Bill Conrad's Blog

In a recent article, I confronted myself about how poorly I treat my characters. From a high-level view, I really give it to them. Kidnapping, violence, and death… And this self-confrontation made me wonder what it takes to be an author.
One would think that a romantic person writes romance books and a super-soldier writes action books. Yet, we know that authors come in all shapes and sizes.
That seems all normal, but my bonkers mind got hung up on a thought. As I stated, I really put my characters into awful situations, but what if I took it a little further? I draw the line at horror, exploitation, and erotic themes. This is because my ethics prevent me from creating such stories, meaning that I do not allow myself to write about specific topics.
My significant thought is: What change would be necessary for me to go past my line, such as writing a horror book? The answer is that I would have to undergo a radical shift in ethics. Perhaps if I became a drug abuser, were kidnapped, or were sent to prison. Meaning that to survive, I would have to adopt deplorable behavior, which would influence many parts of my life.
I guess I could see myself writing some nasty material after a tragic circumstance, but this makes me wonder about other authors. I am not into horror books or movies, but I have seen The Silence of the Lambs. It is based on the book by Thomas Harris, and while disturbing, I found the movie excellent.
This leads to the question. Is Thomas a depraved individual? I know the answer is no (because he did not write that book in a mental hospital), but the movie had a ghastly plot. There had to be some element in his mind that was abnormal, or at the very least radically different from mine. Which makes me wonder, “Do authors with poor ethics have a greater ability to write good stories?”
If you have read my prior articles, you know what I did. I took a walk to think about it. Along the way, I mentally listed all the story material I chose not to touch. I then thought about what it would feel like to enter this territory.
So, I did a mental experiment by thinking up a horror story. It began with a peaceful family having a wonderful dinner, and suddenly a monster broke down their front door. He attacked the family in a blood-filled rage, resulting in their deaths.
Not a great plot and certainly not something to be proud of. This was unrealistic, and I do not think my readers would enjoy seeing a family in pain.
How would I fix it? I would provide more backstory, which would transform a horror story into a low-impact drama. This would carefully lead readers from a normal person to one with poor morals (the monster) who feels they have no choice but to attack an innocent family.
Umm, that was nice, but I know some readers love to curl up with a good horror novel. This meant that I needed to rethink my approach and took another walk.
The excellent book Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card put the main character through an awful experience. While I try my best to subject my characters to well-written bad situations, Orson went far outside my comfort zone.
Why? In my stories, bad events occur, but I try to keep outside influences to a minimum. This is because, in my mind, a story reads more realistically when a character makes their own trouble.
In Ender’s Game, multiple children were subjected to external forces. A crafted program intended to cause pain, manipulate their minds, and turn the kids against each other. The result was multiple damaged kids.
While I enjoyed the book, it left me with a bad taste because Orson went a little too far. Yet, this is not necessarily a bad thing for me. It is good to be exposed to multiple viewpoints and realities. This provides balance and perspective, which are essential for growth, understanding, and judgment.
What would it take for me to write Ender’s Game? This is precisely the kind of plot I can relate to. It flows with my writing style, the type of characters I like to create, and I enjoyed the science fiction theme. But, dang, this would be tough to write because I cannot be that mean. Alright, but what about Orson? Is something different in him?
Another way of looking at this is: What part of me would have to break so that I could write his book? My writing experience has taught me that to write, one must believe in the plot and characters, which means that the writer must be willing to allow certain circumstances to occur.
And my walk revealed another aspect. I have a daughter and have been a kid. I did not like it when bad things happened to her, nor did I like it when bad things happened to me growing up. This is proof that my morals are where they should be.
Well, a book is just a book. It is called fiction for a reason. True, but I still must live with myself and bad reviews. I can only conclude that Orson has something fundamental I do not. But what is it?
So, I took a third walk and remembered I have an ace up my sleeve. Along my writing journey, I met fellow authors. We compare writing styles, share stories, and trade techniques. It so happens that two of my friends write in spaces that I choose not to. And we have discussed our writing space many times.
So… What’s different between them and me? The answer is nothing. They are great people with above-average morals. The only difference I can identify is that they choose to write different kinds of books.
This makes sense because we all have different skill sets. I know a lot about electronics, and most people do not. On the flip side, I have never learned (or desired to learn) karate, chess, painting, singing, playing music, or dancing. Yet, I know some people picked up a brush and created a fantastic painting on their first try. This led me to a conclusion.
Writing is separate from ethics. Sure, they are related, but a good/bad person can write whatever kind of book they want. And from my walking effort, I have learned that I cannot switch off certain parts of my ethics. Other authors like Orson have greater abilities to separate their mental blocks, which allows them to develop stories that I cannot. Thus, writing is a broad skill, and I should have figured this out on my first walk. Hmm, another learning experience.
This little thought exercise added another tool to my writing toolbox. Now, I better understand my limitations and know more about the space that I write in— writing or reading a gore novel? Pass.

