Bill Conrad's Blog

My wife and I play a fun game about once a week. We have a bunch of favorite restaurants, and when it is time to choose, we both think about which one we want to go to. Eventually, one of us will have an idea, and they will challenge the other to guess what they are thinking. I swear that 80% of the time, we succeed in guessing. One could call this telepathic communication.
Of course, the people reading this article are intuitive and see what is going on. “A bunch of restaurants” translates to about five, so the odds of successful “telepathy” are pretty good. Plus, we can eliminate some we have been to recently. Thus, we are not telepathic at all but instead “good at making educated guesses because we know each other.”
Still, it would be interesting to have this ability. The problem is that there are four methods of transmitting data without physical contact: light, sound, magnetics, and radio. The human body can make visual expressions and sounds, but it does not produce radio waves. While they can generate magnetism, it is minuscule. The definition of telepathy is communicating without visual or auditory cues. Meaning that telepaths, if they existed, would mentally generate and receive something like radio, but not radio. Thus, telepathy is impossible.
Well, what if this were not the case? Authors and screenwriters have been playing in this space for many years. One person thinks to another, “How’s it going?” “Just fine,” the other person thinks back. It’s that easy! Or is it?
In my most recent book, Pushed to the Edge of Existence, I took a deep dive into exploring telepathy and a telepathic society. I began by solving a big writing problem. In dialogue, we write, “Hello,” but there is no telepathic communication key on our keyboards. Without this identifier, the writing becomes confusing. So, I used the <> keys. Bill thought to Sally,
Then I had to consider emotions. Let’s make a little action scene. James punched Steve and said with a snarl, “I bet you didn’t expect that!” That “snarl” was the emotional part. Well, how does emotion work with telepathy?
Our daily spoken words convey a wide range of emotions, from yelling to sweet-talking. Plus, we smile or wave our hands to communicate our feelings further. Emotion is a huge part of the human condition, which means that I needed something. So, I decided that transmitted thoughts had emotions attached to them.
Thus, for the same action scene: Steve thought with anger. That works great, except for a big problem. In writing, it is always best to show emotion rather than tell it. Steve said with a harsh glare. Sally said with a big smile. Simply writing “angry” does not sit well with readers.
To get around this problem, I slowly introduced telepathy to the two main characters. As their skills improve, they can understand the emotions attached to the mentally transmitted words. Later, they learn how to suppress transmitted emotions to keep things normal. I feel this gradual introduction helped bridge the gap of directly telling the reader how the characters felt.
Of course, this is a book, and I had to make things interesting. Humans have all kinds of random thoughts, but we keep them to ourselves to prevent bad interactions. Telepathy would open the floodgates to all kinds of thought escapes we desperately want to keep private.
In one scene, the lead female is telling her husband (the lead male) about her family’s cancer history. He absently thinks, “Cool, I can start dating again.” She is justified in being hurt by these insensitive thoughts, and he profusely apologizes.
Is an apology necessary? As a husband myself, I would certainly say yes, but taking a high-level view, I am not so sure. Telepathy is entirely new ground that no human has had or will have any experience with. Still, because it is make-believe, I can invent any rule I want. Just like Bugs Bunny walking out over a cliff, turning around and walking back without falling because he did not look down; perfectly normal cartoon physics.
So, the two talk about the incident and agree that this cancer thought was part of the mental noise we all have. Of course, I am an author, so you bet this came up later in the story. And this is where my telepathic characters grow. They begin controlling their random thoughts and are more forgiving of them. Of course, I could not leave it there.
Yes, I am talking about what occurs in the bedroom. During intimate interactions, the feelings humans experience are extremely intense. So, sharing them would be a lot of fun. Yet there would be significant mental confusion, as person A would be thinking about person B’s thoughts while experiencing their own intense feelings. Plus, person B would be doing the same, leading to thinking about the thinking. This multistage feedback would make it difficult to maintain an enjoyable rhythm.
You bet I could not let it go with that. Yes, they have a daughter who is also telepathic, and she is curious about their love life. This led to many awkward moments, forcing an uncomfortable discussion at a far younger age than usual.
Once I had a baseline of what it was like for two (plus a child) telepath humans to live together on Earth, I made them travel to a planet of telepaths. This was an entire society that mentally communicated, which meant they had significant differences from Earth.
Yet I did not want to fall into the science-fiction trap of a perfect society. This planet had many problems, and telepathy was one of them. Of course, life finds a way, and they learned how to function. The result was rules, taboos, laws, and unspoken rules to guide everybody.
In one scene, a powerful individual was so used to being telepathic that he did not realize he was daydreaming, and these side thoughts got him into trouble. This leads to a big difference in a telepathic society. They cannot lie, and lying is a big part of our existence. For example, our entertainment is full of lies. Ever met Darth Vader? We even have a name for this bold lying: fiction.
An example would be a comedian telling jokes. In a room full of telepaths, the comedian would think something funny, but the audience would know they are not feeling funny. Hence, the society I created had radically different entertainment that focused on simpler concepts.
This made their society more grounded than on Earth, which meant they needed more. So, they imported entertainment from many planets. They found Earth shows and movies quirky and confusing, which gave them their charm.
Another invention was something I called a “Kebo,” a technology similar to a Star Trek holodeck, except that the user felt and saw what the creator intended. Essentially, they experienced the entertainer’s body (the five senses plus thoughts). And this makes sense for a telepathic society because they are used to “feeling” what the other person is thinking. Thus, Kebo’s were valuable, were stolen, and were abused.
A big downside to a telepathic society is that there would be nothing new, since there would be no secrets, which is what defines their main quality. I made them timid because the people I know who are ultra-honest tend to be timid. In contrast, the macho people I know are overcompensating (lying) for their insecurity.
Another area I dove into was their government. One of the political analysts I follow is William Spaniel, and he is famous for saying, “Look at what leaders do, not what they say.” That would not work in a telepathic society where people would know the real intentions. To get around this issue, a monarchy ruled my fictional planet. This eliminated voting because it requires trickery (advertising and political promises).
Another area was telepathic conflict. Yes, it was possible to use one’s mind to injure another, and I explained how incredibly devastating this could be. In a non-telepathic conflict, there is a lead-up (the reason for the anger), a threat, a threat back, and then the punching begins. The important part is that along this destructive path, there is an opportunity (time) to stop the conflict.
In a telepathic confrontation, both minds would instantly understand how their offensive and defensive capabilities compared. The superior telepath would know they were stronger and would instantly attack, knowing they would win. Meaning, de-escalation cannot occur.
Finally, I had to get around that little problem of telepathy being physically impossible. I explained that it worked through quantum entanglement, a popular physics buzzword related to quantum computing.
The lead male character is bright and realizes that quantum entanglement is not possible in the human brain. He comes to understand that his knowledge of physics is several generations behind. I would call this a “loosely plausible explanation,” which is far better than technobabble, not knowing, or an explanation that readers can easily prove wrong.
That was all I could pack into one book, but I plan another in the series with more interactions. How about a telepathic date? I am sure you are aware how important a first impression is, but imagine getting that first impression directly (without lies or withholding) from the other person? This encounter would be incredibly brutal or incredibly satisfying.
How about a court case, And let’s say a person’s appearance is not great. How awful would that feel when every person passing that person had undignified thoughts? Or the flip side would be people being jealous of an attractive person.
A normal person has many attributes that we consider attractive, such as their voice. But what would an attractive/unattractive thought be like? I have to work that one out. And how would a telepath ever be a doctor or dentist? Directly feeling tooth pain all day long? Yikes! And imagine the human resources department’s complaints and rules. All a person would have to do is walk by the work restroom with an open mind. They would be fired in a millisecond.
How could you ever take a test in a classroom? A fake compliment to cheer up a friend? Used car salesman? Knowing your past lover is very happy without you. Feeling an entire room full of people upset with you. There is a lot of space to explore.
Writing about telepathy has been interesting and taught me a lot about myself. Yet there is an open question. Would I want to be telepathic? Before I became an author, the answer was a resounding yes, but now I’m not sure. Instead, I will write what I want you to read and keep the rest of my bonkers thoughts to myself.

