Charles R. "Chuck" Dowling

I grew up in Mt Vernon N.Y. That's in Westchester County, a suburb of New York City. I went to Archbishop Stepinac H.S. in White Plains N.Y. and Iona College in New Rochelle. While I was in college I worked as a policeman with The Westchester Parkway Police. Upon graduation I went Through OCS and became a Marine Officer. Between the reserves and active duty I spent ten years in The Corps.
After leaving the Marine Corps, I worked for a couple of insurance companies, the Shell Oil Company and a consulting firm. I also worked for Blue Cross and Blue Shield in New Hampshire and Wyoming. I retired from Wyoming Blue Cross and Blue Shield as the Vice President of Marketing.

I'd have to say it began in elementary school. I was able to read at a young age and I think that sparked my interest. I remember my mother teaching me the alphabet and how to pick out words and understand them before I began to go to school. In school I remember writing simple little stories in large print even before I learned cursive writing. It was either the sixth or seventh grade when I won a writing contest. The Knights of Columbus offered a savings bond for the best essay on Christopher Columbus.
In the eighth grade I wrote a story about a boy who had been left behind when the end times came. I was way ahead of Tim Lehay and Jerry Jenkins. I called it "Forgotten." As I remember, it was about five single space pages. It was the first story I wrote on a typewriter. A friend of mine had gotten one for Christmas and he let me use it. While in High School, I wrote sports for our school newspaper, but that was only a sporadic thing. I wrote a few short stories during this time, but at this point I don't remember names or subjects. All my early writings disappeared somewhere over time.

English, of course, with a minor in philosophy. I liked history too. I was also in the Drama society and I appeared in a few plays. We did a little Shakespeare, Eugene O'Neill and some drawing room comedies. I was also involved in a few shows written by students. I wrote sports for the College newspaper I would like to have done more with the school paper and the drama society, but I also had to work part time to pay my way through school.

Two of your award-winning books are about Marines and the Korean War. Why do you write about that?

While I was in the Marine Corps, I got to know a lot of Marines who had served in Korea. Some of them were real heroes. That prompted me to read more about it. The more I read the more impressed I became. The exploits of the First Marine Division in particular, especially during the Chosen Reservoir campaign, were absolutely extraordinary. The First Division was surrounded by ten Chinese Communist divisions and they were able to break out, totally annihilating five or six of the Chinese divisions in the process. This all took place in two weeks of fighting in snowstorms and below zero degree temperatures. It was probably one of most spectacular examples of military success of all times. This happened during a time when many questioned why we were in the war. It was a time of retreating, armies, defections, brainwashing and all that. The Marine Corps stood tall in all that mess. I vowed to myself to write about this when I got the chance. It actually has been a life-long desire.
The two books that feature those battles are To Keep Our Honor Clean and The Mad Dogs. By the way, I have a third book on the Korean War coming out soon-it's called, First to Fight-and a fourth partly written.

Two other of your award-winning books are about King Arthur. How did that come about?

I am an eclectic reader. In addition to Marine Corps and other military history, I also read Science-fiction, adventure, intrigue, religion, fantasy etc.
A number of years ago, I read a book called Taliesin written by Stephan Lawhead. He wrote a number of books about King Arthur and about the period. His books touched on the historic as well as the fantasy side of the Arthurian legend. Taliesin was a poet or Druidic Bard if you will, who lived some time after Arthur.
Intrigued I looked for more on this subject. The more I researched the more I began to understand that Arthur had been a real person. He actually lived in the fifth century, the Dark Ages, not in the Medieval Ages as others had portrayed him. He was probably a Celtic nobleman who had been trained to be a Roman Officer. The Romans had been in Britain for over four hundred years and many of the Celtic people were in the Roman Armies. Historians refer to them as Romanized Celts.
Just at the time the Angles and Saxons were invading Britain, Arthur stepped forward as the War Chief, and later, King, of the British tribes as they fought the invaders off. He established a time of peace, called Pax Artorious that lasted for a hundred years. He was probably a Christian and his battles were against pagan invaders. There is some evidence that Constantine could have been an ancestor.
I write about his rise to become War Chief in The Time of the Raven, the first book in the "Hammer of God" series. I cover the events that led to his Kingly ascension in the second book, The Time of the Eagle. The third book, The Time of the King is partly written and will portray the time of his kingship and his death.
I write about King Arthur as a real person. The stories are about real people with real strengths and real weaknesses. He was a talented military leader. The fantasy elements, popular in a great deal of the Arthurian works, are addressed, but only as the perceptions of superstitious people. Merlin for instance is presented as a highly educated, well-travelled, near genius. From the Greeks he would have understood a great deal of scientific information, including chemistry and physics. He would have a great deal of knowledge of other cultures. To the ignorant tribesmen of his day, however, he would have been a charlatan.