You’re the best -Bill
November 26, 2025

I have been doing a lot of outlining for an upcoming book that I plan to begin writing in January. The general plot is well established, but the ending is weak, and the middle sections need work. Thus, I have been trying new ideas, moving/deleting sections, and doing a lot of thinking.
I am always open to learning about how other authors tackle their issues, so I read a bunch of articles and tried a few new techniques. I found some great tips, and my outline is improving.
To keep my bonkers mind close to reality, I switch between writing articles and writing/editing my books. Now, I must pivot to explain where I get my article ideas.
The answer is everywhere. I recall life memories, things I read, and random conversations. Yet sometimes that is not enough, and I have sought outside help by searching the internet for “blog ideas.” It is all typical stuff: “Tell people what it was like growing up.” “What is an obstacle you recently overcame?” And then there were writing-specific ones. “What is the best setting for an adventure book?” “Tips for other writers.” “Books that shaped my writing style.”
And so, my outline work continued. Yet one tingle remained in my head from my efforts to find new article topics. “Ask your main character a question.” As I slogged through the outline, I got to a section that needed something, but I did not know what. Sometimes when I outline, I like to put myself into the plot. In this upcoming book, the main character, Kim, is at a point where she needs to figure out what to do next.
Of course, I know the rest of the plot, but she obviously does not. My goal is to give the reader a compelling scene in which she reaches a decision. And the solution cannot be a simple, “Oh, I know what to do next.” Instead, she must weigh her options, go down a few dead ends, and arrive at a well-written solution. During this time, her motivation must be clear, and the decision must completely reflect her character.
Well, I did not have any ideas, so I said out loud, “Hey, Kim. What are you going to do?” (No, I did not use a woman’s voice. I’m not that crazy.) Of course, she did not answer because she is not real, but my effort inspired some ideas.
I thought for a moment and silently asked myself, “If you were injured, would that be more interesting?” Of course, my answer was very practical (not out loud), “You jerk! (I actually used a swear word.) Stop hurting me!” This reaction shocked me. Yeah, that was a bit insensitive. So, I thought some more and came up with an idea. What questions do you have for me? I silently asked myself.
Now, I need to take a sidetrack. My concept for writing stories is to begin with an average character. While I do highlight positive traits like intelligence, good health, and employment, I also clearly show their flaws, such as a lack of confidence, poor intuition, or a failure to see the obvious. My goal is to develop a story that is realistic, meaning a story that I (and my readers) could be a part of. This is far different from a plot that requires a massive leap into fantasy or makes the impossible possible.
Here is an example of a dubious plot. “A young punk walks up to a Navy SEAL in the grocery store and threatens him.” That reads unrealistic. I mean, how many Navy SEALs do you know? As opposed to how many normal people with normal abilities do you know? “Kim is in the grocery store when a young punk walks up and threatens her.” Now, that kind of plot has potential.
I made Kim intelligent, strong-willed, and good with people, but a karate kick is out of the question because she never took those classes. Thus, to survive, she might look around for something to throw at the punk. Or run to the butcher section to grab a knife. Perhaps she can talk her way out of the situation. All good options from the reader’s perspective, meaning that a reader would like to see the ingenious way Kim survives as opposed to a Navy SEAL who would deliver one well-placed punch and send the punk into next week.
With this in mind, Kim asked me a question. “Do you feel guilty for putting me through all these painful experiences?” This little thought experiment hit me like a brick, and I felt a wave of guilt. I have put all my characters through awful experiences. Even the adversaries were treated far worse than they deserved.
And my character Kim? She is like an imaginary friend. I want her to succeed and dislike it when she fails. The word friend is as real as it gets in my mind.
Now what? I have learned the hard way that when I am not in the mood to write, I do not force myself to continue. So, I stopped my outline work and took a walk around the neighborhood for a good think.
My first thought was that the characters I created were not real, and no harm occurred. Yet, I also knew that readers (kind of) made my characters real in their minds as they read. My walk did not lead to any conclusions.
Thinking about the matter as I fell asleep also did not help, and I was only able to do some light editing the next day. The day after, I took a bike ride, and when nobody was around, I asked out loud, “Do I feel guilty for putting Kim through all these painful experiences?”
A few turns later, I mumbled, “Yes.” And Kim replied (in my mind), “Well, at least you’re honest. Keep writing; it’s how I live.”
I slammed on the brakes hard, knowing that this was precisely what Kim would have said. As I mentioned, she is bright and good with people. Meaning, she knew exactly what I needed to hear.
As I stared at the empty path, I said, “What the heck? (Yes, used a swear word.) Where heck (yes, used the same swear word) did that come from?”
This revelation gave me a lot to think about. Is it ethical to treat characters poorly? Am I a bad person? What does this really mean? Is Kim me? And then the big one. Am I that crazy?
I indeed treat my characters dreadfully. I hit them with every obstacle my bonkers mind can come up with and force them to deal with the aftermath. Friends and family members (main characters) perish in awful ways. It is not real, but I make it as real as possible in my mind and try my best to make my readers believe.
So now what? It has taken me two days to get back to my outline, and I confess that my heart is at 70%. My issue is that I do not want to hurt Kim or her family. Yet… I want an exciting book, which means conflict, and suffering.
This is not the first time I have run into writing obstacles. Bad reviews, disappointment over my lack of skill, writing myself into a corner, understanding something is not working, or reading harsh editors’ comments.
I overcame all those prior failings. It is like falling, rubbing your knee, getting up, and limping along. I simply have to get over it. And I know I will for this issue. However, a hurt knee leaves a scar, and this line of thinking has indeed left one. Meaning, I am now very aware that I am harming my mental creation, which is beneficial for a writer to understand. So, know that I will feel some guilt for my actions. Still, this was a good learning experience.

