vision of journeying across the countryside. I found one of the most interesting parts of the story was the fact that his wife was trying to take care of him, but denying that he's going to die. He has this internal struggle with death, fighting off these horrible visions and immersing himself in his memories. However, his wife totally denies his struggle until she finds him dead. The reader never really learns how she reacts to this because it ends so abruptly, but it certainly says a lot about perspective in writing and in real life.
As a whole, I think I've found my favorite story in this book! I hope I find more gems like this as I continue reading.
Another story that I absolutely fell in love with was "The Snows of Kilimanjaro". It's beautifully written and flips between past and present in the form of flashbacks. Hemingway flips between the two without warning, which follows the stream of consciousness of a dying man. Personally, I love that kind of writing because it's so human. It's abstract, but it's a relatable human experience that doesn't need a lot of explanation. For example Hemingway jumps between one simply with: "Now in his mind he saw a railway station at Karagatch and he was standing with his pack and that was the headlight of the Simplon-Orient cutting the dark now and he was leaving Thrace then after the retreat." There's not a lot of explanation, but Hemingway forces you to go along this journey with him. I'd like to learn how to write like that because it forces the reader to suspend their belief and allow the writer to guide them along this journey they've created.
Additionally, I think that the way Hemingway describes death in the story is so abstract and yet so clear. Throughout the story the main character seems to feel waves of death wash over him, and has moments of certainty that he is going to die. It's a terrifying concept, but he's totally calm about it. He accepts death and remembers the things he'd always wanted to do. However, it isn't until the end that Hemingway shows the scary side of death, when the main character fights and doesn't want to die. He describes death creeping up on his bed, smelling of rot and paralyzing him with fear, but that too passes.
Hemingway ends the story with his wife finding him dead, after he has this beautiful vision of journeying across the countryside. I found one of the most interesting parts of the story was the fact that his wife was trying to take care of him, but denying that he's going to die. He has this internal struggle with death, fighting off these horrible visions and immersing himself in his memories. However, his wife totally denies his struggle until she finds him dead. The reader never really learns how she reacts to this because it ends so abruptly, but it certainly says a lot about perspective in writing and in real life.
As a whole, I think I've found my favorite story in this book! I hope I find more gems like this as I continue reading.
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
New book!!
A few weeks ago I started a new book, or rather, a set of stories. I bought a set of Hemingway short stories and I've been so looking forward to reading it! The book starts with The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber, which is totally unlike what I expected from Hemingway. The story itself begins with people having lunch and talking about hunting. Seems fairly innocent and high class right? Well, Hemingway does a fabulous job of slowly adding details instead of writing paragraphs of exposition. Eventually, it's obvious that the story takes place in Africa. Francis Macomber is a young hunter who is on a safari with his wife Margot and a more seasoned hunter named Wilson.
While the story itself is about hunting and their adventures in Africa, there's also a sense of drama. About a quarter way through we learn about how Francis tried unsuccessfully to kill a lion, the first time he's ever tried it. Wilson in forgiving, saying that once the lion bleeds out they'll be able to properly kill it. His wife, however is incredibly displeased. She's convinced that Francis is a coward and tries to spite him as much as she can, namely it is implied Margot spends a night with Wilson.
What I love about Hemingway is that he doesn't hold the reader's hand. He doesn't take up pages with exposition or specific details. Hemingway's writing is detailed, but concise. I love the way he describes the exotic animals and landscapes as well. Through his descriptions he made it clear that the men didn't quite belong in the savannah.
As a whole I really enjoyed this story and I think I could learn some important tools by reading more of the stories. I'm not moving on to The Capitol of the World, which has probably my favorite opening phrase: "Madrid is full of boys named Paco..."
While the story itself is about hunting and their adventures in Africa, there's also a sense of drama. About a quarter way through we learn about how Francis tried unsuccessfully to kill a lion, the first time he's ever tried it. Wilson in forgiving, saying that once the lion bleeds out they'll be able to properly kill it. His wife, however is incredibly displeased. She's convinced that Francis is a coward and tries to spite him as much as she can, namely it is implied Margot spends a night with Wilson.