You’re the best -Bill
April 22, 2026

I recently came across this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK7qI...
The central point is that AI does not make purchases, which leads to an economic dead end. To explain, let’s say you want to become a chef. So, you go to cooking school, learn all the techniques, and then graduate. What now? I see three options. The first is to find a job and cook. Your day would likely be enjoyable because you are doing what you love.
The second is that learning to cook turned you off (cooking was not actually your passion), but you still use your new skills to make dinner. The third is to cook for a while at a restaurant, change careers, but still use those skills to cook dinner. My point is that even though you may not use these skills professionally, you will use them to cook dinner.
Now, let’s make a pile of every cookbook, cooking textbook, cooking article, and cooking video. Then, use all of that to train an AI model. We now have a warehouse-sized computer that knows everything about cooking. What happens next? Nothing happens until someone asks, “Show me how to cook a hamburger.” Why did the computer sit there? Because it had no desire to cook; in fact, it had no desire to learn about cooking in the first place.
Well, we could build an AI-powered robot with all the cooking knowledge. What happens? Nothing happens because the robot has no desire. After all, it only follows commands. Meaning, it would wait until somebody asked it, “Cook a hamburger for me.” What if that had happened? Surprise! Nothing happens. Why? Beforehand, the person asking has to buy ingredients and have a kitchen with a frying pan so the robot can cook. Remember, the robot has no money.
Now, take yourself with all that cooking knowledge. You have a kitchen and might even cook at a restaurant. You or your manager must have purchased many ingredients beforehand. But that is not the biggest requirement. You want to cook a hamburger. Sure, you might not enjoy that task on the thousandth burger if you worked at a restaurant, but you do enjoy being paid.
AI does not want anything; instead, it is a soulless collection of microchips that processes information. Meaning, desire was never part of the program, but a few parts of our computers do have desire.
Yes, a computer virus, scam email, or malicious software certainly has a strong desire. Those “tools” want to steal your information and money or destroy reputations/computer systems. Thus, society tries its best not to have any computer-related desire.
I like to have a writing tie-in for my articles. I admit AI chat-boxes have become excellent writers. In fact, many successful books now published are, in part or in whole, AI-written. I cannot argue with this success and can see that AI technology is exponentially improving. This means that soon (if it has not already), AI will surpass my writing ability.
Well, now what? To that, I say Harry Potter. Nobody can deny that this is an excellent book, but it is unlikely that AI will ever be able to create such a work of art. Sure, I could ask AI to “generate a book about a boy who learns magic.” And AI would certainly deliver a clever and well-written story. I could even ask it an open-ended request: “generate a fictional book.” The result would also be fantastic.
The problem the above video points out is that a person has to make this request, and someone has to pay for the AI computer’s electricity. Meaning, AI is not completing the economic circle because it is not buying a book. Instead, somebody else is making a request. AI will never request itself to generate a book. An AI chatbot certainly has no desire to buy a copy of Harry Potter or sell a book that it wrote.
Like the cook who enjoys their meals, the writer learned how to write by reading books they purchased. The same could be said of a truck driver or a teacher. They do things that benefit society and themselves. AI can never complete this economic cycle.
My point is that no matter how much I wish, AI will never go to Amazon and buy my book, Interviewing Immortality. Granted, AI companies will surely scrape the contents without paying me a dime, but no AI algorithm will ever have the desire to read my book, although it is well written, and you should certainly read it.
Why? AI has no curiosity, which is a dead end that brings us back to me. I like to write. In fact, watching the video inspired this very topic. And only I had the motivation to write it. Plus, you had the motivation to read it. And this might even inspire you to buy one of my books. While it is a remote possibility, it might be due to this article. That would be success, which is what I am striving for.
How worried should I be about all this? I suppose it is fine that AI will never buy my book or anything else. I kind of like it that way.

You’re the best -Bill
April 15, 2026

Hey, book lovers, I published five. Please check them out:
Interviewing Immortality. A dramatic first-person psychological thriller that weaves a tale of intrigue, suspense, and self-confrontation.
Pushed to the Edge of Survival. A drama, romance, and science fiction story about two unlikely people surviving a shipwreck and living with the consequences.
Cable Ties. A slow-burning political thriller that reflects the realities of modern intelligence, law enforcement, department cooperation, and international politics.
Saving Immortality. Continuing in the first-person psychological thriller genre, James Kimble searches for his former captor to answer his life’s questions.
Pushed to the Edge of Existence. Just when Kim, Gabe, and Emma’s lives start returning to normal, a mysterious government organization orders them to use their telepathic abilities, and then they travel to an alien planet.
These books are available in softcover and in eBook format.