You’re the best -Bill
November 19, 2025

Last summer, we had a wonderful vacation in Japan and Korea. Both countries were filled with friendly people, tasty food, and astounding sights. On the way back, our flight landed in Toronto, Canada, where we went through US customs even though we were not leaving the airport. Wait, a minute. US customs in Canada? That seems a little out of place. Authors call this foreshadowing.
This little adventure began with filling out the Canadian customs paperwork. We proceeded to the scanner, and they also had a walk-through metal detector, but it was not in use. (We already went through security in Asia. I guess this is normal?)
Because there was only one scanner, a long line formed. About fifteen people ahead of us was a group of eight. They all wore blue Make-A-Wish Foundation T-shirts. A child was in a specialized wheelchair pushed by an adult male. I think the man was a Make-A-Wish volunteer. Also in the group was a grandmother and three young family members.
It was clear that the child was in grave danger, which added urgency. Still, they had to wait their turn in the long line. Not cool. When they arrived at the scanner, security took over, pushing the wheelchair. It would not fit inside the scanner, which perplexed the three security team members.
So, they held a three-person meeting and called over the radio for guidance. Meanwhile, the other passengers were forbidden from going through the scanner. Why yes, we were frustrated, and one angry passenger yelled, “Let the kid through!”
The situation also upset the Make-A-Wish people, which further amplified the stress. Security solved this problem by having the Make-A-Wish people stand a few paces away. Double not cool. Of course, this action confused the child, who reached out to them with his frail arms. The heartbreaking image multiplied an already bad situation.
Eventually, the security team came to a brilliant solution. They allowed the man to push the wheelchair into the scanner. I mentioned it did not fit. Right? Well, the laws of physics did not change, and it still did not fit.
They had another meeting, and because of their radio call, two additional security people joined. You cannot imagine the level of frustration as over 100 passengers watched the foolishness.
Finally, they made a decision! Yes, security would allow the man to remove the child from the wheelchair and place him in the scanner. The Make-A-Wish people were horrified and insisted on a hushed-toned meeting with security.
We watched in amusement as the meeting raged, and at one point, all the security personnel turned to look at the child with shocked expressions. I guess they did not understand what Make-A-Wish is all about.
The five-person security team held another private meeting and made a new decision. Yes, they would allow the wheelchair to go through the metal detector! Now, you might be thinking, “Bill, are you serious? You must be making this up.” I wish I did.
Every Make-A-Wish member looked at them like they were total idiots. Still, a security officer confidently pushed the wheelchair through. Yay, it fits! And wouldn’t you know it? The metal detector beeped. Following procedures, they waved the wand around the child. Big revelation! The wand beeped.
Again, following the procedure, the security officer tried to lift the child to see the source of the beeping. All the Make-A-Wish people howled at them to stop. Now, security was at a total loss. They did not even hold a meeting, and the line of people was flabbergasted.
Security made another radio call, and two more security people briskly walked over, but not for the reason you think. They were there to control the passengers—meaning, keeping an upset group of people from getting out of hand. Yes, I really wish I had made this up.
A few minutes later, a sharply dressed woman walked up. She had a badge clipped to her stylish belt and quickly eyed the situation. She spoke to security and waved the group through.
Side note: This was Canadian customs, but the woman had a TSA badge (American law enforcement). So why was she in charge? Truth is stranger than fiction.
Here is the thing. Security personnel have been present at Toronto and other airports since the first metal detector was installed. During that time, rules and procedures were firmly established, including specific instructions on how to treat people with disabilities.
That was all good until something changed. Suddenly, the Toronto security team was forced to follow new rules rigidly. Perhaps it was a new manager or law. More likely, a major overcorrection resulting from an incident.
What naturally occurs after such a rigid change is feedback, which alters the rules. But it was clear to me and the other passengers that feedback was being blocked. I believe that if a sick child had to pass through security a month later, there would be the same fuss.
There is another aspect to this disconnect. I do not doubt that the security personnel were intelligent. Meaning they were fully aware of the situation, but something external was compelling them to set aside their wisdom.
Yet, the Toronto airport managers expected that their well-written rules would result in flawless and professional operations. They ignored the human aspect, experiences, and common sense. They did this by instituting draconian punishments for breaking the rules, even in such an absurd situation.
Albert Einstein famously proclaimed, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” In this case, instituting absurd rules and expecting them to work in all situations.
Well, if you have read any of my prior articles, you know I like to have a writing tie-in. Good characters/stories must have feedback and not follow ironclad rules. This is because readers dislike stiff characters who do not evolve.
What if we explained the lack of feedback? “John never seemed to understand the right way to treat disabled people.” I suppose that might work, but readers would prefer, “John was fired because of his disrespectful behavior.” That works.
What about the ironclad rules? Let’s think about Harry Potter. In that story, the characters frequently broke the strict Hogwarts rules, resulting in a fun narrative. Why? Breaking rules is cool and exciting. Plus, getting caught often leads the plot into new directions. Meaning that readers like seeing rules being broken and, more to the point, expect a lively plot. Can you imagine a scanner scene with a disabled magic student at the Hogwarts entrance? Readers would demand a refund.
I still find it fascinating to locate taboo writing topics. Readers are a finicky bunch and do not tolerate much outside of their unwritten rules. Fortunately, this article followed all of them:)

