Newkirk Feedback (9/21/21)

 Mike,

I finished reading the chapters you sent on--and I thought I'd put down briefly some reactions that we can talk about.

• I actually think you keep the reformer idea central as an effective thread in the book. At  times the detail was more than I needed, but I never felt that you'd lost your throughline.
• You do a great job of showing how his reform is rooted in his childhood--all writing IS autobiographical.
• The writing has such authority because the depth and range of references. It reminds me of Robert Caro, biographer of LBJ--it feels like every scrap of paper has been considered.

I did have some questions/suggestions.

• The opening, where you establish the exigency for the book seemed long to me. All the detail is relevant but cumulatively if felt like you didn't need it all to make the point that a book is necessary.
• I would streamline a bit the chapter on the department innovations. There are some very long paragraphs that go into detail about changes. I didn't feel this need in the chapter on his work with teachers.
• Will you do any critique of Murray. For example, although he makes a big point about listening, the classes of his I attended were very much Don talking. He never seemed to me great at facilitating student talk.  Even in social situations, I felt he had difficulty not making himself the center of attention. I also think that his response model often ignored the student's legitimate expectation for suggestions from the reader (what I am doing now!) Another paradox was that for all his dismissal of genre, I never thought he escaped the hierarchical view that the novel the real test of a writer, and that with essays and professional articles, he was operating on a lower plane. There is something poignant about this--I wrote about this in the intro to The Essential Don Murray.  
• I can see why you do not have a chapter on his work on newspapers and as a freelance writer. But so much of his ethos, and philosophy, work habits, and lack of respect for the plodding pace of academic careers, comes from his work in this sphere. For all his generosity, he respected professionalism and productivity. Is there any way--maybe as an interchapter to dip into the lessons he learned from this period. For example, one of his often told stories involves the celebration of his Pulitzer at the Herald--and then he had to get back to his desk to write the editorial for the next day. There's a moral here. You might want to include one of his wacky word count charts from his notebook. 
• I don't know if you've read the Zebroski history, but I think it will help with the next chapter. For me Murray was dazzling in the 1980-1985 half decade. One stunning essay after another. I think by about 1990 he began repeating himself more. There is no way he could keep up that pace.

That's it. The big takeaway is that the book for me maintains its theme, though the pace can be faster at points. 

Tom