What I love about Hemingway is that he doesn't hold the reader's hand. He doesn't take up pages with exposition or specific details. Hemingway's writing is detailed, but concise. I love the way he describes the exotic animals and landscapes as well. Through his descriptions he made it clear that the men didn't quite belong in the savannah.
As a whole I really enjoyed this story and I think I could learn some important tools by reading more of the stories. I'm not moving on to The Capitol of the World, which has probably my favorite opening phrase: "Madrid is full of boys named Paco..."
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Cold Mountain: part 3
So I've finally finished Cold Mountain by Charles Frazier. It took a lot longer than I meant it to but I enjoyed every minute of it. I wont give the story away, that would take too much time anyway, but I would like to discuss the writing style.
The style this book is written in is unlike any book I've read. For starters, you will find absolutely to direct quotations in the entire book. All of the dialogue is written indirectly, or like this:
—Why did you never have any? Inman said.
—Just happened that way.
It's so unique and I find it fascinating that he would make a choice like that. Perhaps he wants to maintain a sort of flow in the story by not bluntly separating the dialogue from the rest of the story, or perhaps he simply doesn't understand how quotation marks work (it's okay Charles Frazier, grammar is hard). Either way, I think it's such a unique choice that really separates his writing from most styles.
Aside from his grammatical choices, Frazier has a gorgeous writing style. He will take paragraphs to describe scenes in the most specific detail, but doesn't lose track of the story. The story itself is set during the Civil War and life is hard, gritty, and dark. There's so much death and suffering surrounding one of the main characters, but Frazier mixes the harshness of the story with beautiful surroundings of the land and the slow turning of the seasons. One of my favorite passages clearly depicts the harshness of life during the time period and really strips the world of romanticism. One of the main characters, Inman, has just watched a mother bear fall off a cliff and is contemplating what to do with her cub:
To his credit, Inman could imagine reaching up and grabbing the cub by the scruff of its neck and saying, We're kin. Then taking his knapsack off and thrusting the cub in with only its head sticking out. Then putting the pack back on and walking away, the bear looking about from this new perspective as bright-eyed as a papoose. Give it to Ada as a pet. Or if she turned him away, he might raise it to be a part-tame bear, and when full grown it might stop by his hermit cabin on Cold Mountain now and again for company. Bring its wife and children so that in years to come Inman could have an animal family if no other. That would be one way this dead bear calamity might be rectified. What Inman did, though, was all he could do. He picked up the LeMat's and shot the cub in the head and watched it pause as its grip on the tree failed and it fell to ground.
As terrible as it sounds, it shows a clear struggle of morality. He wants to take the cub in as his own, but he knows that he also has to eat to survive. I think this really captures the whole idea of the book and how ones own life matters much more than other wishes.
Overall, I think the book was written with gorgeous imagery and incredibly realistic characters. It's a story about life that feels as though it should never end, but of course it has to. I felt as though Frazier wrapped it up quickly and neatly but it lost its sense of harshness, and seemed a bit more like a "happily ever after". However, the main body of the story is spectacular. There's a kind of bluntness that Frazier writes with that makes the story and the characters seem so real. There are struggles of morality as well as struggles of survival. The story is beautifully crafted and detailed beyond belief.
If you like historical fiction or simply want to read some really great writing, I would seriously recommend this book.
The style this book is written in is unlike any book I've read. For starters, you will find absolutely to direct quotations in the entire book. All of the dialogue is written indirectly, or like this:
—Why did you never have any? Inman said.
—Just happened that way.
It's so unique and I find it fascinating that he would make a choice like that. Perhaps he wants to maintain a sort of flow in the story by not bluntly separating the dialogue from the rest of the story, or perhaps he simply doesn't understand how quotation marks work (it's okay Charles Frazier, grammar is hard). Either way, I think it's such a unique choice that really separates his writing from most styles.