You’re the best -Bill
November 12, 2025

I enjoy learning about many subjects, including current events, technology, electronics, and history. However, these topics are complex, and I prefer to learn by reading the direct source because there is so much misinformation.
I also like to know what other people think, especially on topics that are open to opinion. Politics is one such topic, and for this, I enjoy YouTube commentary channels. This is when an expert analyzes a topic and presents their opinion.
One channel I follow is Zeihan on Geopolitics. He offers a global perspective on complex political/economic topics. I do not always agree with his conclusions, but I appreciate his balanced approach, thorough research, and insightful analysis.
https://www.youtube.com/@ZeihanonGeop...
And so went my life. Events happened, and I watched YouTube to get different viewpoints. Along the way, I learned more about history, what was happening around me, and technology. Two weeks ago, something changed.
A major political event occurred, and several channels shared their opinions. So, I watched a few to see the different takes. YouTube recognized my interest and recommended other channels that share views on the topic. I had not subscribed to these other channels, but I do occasionally click on them for additional insight. What I noticed was a massive uptick in recommendations. The channels all had on-point content and mirrored what my subscribed channels were presenting.
Their formats were identical—a focused title, careful analysis, and stock photos (or news photos of the event). The only difference from my subscribed channels was the use of a computer-generated voice. Now, I know that some presenters may not speak English well or be shy, but they are still bright individuals. Thus, I do watch a few channels with computer-generated voices, so this was not unusual.
Yet, my spider sense was telling me there was a problem. And then it hit me—the words. I have become skilled at identifying AI-generated content, which often features long-winded descriptions, flawless grammar, and formal speech.
“I did not do that.” He was reported by the Guardian newspaper, based in London, England, to have said.
What is wrong with AI-generated content? One could say that they did me a favor. AI summarized a story with excellent visual aids. Thanks for the great quality! Umm, no.
The problem is that I wanted an intelligent opinion or genuine insight. “I think A did B because of C. Yes, X is a problem, but look at Y and Z.” Meaning, I wanted a genuine human analysis. IE, something new, as opposed to a summary of other opinions and existing information. And there was another problem.
AI is a mindless tool. It does not know what a misrepresentation, omission, lie or bias is. Plus, there are fundamental flaws. “One orange plus one apple equals three grapes.” My mind has enough misinformation without AI-generated junk.
Once I realized these were AI-created channels, I blocked them. I also sent a request to YouTube to label their content as AI. (I did not put comments on the videos, because it is possible that I was incorrect, and the world has enough negative opinions based on bonkers people like me.)
The recommendations went from a trickle to a flood, which inspired a new rule. I blocked all new channels with a computer-generated voice. This resulted in fewer suggested AI channels because I had exhausted all the ones relevant to my interests. Nice.
A week passed, and a new channel popped up. It was all about World War II radio and radar technology. Seemed interesting, so I began watching. The voice had an English accent, but there was something off. Long-winded descriptions… Yes, this was AI-generated, but the content was excellent.
Even though I was upset by being duped, I watched more, paused the video, and checked the facts. They were close to historical records, but there were glaring flaws. Again, I blocked the channel and requested that YouTube declare it to be AI-generated with errors.
The next day, there were over ten World War II-themed recommendations, all of which looked similar. So, I started a new trend. If the channel did not have a visible person presenting, I blocked it.
Well, you know what happened next. A suggestion popped up with a narrator. The voice was clearly computer-generated, but the person looked real, which leads to a big problem. Soon, I will no longer be able to distinguish what is AI-generated.
When will this occur? Look no further than this excellent AI-generated Star Trek parody video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eqYs...
Videos like this have forced me to up my threshold. If a channel I am not subscribed to appears in my feed and it looks even slightly suspicious, I will block it. And if that means I make a mistake, I am willing to accept blocking new creators with beneficial information.
Well, that is messed up, but it is not the first time that technology has wronged us. They invented filters for cigarettes, and non-biodegradable cigarette butts litter my beaches. Computers and piles of e-waste. Single-serving food and trash all over my neighborhood. YouTube and AI junk.
I guess that is modern life. Now all I need is a filter to block AI content automatically. Perhaps I can use AI for this.

You’re the best -Bill
November 05, 2025

In the sixties, NASA developed the Apollo guidance computer. This small device accomplished what normally would take a roomful of mainframes, and it did so with only 55 watts. The program developed for the guidance computer was so perfect that it is still used today to showcase superb programming techniques.
In its day, this computer was the apex of modern technology. Thus, it met the definition of “state of the art.” Meaning that this device was the best-of-the-best, something to surpass, the ultimate achievement, something to possess, and the mark of excellence.
What are some modern state of the art examples? How about a computer graphics card? Surely the GeForce RTX 5090 or the AMD Radeon RX 9070 would take that crown. Well… that is where this term runs into difficulty.
Those devices have impressive specifications, and the graphics they produce are stunning. The problem is that millions of computers are running millions of programs. About the best one could say is, “As of the time this article was written, the GeForce RTX 5090 has the best performance, but a device from a different manufacturer might suit your needs better.”
The same could be said of construction equipment, weapons, cars, planes, satellites, smartphones, medical devices, robots, printers, drones, special effects, or trains. Meaning that this term has become useless for describing the peak of a technology, since many companies offer a broad range of products.
Amusing, but how does this term apply to writing? So… What romance book is the state of the art?
This is where the term falls flat on its face. I doubt that the first romance book was even considered state of the art, because creative products do not qualify as pinnacle achievements. A state of the art painting? Which Michael Jackson song is state of the art?
Well, how about nonfiction? The Chilton General Motors Full-Size Trucks 1988-98 Repair Manual features the most up-to-date diagrams, information, and modern repair techniques. That makes it state of the art. Right?
I guess, but consumers may purchase manuals from other publishers, including the manufacturer. Plus, consumers may access detailed information online, especially on General Motors truck repair forums. And recall that a book is static, meaning that it cannot change unless a new edition is published.
Let’s take another tack. In the 80s, choose your own adventure books hit the market like a storm. There was nothing like them, and in some ways, they made traditional books obsolete. Then there were the eBooks and audiobooks. Were these considered being state of the art? At least for a few months?
I suppose, but I would argue that it was state of the art entertainment, not state of the art creativity. Meaning, the technology was the new part, and the author was along for the ride.
What about a state of the art plot, character description, scene, or plot twist? I do not think the term applies. Instead, I would call a good character an excellent example of what is possible.
Could a sentence be state of the art? Humans have written over a trillion sentences, and it isn’t easy to single one out. How about the first sentence of Walden by Henry David Thoreau?
“When I wrote the following pages, or rather the bulk of them, I lived alone, in the woods, a mile from any neighbor, in a house which I had built myself, on the shore of Walden Pond, in Concord, Massachusetts, and earned my living by the labor of my hands only.”
Arguably, that is the best first sentence of any book. Yet, it was written in 1854. Not even on a computer. And who gets to decide that it is the apex of sentences? I would think a short one, a quotable one or a more inspirational one would be better. “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” How about a song lyric? “All you need is love.” There is a sea of sentences covering a world of thoughts. Picking the apex is impossible.
Let’s try a different tactic. Many readers consider Ernest Hemingway to be one of the best authors. So, let’s pretend that I have a PhD in English, literature, and creative writing. Using this extensive background, I write a book assisted by the best AI language models and get it proofread by the most talented editors. Critics and readers widely praise the result. Several commented, “The writing in this book is better than Ernest Hemingway.”
Ok, that is a huge stretch for an up-and-coming author like me, but let’s pretend that the opinion is universally accepted. Now what? Is my book state of the art? Umm, who is calling it state of the art? The critics? The readers? The publishers? The marketers? A mindless AI chat box?
I think the problem is that Ernest Hemingway is no longer with us, which means that the term “better” does not apply. An apple is better than an orange only to the person who likes apples—and using AI to aid in my writing? To many, including me, AI makes writing worse. Also, who cares about an author with a PhD or which editor was used? A good story is a good story. And what if the reader only likes mystery? It means that Ernest Hemingway's books, or books written in his style, would have no appeal.
I find it fascinating to see areas that are difficult to write about. Calling something is state of the art is easy, but it rarely applies.