You said that you have a book about Korea partly written and a book about King Arthur partly written, is that a common practice-to write more than one book at a time?

For me it is. I think a writer should always have a number of projects going. It keeps your mind fresh and it helps to alleviate writer's block. When you tire of one book, or you become stuck on something, you switch to another. Although my immediate solution if I am struggling, is to take a walk, or let it marinate subconsciously for a couple of days, my fallback position if my struggle goes longer, is to do something else for a while.
One other advantage to having multiple projects is that you continually have something to write about. It is good for experience or practice in and of itself. I once sat next a man at a workshop during a writer's conference who heard me talking with a friend about the fact that I was trying to write at least an hour or two every day. He leaned over and said. "You are to be commended and always remember until you have written at least a million words; you will not be a good writer."
I was a little taken back. The concept was a little daunting, and also who was this guy? I went to the next workshop on the schedule and there he was. He was the instructor. His Name was Tom Sawyer (No not that one). He is a Hollywood screen writer and has written a number of novels and books on creative writing. I was humbled. I also found it interesting that he sat in on other workshops and seminars when not teaching himself. The big message however was the million words. That stuck. To be a writer ... you have to write.

Definitely. There are many good ones around the country. They can be googled. Look for conferences with recognizable keynote speakers. But also look at who is doing the workshops at the conferences. That's where the best jewels can be mined. Google the names. Where else can you receive good information from experienced writers in workshops, meet and mingle with other writers, meet agents, editors and publishers etc. It was at my first conference that my eyes were opened to the vast array of opportunities and information there is on all aspects of writing and promotion.

I have two other novels going; both science fiction. One explores other dimensions that exist side by side with ours and how different political systems affect the minds of people and influence their behavior in those dimensions. The other explores the subject of intergalactic travel and what religion and man's relationship with God will look like two or three thousand years into the future. The book about God and religion in the future could also develop into a series.
I have written a number of pieces on the Korean War that have appeared in a publication called. Korea

The subject fascinates me. I like to try and find heroic events in history and put my characters into that time and place. Most of my writing has at least a small element of that. I think we don't do enough to promote, honor, duty, courage, chivalry, morality and so forth. What can be more inspiring than overcoming great odds, defending firm principles or doing the right thing regardless of the circumstances? I hate self-serving people, front runners, people who use people. . I hate procrastination. I don't like people with small minds and no goals. I hate cynicism and negativity. If something isn't right, work to fix it. Don't simply complain. What does that solve and what does it do for the person complaining as well as others?
I wonder about people who continually tear others down. What is the purpose? What does that do to improve their life? People like that are not very enjoyable to have around. I wonder what useful purpose they provide in life.
Heroes act. They have a set of principles and their actions spring from those convictions. They are not perfect, but they overcome their faults. Writers often write about those who are not so heroic. There have been best sellers that told their story, but that is not for me. Sometimes authors place them in the role of the villain. To my mind, that is where they belong.
Literature is rife with tragic heroes. These of course are people, usually in high station, who due to some character flaw, fall. These are The Hamlets, The Macbeths, The Julius Caesars, the Homeric heroes and the Greek tragedies. We see this today. Look at Tiger Woods, O .J. Simpson, John Edwards, and Anthony Weiner.
You might ask, what about all the rest of us, those who are not villains, but are also, not heroes? I agree, that is where you will find most of us, but is that something a writer needs to write about? Where is the punch? Where is the excitement? Why does one want to read about that?
To my way of thinking, fiction's primary object is to entertain. What is there about small people giving in to their base instincts and acting on them that makes that entertaining? What is there about ordinary people, living ordinary lives that catches the imagination?
Some books and some movies have protagonists who are just average people who eventually fight back. Good for them. That satisfies an urge we all have to get back at the "system." That can be an interesting subject. But for me the real hero is the person who, although average or even below average in abilities or background overcomes his or her faults or fears or handicaps. Isn't that much better than following a loser?
Going back to my writing style for a moment; what I find exciting is placing a heroic person in a difficult and noble battle and having that person prevail because of their convictions and their courage. History has many such events and battles. Add a hero to them and you have an inspiring story.
For the most part, I write about big themes. I realize that there are good stories in little people handling their worlds and succeeding, but having a big theme is so much more compelling.