Aside from his grammatical choices, Frazier has a gorgeous writing style. He will take paragraphs to describe scenes in the most specific detail, but doesn't lose track of the story. The story itself is set during the Civil War and life is hard, gritty, and dark. There's so much death and suffering surrounding one of the main characters, but Frazier mixes the harshness of the story with beautiful surroundings of the land and the slow turning of the seasons. One of my favorite passages clearly depicts the harshness of life during the time period and really strips the world of romanticism. One of the main characters, Inman, has just watched a mother bear fall off a cliff and is contemplating what to do with her cub:
To his credit, Inman could imagine reaching up and grabbing the cub by the scruff of its neck and saying, We're kin. Then taking his knapsack off and thrusting the cub in with only its head sticking out. Then putting the pack back on and walking away, the bear looking about from this new perspective as bright-eyed as a papoose. Give it to Ada as a pet. Or if she turned him away, he might raise it to be a part-tame bear, and when full grown it might stop by his hermit cabin on Cold Mountain now and again for company. Bring its wife and children so that in years to come Inman could have an animal family if no other. That would be one way this dead bear calamity might be rectified. What Inman did, though, was all he could do. He picked up the LeMat's and shot the cub in the head and watched it pause as its grip on the tree failed and it fell to ground.
As terrible as it sounds, it shows a clear struggle of morality. He wants to take the cub in as his own, but he knows that he also has to eat to survive. I think this really captures the whole idea of the book and how ones own life matters much more than other wishes.
Overall, I think the book was written with gorgeous imagery and incredibly realistic characters. It's a story about life that feels as though it should never end, but of course it has to. I felt as though Frazier wrapped it up quickly and neatly but it lost its sense of harshness, and seemed a bit more like a "happily ever after". However, the main body of the story is spectacular. There's a kind of bluntness that Frazier writes with that makes the story and the characters seem so real. There are struggles of morality as well as struggles of survival. The story is beautifully crafted and detailed beyond belief.
If you like historical fiction or simply want to read some really great writing, I would seriously recommend this book.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Cold Mountain: part 2
Alright! Now I'm about a quarter through Cold Mountain and have made bounds since my last post. At this point there is now a connection between Inman and Ada (the two main characters). As Inman wanders over the country, running into all types of strange folk on the way, he recalls meeting Ada at church and an encounter with her before he goes off to war. I think it's really interesting how the author presents this though. Inman is walking for days on end and his mind wanders naturally, while he obviously loves Ada he isn't thinking about her constantly and doesn't start thinking about her when it's convenient to the story. I really enjoy this style of writing because there's no haste to it, the character development is natural as well as the development of their relationship. Frazier slips it in just as thoughts in a characters mind, there's no rush to develop a relationship or a clear character. It's as if you're actually meeting that character, you learn things about them like you were actually spending time with them and not for the convenience of the plot.
Another detail that Frazier adds is his use of dialogue. He only ever uses indirect dialogue, and when he does use actual speech he doesn't use quotations. I'm not really sure what that says about the story, but I think it's an interesting choice especially for a novel. Frazier does cool little things with the text, each chapter is from either Ada or Inman's perspective and each title is from a sentence somewhere in the chapter, I haven't read far enough to tell if it's a remarkably important sentence in the chapter but I find it clever nonetheless. I truly enjoy Frazier's writing style, it's something that would be so much fun to play with in my own writing. Overall this book is fascinating and I can't wait to get to the heart of this story. If you loved the Little House books by Laura Ingalls Wilder as a child, you will love this book, and if you didn't you will probably still love this book. Anyone who is interested in historical fiction, war, or just creating realistic characters should read this book. I think there is a lot to be learned from writing like this.
Another detail that Frazier adds is his use of dialogue. He only ever uses indirect dialogue, and when he does use actual speech he doesn't use quotations. I'm not really sure what that says about the story, but I think it's an interesting choice especially for a novel. Frazier does cool little things with the text, each chapter is from either Ada or Inman's perspective and each title is from a sentence somewhere in the chapter, I haven't read far enough to tell if it's a remarkably important sentence in the chapter but I find it clever nonetheless. I truly enjoy Frazier's writing style, it's something that would be so much fun to play with in my own writing. Overall this book is fascinating and I can't wait to get to the heart of this story. If you loved the Little House books by Laura Ingalls Wilder as a child, you will love this book, and if you didn't you will probably still love this book. Anyone who is interested in historical fiction, war, or just creating realistic characters should read this book. I think there is a lot to be learned from writing like this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)