You’re the best -Bill
October 29, 2025

When I was about six years old, a family moved in next door. They had a son named Willard MacDonald, and like me, he was interested in electronics. It was no surprise that we became best friends.
Two years later, they moved a few miles away, allowing for frequent visits. Unfortunately, two years later, they moved to Lexington, Massachusetts, so that the father could run a company. Fun side note. Do you recall the “I’ve fallen and cannot get up” commercial? The company that he worked for made the same product, but ten years prior.
I live in San Diego, California, and we took trips to see each other about every two years. Each one was a grand adventure.
Fast forward to college, and I decided to attend WPI in Worcester, Massachusetts. This was because (at the time), the California universities were dramatically underfunded and accepted twice the freshmen they could handle. Half flunked out by their sophomore year. Why, yes indeed, I wondered which side of that coin I would end up on. Off to Worcester.
In my freshman year, I visited my friend. They lived in a massive house that was constructed in the 1800s. What a fantastic structure to explore, and we had a great time reconnecting. However, there was something out of place, which all these years later is still stuck deep inside my bonkers mind.
It was just an old computer. A first-generation IBM PC with a green screen in the middle of the living room on a tiny table. During the day, Willard’s mother turned it on and ran an ancient word processing program. It just sat there all day. Keep in mind that computers used to be kept on desks because they were so valuable. Side note: this looked exactly like the scene at the end of the movie Stand by Me with Richard Dreyfuss.
As I walked by, I thought, “odd,” and my friend explained, “My mother is an author.” “Oh.”
Thought the day she would do various household tasks and occasionally type a sentence or two. Curiosity got to me, so I asked her about what she was doing. She told me that she was writing a book and provided no other details. I did not want to be a pest, so I only read part of a paragraph as she spoke. Two people were talking. My guess is a fiction book.
The reason this thought has stuck in my head is her technique. Creativity strikes in many forms, and this is one method. In life, the trick is to find the process that makes a person the most effective. This also means being open to new techniques, experimenting, and changing our ways.
Since she was clearly writing (making progress), her method must be effective, and therefore good (at least for her). And in some ways, I use a variation of this method. While walking or biking, I occasionally take notes. I also keep a notepad next to my bed for the same task. Granted, reading my sleepy handwriting the next day is quite challenging. It is even more difficult to decode the meaning behind my words.
Computers have changed since then, and it is now possible to have a powerful word processor on a tablet computer. This allows any author to write whenever they feel like it. I think that method would enable great creativity, but there is a subtle difference.
The green screen just sat there in the middle of the room. It challenged my friend’s mother to write every time she passed, like one of those inspirational posters. A big part of the creative process is gaining motivation. So, maybe there was more to the process.
Well, how about an experiment? I have an older computer that I use for installing programs I do not want on my main computer. So, I moved it downstairs and set it on a side table. It still had MS Word on it, and I loaded an article I recently started. (Look for it in about two weeks, tentatively titled “More AI YouTube Junk”)
Once set up, I walked away. Half an hour later, I happened to walk by, and there was a blank screen. Screen saver! Bonehead. I deactivated it, and then when I walked by again, there was another blank screen. Power saver! Double-bonehead. I turned off that feature.
The buzz had gone, so I restarted the experiment the next morning. (Yes, my wife asked why the ugly old computer was there. Yes, she thought the experiment was silly. Yes, she reminded me that I have an iPad. Yes, she still shook her head.) During the day, I would walk by and occasionally type a few sentences.
I ran my experiment for another day and then examined the results. I wrote two lousy paragraphs, making this experiment a failure. Still, it was fun/important to explore my creative side, which led to a new experiment.
I downloaded a free word processor for my iPad. Wow, it was a pain getting my document into this new program. (They expected a cloud-based file system.) I kept the iPad with me all day long and forced myself to use it a few times. The results were mediocre—another failure.
Still, this experiment was valuable. I got to see how two different approaches worked and learned more about my creative side. I plan further experiments by keeping a notepad with me to record more creative thoughts. So stay tuned.
Mmm, no, that is not the end of this article.
Despite my “experiments,” that green screen is still stuck in my head. It is calling to me. “Dude, you missed the point. Put more brain-time into this.” That’s where I’m stuck. I know there is more. That green screen is calling me out. “Be more creative. Challenge yourself. Do more with LIFE!!!”
Alright, message received. Now all I have to do is decode the message.