The world is a dangerous place. As a country we have to be continually alert and ready to defend our interests. History has to be paid attention to. That is a poor sentence in a way, because it uses prepositions improperly, but it gets the message across, so I'm leaving it in. (Never use a preposition to end a sentence with.) Like Yogi Berra, "if you come to a fork in the road, take it." The sentence doesn't make sense, but then it does.
As to the history reference above; there has never been a country like The United States. There have been other forms of what has been called democratic governments, ancient Greece and the Roman Republic, for instance, but they were not anywhere near what our founding fathers created. Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, they created an exceptional form of government and we are an exceptional country. We have our faults and have had bad leaders, but as far as we can tell, there has never been anything in all of man's time on earth like what we have established.
Coming from that premise, I say that the world's hope for its people ever experiencing true freedom lies with us, the U.S. No other system has or will work to that end. As I write this, the Middle East is aflame. People are rioting. They have seen what freedom is about through TV, the internet etc. They have suffered persecution. They have been held down. Freedom is a narcotic. They want to have it. For the first time, perhaps, many of them see what freedom really means. We are the only people that can lead the way. European countries are near to our achievement, but they are not there yet. They are still tied too closely with socialism.
We are the only people who have the moral imperative and it's built right into our constitution and our laws. And we have the talent and the right mind set.
I would offer three caveats about war.
War should never be waged by the U.S. unless our national interests are at stake.
War should never be waged by the U.S. unless we enter it to win.
Wars should never be waged by the U.S. unless the people are behind it.
The old adage comes to mind, "In for a penny, in for a pound." We tried to fight limited wars in Korea and Viet Nam. Neither effort worked out well. Are the bullets softer in a limited war? Do we or the bad guys shoot only to wound? You must go all out in war. You must hit the enemy as hard as you can. Anything else leaves you vulnerable. To state the obvious, war is a serious business.
World War 11 is called the "Good War." We were attacked, our national interests were involved and the people were behind it. And it was an all-out war. The goal was to beat Germany and Italy in Europe and The Japanese in the Pacific-to bring them to their knees, not to contain them as we did in other wars.
As I mentioned, in Korea and Viet Nam we lacked legitimate purpose. In the Gulf War, we acted correctly except for one thing. We did not finish the job. We should have Taken Hussein out and not pulled up short. We had to go back a few years later.
In Afghanistan, we had the right motive, get Al-Qaida out, but we never went in there all-out. And we let the borders with Pakistan hinder us. Going back to an earlier thought; if we had let everyone, including The Pakistanis, know that we had been attacked by those people and we reserved the right to attack them wherever they were, thongs would much more clear. As of this writing, we have been there almost ten years.
By the way, Our goal in
Afghanistan is to rid the world of Al Qaida, not nation building.
It will be interesting to see what happens now that we have killed Osama Bin Laden.
There is honor in war. What is more honorable than risking your life for a cause or a friend? There is a bible lesson for that.
War, no matter how brutal, is honest. There are no umpires, referees or judges in war. If you are a better soldier, you win. If you have better leaders and better weapons you win.
Countries around the world have sovereign rights to rule their people, but if any of those countries interfere with our democratic rights or national interests then we have the right, nay the duty, to act.
Working on that principle, war is justified. We were attacked on September 11, 2001 by terrorists. We have the right to attack the people who attacked us. The terrorists are a stateless people who hide within other sovereign nations. They are promoting a "holy" war-a perversion of the Islamic faith-to bring uneducated and brain washed fighters to their side.
They struck us first. Even in their law, we have a right to bring them to justice. No one has the right to stand in our way.
By the way, if those uneducated fighters had been allowed to learn what freedom was about, I think there would be fewer of them to carry the scimitar.If other nations harbor those people who struck us, we have a right to confront them. If they will not surrender them, then we need to use all of our might, if needed, to capture or kill them.
That is a principled position.
Of course we need to warn the world that that is our position and we are ready to implement it. But if, say, in a few months after we have requested a country to turn over suspects to us and they do not comply, then we should do what we need to do. People will be angry, but eventually they will not give us cause to do that again. We will stand because we live by principles.
We have that right, and going back to the concept of the U.S. as an exceptional system of government, we have the duty to follow through.
Sadly, we cannot free all the people of the world who live in some form of subservience. It is physically impossible, but we can protect our national interests.

I think the publishing industry as we know it is dead. Movies, the internet, TV, video games etc. have all distorted our ability to take in information. Our minds are taking the easy road. We need to resist that, but I think human nature will continue to take us down the road of inertia. It is too easy to simply drift.
When I first saw readers like Kindle my immediate reaction was negative, I read by curling up in a comfortable chair or couch or in bed. How do you curl up with a good slab of metal and circuits? I have been shown to be wrong. Personally, I like the feel of a book, but others like their electronics, so who am I to complain.
Also, if people read by Kindle, well, they are still reading. I'm afraid that newer generations are not reading anywhere as near as much as past generations, regardless of the form.