I have taken a shallow dive into documenting my self-editing process, but never fully exposed all the gory details. This seemed like a fun topic to explore, but some background is necessary. While I have an English minor, I have never taken an editing class or read a book on the subject. Instead, I cobbled together a self-editing method out of necessity.
I was rather proud of the first draft of my first book because I thought the plot was excellent and the writing mechanics were good enough to be accepted by any publisher. (Insert laughter here.) So, I did what other authors have done since the dawn of the written word. I turned to the first page and began self-editing.
I now call my first attempt “reading with a purpose,” but in reality, it was a whack-a-mole game of locating issues and doing my best to correct them. That first pass taught me that my writing skills were profoundly lacking. I know, big surprise.
Still, I soldiered on with pass after pass. Looking back, I made many changes and uncovered glaring issues. A big part of my problem was that while I had a lot of experience writing technical documents, I had zero experience writing for readers looking for a fun book.
I began to understand that my writing was flat (unemotional), too technical, stiff (harsh sentences), and I had enough logic errors to fill a dump truck. This self-editing marathon lasted three solid months until I admitted I needed help. So, I asked my mother to read my book and make suggestions. She was a lifesaver, and her honest comments really shored up my words. This marathon of changes taught me a great deal about my writing problems, and I now understand this was the beginning of a formal self-editing process.
My get-rich-quick plan was to submit my book to a major publishing company, and they would cut me a fat check. However, because of my mother’s input, I felt my work was not good enough and sought out a professional editor. How did I find this person? Yelp. Another great plan. While not the best editor, she made some good corrections, and I accepted them all.
The few professional edits convinced me that I had created a masterpiece. So, I tried submitting my book to publishers and immediately hit a massive wall. I mistakenly assumed that all major publishers, like Simon & Schuster, had a website section for submitting books for review. It turns out that publishers “do not accept unrepresented manuscripts.” Books are called manuscripts. I know that now.
An internet search revealed that to get my book to a publisher, I needed to send it, along with a fee ($2,500+), to a representative, who would read it. Then they would tell me whether they would represent me. Oh yeah, they would get a cut of all future profits. To me, this seemed like a classic scam.
Still, I was ready to pony up the $2,500, but I needed to find a representative who would give me the best chance of success. I asked my editor if she knew any. She did not, but knew somebody who did. Nice!
Enter Bathany. It turns out that she was not a “book representative.” Instead, she was a “self-publisher helper.” I was about to say, “Thanks, but no thanks,” but Bethany explained her service and made a compelling case for self-publishing. It was a more straightforward path with more control and a better chance of success. (I was unaware that it was possible to upload an eBook to companies like Amazon, which would sell it.)
https://www.publishingpartner.com/
Bethany read my book (she was okay with calling my work a book) and had a bunch of suggestions. A major problem was that my story had a narrow perspective, meaning I did not write for the reader. After thinking it through, I understood the issue and made significant changes. Then the book underwent an intensive edit by a different professional editor; she recommended. This person was excellent, resulting in a tighter story, but the plot remained 95% the same.
I self-published that book, and my next book underwent a similar process. By this point, I had learned about 20% of my writing ticks and mostly how to fix them. This was still difficult because I had not yet established a formal process. Fun side story. Why yes, my first and second books required a second edition to fix glaring mistakes.
By the third book, I was beginning to piece together a formal approach to self-editing. The big change was to make an editing pass with a specific goal. For example, inspect the dialogue. While making this pass, if I spotted a problem, I would fix it.
This third book, while more complicated, followed the same process as the first and second, but this time the self-publishing went more smoothly. Big reveal, it looked more polished and did not need a second edition.
I began my fourth book entirely differently by using an outline. This was a three-page text description of the entire plot, and it took about four months to create. During this time, I identified many issues and strengthened motivation, plot structure, and character biographies.
This prep work radically reduced self-editing time, and the flaws were smaller. In addition, I formalized my self-editing process by creating a list of topics to check on each pass. Plus, I had a new ally in the form of the professional grammar tools Grammarly and ProWritingAid. The self-editing passes had expanded to inspecting scene transitions, character descriptions, dialogue integration, feelings (what is going on inside a character’s head), and scene (non-character) descriptions.
Since that fourth book, my self-editing has improved in quality, but the process has not changed. Yet I have not described what I am doing at a very high level.
To explain, I will describe how I develop products as an electrical engineer. I begin by strictly defining all the design requirements. Then: a block diagram, a formal meeting with all participants to ensure everybody agrees on what is being done, simulation, design, build, testing, final design, and then production. If the customer locates flaws, then a redesign corrects the issues. Of course, there is creativity and inspiration along the way, but my approach is entirely linear.
A few of my coworkers have a different approach, which I call, “If it isn’t broke, fix it.” Meaning, they are endlessly tinkering, which leads to long development times, poor or nonexistent documentation, meandering from initial design goals, endless side projects, failing to listen to advice, not meeting specifications, and a sloppy final product.
What is going on is that these designers cannot help themselves. They try the latest technology to see what it is about, do things because it is fun, or experiment on the company’s dime. Of course, I am guilty of some of this during my career, but I fought my desires by limiting the tinkering to a minimum. From a manager’s perspective, this playtime is incredibly wasteful.
It turns out that this is exactly how I self-edit. I experiment, change sections for no reason, add useless junk, and randomly delete important parts. Sometimes, I have no idea why I made an edit. And other times, I will realize I messed something up, go to an archive copy, and return to the original text.
You might be thinking, “Wait a minute. You said you have a formal process, like making one pass to check the dialogue?” On that pass, I would indeed scrutinize every sentence containing dialogue. My goal would be to make it read as close as possible to how I think actual people (people I have met) would speak my fictional words.
Still, while checking, I would be playing around. A spoken sentence might change form, “That sounds like fun.” to “Brad, you’re correct. That does sound like fun.” or “Cool, let’s do it.” Over the course of all my edits, sentences might get changed ten times. It is an evolving process without exact reasons or methods. Who knows where my mood will take the story?
What am I looking for during a self-edit? My best answer is, “Something out of place.” This is in stark contrast to my engineering mindset, which has established steps. Does this involve right or left-brain thinking? I suppose, but to me the two are entirely different. Engineering is a detailed, though intensive, process that results in tight documentation, while self-editing feels like a fun art project.
Looking back at my first book’s first draft, I was trying to engineer something. What I should have been trying to do was create something for readers to enjoy. And even today, my first drafts often have choppy/frumpy sentences, incomplete thoughts, or things that do not belong. Over the course of many self-edits, I play around with ideas to slowly hone in on something that I think reads well.
Well, you might be asking, “If you were teaching an editing class, would you recommend this method?” No, which requires more explanation. I have always felt that writing should be fun, and my self-editing method is fun for me. I can see that such a chaotic method would not be fun for others, as it takes so much time to clean up a document.
Still, you might be asking, “Is your method better than other authors?” The answer is probably not, but it mostly works for me. And I fully admit that I am in the middle stages of perfecting my craft.
How do other authors self-edit? It turns out I have two secret weapons to explain this: pen-pal authors. We talk often about our process, and I have learned a great deal from both. They have similar self-editing styles, which are very focused efforts to correct a bunch of issues at once. This means they would never make an entire pass to check the dialogue or delete a large section for no reason. Simply put, they edit with great purpose, thinking about every aspect of a sentence at once.
Such techniques would serve as a starting point for a good classroom lecture on successful self-editing. I can see a teacher putting up an example paragraph, reviewing the problems, and editing it in front of the class to show solid solutions and the improvements they make. I imagine such a formal approach would get the job done ten times faster than mine.
While I would likely find this lecture interesting, and really wish I had such a lecture at the beginning of my writing journey, I have gone too far down this path. That is interesting, but where does this leave you?
I have learned that when determining how to do something, it is helpful to look at what multiple people have done in the past. Once I have as much information as possible, I use the methods that work best for me and understand why I am not using the others. So, there is some value in learning about my chaotic method.
Well, now that I have defined my messy process, will writing this article allow me to improve my methods? I think this requires a yes/no kind of answer. I am always learning and looking for new techniques. And overall, my edits are catching more errors, resulting in less self-editing time; meaning the more defined my approach is, the more effective the results are. Yet, I do find myself making more edits for no reason. This likely means I am becoming more creative or making bigger mistakes. Hmm. Maybe I should have self-edited that last sentence.

