<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The New Contrarian &#187; reading</title>
	<atom:link href="http://newcontrarian.com/tag/reading/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://newcontrarian.com</link>
	<description>Just another Newcontrarian.com weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:58:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>On Reading</title>
		<link>http://newcontrarian.com/2007/12/20/on-reading/</link>
		<comments>http://newcontrarian.com/2007/12/20/on-reading/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 02:46:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Damir Marusic</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pop Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[famous authors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[writing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcontrarian.com/?p=229</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The New York Times has an an oh-so New York Times series of advice articles by successful established authors to aspiring writers. I find the premise irritating for a whole slew of reasons which probably stem from my irritability more than anything else. But that aside, I was genuinely baffled by Elmore Leonard&#8217;s tidbit #10: [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <em>New York Times</em> has an an oh-so <em>New York Times</em> series of advice articles by successful established authors to aspiring writers. I find the premise irritating for a whole slew of reasons which probably stem from my irritability more than anything else. But that aside, I was genuinely baffled by <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE3DD103BF935A25754C0A9679C8B63&amp;sec=&amp;spon=&amp;pagewanted=1">Elmore Leonard&#8217;s tidbit #10</a>:</p>

<blockquote>10&#46; Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.</blockquote>

<blockquote>A rule that came to mind in 1983. Think of what you skip reading a novel: thick paragraphs of prose you can see have too many words in them. What the writer is doing, he&#8217;s writing, perpetrating hooptedoodle, perhaps taking another shot at the weather, or has gone into the character&#8217;s head, and the reader either knows what the guy&#8217;s thinking or doesn&#8217;t care. I&#8217;ll bet you don&#8217;t skip dialogue.</blockquote>

<p>Do people skip parts in books? I never, ever do. If the shit&#8217;s getting tedious, I quit the book. Is this not the norm?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://newcontrarian.com/2007/12/20/on-reading/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