You’re the best -Bill
October 22, 2025

Hey, book lovers, I published four. 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-burn 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.
These books are available in softcover on Amazon and in eBook format everywhere.

The writing term voice means, “This is what I want to write about and how I like to do it.” There are many articles about the topic and how famous authors found it.
One found their voice by reading their words aloud. Another discovered that the only way to write was to be uncompromising about “being yourself.” IE, they only write what they believe in. Another writes only in longhand, and then an editor types up the book. And another sat up in bed one morning and knew “they had found their voice.”
While entertaining, all these articles glazed over the fact that talented authors had something special to begin with. This is a natural ability to invent a great story. The “voice” trick was to turn their thoughts into words.
What about me? As a kid, I thought about all kinds of stories to amuse myself before going to sleep. Of course, they were all about big adventures. Driving cars (long before I was old enough to get behind the wheel), meeting famous people, dating fantastic women, building incredible devices, and doing something exciting like going to Africa.
Good English was and continues to be a struggle, so at a young age, I did not record many thoughts. There were a few class projects, and reading them now reveals that I had a creative mind.
After college, I got a job, a house, and a family. I read a lot, but writing fiction was not in my future.
Around age 40, a good story began brewing in my bonkers mind. It had a solid plot and good characters. It seemed reasonable to share it with others, and in retrospect, it was the reason I took the writing leap.
The problem was that writing a book was an impossible task. I knew that only professional authors have the necessary English skills to write fiction. Plus, they are backed up by a team of editing and publishing experts.
A healthy bout of unemployment provided an opportunity, and I leaped without hesitation. I planned to write my second-favorite story first so that I would have enough experience to write the most important one.
By this time, I had thought so much about the story in my first book that I was able to jump right in. I began with the title, “A Graceful Interview.” (I named the main character Grace so I could have a pun in the title. Later, I changed it to Interviewing Immortality, but I kept her name.)
To put it mildly, the first draft was a sloppy mess, and it took a year of intense effort to correct the big problems. And a second revision, but that is another story.
The experience was scary and frustrating. I certainly did not want a public failure, and my writing skills were below the level I needed them to be. Yet, there was some joy in seeing something I had created come to life.
Writing my second book went smoothly because of the experience gained from my first book. Yet there were huge issues also requiring a second edition. Still, the process was more enjoyable, and the result was better received.
Despite having two books’ worth of experience, my third book underwent massive plot/character changes. This included deleting an entire chapter. Yet, despite the problems, I was more comfortable self-editing. And so far, only one edition. Yay!
During the first three books, I do not think I had a voice. I wrote what was in my bonkers mind. The process required extensive self-editing, beta reading, and professional editing to reach a basic standard. In retrospect, I did not enter a mental state where I was comfortable writing what was in my head.
All this self-editing, editing, and publishing required a lot of time, resulting in a large gap between my third and fourth books. It was then that I discovered outlines. This tool allows me to visualize the plot and make massive changes without consequence.
I spent two months tweaking the outline for my fourth book, and the result was a clean plot. The writing and editing went smoothly, resulting in only minor changes and less stress.
It is now clear that using an outline was a big part of finding my voice. Once it was finalized, all I had to do was fill in the blanks between outline bullet points. Of course, to readers, the “blanks” are the critical part.
Still… I am not comfortable stating that using an outline meant I had found my voice. I think a big part of a writer’s voice is dialogue.
Writing dialogue always came naturally to me. All I had to do was mentally put myself into the character and think about what they would say. The trick is knowing when to use dialogue or text. Sally felt cold. “Dang, it’s a cold day.”
A big part of editing my first three books was finding the right balance. Now, I use dialogue to show readers what is happening verbally. Specifically, when a decision is being made or when emotion needs to be shown.
For example, a fistfight. I would start this with a verbal argument where the two characters get upset. Then one would throw a punch, and I would switch to using text to describe the fight mechanics. This sounds simple, but it was a harsh lesson.
My next problem was how to incorporate dialogue with text. It seems so simple:
Bill said, “You think you are so tough?”
Why not use:
“You think you are so tough?” Bill asked.
It is even “acceptable” to not have quotation marks. And then there is the debate between "straight" and “curly” quotation marks. When I wrote the first draft of my first book, my integration was basic.
Joey said “You think you are so tough?”
Sam said “Tough enough to beat you bloody.”
Joey said “Oh, yeah?”
The word “said” appeared hundreds of times, making for an awful read. (Did you notice that I did not have a comma after the word said? Rookie mistake.) So, I read technical English articles, learned about the Chicago Manual of Style, and experimented with its guidelines. This included asking my mother for help and using three editors.
Again, with my fourth book, I settled on a dialogue integration format. It does not quite follow the gold standard listed in the Chicago Manual of Style, but to me, it reads better. And I have been praised a few times by fellow authors for my technique. Nice!
It seems the answer is that I found my voice in my fourth book. Writing my fifth book (which will be out soon!) went much easier, and the editing process, while long, was not painful. A big difference was in how confident I felt during the writing process.
What has occurred since I found my voice? Like any task that one puts effort into, I have learned new tricks, discovered more flaws, and my confidence continues to grow.
Yet, there is another aspect. With more confidence comes more joy. I think this is because confidence and skill reduce stress, allowing a person to enjoy their creation.
So that is how I found my voice. Not quite like the heroes of the writing world, but it worked for me.