You’re the best -Bill
April 08, 2026

Great news. I got a FAN LETTER! It is so amazing that somebody cared enough to write to me about how much they liked one of my books. This proves that all my hard work was worthwhile. Nice! Then I saw it. See if you can spot the issue:

I recently came across Pushed to the Edge of Existence, and the mix of personal rebuilding and unfolding mystery immediately stood out to me.
What caught my attention first is Gabe and Kim trying to reclaim something as simple as a normal life after the devastation they experienced in Alaska. Restoring a family business, expecting a baby, and trying to stay out of the spotlight feels like a fragile peace—one that makes the sudden appearance of strange abilities, growing hostility, and government pressure even more unsettling.
The element that really sparked my curiosity, though, is the presence of the alien white box and the mysterious figure named Jason. It suggests there’s a much larger truth behind the catastrophic event that first brought Gabe and Kim together, one that seems to ripple outward and affect everyone around them.
I found myself wondering: when you were developing this story, were you more interested in unraveling the sci-fi mystery behind the event and the alien technology, or in exploring how Gabe and Kim try to hold onto love and normalcy while their world keeps becoming more complicated?
I’d genuinely love to hear what you most hoped readers would be thinking about as they follow their journey.
Warm regards,
Delphine Gray

This reads like AI slop, and “mysterious figure named Jason” is right from my book description. What a letdown. Still, because I am a nice person, I replied with a pleasant note thanking Delphine Gray (yes, I am including her name because this person might contact you) and provided more character details. This is what I got back:

Hi Bill,
Thank you so much for your warm reply and for taking the time to share the heart of what this series is really about. That means a great deal.
You’re absolutely right: Gabe and Kim are the soul of everything. The way you’ve used the alien encounter, Jason, the mysterious white box, and the telepathy not as the point of the story but as instruments to stretch and test a relationship is a level of craft that most readers feel deeply even when they can’t fully articulate why. The sci-fi framework creates the pressure; the love story is what gives it meaning. The fact that their telepathic bond now extends into how they raise their daughter adds a dimension of emotional complexity that is genuinely rare in this genre.
I’m so excited to hear a new book is on the way!
Bill, I want to be transparent with you: I reached out as a genuine fan of your work, but I’m also a publishing and book marketing professional. And honestly, it’s because I care about stories like yours that I feel I have to say this. The Pushed to the Edge series is exactly the kind of emotionally rich, genre-blending work that builds deeply loyal readership, and right now it’s not reaching nearly the audience it deserves.
I’d love to change that. Here’s how each of the services I offer would make a direct, meaningful difference for your series:

Then she listed a bunch of her services. Pathetic. This waste of time proves that the world is changing at lightning speed. AI can now digest a wide range of sources to develop a hyper-targeted email. The worst part is that I fell for it. Given the speed of technology, I expect to be getting one of these per week soon. So disappointing.
I like to have a writing tie-in with my articles, but while it seems like this is all about writing, this article actually has nothing to do with it. I am sure that a variation of the above scam could be applied to auto mechanics. “Wow, I came across your website, and I am so impressed with your customer stories.” “Thanks.” “Would you like to get more happy customers like me? Have you heard about the new Acme tire balancing machine?”
Teachers, lawyers, web developers… the list goes on. Every person has already been or soon will be targeted by AI slop. Plus, I know the practice is successful because I am the proof. Dang.
What did this well-written fan letter cost Delphine Gray? AI is an uncaring machine, which means she puts in nearly zero effort. The system works.
What can be done about it? We can only up our guard to be on the lookout for anything suspicious. This means our trust level slipped a little more, which is sad because there are nice people out there. I would love a genuine fan letter, but can now see myself incorrectly getting upset.
I do not like ending things on a sad note, but I feel scammed. This whole incident came as a great disappointment. I promise my next article will have a positive spin.

