D. J. Herda

Someone asked me the other day if a book can have "too many" edits for its own good. Here's my response.

*     *     *

There is no such thing as "too many" edits for a book. Every time you go through editing, you're changing your book, edging it closer toward perfection (an impossible destination, by the way, but still a mandatory pursuit!). That means you're doing your job as a writer. That may include putting your book through three edits. Four. Ten. Twenty. It really doesn't matter. If the book hasn't yet been published, every time you think about it is an opportunity for another edit and more improvements. PROVIDING …

1. You know what the hell you're doing as an editor and not simply mucking around aimlessly, which could result in making your book worse.
2. Your book is still far from being as close to "perfect" as you'd like.
3. You have ample time and opportunity to dig into it once again—not a simple or a quick task. Read More 

Someone wanted to know how a reader could tell if a book wasn't his cup of tea. I thought about that for a second or two, and here's what I said in response.

*     *     *

That's an easy one. You know a book is not for you if …

1. You hate the subject matter
2. You hate the genre
3. You hate the author's literary style
4. You hate the author
5. You have the author's family

Seriously, speaking from experience, I know a book isn't for me if it takes me longer than a few pages to get into it. Read More 

While this question is a little off the beaten path, when someone wrote online asking if anyone disagreed with the findings of the Warren Report following the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in 1963, I couldn't help but respond. You'll find out why in a couple of minutes. Here's what I said.

*     *     *

Let me ask you an even more pertinent question: Who didn't?

When I was sixteen and the Warren Committee Report was published, I was a conspiracy theorist right along with some of the others who took great pains to respond to your question, fueling the conspiracy controversy that has survived now for decades. And why wouldn't it survive? It's glamorous; it's mysterious, it's titillating, and it's exciting. Unfortunately, it's also untrue.

Yes, I was bitterly disappointed with the report and immediately suspected Earl Warren, President Lyndon B. Johnson's personal choice to head the committee into the investigation of JFK, of political chicanery. He was slick, and he was evil. He had a hidden agenda and, like Johnson, didn't want the truth known about who really planned for, ordered, and executed the assassination. And like all those other theorists espousing online here, I was calling for blood. And truth. And justice. Read More