You’re the best -Bill
October 15, 2025

I have written four articles based on the YouTube channel The Critical Drinker. He is a snarky individual with a dark take on the movie industry. So, it was no surprise that one of his offhand comments again rattled around my bonkers mind.
The Critical Drinker was discussing director/writer JJ Abrams and his resurrection of the Star Wars and Star Trek movie franchises.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ax8U...
To rewind the clock, both beloved science fiction series began with powerful characters, great stories, and space travel. They were revolutionary when they first appeared, and audiences widely approved.
Over many films, science fiction tropes have become dated, and characters have been watered down. Plus, the plots are predictable, and no new storylines or science fiction themes are explored. This combination led to the end of commercial success.
What the movie companies needed was a shakeup, and JJ Abrams knew the winning formula. Action! However, not any action, JJ injected so much action that every corner of the screen was hit with over-the-top excitement, like a machine gun.
Movie fans loved the intensity, and the large box office numbers wowed movie studios. This was an outstanding success, but the shift from science fiction to action caused a massive problem. “Where do we go from here?” There is only so much action that can be pumped into a film, yet audiences demand more in the next installment. When this does not occur, bad reviews follow.
That was not the only problem that the Critical Drinker pointed out. The latest Star Wars and Star Trek movies were not classic films to be cherished. Instead, they became popcorn action movies, which were quickly forgotten. Here is his quote:
“The idea that you can get away with the most awful writing imaginable if you just keep everything constantly moving, constantly bombarding the audience with more noise, more yelling, more running, and more lens flare. They get so overwhelmed by it all that they cannot even stop to think about how none of it makes any sense. It was dumb, it was exploitative, and it turned Star Trek into generic sci-fi action slop. But, boy howdy, was it successful.”
I wanted to focus on the writing aspect of his snarky comment. Specifically adding action to pump up a story. I recall doing this to a story, which yielded a similar poor result.
The year was 2005, and my company laid me off one fine Thursday morning. I did not take this lying down. So, in my nice work clothes, I went to the beach to take a walk. The whole thing angered me something fierce, and I tried my best to vent my thoughts.
On my angry walk, I thought up a story about a man undergoing an ugly divorce who was also wildly upset on this same beach. He met two women who were also undergoing horrific divorces. They began talking, which led to a new banking business. My idea flourished into a complicated romance. For some strange reason, this big sidetrack helped get me through that awful time. Thanks, story-inventing brain!
That evening, I thought more about my creation and understood it had many deep flaws. How can I improve it? Over the coming months, I took the story in many directions to amuse myself before going to sleep.
Of the many ideas, adding action triggered the most benefits. Now, the three main characters experienced a lot of excitement, conflict, and intrigue. Women beating up bank thieves? Sounds great!
Alas, no. Like JJ Abram’s attempts to freshen up old franchises, my efforts made me realize the story core was worthless. At the time, I was not an author and had no intention of ever letting anybody know about my silly creation. So, I stopped thinking about it and instead came up with three new storylines, which eventually became my first three books.
Fortunately, this time was not wasted. I learned many valuable lessons in plot development, which I continue to apply. Specifically, adding action does not always lead to a better story. The Critical Drinker video brought a lot of focus to the downside of adding needless action, and it made me recall an old story and how I had attempted to improve it.
There is a second aspect of JJ Abrams pumping up technique that also affects my writing—the “now what?” part.
One of my core writing themes is to begin a story with average characters and subject them to extreme circumstances. I believe this approach yields a more realistic plot that readers can relate to. “That could be me.” However, this leads to a problem as I write multiple books with the same characters.
Like the JJ Abrams up-actioned films, there is a limit to what readers/viewers will tolerate. In one of three upcoming books I am working on, I hit that limit.
Right now, I am in the outline stage and have developed a solid story. In Chapter Two, the main character faces a challenge. Knowing it is essential for readers to understand what is happening, I plan to describe the main character’s feelings. “This is the scariest thing ever!!!”
Umm, that is a problem. Over the last three books, I have put this character through every possible terrifying circumstance my writing brain could invent. If I am being realistic, this is going to be a four out of ten in the three-book series. So… How do I describe what the main character is feeling? “This is the fourth scariest thing!” Lame.
To circumvent the issue, my character will come to an epiphany and acknowledge that they have reached their mental fear threshold. “This is really scary, but I cannot get any more frightened.”
Does that seem a little familiar? “Rapid firing stupidity.” Dang. It appears that I am setting myself up to disappoint readers just like JJ Abrams let down two cherished movie franchises.
I need more noodle time to re-evaluate my story before I start writing. Thanks, outline for revealing this problem! This effort will include determining whether the action scenes are necessary, how the characters will convey their feelings, and what the readers want in this story. Stay tuned to see what I come up with.
I want to conclude by thanking the Critical Drinker for inspiring me to take a closer look at my outline.

