If you want just one "golden rule" of writing...

...and a very good one, too, here it is:

Intend every word you write.

This is the golden rule formulated by veteran blogger Eric Cummings, who has written a guest post on the subject of writing rules for Write to Done, a blog about the art and craft of writing.

Cummings says he came up with this rule, or, rather, he learned it on the second day of the creative writing class he was taking, as his story about a farmer and his mule was read aloud.

I had spent some time writing it, one day rewriting it, and another afternoon editing it. I was nervous but confident. It was a good story.

The story began, “Light barely flooded into the room.”

“Wait.” Less than a sentence in, the Professor stopped the student reading my story. He turned to me, “Eric, what do you mean, ‘Light barely flooded into the room.’?”

“Well, it is sunrise, and the sun is coming up.” I said.

“But how can light ‘barely flood’ in? Do you mean the word flood?”

Light could either barely trickle in, or flood in, but it couldn’t do both. The lesson wasn’t that I needed to be clearer and more precise with my language–though I did–it was that I didn’t know what my words meant. I didn’t own the words on the page. The questions the professor asked us over the course of the quarter were always the same, “What do you mean?” “What did you intend here?” or “Why did you use this word?”

And so Cummings learned that writers must intend every word they write.

Read his enriching post here. (Enriching? Yes, you will come away feeling richer.)

In the same post, Cummings also provides seven tips for what he refers to as implementing intentionality behind your writing, to better convey what you want to say. Pay special attention to No. 2 and No. 7.

• Also, check out the "Popular Posts" list on the Write to Done site.

• ADDITIONAL READING: From the Daily Writing Tips blog — 10 Techniques for More Precise Writing and from Ali Luke's blog — Eight Secrets Which Writers Won’t Tell You.

When an author was forced to remove an entire chapter for legal reasons

Recently discovered, a Facebook "note" I had posted on September 8, 2011:

In my 50-plus years of reading, this is the first time I have come across a book from which one chapter has been removed, only in the Indian edition, for legal reasons.

Here's the Publisher's Note from The Beautiful and the Damned:

"The first chapter of this book (pages 27-71) 'The Great Gatsby: A Rich Man in India' has been removed in accordance with an injunction order passed by the Civil Court, Silchar in a suit for defamation, Shri Kishorendu Gupta and The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) Versus Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Pvt Ltd and Others (Suit No. 19 of 2011)."

• For a review of the book in The Guardian by Amit Chaudhuri, go here.

The future of newspaper journalism

In Dubai's Khaleej Times, which celebrates its 35th anniversary today, my article on what the next 35 years hold for newspaper journalism:

Outlook editor Krishna Prasad has reproduced this piece on his New York Times-acclaimed blog, "sans serif": "Will TV channels lose out to newspapers by 2050?".

• The article has also been reproduced on the Pakistan Journalism portal, whose co-founder is Stephen Manuel (Steve, who lives in California, was my colleague at Khaleej Times many years ago): "Don't dwell on the past; digital is the future".

Roger Ebert: A film critic like no other

He was the first film critic to win the Pulitzer Prize. For more than 40 years he worked at one newspaper, The Chicago Sun-Times. He was hailed as the best-known film reviewer of his generation, and one of the most trusted.

So it is no wonder that when Roger Ebert died yesterday at the ago of 70, even President Barack Obama was moved to say that for a generation of Americans ... “Roger was the movies. When he didn’t like a film, he was honest; when he did, he was effusive — capturing the unique power of the movies to take us somewhere magical.”

Read the New York Times tribute to Roger Ebert here.

• ADDITIONAL READING: Cancer surgery cost him his lower jaw and his ability to speak — but not his ability to write. To know more, read this magnificent profile of Roger Ebert in Esquire magazine.

• EXTERNAL READING: Jai Arjun Singh, a New Delhi-based freelance writer and journalist whose writing I admire, has published a post about his brief encounter with Roger Ebert. Read it on his blog, Jabberwock, here. 

• EXTERNAL READING: Actor Nawazuddin Siddiqui's Ebert connection: "Remembering Roger Ebert". (Thanks for the tip-off, Noyon Jyoti Parasara.)

• EXTERNAL READING: Read Roger Ebert's 20 best reviews here. 

