I’m not sure how apocryphal this is but apparently, soldiers would often walk arm in arm, or hand in hand.

It wasn’t till the trial of Oscar Wilde for homosexuality and the corresponding media coverage that these things were then viewed in a homosexual context and stamped out.

Write what you know doesn’t always mean “you should only write things you know about.” It means “use your own experienced to inform your writing.” In the context of romance, you might not have fallen in love, but you know what it feels like to be in a bad relationship and what it feels like to not have your needs met…so then you explore what it would feel like and what you’d want it to look like.

Honestly, yes, I would anticipate that any romance written by someone who has never had one will inevitably feel inauthentic. (Also, a lot of romance novels feel inauthentic in general.) That is not to say don't write it, as practice will make it better, but it will likely take you more effort to get those parts right.

Your homework is to date people. That will improve your writing. If you have trouble getting dates, just lower your standards.

Also, even if you have a weakness, it does not mean you will not be successful. I read a lot of sci-fi, and it was a male dominated field for a long time. A lot of the writers write just terribly inauthentic female characters, but I can still enjoy the novels.

I'm very sorry for your loss. It sounds like he was a good dad with a great sense of humor.

There is a book by Adams called "Last Chance to See" and it's both funny and a little meloncholy because he visits a lot of endangered animals. I don't have any quotes off the top of my head, but I'd really recommend reading that one if you haven't already. I think it will resonate with love and loss and grieving.

well, I think "write what you know" is for people that want to be great artists... people that are reading fantasy romance novels aren't necessarily interested in "great art." I haven't read that many myself, but I have read a few, and people there are looking for great fantasy. Besides, it doesn't really work that well even for the really good authors... did Frank Herbert write what he knew? He wrote Dune. Not sure what he knew had to do with it. Bram Stoker wrote Dracula. Not sure what he knew had to do with it. I'm thinking that "write what you know" is one avenue to becoming a good writer; there are others.

That really says it all!

The bit with the chocolate bar sticks out the most for me.

Have you read the prequel? Half Broke Horses is a novelization of Rosemary's childhood and the life of her mom- it gives a bit of perspective into how she grew up and you can sort of see why she became such a shit mom. Sort of.

After Glass Castle, I like to read The Summer of My Amazing Luck by Miriam Toews (only that one or a Boy of Good Breeding, all her other books are depressing AF)

Basically.you have to read it like 3 times.

The first time, you just read it normally. A lot of stuff probably won't make sense because it's explained in later chapters or expanded on elsewhere etc. So you're not going to understand anything by reading it slower.

After the first read, you should have an understanding of the general concepts and the sort of main point of the book. Usually there is a problem, a proposed solution, some arguments to support the solution and then a conclusion or wrap up of it all.

Then you read it a second time, more carefully now, with the knowledge of your first read. This time, you should be able to understand better how the author is linking various ideas, identify some threads that continue through the chapters and how the arguments are built.

With the second read you should have a good idea of the problem, how the arguments are structured and how they build together to support whatever the author is trying to say.

In the third read (which tbh, is optional unless you really want to get to the nitty gritty and truly understand) you should read it and take note of the language, specific vocabulary the author uses for concepts, more critically look at the arguments and whether they make sense etc.

I'll just add some additional stuff in case it comes useful. This is a good way to read academic papers etc. You take advantage of the fact that they're structured the same, so if you're looking for relevant research, you can skim a bunch of papers because you know where the problem, arguments, methods, conclusion etc are. And if it's not relevant to you you can move on without needing to read an irrelevant paper in detail.

Once you recognise that certain types of books, papers, journal articles etc. All have a specific structure and purpose, it becomes a lot easier to extract information from them at whatever level of detail you want.

EDIT: regrading your comment that you remember the main idea but missing something, it sounds like you should pay more attention to the arguments. You can flip to the last chapter and get the main idea, but the actual meat and potatoes is actually the arguments of how they came to that idea. For example many philosophers are often summarised by some pithy sentence like "life is pointless" but the core is actually all the work they did to set up their final idea.

