Charles Ray Pens New Guidebook to Help Would-Be Western Authors
Charles Ray Pens New Guidebook To Help Would-Be Western Authors
April 11, 2024|Authors, DSP Articles

After years of the asking—Charles Ray has finally done it. He has penned his first writing guide for would-be Western authors with all the hints, tips and tricks a top selling Western author can come up with to help new writers on their writing journey.
With the Western going through something of a rebirth, it seemed to be just the right time for an author to put together a guide to writing Westerns for the modern audience. The guide is certainly not definitive and doesn’t promote itself as such—it is a starting place for those who are interested in riding down a trail that will lead them in front of a growing and vibrant new audience.
With more readers tuning back into the Western genre each and every day, it was inevitable that a guide such as ““How To Write Westerns For The Modern Reader” would be released—and we are proud that the first writing guide of its kind will be released by DSP and was penned by Charles Ray, a mainstay in the top one hundred bestseller list with his popular series, including “Jacob Blade: Vigilante,” “Caleb Johnson: Mountain Man” and “Rusty Rhodes.”
“This is a book we will be giving to all of our new signings,” DSP Chief Publicist Nick Wale explained when asked about the writing guide. “‘How To Write Westerns For The Modern Reader’ should help all authors get off on the right foot and write books that will connect almost immediately with our readership.”
“How To Write Westerns For The Modern Reader” will be released next week and will be available as a Kindle e-Book from Amazon.
Coming soon to an Amazon site near you!
New series coming to DSP
DSP is always coming up with something new for readers. The next great project is one that I’m honored to be working on, an epic saga of Texas from the viewpoint of a family that settles there shortly after it becomes a republic.
Life of a Texan: A Family Story will follow a family thar moves from Missouri from generation to generation and is sure to please veteran western fans and newcomers alike. The first books will be published in April 2024. Copies of the covers are shown below.
AIA Publishing Name Change
On the 25th of April 2024, the hybrid publisher AIA Publishing (AIAP) is changing its name to Alkira Publishing because an American business is using the name AIA Publishing and has not stopped despite several requests to do so. Unfortunately, the other business using the name lacks integrity to the point that some are calling them a scam, and that’s not good for a business if people can’t differentiate them. Many emails from their clients and even a poor review on Google Business from someone AIAP never worked with indicate that there is confusion and that it’s beginning to affect AIAP’s reputation.
Added to that, the AI in AIA Publishing could be seen as being related to Artificial Intelligence, and that’s not at all relevant to a brand that prides itself on their real human care for their authors.
The word Alkira in the new name, Alkira Publishing, is an Australian Aboriginal word that means bright, sunny or happy place, and that describes Alkira Publishing well. The managing editor, Tahlia Newland, says that she thinks of their business as a happy refuge for authors trying to navigate the sometimes shark-infested waters of independent publishing.
Y’all Listen – Interview with Author Charles Ray
An honor from DSP
This year’s Lifetime Achievement Award goes to one of our oldest and most successful authors, Charles Ray. Charles was one of the first signings with DSP, and we are proud to give him this award in recognition of all the work he has done with our company, all of the books he has written for the company, and for all of his many achievements with DSP.
Thank you so much, Charles Ray! From Dusty Saddle Publishing.
DSP Lifetime Achievement Award
We have some breaking news to bring you this evening, and cause for celebration for one of our fan-favorite authors!
Can you join us in congratulating Charles Ray who will be the first recipient of the DSP Lifetime Achievement Award in May.
It’s easy to see why when he’s one of our most prolific authors. A consistent number-one bestseller—a feat he’s managed in multiple genres, too. There’s more to him than a Western, he’s found success with Science Fiction and Horror titles as well.
Ray has been at the heart of some of our most prestigious titles and co-writes. He’s been part of the DSP family for a long time, and throughout he’s been nothing short of a highly talented and versatile storyteller.