DEEP PAL

UPDATE (April 6, 2013): Commits alumnus DEEP PAL (Class of 2003), who is in the U.S. for his master's in International Security Studies at the Elliott School in Washington, D.C., sent this via e-mail:

Here's some more on Roger Ebert — a series of three articles he wrote while in India in 1999, including a delightful account of his first experience of watching a Hindi potboiler [Taal] in a cinema hall.

I was introduced to Ebert by [Cinema Studies professor at Commits] Tummala Sir about 11-12 years ago. Since then every time a new movie arrived in theatres, or I heard of another oh-but-you-must-see-this-classic, I would Google Ebert and the movie's name. And he never lied to me. That was the beauty of his craft. Not only the brutal honesty that he succinctly put in a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on his TV show, but also the poignancy and sincerity that he brought to his writing in print.

Ebert didn't have the trappings that knowledge often brings, which is why his write-up on movie viewing in India is so exquisite. He is childlike in his approach to new experiences, which is why he compares in all seriousness and sincerity the snacks available at a Hyderabad single screen theatre with that in a cinema hall in Michigan.

And in this sincerity and zest he and Tummala Sir lived a very similar life — both refused to accept what life had meted out to them; both decided instead to take life by the horns, turn it around, and make every moment a celebration and a gift. It's surprising how  similar their approach to life was. Is that the power of the spirit? Is it the power of cinema? I'm not sure. But I am glad I had them both in my life for some time. And of course, the gift of movies that they brought for me.

I hope you and your students will enjoy reading these articles:

• CALCUTTA JOURNAL ENTRY: DAY 1

• 1999 CALCUTTA FILM FESTIVAL

• GOING TO THE MOVIES IN INDIA 

UPDATE (April 14, 2013): Maria Popova, my favourite blogger, pays tribute to Roger Ebert (there's also a link to the late film critic's "unforgettable TED talk"): "RIP, Roger Ebert: The Beloved Critic on Writing, Life, and Mortality".

UPDATE (April 19, 2013): Roy Peter Clark, a guru of journalism whose writing I admire deeply, has also paid tribute to Roger Ebert. Read his post here: "Why Roger Ebert was a good writer".

"A good day job takes the pressure off the writing"

Abraham Verghese, the author of Cutting for Stone and other best-selling books, is also a full-time physician and professor of medicine. How does he manage both careers?

Verghese, pictured left, writes in a column for The Washington Post that when he is asked for writing advice, he offers this:

Get a good day job, one that you love, preferably one that consumes you and that puts your boat out in the river of life. Then be passionate about it, give it your all, get good at what you do. All that gives you plenty to write about, and it also takes the pressure off the writing. Counting on writing to pay the mortgage or your kid’s college tuition is decidedly risky.

Learn more about the good doctor for whom time-management seemingly poses no challenges: "Abraham Verghese describes his writing life".

• Photo courtesy: The Washington Post

The art of reviewing a book (and it's an art — make no mistake about it)

At a time when unpaid bloggers online are gaining influence at the expense of professionals, we need to convince the public that good reviewers exist, and are still worth listening to. Otherwise, our readers will continue to look to the internet for news, and the art of the book review will join the typewriter in the trashcan of Time.

These are the heart-felt words of author Joanne Harris, writing in The Independent. To understand better the art of literary criticism, and to know why you should not give away the plot in your review, read her illuminating column in its entirety here: "Criticism is fine, but do you have to spoil the plot?"

Children's novels? Actually, they are for everybody

The Wind in the Willows, which I first read in the '90s in Dubai; Charlotte's Web, which I read last year while on vacation in Coorg; The Phantom Tollbooth, which I read on my Kindle Fire in January while holidaying in Satem, my wife's village in Gujarat; and Bridge to Terabithia, which I have just finished reading — they are all labelled "children's literature", but they are such marvellous books (with so many memorable characters and enduring stories) that book-lovers of all ages will enjoy reading them.

• Additional reading: "Why you must read".

Yes, Justice Katju, journalists today do need minimum qualifications

I may not agree with some of the pronouncements made by the chairman of the Press Council of India. But I think Justice Markandey Katju was spot on with his recent comments on the issue of minimum qualifications for journalists.

