I think I would have done very well as a writer in the Forties. I think the last time America was a great country was then or not long after. It was before Vietnam, before Watergate.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think I would have been a writer, anyhow, in the sense of having written a story every now and then, or continued writing poetry. But it was the war experience and the two novels I wrote about Vietnam that really got me started as a professional writer.
What ultimately happened is that my country had a war. I think it would be extraordinary, as a writer, not to want to write about that.
I was unknown because I came to Washington from the West. I started covering Watergate. Immodestly, I'd say I did it pretty well, in part because it was hard to go wrong.
That was my choice at that time, and I still say Nixon was a great president. A very beautiful and wise man.
The crusades of Vietnam and Watergate seemed like a good idea at the time, even a noble one, not only to the press but perhaps to a majority of Americans.
I didn't mean to spend my life writing American history, which should have been taught in the schools, but I saw no alternative but to taking it on myself. I could think of a lot of cheerier things I'd rather be doing than analyzing George Washington and Aaron Burr. But it came to pass, that was my job, so I did it.
It is probably true that I would not have had as many children or mothers in my books without being a mother with children. It is definitely true that I would not have written about the Civil War without having a little guy who was obsessed with it.
But I would have executed much greater things, had not government always opposed my exertions, and placed others in situations which would have suited my talents.
Frankly, I would not have made any difference in Vietnam, but much more is what difference it would have made in me.
I'd been in college studying English creative writing and history when I made the decision to join the Marines in the runup to the Iraq war.
No opposing quotes found.