You’re the best -Bill
October 08, 2025

A story recently broke about an AI company losing a court case and being forced to pay authors over a billion dollars.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...
They were accused of stealing copyrighted works in a practice called AI scraping. This occurs when an AI company employs illegal or unethical methods to gather information, such as downloading books from a pirate site, bypassing website “are you really a human” tests, or hacking servers.
These companies then used the illegally/unethically obtained information to develop and improve their product. The result is an AI chatbot based on a broad foundation of millions of documents.
Three authors banded together to sue an AI company. The authors were victorious in court and have established a website that allows authors to report their own copyright infringement. Unfortunately, these authors are not eligible to receive any of the settlement money—bummer.
https://www.anthropiccopyrightsettlem...
This was a victory for authors, copyright holders, websites, and consumers. But there is a big elephant in the room. Hundreds of companies (and soon millions of individuals) are doing the same thing, and most are operating outside the bounds of justice. Shell companies, foreign countries, hacking groups, and organized crime. This is, therefore, a token victory, as the legal system cannot prevent AI scraping—double bummer.
The most remarkable aspect of this lawsuit is that usable AI technology was previously only found in science fiction. A good example is Rosey the robotic maid from the Jetsons animated television show. Then, one day, “humans” began calling us to discuss reverse mortgages. AI companies achieved this astounding feat by gathering a vast amount of information.
I guess this is the digital age where something bad can happen to millions of people and nobody notices. When someone takes action, there is a minimal response.
What does this mean for me? As a minor author and article writer, it is a minor victory, and I will savor it. Unless I magically get a million dollars to spend on my own class action lawsuit, I cannot do anything about the companies that are scraping these very words—triple bummer.

You’re the best -Bill
October 01, 2025

I admit to self-editing every one of my documents to an absurd level. I do this because I am a perfectionist, fear criticism, and have a strong desire to put out my best. This effort has evolved into a comprehensive editing and writing philosophy encompassing numerous procedures, rules, and mindsets.
While I could break down every part of my bonkers editing process, I wanted to discuss a core aspect. I view each sentence as a flawlessly polished gem. Take, for example, this last sentence. It actually began with the title of this article. From there, the reader (you) read up to that sentence. Only then would you be prepared to read it and understand it. If successful, you would continue onto the following sentence, having gained knowledge from all prior sentences.
A successful understanding of this document is hindered if a sentence contains a flaw, such as a misspelled word. Such flaws trip up the reader, preventing them from understanding the knowledge that the sentence was intended to convey.
When I created that sentence, I had an exact idea of what I wanted to say. And when I hit the period key, I evaluated if my sentence accomplished that task. By the time I publish this article, I will have made at least five self-edits, two computer tool edits (Grammarly/ProWritingAid), and two additional rounds of self-editing. Only then would I allow somebody to read my ramblings.
During that time, I studied that sentence harshly from every aspect. This includes how it connected with others, the words used, and areas for improvement. I even thought about deleting the sentence. Why, yes, many sentences have gone into the digital dustbin in my lifetime.
Did you notice that the sentence differed from the title despite having the same subject matter? That was a deliberate choice, which means that I fretted over exactly what I intended to convey and precisely what words to use.
Let’s look at the word “flawlessly.” I could have used admirably, distinctively, exquisitely, marvelously, meticulously, perfectly, precisely, skillfully, or wonderfully. Those are all valid choices, but I settled on “flawlessly.” I did so because this word was the best choice. This was an intentional decision, meaning that at least once, I gave significant thought to that specific word choice.
My philosophy is that each sentence should stand on its own as a beacon of perfect English. This is why I used “gem,” which implies a mathematically shaped object. Specifically, a valuable object that is often set in jewelry. To me, each sentence is something to be cherished, admired, and has tremendous value.
There is more to my philosophy. I believe that a sentence must stand on its own as much as it interconnects with the rest of the document. Like a precious gem, I study it and appreciate its beauty, all while seeing the whole piece of jewelry.
While editing, I constantly think of every possible way to improve that sentence. Does it make sense? Do I need to add more information? Should I combine it with the last sentence? Would moving it to a prior paragraph read better? Is it truly convening what it is supposed to? My small, medium, and extensive evaluations have the lofty goal of perfection.
Of course, I am not perfect, like a gemstone on an expensive piece of jewelry. When I look back at older work, it is clear I have come a long way. And I have made so many glaring mistakes. Still, reviewing my past has only reinforced my desire to work harder.
There is a downside to my technique involving flow. This is when the reader gets tripped up from one “correct” sentence to the next. The issue is that focusing intently on a single sentence can block out what is around it. To solve this, I make one editing pass with the intent of ensuring the document has good flow. Of course, this effort can take the polish off some sentences, which is a tradeoff.
My goal in writing this article is to provide you with another tool in your writing tool belt. The steps I use are…
Allow me to pivot for a moment to a professional auto mechanic changing a tire. It seems simple enough. Jack up the car, remove the lug nuts, exchange the tires, secure the lug nuts, and lower the car. Yeah, no. There is much more to it.
For example, where exactly to place the jack. Years ago, a coworker needed to change his tire on the side of the road. He accidentally put the jack on the fuel lines, crushing them, and the gas formed a puddle that was set on fire by the highway flare. The car was a total loss. So, changing a tire is not a straightforward task. In fact, each vehicle and situation is unique. Therefore, providing a 1, 2, 3-step set of instructions would not be appropriate for all vehicles.
My point is that professional mechanics have developed many procedures through their observations and automotive knowledge. I have no idea how they organize this knowledge into an efficient tire-changing process, but I do know that all have done so. As a result, while the exact procedure might vary between mechanics, the method will be efficient and superior to that of an amateur mechanic.
My reason for presenting my philosophy is to share my viewpoint, allowing you to examine your own. Meaning that while my philosophy might not work for you, you now know one. Perhaps this article will inspire you to evaluate your own method. Alternatively, if you don’t have one, you may wish to develop one and use my thoughts as a starting point. At the very least, my bonkers method provided some comic relief.

You’re the best -Bill
September 24, 2025