Twenty years ago, or going even further back, it was perhaps enough to be literate and have an interest in reading and writing to become a journalist. And becoming a journalist in those days usually meant joining a daily newspaper. Which is what I did after obtaining a B.Sc. degree — I became a trainee sub-editor with Mumbai's Mid Day in June 1981. Like many journalists of the era, I "learnt" on the job. Of course, it helped that my father was a journalist, with PTI, so I had been introduced to some of the principles of journalism at an early age. It also helped that, at Mid Day, I had some wonderful colleagues who were willing to teach me before thrusting editing and page-making responsibilities on me.

Today, journalism is much, much more competitive. Today, journalism is much, much tougher with newspapers and TV news channels and online news sites all engaged in a race for audiences and advertisers. The old-school-type of journalism will not work today. If you join the editorial staff of a newspaper or magazine or TV news channel, you will not have the luxury of friendly colleagues and seniors taking time out to teach you the ropes. You will be expected to pull your weight from Day One. How will you do that if you have not been taught the necessary skills, if you do not have the minimum qualifications expected of someone who wants to become a journalist? (Full disclosure: I teach journalism at a media college in Bangalore.)

SENIOR JOURNALISTS TAKE ON JUSTICE KATJU. (ToI ARCHIVE)

As V. Gangadhar writes in The Hindu today...

"Yes, learning on the job is fine, but how? A cub reporter assigned to cover a major event would not know how and where to begin or end. On the desk, can an untrained sub-editor cut a long story to its required length, provide subheads and give a suitable, catchy heading?"

Exactly. So why are so many old-school-type journalists annoyed with Justice Katju? I can't understand it. And neither can Gangadhar:

Will the journalists who made snide comments on the Katju remarks appoint young people without previous experience in their publications or channels?

Gangadhar makes one other point that I am wholly in agreement with:

[Journalism] schools must improve. Mumbai University granted affiliation to dozens upon dozens of BMM and BMS departments without caring to examine whether they had any kind of infrastructure, like library facilities, classrooms and qualified teachers. After a couple of years, the university, in its wisdom, abolished entrance tests and decided that applicants to these courses should be admitted on the strength of their standard 12 marks, completely ignoring the fact that the cramming habits [encouraged in] and inflated marks awarded by junior colleges are not enough to judge the different needs of a journalism course.

Read Gangadhar's enlightening column in its entirety here: "Indian journalism at ground zero".

• Senior journalist Bala Murali Krishna, who now works as a financial writer and blogger, commented via e-mail:
  
  With the (needless) debate having been started, I would say this:
  
  Do we need better educated, more knowledgeable, more independent and more ethical journalists?
  
  The answer is a resounding yes.
  
  Do we need a state-sponsored (or privately sponsored) organisation to specify educational qualifications for journalists or issue any form of certification?
  
  The answer is a resounding no. Look at what we have done with Medical Council of India, which, in theory, should be far easier to regulate.
  
  Also, is stipulation of minimum qualifications or certification the way to raise the quality of journalists?
  
  Highly debatable.
  
  Bala Murali Krishna 

• Shagorika Easwar, who was my colleague at Khaleej Times, and who now runs two popular magazines (Desi News and Canada-Bound Immigrant) in Toronto, Canada, also commented via e-mail:

I concur! Totally! You know I learnt on the job, too, but then I had you to run to with doubts. It was also a slower, gentler pace when we didn't feel compelled to project a know-it-all attitude. It was okay to ask questions and have a senior journalist guide you. Unlike today, when the competition is so fierce that no one wants to risk saying they don't know something. In the process, they forget that they risk displaying their ignorance to a much larger audience. Case in point: Sunetra Choudhury reading the news on NDTV the other day described a meeting as "inclusive". The word she was looking for was inconclusive! But then there are journalism schools and then there are journalism schools. Also, to be fair, the onus is on the student to actually learn and benefit from what is being taught. I get e-mails and submissions from recent journalism grads with the most bizarre sentence construction and grammar.

"Easy" reading is not always "good" reading, or even "interesting" reading

Here are two paragraphs from Easy Money, by Swedish novelist Jens Lapidus:

He kept a log with daily notes from every workout session at the reception desk. Mrado's goals were clear. To go from 270 to 290 of pure muscle before February. Then change up his strategy. Shred. Burn fat. By summertime: only muscle. Clean, without surface fat. Would look damn good.

He trained at another place, too, the fighting club, Pancrease Gym. Once or twice a week. Guilt got to him. Should go more often. Important to build muscle power. But the power had to be used for something. Mrado's work tool: fear. He went far on size alone. In the end, he went even further on what he learned at Pancrease: to break bones.