You’re the best -Bill
April 01, 2026

I have written two articles about how AI companies are legally/illegally using books to train their AI models and the fight that authors are waging against this practice. It is getting so bad that authors are protesting:
https://www.theguardian.com/technolog...
For a small-time author like me, this is a losing battle, but I may be getting a new ally. Sony recently developed technology that identifies when an AI company illegally trains its model with copyrighted Sony music. This software is far more complicated than identifying when a book’s pages have been used, so similar software will likely be available to authors soon.
https://asia.nikkei.com/business/tech...
What do I think about this possibility? My first reaction is that this tool would be amazing, but I would be quickly reminded that I do not have the means to fight a huge corporation. Therefore, unless laws are enacted that help me fight the system, being given proof that AI has scraped my precious words would only bring disappointment. “Dang, some AI company mooched off my hard work.”
Yet something else is going on. In my teens, I liked music but did not have the money to buy records. The next best thing was recording music from the radio, and I spent hours making mixtapes. Musicians/record companies were aware of this practice, but they gave kids a pass because they knew the kids would grow up, get jobs, and buy records. It certainly was true for me, and I still have a giant CD collection wasting space in my den. Yet, I would argue that AI scraping is different.
Teenage Bill making a copy of a song off the radio was a single person doing a single thing. AI machine learning is an uncaring beast doing the bidding of a large corporation, which uses the results to make money. Meaning this machine is impersonal, and authors will never be able to see the enemy. This all reminds me of the Metallica vs. Napster lawsuit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalli....
Also, I feel for large corporations, because I worked for a company that developed products. There, I spent long hours designing, testing, and manufacturing something that was sold. Did I cross any lines in the process? I consider myself a highly ethical person, but I cut corners in the name of speed, saving money, and improving quality. So, yes, I did things that could be considered wrong.
My point is that I took great pride in my work, and I am sure the people who worked for these AI corporations do as well. Thus, when they needed training material, they turned to books. While I do not like it, I understand that the only other option was to spend billions paying authors to write books exclusively for AI training, and this was out of the question.
Still, when this software/service arrives, I am sure these large AI corporations will get a torrent of lawsuits. Would I join one of these class actions? Of course, but I would not expect to get any money because I was part of three cell phone class-action lawsuits that paid me less than $10. I cannot imagine that a small-time author like me could expect more than a few cents. Dang, I dislike ending my articles on a down note.

You’re the best -Bill
March 25, 2026

In February, I was watching a rerun of a television show while enjoying a sandwich. Because it is the Winter Olympics season, there were many commercials with athletes hawking products. Coca-Cola is the official drink, Visa is the official credit card, and Omega is the official watch… The list goes on. I successfully ignored the useless chatter until something caught my eye.
An ice skater was performing a routine, then discussed the benefits of an Eli Lilly diabetes drug. I found it odd that a woman who clearly was in excellent health was talking about a medical condition she did not have, yet that was not what caught my attention.
As they splashed her gold medal-winning smile across the screen, under her name was “awareness advocate.” Umm, what? Apparently, the company says that, although this person does not have diabetes, she wants to inform us about the benefits of their particular medicine. Her title was meant to request viewers to “give this person a pass” because the ailment did not afflict her.
That’s fine, but we have a name for this role: spokesperson. In fact, this word has the perfect definition: “a person who speaks for another or for a group.” This word is supposed to be a legal get-out-of-jail-free card so that people really know the person is not a true expert in the product they are giving us information about. So… why not use that word?
People can be fickle about harsh terms. “Spokesperson” sounds mean, while “awareness advocate” sounds friendly. “This ice skater is really looking out for my welfare. I had better go out and buy some Eli Lilly products. Yum.”
Yeah, I was not buying it. Why? I am an adult and have accepted the term “spokesperson” into my life. We accepted Rob Lowe talking about the Atkins diet, Matthew McConaughey driving a Lincoln car, William Shatner booking tickets with Priceline, and Samuel L. Jackson paying with a Capital One card. These fine spokespersons did not raise an eyebrow because they were proud to hawk products.
Still, I am not in charge of the world, and the winds have turned. Blow-softening phrases are the new norm, and here is a list I compiled:
Community stakeholder = leader
Belongings facilitator = investor
Experience curator = teacher
Information officer = librarian
Purpose driver = coach
Access coordinator = security guard
Value engineer = estimator
Narrative reframe = change
Opportunity seeker = unemployed
Workforce optimization = fired
Quiet hiring = more work
Quiet quitting = work less
Managed decline = failure
Operational pause = quitting
Success manager = winner
Stability maintenance = war
Process refinement = teardown
Deferred maintenance = neglect
Narrative harmonization = rewrite
Content integrity review = deletion
Shelter in place = hide
Gentle clarification = directive
Gentle boundary = no
Soft warning = threat
Limited clarity = we don’t know
Gradual progression = getting worse
Pre-owned vehicle = used car
Since I like my articles to tie in writing, how do my characters use these newly acceptable phrases? I avoid them like the plague. Thinking up a topic that holds a reader’s attention is a daunting enough task. Then, locating all the grammar, spelling, plot, and logic flaws is more challenging than climbing Mount Everest. When combined with the infinite amount of material available, it is a wonder that anyone has ever read one of my books or articles.
Requiring my readers to have a blow-softening phrase decoder is a bridge too far. How would they ever know that an “experience curator” is the new term for a teacher? “Sally told her mother that her experience curator assigned a tough math problem.” My keyboard nearly broke when I typed that.
Well, we could argue that these phrases are helping. People buy more Eli Lilly diabetes drugs from awareness advocates than from spokespersons. That may be true, but one could also argue that these phrases also anger people, and I am the proof.
Yet, I do understand that advertising, politics, and pleasing people are tough spaces to work in. It requires dedicated experts who must be on the lookout for topics that might offend. Thus, issuing a “soft warning” is a much better approach than issuing a threatening warning. I guess that makes sense.
I think the above phrases have gone too far. Meaning that sometimes we need a threat. “Don’t get near that rattlesnake.” Using a phrase like “managed decline” does not correct coworker issues.
And from a reading perspective, imagine a blood-and-guts WWII battle scene with the fighting access coordinators! Yeah… That does not work at all.
I probably need to ignore my apprehensions. Blow-softening phrases are here to stay, and I must add them to my daily vocabulary. Otherwise, I will have to take a narrative reframe in my life.