I always took it to be a dig at the reader, like you just burned through the most heinous murder scene that took 10 pages, and now you find reading about popular music for 4 pages a tedious ordeal.

This. I write high fantasy adventures for my job, obviously I've never been to other realms or had threesomes with half elf half harpy women. But I do include smaller experiences that I've been through in their lives to ground the epic stuff in a more realistic world. I draw inspiration a lot from my own life and interactions.

That's what immediately came to mind for me as well; I'm currently watching the 2016 miniseries after reading the book last year.

I'm on my first read through of American Psycho now. I'm about 2/3 of the way through.

Patrick's relationship with music is interesting. He gives by far his most detailed (although still artificial feeling) explanations when talking about music, and has his walkman with him throughout the day, even when it would not provide any social benefit. In contrast, he states openly that he does not like live music (he says so while organizing a date, and another time at the U2 concert).

My theory is that he avoids live music for two reasons, the first being practical: incase he needs to give an opinion on a specific performance, he would not have an already written review to rely on, and can't/won't come up with an interpretation of his own.

The second is more abstract, but I think there's something there: music might be the only thing left that can make Patrick feel. For example, during the concert he and Bono lock eyes, and it is a momentary but intense experience for Patrick. These moments of intense feeling may highlight to him his inability to feel in other areas of life, so he avoids them all together. By sticking with CDs, he can rely on reviewers to do the feeling for him, and avoid coming to terms with his own ability to feel.

...or maybe I'm just talking out my ass. Either way, his clear interest in music paired with his disinterest in live music is interesting to think about.

In Pakistan young men can often be seen holding hands while walking together.

This book left me feeling the tragedy. The author's gentle treatment of her abusers and those stuck in that cycle was kind, if very sad.

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou and Educated by Tara Westover are memoirs in which an abused child finds her way out while being sad for the people who abused them and they way they lead their lives.

Then there's Hillbilly Elegy by J.D. Vance, who blames the abusers and those stuck in a cycle of desperation for their own problems. That one left me with a very bad taste in my mouth.

My brilliant friend by elena ferrante. haven’t read anything like it, haven’t read anything better than it. ignore the book cover, their marketing team is horrible and makes it look like one of those $2 trashy romances.

In Dickens' time? Yes, there absolutely was.

If you really get down to it, there was not concept of being gay. It was recognized that people did have sex with other people of the same gender, but there was no concept of a gay or straight sexual orientation.

[removed]

Does anyone actually likes one of the most celebrated novels in history???

I don't like, so how can anyone else like it???

True although the ghost writer of 1st case didn’t exactly sell themselves to me 😂

I’ve picked up Janice Hallett The Appeal at the library today for after the Harlan book. I’m hoping it’ll be good too. The blurb has interested me anyway.

It's a memoir, non-fiction.

Haven't read it in a while but I loved it. I was also a teen struggling with mental health issues and unresolved trauma.

Maybe I'll add it to the reread list this year

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

May have to give it a look. I could use something light after spending the last month slogging through Fairy Tale.

Little known fact, Tolkien was genuinely a half-elf who had lived through the fall of Mordor...

I don't think that "Write what you know" means that you cannot use your imagination. Otherwise fantasy and sci fi couldn't exist at all, because no one has experienced them.

I have always viewed it more as a general concept to give you a starting point. It's not a rule. It's not a restriction. It's an encouragement to include things that you know into what you write, because they are things that you understand more deeply.

Also, if it's your first book then it's totally okay if it's not any good either! It's a learning experience. Most first books aren't! Just dive in and tell the story that is grabbing you and see where it leads. I think it's better if you don't overthink it.

I've known a few people who have tried to write and they just self-edited their entire story out of existence before they hardly started. Write first, edit later.