Barbara Magalnick

Children are sent to school for an education, not to be kept from becoming educated because of the prejudices of parents. If a parent objects to a book, they have the right to say they don't want their own child to read it, but they should not have the power the keep that book from other people's children! When I was teaching, I cannot recall one single instance of anyone wanting a book taken from a reading list, etc. where the reason made any sense except that we had an ignorant parent with preconceived notions.

For instance, I recall a parent objecting quite vociferously to Bernard Malamud's "The Fixer," insisting that she didn't want her daughter reading about "drug dealers." When she finally caught a breath, I asked her the big question: had she ever read the book? Of course not, she screamed, she would never read such a book! I calmly told her that the book actually took place in a Russian prison and had nothing to do with drugs. She just stared at me (how difficult it is to find you are screaming with no sense of reality). I've never yet met anyone who objected to a book and in fact had read the book.

And, by the way, what if the book had been about drug dealers? The real issue is not the subject matter so much as whether it was a good enough book. Does it have literary merit or is it a piece of junk?

Looking at banned books from the historical perspective, to be banned puts a book in excellent company for the most part: Huckleberry Finn, Lady Chatterley, Of Mice and Men, Catcher in the Rye and Jude the Obscure are just a few of the novels regularly banned throughout the years from libraries and school lists.

My suggestion is that anyone who wants to ban a book should be instructed that they must first read the book and then present a written report on it, pointing out why no one else should have free access to reading that book. Would certainly cut down on book banning.

It is clear that writers sometimes have bad experiences with editors and others good experiences. I have had both. First, let me make it clear that I am both a published writer and a professional editor—a trained professional editor, not someone who decided she could edit because she was a writer or had been an English teacher. But although I am now freelance—and a great many of the best editors today are freelance—I also worked at major publishing houses, starting as an editorial assistant. I also studied linguistics. But for the most part publishing houses in recent years, in their restructuring and acquisition phases, streamlined editorial departments to a bare minimum, if even that.

Thus, most freelance work is better than what you may find working in-house today since publishers think bottom line these days, being managed by marketing and not editorial. That usually means that they hire young inexperienced people and unfortunately often do not bother to train them. As one young thing said to me one day while I was working on-site, “Oh, I am so excited to do this, it’s my first real editing, and I am so nervous because grammar is my weak area.” And she became an editor? I was dumbfounded, and still wonder about that.

But for many, there is also the confusion of what an editor does. Many people are not aware that some editors do only copyediting while others are primarily involved in line editing or developmental editing. The first thing a writer has to know is what his or needs are in terms of the manuscript, or at least seek advice. Many seasoned writers turn in manuscripts that only need copyediting, and don’t need developmental work. But that may also be because it has become customary these days to have a manuscript edited before submission, and I wonder if that began as a result of the dearth of real editors in-house these days. Most first-time authors absolutely need to work with a developmental editor.

That thought reminds me of another misconception. I still recall one writer handing in a manuscript, assuring the editor that the “book needed no editing because he had already edited it.” A writer cannot “edit” his own book, he can only revise it. We all need editing. Maybe some more than others, but generally we become so lost in the thought that we often forget the mechanics, and words we expect to be on the page appear before us whether they’re there or not. We become mired in using the same words repeatedly in the effort to get the ideas out, and that fresh, professional eye catches what we missed. It is true that a bad editor can make a mess of good writing but, on the other hand, a good editor can add that final polish that gives the work that professional quality. The critical goal of the editor is to make the writer look good.

In today’s market many agents and publishers insist that an author have the manuscript edited before submission. They may even indicate that developmental editing is called for. Publishing has changed greatly from the days of Bennett Cerf, who kept a well-staffed company and proved you could make money publishing literature.

As you sit on the freeway wondering why you’re not moving with 250 horses under your hood, you might reflect on the fact that in the short span of the past hundred years or so, man has produced more wonders than the sum of all that came before. Since so many of our miraculous inventions depend upon energy in order to operate, we have paid a price for this world, particularly as far as our use of nonrenewable energy.

Of our traditional energy sources, coal, which is the most expensive, produces toxic radioactive waste. And to be honest, clean coal just doesn't exist; and is not likely to. The supply of fossil fuel, another restricted form of energy, has been dwindling while the number of people consuming it has been increasing. Our traditional power plants cause global climate change, acid rain, smog, toxic mercury emissions, consumption of water resources and pollution of water. Further, having to depend on outside sources for much of our energy is not economically sound.

Nonetheless, we have been loathe to change. It has been easier to expiate our guilt by the mere act of admitting the need for change. The truth is that we have lacked the leadership and the policies to change our ways. In the meantime, we have been most unkind to ourselves and to our environment. But witnessing the consequences of such environmental pollution as polar ice meltdown and sea level elevation, it is clear we must act.

Decision makers have long overlooked renewable energy and even misled us into believing there are insufficient resources in clean energy. For example, Detroit has told us for years that there were no viable options to their gas guzzlers. We now know better, and production of hybrid automobiles as well as other alternatives is becoming a reality. Unfortunately, America did not lead in this area.

Americans helped create our increasingly complex world, contributing many of the amazing inventions of the twentieth century such as the airplane, the microchip and nuclear energy, among many others. It would be fitting that we deal with the threat to our planet and its consequences for future generations. We must harness our mental prowess and exercise our expertise for another goal: energy independence through the development of clean energy. It is sometimes referred to as green energy, reflecting the expectation its use will result in saving the environment.

Clean energy is electricity generated mostly from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and sometimes low-emission energy sources such as land-fill gas, fuel cells, micro-turbines, and combined cycle co-generation. In contrast to traditional energy sources, these drastically reduce environmental impact. In addition to preventing climate change, reduced acid rain, and less waste, clean energy could embrace possible long-term price stability as well as enhanced electrical capacity and reliability.

There is no doubt that we need to develop clean power, which would also result in job and economic growth. Improvements in these areas over the past few years have made for better technology and lower prices. Clean energy has the power to revive struggling communities, and provide the economic and climate recovery Americans are seeking. Clean energy strategies, in combination with green business development, community-based agriculture, ecotourism, recycling-based manufacturing, and eco-industrial parks, hold the key to job growth, reviving income for households and government.

It is past time for America to go green and achieve energy independence.

On November 16, 2008, just one month short of his 98th birthday, Dolf Ringel passed away in Springfield, New Jersey. His granddaughter, Kim, said he had seemed in good health until the end. I had been thinking of phoning him, as I do every once in a while, but somehow the time got away from me. And now I wish I could speak with him just one more time. It was always a pleasure to talk to him. He had a keen intelligence and a very observant eye. But most of all, he was always optimistic. The only thing that got him down was that his wife To was very ill. She still is. He had no siblings left, although two of the three made it to their nineties. He had already lost his only child, Judy, and his one grandson. But his granddaughter Kim and her husband and two children brought him great joy. In addition, he is survived by virtually a multitude of nieces, nephews, grandnieces and nephews and two generations more than that! What a wonderful full life he had. Yes, a long, eventful life that was marked by his kindness, intelligence, generosity and spirit. He will be missed. Very much.