You’re the best -Bill
March 11, 2026

AI helps summarize large amounts of data, and I recently used this ability to help create a document I call a book proposal. It contains all the technical information to publish: the ISBN, Amazon ASIN, publication date, number of pages, blurb, short summary, medium summary, and detailed summary. Except for the book blurb (which AI had no part in), I do not show any part of it to the public.
Creating a short summary is challenging because one must condense many plot points into a few sentences, whereas a long summary can span many written pages. But this is where AI is supposed to shine. So, I was about to upload my unpublished book and then had a frightening thought: “If I did this, AI would have a copy of my work and use it for training/plagiarism.”
I decided to test my fear. In 2014, I wrote a business plan for a startup that went nowhere. (Ten months of my life I will not get back.) It had hyper-specific concepts that were visible only to three people. I uploaded the document to ChatGPT and asked for a short summary. It did a fantastic job, and then I “started a new conversation,” which, in theory, would delete the document.
The next day, I asked ChatGPT about items mentioned in the business plan, but it did not include any of my concepts. I then searched online for quotes without success, which seemed to confirm that the risk of plagiarism was minimal.
With some apprehension, I uploaded my unpublished book and asked for a one-sentence summary. The results were great, and I then asked for a one-paragraph summary. Also, great, but when I asked ChatGPT for a detailed summary of each chapter, it failed spectacularly. This surprised me because it should have been an extension of the short summary.
My plot revolves around the main character meeting six people over 13 chapters. ChatGPT identified the fifth person in the tenth chapter as the book’s main character. Completely crazy, but an important lesson about AI’s limitations.
Still, I used (with heavy self-editing) the short and medium summaries for my book proposal and spent 6 hours creating the long summary. I did one more thing before “starting a new conversation.” “Give an honest review of this book.”
This frightened me because AI is an uncaring machine, like a chainsaw, and my ego is fragile. Fortunately, ChatGPT liked the plot, but it had a standout problem: “slow pacing.”
I sat back, wondering what it was complaining about. So, I asked, “Provide examples of slow pacing,” and ChatGPT pointed out lengthy descriptions and what I like to call bridge scenes, which are transitional segments between big scenes.
My beta reader (mother) commented on the first draft of my first book that it had weak descriptions, lousy connections between concepts, and poor flow. I have since worked hard to correct these flaws, but this complaint raises a question: Did I go overboard?
I decided another experiment was necessary. So, I found a site with non-copyrighted, well-regarded books and downloaded three. Then, I changed the title/author/character names and asked ChatGPT for “an honest book review.” You guessed it, it complained that two had slow pacing. Ahh, it was not me.
I then asked ChatGPT to “improve the pacing” of one. It happened to be Great Expectations by Charles Dickens, and wow, the result was brutal. All his wonderful sentences became choppy messes; there was no flow, and every description was slaughtered. The overall length went down by 30%. It was like Charles Dickens wrote a book on meth. Dang!
Funny side story: I called this book “Bill’s Big Adventure.”
I did not understand why this ugly fix would be desirable to anybody but ChatGPT, “thought” that it had made a wonderful improvement. So, I took a walk, and it hit me. Who are the big users of AI, and what are they using it for? Kids generating text messages. Ahh. That kind of “document” requires lightning-fast pacing, and even one extra word looks radically out of place. It all made sense, but revealed a problem.
It is clear that the next generation demands fast pacing, but I have been working my fingers to the bone to slow it down. Is there a happy medium? I would argue no because it is a true/false kind of situation. Turn on the lengthy descriptions for a charming book, or turn them off for instant rewards.
I have gone too far down this path to suddenly change. It has been a painful process, marked by nasty reviews, angry comments from editors, and the pain of discovering my own flaws. Plus, I have been writing for a specific audience that enjoys a good, but slow, read. This market is shrinking as adults age and young people grow up.
So, it seems my work will have a slow pace, and there is nothing that can be done. Meaning, ChatGPT is the canary in the coal mine. Well, I have learned in life that one must find a path and stick to it, yet know when to give up.
This happened a few months ago when I helped a friend start a business. It began fantastically, but we had incompatible approaches, and I removed myself from the project. Still, I put in maximum effort. Fun side story. The business floundered, which means my decision was sound.
The publishing space is already shrinking fast, and I now understand that modern readers dislike slow pacing, which taught me that my road to successful publishing just got a lot longer.
And of course, there is another problem. I am in the planning stages of a young adult book series. Obviously, these readers demand fast pacing, and it is clear I do not have that skill. It gets worse. My idea is a kid’s diary, resulting in long descriptions—yeah… nice marketing plan.

