January 2008 Archives
I was very sorry to read in the Carbon County News that Marvin Pelo passed away in December. Every week I read the paper online, hoping I won't see a name I recognize in the obits section. I interviewed Marvin a couple of times for the book and read he long paper he wrote about his life. I also interviewed his younger brother recently. Marvin told me many moving things, including that he made himself smile when he left his father's funeral and that he had to break the news of their Dad's death to his brother. He seemed like a genuinely good guy. I'm sorry he won't be able to tell me what he thinks of my portrayal of him and his family. I hope he would approve.
I've been asked several times whether the title of my forthcoming book, Goodbye Wifes and Daughters, contains a typo or misspelling. The answer to both questions is NO. It's supposed to say Wifes. I've known how how to make the word wife plural since 4th grade. The misspelling is a direct quote from the note some of the miners wrote as they were dying.
"Goodbye wifes and daughters. We died an easy death. Love from us both. Be good."
I put a lot of thought into whether to keep their incorrect grammar or to clean and edit it, something that journalists should almost always avoid when quoting sources. I worried that the word WIFES highlighted the miners' lack of education and took away some of their much-deserved dignity - that it made them look stupid and made me look as if I feel superior to them. But I was encouraged to keep the word as originally written because it reflects exactly who they were. I was also told that the misspelling might pique readers' curiosity enough to get them to pick up the book, which is what a title should do, right?
If you're reading this and you know how to post a message to me, give me your thoughts. Should it stay WIFES or be changed to WIVES?
"Goodbye wifes and daughters. We died an easy death. Love from us both. Be good."
I put a lot of thought into whether to keep their incorrect grammar or to clean and edit it, something that journalists should almost always avoid when quoting sources. I worried that the word WIFES highlighted the miners' lack of education and took away some of their much-deserved dignity - that it made them look stupid and made me look as if I feel superior to them. But I was encouraged to keep the word as originally written because it reflects exactly who they were. I was also told that the misspelling might pique readers' curiosity enough to get them to pick up the book, which is what a title should do, right?
If you're reading this and you know how to post a message to me, give me your thoughts. Should it stay WIFES or be changed to WIVES?
It's been two years since the Sago Coal Mine disaster, and almost 65 since the Smith Coal Mine disaster. When Sago happened, I couldn't believe how similar the circumstances were to the Montana tragedy all those years ago: methane explosion, safety violations, greedy owners. I couldn't stop watching the coverage and imagining the families I was writing about going through the same trauma as the Sago families. They didn't have a church in Bearcreek where they could all gather - most of them huddled in the cold machine shop. And they were spared the awful tease of hearing that their loved ones were all alive, as the Sago people did. But both groups waited and waited for smiles they would never see again. The Bearcreek people that I've met were never the same after the disaster. I doubt the Sago people are, either.