It’s an honor for us to bestow the first DSP Lifetime Achievement Award upon him, and we wish him continued success.

Removing the Confederate Monument from Arlington National Cemetery wasn’t ‘cancel culture’, it was the right thing to do
The U.S. Army’s December 2023 decision to remove a Confederate memorial from Arlington National Cemetery generated quite a bit of controversy, particular from 40 Republicans from the House of Representatives who claimed that the monument “does not honor nor commemorate the Confederacy: the memorial commemorates reconciliation and national unity.” Some groups, like Defend Arlington and Save Southern Heritage Florida, even went to court to block the removal, claiming that doing so violated the National Environmental Policy Act and that the army had failed to take care of grave sites around the memorial during the memorial.
On December 19, 2023, US District Judge Ronnie D. Alston ruled that the removal could proceed after finding that the groups who tried to halt it had failed to prove that keeping the monument was in the public’s best interest. The judge’s order said that the ‘Plaintiff’s complaints regarding the removal efforts being likely to damage the gravesites are misinformed or misleading.”
This is not the first time that groups sympathetic to the Confederate cause have used misleading arguments to block removal of Confederate names and symbols from US military property. The efforts to rename army posts named for Confederate generals were resisted and called efforts to ‘cancel culture,’ or to ‘disparage American heritage and tradition.’ Those efforts, in the case of posts in North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas, failed, and it’s right that the effort to maintain the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery failed as well.
Arlington National Cemetery was established in 1864 on the grounds of the plantation belonging to the family of Confederate general Robert E. Lee’s wife. The cemetery was established as a place for Union Civil War dead. Because of the inability to distinguish Union from Confederate among the many full or partial remains found unburied within a 35-mile radius of Washington, DC, they were all buried together. Other Confederate battlefield dead were buried there and by April 1865, several hundred of the more than 16,000 graves at Arlington contained Confederate dead.
Initially, the federal government banned the decoration of Confederate graves. Cemetery officials refused to allow the erection of any monument to Confederate dead and did not permit any new Confederate burials. In 1898, after the Spanish-American War, President McKinley, touring the Deep ‘south to promote Senate ratification of the Treaty of Paris and racial harmony, announced that Confederate graves at Arlington would be cared for. This opened the door for former Confederates and Confederate sympathizers to try for more. A former Confederate, Samuel Lewis, for example, was angered that Confederate gravestones were similar to the gravestones of Black people interred there, and petitioned for a ‘Confederate section’, which McKinley approved. Among those opposing this move, and wanting to move Confederate graves ‘south,’ was the United Daughters of the Confederacy UDC).
Once the section was approved and laid out though, and Confederate groups noticed that space had been left for a memorial, although a memorial was not mentioned in the authorizing documents, they began discussing constructing one. Among the groups pushing for this: the United Daughters of the Confederacy. They asked the War Department for permission in 1902, 1903, and 1905, but were turned down. Despite the refusals, the group began raising money and in 1906, Secretary of War William Howard Taft finally granted permission, reserving the War Department’s right to approve the design and inscriptions.
Supposedly representing not only the ‘valor’ of southern soldiers and the losses suffered by the south, two figures on the memorial are especially controversial. One is of a uniformed black enslaved person following his master to war, representing, according to the UDC, ‘a faithful Negro body-servant following his young master.’ The other shows a military officer kissing his infant child held in the arms of a weeping black woman (a black mammy, or enslaved nursemaid), while another child clings to her skirts. These ‘faithful black servants’ were purposely included by the sculptor, Moses Ezekiel, a former Confederate who specialized in Confederate art, to undermine what he called the lies about slavery and the south in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1852 novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. He wished to rewrite history to show black slaves’ support for the Confederate cause.