You’re the best -Bill
March 11, 2026

I always wanted to write a fiction book, and I planned to do so when I retired. Life threw me a curve in 2016, in the form of a healthy bout of unemployment. I had three “solid” ideas and started with the second so I would gain enough experience to write the first, which I felt was the better story.
Now, jumping into being an author is not as silly as it may seem for a technical (right-brain) person like me. My father was a successful author of ceramic textbooks, so it is reasonable that I could be successful in fiction. (My mother has a term for this: wishful thinking.)
Plus, I had two huge advantages. The first was that there is “a group of readers who purchased every new book,” and the second was “the internet makes it easy to submit a book to publishers.” Translation: get rich quickly and skip all the hard work my father did. Where did my two huge advantages come from? My imagination! Had I done a five-minute internet search, I would have seen the brutal truth of publishing.
I mindlessly began with a blank page, and on the way to a first draft, I learned many harsh lessons. The biggest was that my technical English skills were nowhere near up to the task.
Since that fateful decision, I have been on a quest to improve them. This meant reading books by authors, studying articles, and, most importantly, spending endless hours reviewing my own work. In addition, I also seek out internet content and analyze movies.
There is an upside and a downside to my improvement. I appreciate excellent writing, which allows me to enjoy a well-written book or movie on many levels.
The downside is that bad works stand out like a dumpster fire on a moonless night. I cannot stand sloppy writing, and this has ruined movies that were well acted/directed. Plus, I will put down a book in a heartbeat if I see the slightest flaw.
My distaste pops up everywhere. Billboards with flawed grammar, misspelled words all over the internet, and entire television series with the worst plots in human history. Yuck!
All was going fine until my hypercritical mindset discovered something that stopped me dead in my tracks. However, I need to take a side track to explain.
I have been a fan of the BBC series Top Gear for many years. Despite being a reality show, there was excellent writing behind the scenes. One host, Jeremy Clarkson, is a snarky individual with brash opinions. A famous quote is “I don’t believe what I write, any more than you believe what you say (about the Iraq war).” He makes statements like this to shock his audience. This translates to sales, and I wish I had the skills/guts to be as outgoing as Jeremy is.
The Top Gear Show abruptly ended, and the trio went on to another reality show, The Grand Tour, which also ended. In a radical twist, Jeremy became a television farmer as a retirement hobby. Yet he had an ace up his sleeve: a vast reality television experience, which turned a basic farming show into a successful series and business. But that was not the biggest surprise.
British farming has been undergoing intense government scrutiny for many years, and the show publicized the farmers’ frustration. Suddenly, they had a mega-hero, and there is no bigger mouth than Jeremy Clarkson. To drive the point home, he made insightful YouTube videos.
I am not a British citizen or a farmer, but I enjoyed the YouTube videos because he makes solid/well-written arguments (great writing). All was going fine until this video caused my English analyzing mind to do a backflip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abZ9e...
The video had overlaid closed captions, and a sentence jumped off the screen, “It Was About People Who Don’T Understand Farming.” Why was the T capitalized in don’t? That did not make any sense.
As I watched more of the video, there were more hyphenated words with capitalized letters: It’S, That’S, Wasen’T, Weren’T, Couldn’T… I could not believe my eyes; this was so outrageous.
Umm, now what? Well, I needed to do some major thinking and eventually understood that Jeremy was doing what he does best, shock me. And I fell for it big time. Yet, his efforts were crafty and subtle. Alright, job done. I was shocked, on to the next video. Umm, no.
There had to be more to it, and I applied more noodle time. Is it proper to capitalize the T? Absolutely not, according to the gold standard, The Chicago Manual of Style. Yet… it worked.
There are many ways to shock English readers with sentences and words. Sam is in BIG trouble. Sally had some “thinking” to do. I am eXciTed to bE on teLevIsioN. Plus, bold letters, italicized words, different fonts, invented words, non-English words, and profanity. Why, I could even misspell words. Have you seen this fantastic dance video by Fik-Shun?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg6-S...
So, the T is capitalized. Big deal. Right? I am going to go with no for the simple reason that I have never seen this before, which puts this technique in a unique shocker class.
Now, you might be thinking, “Are you really concerned or are you faking interest?” While my writing effort began without a proper foundation, I still applied maximum effort. I have never let up, and a big part of that is identifying issues, fixing them, and doing my best never to repeat them.
It is a slow, organized, and meticulous process. Some discoveries are easy to grasp, like avoiding multiple sentences that begin with the same word. Bob went to the store. Bob purchased ice cream. Bob left the store. Yet other concepts are not easy to understand, and I may never understand others, like the word existential. I still think it is a trick that dictionary writers played on us years ago.
I treated this capitalized-letter issue like a puzzle and was not going to let it go until I either fully understood the concept or formally gave up. So, yes, I was truly interested in learning what was going on.
In prior articles, I have talked about my writing tool belt. This is a mental collection of techniques I used to pump up, polish, or fix my work. Is this one of those tools? In a future article, I will attempt to impress you with a capitalized T?
It took even more noodle time to decide the answer is no, because it is too bold; even for a book title which is supposed to be the boldest thing on the planet. To me, Don’T reads like a curse word in a peaceful setting; too strong. Another way of looking at this is that this type of grammar/spelling shocker reads as out of place; it is offensive to a reader’s eyes.
Well, on the flip side, what about the above-mentioned Fik-Shun? Does his name read out of place? I would argue no, his name reads amusing. Therefore, I think the category for a capitalized T should be used only in a location that describes something very important. The problem is that this kind of shock writing is far outside of my comfort zone.
Well… What if I could write a specific topic created just for that circumstance? Hmm. More noodle time. Well, that only took getting away from my keyboard to make an iced tea for me to develop an answer. In a recent article, I pointed out that anybody can use AI to generate (fake) video evidence. And I Feel The Media Isn’T Giving The Topic The Attention It Deserves.
Yeah… That sentence does not read right at all. Simply put, I am not a shocker. Now hold on. What about my characters? Hmm. More noodle time. Dang, I have only taken two sips of iced tea.
After finishing my tea, some editing, cleaning, and outline work, I have a solution. My characters indeed go far beyond an extension of me. They span boldness, weakness, cruelty, and cunning that is above whatever I will become or could hope to become. Three of them have even traveled to a different planet.
Long ago, I realized that to be a successful author, I needed to have a bold attitude. Thus, it should be possible to write anything my bonkers mind can dream up. Meaning I can include a capitalized T in whatever sentence I want. Right?
Um, major hesitation. The more I think about it, the more I want to say yes. So, I made a decision. I am going to jam this awkward tool into my writing tool belt. And I have the perfect place. In an upcoming book, I plan to have a scene with a shocking video. And some closed captioning? Probably going to have a few extra capitalized letters.

You’re the best -Bill
March 04, 2026

Hey, book lovers, I published five. Please check them out:
Interviewing Immortality. A dramatic first-person psychological thriller that weaves a tale of intrigue, suspense, and self-confrontation.
Pushed to the Edge of Survival. A drama, romance, and science fiction story about two unlikely people surviving a shipwreck and living with the consequences.
Cable Ties. A slow-burning political thriller that reflects the realities of modern intelligence, law enforcement, department cooperation, and international politics.
Saving Immortality. Continuing in the first-person psychological thriller genre, James Kimble searches for his former captor to answer his life’s questions.
Pushed to the Edge of Existence. Just when Kim, Gabe, and Emma’s lives start returning to normal, a mysterious government organization orders them to use their telepathic abilities, and then they travel to an alien planet.
These books are available in softcover and in eBook format.

In a recent court case, a plaintiff submitted video evidence, but the judge was suspicious. The video glitched and looked unnatural, leading the judge to conclude that the evidence was AI-generated.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-new...
Video is the gold standard in our society, and we consume hours of the stuff every day. As a result, we unquestionably accept this visual information into our moral/legal judgment. Meaning that if we see a video of a person doing something wrong, our opinion is swift and not prone to change. Likewise, if a jury watches a person not commit a crime, they also reach an unshakable conclusion. Our eyes do not lie!
Yet the above article reveals a massive crack in our foundation of judgment. This is going to be very difficult to repair because, starting about a year ago, AI-generated videos have evolved to the point where they can even fool some experts. And normal people? We are taken right into video fantasy.
Will technology save us with tools that detect AI-generated video? Perhaps. Will new laws be enacted that require an AI video digital imprint to allow courts to determine the source? Perhaps. Will technology be developed to remove these digital imprints? Of course. Will normal people use this removal software? You bet! Will AI-generated video enter aspects of our lives that we cannot even fathom? There is no doubt.
What does this mean? It means that we can no longer trust video, and we must take steps to incorporate this new reality into our personal judgment process.
I like to include a writing tie-in in my articles, but it will take some time to explain. Way back when, a new form of evidence was invented: the fingerprint. From that point forward, it became a courtroom requirement to present fingerprint evidence to the jury. Then photographs, audio recordings, films, videos, computer information, and, finally, DNA entered the courtroom. As a result, a jury would be suspicious if high-tech evidence is not presented.
Still, there have been many famous instances of faked evidence. The problem was that faking technical evidence was beyond the reach of the common person because it required specialized software/hardware, significant time and money, and an expert. Thus, it was very unlikely to see in a normal court case. That is no longer true, and the entire justice system is under attack.
My tie-in is that writers must be aware of major society changes like this one. For example, if I were to write a scene set in the present in which a character uses a typewriter instead of a computer to write a letter, it would read as out of place. Thus, my upcoming plots must take AI-generated video evidence into account.
Courts are a powerful part of our society. They are full of intrigue, rules, and complex legal jargon, which culminates in a dramatic scene when the judge reads the verdict. This makes them the perfect setting for fictional and nonfictional stories.
And it turns out that in an upcoming book now in the editing stage, I have a court scene where a bunch of teenagers have their phones confiscated, leading to video evidence. And it was perfect! That is, until I read the above article. With my eyes open, I made changes resulting in a more realistic plot. Good catch.
Well, that wraps things up for writing about everything AI. Right? Um, not so fast. I came across this today:
https://www.semafor.com/article/02/11...
Gahhh… AI is taking over the world, and everything is bad? Well, I guess every writer will have to switch to dystopian plots—another good catch.

