Friday Only

My Jesuit Confessor, Father Elliptical de Casuistry of Our Lady of Endless Hairsplitting, tells me that the increased burdens of work and looming deadlines means I will have to cut back on posting articles here. I still hope to write an article once a week and post it on Friday, but aside from that, until the current heap of work is past, I cannot be as voluble.


  1. Comment by Bob McMaster:

    What! The prodigious output of free entertainment and intellectual stimulation available on this blog is to be decreased without your consulting us? Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you no decency?

  2. Comment by jwm:

    Well, that gives us one more reason to look forward to Friday. On the other hand, anticipation is going to warp the space/time thing all out of whack, and cause several phantom days to appear between Monday and Thursday- thus making a long work week even longer.
    I guess I can handle it.


  3. Comment by deiseach:

    Only posting on Friday means that because of all the other work you are doing, we will have the remaining volumes of the various novels you have promised us the sooner.

    So for that, I can curb my impatience :-)

  4. Comment by Mme Scherzo:

    Casual Post Fridays, now, hmm?

  5. Comment by brandabar:

    I am a huge fan of authors who work extremely hard. Especially when their current series is improving with each book!

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      If I find such an author, I will pass the comment along. Today I only wrote eight pages, which is not that much.

      • Comment by robertjwizard:

        It is not as much as James Patterson or Stephen King wrote in the last hour, but…

        I once wrote 6 pages in a day, I took the wife out for dinner to celebrate.

        • Comment by Sean Michael:

          To “robertjwizard” and Mr. Wright:

          I’m reminded of how Anthony Trollope was a very PROLIFIC writer who took pains to write a fixed number of pages a day. Which gave offense to many critics who said the Muse might be prolific but she would certainly not write to a SCHEDULE. Plus, in his Memoirs, Trollope frankly admitted he wrote for money. Again, his critics bashed Trollope, saying the Muse would pay no attention to money.

          I’ve only read one of Trollope’s many books, BARCHESTER TOWERS, but I thought it was funny and interesting.

          Sincerely, Sean M. Brooks

        • Comment by DGDDavidson:

          I’ve read James Patterson, and though his work is fun, it has the polish and quality I would expect of someone who churns out books at the rate he does.

          That is to say, I felt like I was reading his rough drafts.

  6. Comment by Jeremiah Hahn:

    hey Mr. Wright. I’m a long-time reader who rarely comments but I wanted to share this with you. (Let me know if you prefer to be emailed this type of info btw).
    This article,,
    seems to show a classic example of how the language and terminology of Political Correctness, through Post-modern moral relativism, simply breaks down under the sheer weight of its own gravity. Basically, some pro-abortion supporters are rejecting the pro-choice label, and are now eschewing labels entirely.

    • Comment by Sean Michael:

      Dear Mr. Hahn:

      The only HONEST term pro abortionists should use is “pro abortion,” or even “pro baby killing.” I’ve despised the term “pro choice” as a cowardly equivocation or dodge by people who are pro abortion but unwilling to admit that.

      Sincerely, Sean M. Brooks

      • Comment by deiseach:

        We’re in the middle of an abortion debate in my own country, for various reasons (e.g. the infamous X Case from the 90s which left no-one, either pro- or anti-abortion, happy; the recent unhappy case of Savitra Halappanavar which it is claimed would have been avoided had her pregnancy been terminated when she requested it; the agenda some in our coalition government have for ‘progress’ which means ‘an even more secular society’; the activists who have plugged away for this over the years).

        I am laughing with tears in my eyes listening to the radio news, as one of the ‘experts’ called to give evidence spouted off about how, if our government allows limited abortion, there is no reason to think that these restrictions would be relaxed or over-turned down the line.

        Why, no, none at all! No other country which – under the guise of best medical practice and human compassion for hard cases – relaxed its ban on abortion for strictly limited reasons of rape or incest later further relaxed them to ‘threat to the mother’s life’ which then became a very elastic definition, first with ‘life’ amended to ‘health’ and secondly ‘life’ meaning ‘education, chance of getting a job, new boyfriend, etc.’

        Nor were strict limits on the periods during the pregnancy when abortion was permissible changed for ‘exceptional’ cases which meant ‘up to viability and beyond, as long as the foetus is still attached by the umbilical cord’ and then in time abortion under limited circumstances became either de jure or de facto abortion on demand.

        No, we can’t see these examples from other nations at all!

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      There is a fundamental and inescapable tension between political correctness and the human act of naming things by their right names, or any names at all.

      It is because they are liars, and liars don’t like defining terms, or even using terms. They prefer howls, laughs, grunts, and screams.

    Leave a Reply