I had picked up Easy Money from the Just Books library, lured by the blurb on the cover: "An epic European thriller to rival Stieg Larsson". But after plodding through less than one-third of the book, with its frustratingly fragmentary sentences, I gave up.

That weekend I came across a review of Easy Money in DNA. And I was glad to note that there was at least one other person who shared my feelings about the book. "[There] isn’t much explanation for most of the ... things that ail this 470-page sorry excuse of a thriller," Krishnakumar Padmanabhan wrote in his review. He also made it clear that he, too, wasn't impressed by what he referred to as "clipped, telegraphic prose". Read his review in its entirety here.

Now, for a complete contrast, here's a passage from The Way by Swann's, the first volume of Marcel Proust's magnum opus, "In Search of Lost Time":

The air was saturated with the finest flour of a silence so nourishing, so succulent, that I could move through it only with a sort of greed, especially on those first mornings of Easter week, still cold, when I tasted it more keenly because I had only just arrived in Combray: before I went in to say good morning to my aunt, they made me wait for a moment, in the first room where the sun, still wintry, had come to warm itself before the fire, already lit between the two bricks and coating the whole room with an odour of soot, having the same effect as one of those great country 'front-of-the-ovens', or one of those chateau mantelpieces, beneath which one sits hoping that outdoors there will be an onset of rain, snow, even some catastrophic deluge so as to add, to the comfort of reclusion, the poetry of hibernation; I would take a few steps from the prayer stool to the armchairs of stamped velvet always covered with a crocheted antimacassar; and as the fire baked like a dough the appetizing smells with which the air of the room was all curdled and which had already been kneaded and made to 'rise' by the damp and sunny coolness of the morning, it flaked them, gilded them, puckered them, puffed them, making them into an invisible palpable country pastry, an immense 'turnover' in which, having barely tasted the crisper, more delicate, more highly regarded but also drier aromas of the cupboard, the chest of drawers, the floral wallpaper, I would always come back with an unavowed covetousness to snare myself in the central, sticky, stale, indigestible and fruity smell of the flowered coverlet. 

That's one sentence, 284 words. Not "easy" reading, I agree, but what masterly descriptions in just one sentence! From the air "saturated with the finest flour of a silence so nourishing, so succulent, that I could move through it only with a sort of greed", and the sun, "still wintry", which had "come to warm itself before the fire", to "the poetry of hibernation", and, finally, the narrator's "unavowed covetousness to snare myself in the central, sticky, stale, indigestible and fruity smell of the flowered coverlet". I began reading The Way by Swann's many, many months ago. Now you know why I am nowhere near the end. You don't just read Proust — you read and re-read and re-read. That is the only way to enjoy this phenomenal work of art, to learn how to construct those winding sentences, to lose yourself in a world long-vanished.

I may not read Proust every day. But I am never going to throw him aside as I did Jens Lapidus.

• Want to know more about Proust and In Search of Lost Time? You can read the first chapter of Proust's Way: A Field Guide to 'In Search of Lost Time', by Roger Shattuck, here.

• The Way by Swann's is the reason I'm also reading How Proust Can Change Your Life, by Alain de Botton.

• The famous writer Germaine Greer can't stand Proust. She explains why, in a well-argued feature she wrote for The Guardian, here.

• PS: Speaking of easy reading, check out "Why we should applaud Amish (and ignore what purists say about his writing skills?)". As for easy, interesting, and good reading, check out "The Hunger Games: A 'young adult' series that adults will love".

New Yorker writer Susan Orlean's four pieces of wisdom for writers

• You have to simply love writing, and you have to remind yourself often that you love it.

• You should read as much as possible. That’s the best way to learn how to write.

• You have to appreciate the spiritual component of having an opportunity to do something as wondrous as writing. You should be practical and smart and you should have a good agent and you should work really, really hard. But you should also be filled with awe and gratitude about this amazing way to be in the world.

• Don’t be ashamed to use the thesaurus. I could spend all day reading Roget’s! There’s nothing better when you’re in a hurry and you need the right word right now.

For more, visit this post by my favourite blogger: "Susan Orlean on writing".

• ALSO READ: "The amazing books that made me fall in love with journalism all over again - 1"