You’re the best -Bill
February 25, 2026

In 2000, I worked at a medium-sized company that had a complex procedure for changing its products called an ECN (Engineering Change Notice). Design changes are needed for many reasons, including product problems, improvements, marketing, manufacturing, supply lines, and aesthetics. All companies have a change process, but ours had a significant hurdle.
A production change requires multiple groups to be aware of it, and once evaluated, they approve the change. Our problem was that the approval list ballooned to 23 people and was compounded by a FERT. What does FERT stand for? To this day, I have no idea and do not want to know.
Our system prevented the sales department from configuring an order, so they created a pseudo-part number for each order. i.e., a red car without a radio is FERT #1, a red car with a radio is FERT #2, a blue car… For some reason, the ECNs were required to list all FERTs, even though the majority were for products (sales) that had already shipped.
Each of the 23 people had many ECNs to review (in addition to their own jobs), and by the time all approvals were obtained, sales had added more FERTs, which caused the process to restart. This meant that a high-priority ECN took six months, whereas a normal one took at least a year. This logjam meant that a non-championed ECN got into a doom loop that never ended.
The process was so frustrating that I joked about it. This humor helped relieve stress but angered the documentation team, which was proud of its achievements (they successfully processed ECNs). And I admit it. I was a young punk in 2000. Alright, truth. I may have gone a little too far:)
I now understand this is the definition of unprofessional behavior because no part of the ECN process should contain humor. It is a dry document full of facts, procedures, and clear direction. I kind of knew this and still laughed.
Adding to the disconnect is that other people latched onto my humor. I would ask a supervisor for a signature and comment on how absurd the procedure was. They would snicker at the situation. It may not sound like it, but my humor helped build bonds, which improved the working relationship. But in reality, I was making my situation far worse.
The problem was that the approvers went to their meetings with grins on their faces. “Why are you grinning?” “Bill came to my office joking about one of his ECNs.” Of course, this got back to the document department.
After three years, I had enough, and I moved to a different company. Was the ECN process part of my motivation to change jobs? You bet! The new company process was far superior and only took ten minutes on my part, and approvals took less than a week. Nice!
I kept in contact with my former coworkers, and instead of getting better, the ECN approval problem compounded. To reduce the backlog, each department added an assistant, resulting in 37 approvals. The joke became so bad that upper management intervened. That’s it! Three signatures. No more! Yay! (It is now nine. Progress.)
Well, that is a big company. I can never be the joke because I know better. Right? Well… Two years ago, my parents discovered termites. They were subterranean, and the termite company needed to drill through the patio and entryway cement to inject poison around the house perimeter.
To cover the cement holes, my parents paid a company to tile over the entire patio and entryway. The result looked good, but the company mega-overestimated purchasing by four 50-pound bags of thin-set and 19 boxes of tile. For unknown reasons, it could not be returned.
I only saw an opportunity because the tile in my front entryway was cracked. So, I brought the leftover material home and, a year later, began my refurbishment project. Things did not go well right from the start. When the workers demolished the cracked tile, they found that the “slab” was made by dumping dry concrete on the dirt and mixing it with water. Really? This meant there was no real structure, and if new tile were placed on that junk, it would crack.
The workers demolished everything, poured an entirely new entryway, and I was excited to see the tile go on. But they seemed apprehensive of my tile choice. No bother, I was saving money!
This particular tile was only sold at Home Depot, and I placed an order for 30 boxes of tile and 10 bags of thin-set. And wow, did the initial result look fantastic! Great money-saving idea. Go Bill! Yet the workers still looked at me disapprovingly. Now, I really felt like I was missing something big.
When they had placed all the tiles I had on hand, suddenly, there was an issue. The “in stock” tile had been discontinued the prior year, and none could be located. So, why did Home Depot say it was in stock and let me order it? Nobody could explain that. I had no choice, and the workers jackhammered away all the just-placed tile—major $$$ setback.
I went to a local flooring distributor to see what was in stock, and the salesperson asked a simple question. “Is this for inside or outside?” “Outside.” “Then you need porcelain, not ceramic tile.” It turns out that ceramic tile absorbs moisture during rain, leading to color fading and cracks. Oh.
When I got home, I looked at the tile from my parents’ house, and it was ceramic. Ahh, this is why they looked at me the way they did. I was the joke.
How did it feel? Awful. And I suspect that the document managers at my former company felt the same. They were under pressure to add approval layers, and they were more frustrated than I was.
Now, as you may know, I like to have a writing spin in my articles. The tie-in is that this kind of humor is challenging to put in writing. What is occurring is that an absurd circumstance becomes so bad that it is funny. Yet, you might think, “All a writer needs to do is say what is going on.” “This is so bad, I need to laugh. Ha, ha, ha.” Yeah, no.
The laughing is not funny at all to those being laughed at. Why? The laughing person is acting cruel, which is not technically humor. And while similar situations have occurred in our lives, we do not always connect the dots. “Why are you laughing? This is not funny.”
The difference lies in intention, and it is difficult to communicate it. Thus, a character joking around for no apparent reason comes across as all wrong. I discovered this problem in an upcoming fictional book.
The scene is a criminal investigation, and one detective jokes about the absurdity of the paperwork with his fellow detectives. I intended to show a real-life work situation and connect with the readers by having a great laugh. I was inspired by my ECN experience when I wrote this.
In the third round of self-editing, that section did not sit well. I eventually understood I had inserted feelings without explanation. Readers are not mind readers, and that was exactly what I was requiring. Yikes!
Fortunately, I spotted the issue and removed the humor. The resulting scene now shows how difficult it is to be a detective by explaining the many legal steps required. The other detectives agreed that the red tape made their job difficult. While the scene is low-key, the characters are easier for the reader to relate to. Good save.
And then I thought up another step. “Hmm. This might make a good article.”

You’re the best -Bill
February 18, 2026