At this point I’d like to stress the importance of the foregoing paragraph, especially for those who decry the removal of this and other Confederate symbols from our military and federal facilities as ‘cancel culture’ or denigration of our history and heritage. Don’t forget that at the time of the dedication of this memorial, as well as the appendage of Confederate names to military bases and the proliferation of other Confederate symbols, we were in the midst of the Jim Crow era which saw a hardening of segregation, especially in the south, with laws and practices designed to keep the formerly enslaved in their place legally. The military and the federal government were segregated as well, and the forces of repression and segregation were in firm control in the Deep South.
The military was desegregated by executive order from President Truman in 1949, but when I joined the army in 1962, many of the attitudes of the old segregated military were still present, and the rest of society and the government still followed local practices. For example, in the 1960s, the US State Department’s Foreign Service Institute (FSI0 in Arlington, Virginia, followed Virginia law and did not allow Black Foreign Service personnel to eat in the same cafeteria as the White employees.
I served my country for 50 years, 20 in military uniform and 30 as a diplomat, so I defend the right of groups like the UDC to have their distorted and self-serving take on history, but not to force it down the throats of everyone by putting it on display in facilities paid for by the American taxpayer, and most especially not in places that are intended to honor those who fought and died for this country. Arlington National Cemetery is a place to honor those who fought for the country, not against it. It is a place for patriots. To their sympathizers, Confederates might be considered patriots, but to me, the descendant of enslaved people, they’re either traitors to their country, or if you’re one of those people who say they were just exercising their ‘right’ to separate from a government they didn’t agree with, they’re foreign invaders who made war on the country.
There is, in my opinion, no middle ground.
So, removing the memorial from Arlington is not rewriting history, but correcting it. We no longer live in an age when those who were enemies of the country, Confederate soldiers or German POWs, are valued more highly than men and women of color who wore the country’s uniform and were willing to die for it. The heritage represented by that memorial is not an American heritage that I can support.
Removing it was the right thing to do.
Don’t blame AI

Since the launch of Chat-GPT, followed by several clones, mimics, improvements, and other artificial intelligence (AI) applications, there’s been a raft of articles and editorials on the subject, some of them going so far as to present doomsday scenarios, predicting that if unchecked AI will take over the world and destroy us. On the less frantic, but no less of a hair-on-fire attitude, are predictions that AI will make certain human workers obsolete, and will retard learning because students will no longer know how to do research or even write their own essays.
Now, there is a certain amount of validity to the latter two opinions. There are likely to be some jobs that are better, more efficiently and cheaply done by AI rather than humans. But I predict that these will be the drudge, number crunching jobs that most humans hate doing anyway, and a computer can crunch numbers faster and more accurately than the smartest human. There will still be, though, a requirement for humans to make the decisions about what to do with those crunched numbers. As for the impact on students, if educators abdicate their responsibility to set clear standards and requirements and monitor their students’ activities, there could be situations where students ‘let the AI do it,’ thus not acquiring research and communication skills of their own. I teach online graduate courses in geopolitics, for example, and I use AI for baseline grading—with extensive manual input from me—which frees me to focus on students having problems, and to have the time to carefully review their written assignments. I forbid my students from using AI to write their essays, and caution them when using AI to do research to verify everything the AI provides them, preferably with at least one or two non-AI sources. Properly used, AI can be an aid in compiling sources for further study, and for establishing outlines of projects.
Because AI, like human researchers, is pulling the information it provides from Internet searches, it can sometimes be wrong, just as a human researcher who doesn’t try to verify what pops up on the screen in a search can be wrong. A good example in the news recently was Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former lawyer and fixer having to admit that in a court filing he submitted some phony legal cases that had been provided by an AI. You can’t blame the AI for this. Depending on how he worded his search, it provided relevant cases that it found in searching the Internet, but the Internet is like an open shelf, anyone with a computer can put anything on it. If you grab things off the shelf without examining them closely, you—or the AI—just might get the wrong thing.
So, let’s stop blaming the AI for things going wrong. AI is a tool, and like any tool, it can be used or misused. Don’t blame the tool, blame the mechanic.