Even more frustrating, the usual fixes often miss the mark. Trimming dialogue tags, swapping synonyms, and sprinkling in gestures doesn’t solve the core issue.

Because the problem does not begin at the sentence level. Stiff dialogue comes from characters speaking for the author instead of for themselves.

Let’s be honest: Some authors write characters only to deliver information. But every character who speaks should do more than clarify plot points, deliver backstory, or otherwise hold the reader’s hand. Such burdensome dialogue drains life from the exchange.

Real people do not talk that way; they speak to pursue their own ends. That means each line in a conversation should advance the speaker’s goals.

Read the full post on Substack!

Acess it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive.

They promised us progress. Now that promise is colliding with reality.

A recent firmware change tied to Sony and its PlayStation 5 has ignited a wave of backlash. Reports indicate that certain digitally purchased games now require the console to reconnect to the internet at least once every thirty days to verify ownership. Miss that window, and access can be revoked until the system checks back in.

The technical details aren’t what’s at issue. Verification systems have existed for years. What makes this particular corporate overreach different is how clearly it exposes the terms of the arrangement players have accepted. Buying a digital game no longer grants permanent ownership. It allows conditional access.

Access that depends on a corporation’s continued willingness to honor it.

Read the full post on Substack!

Acess it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive.

It could be said that Tales of the Earthbound is an integrated continuity decades in the making. Threat Quotient, the first graphic novel in that continuity, took a few years to progress from a script to 108 pages of sequential art.

Planet Earth circa 2020 in Tales of the Earthbound is not exactly like the world we call home. The most glaring contrast is the existence of superheroes (or “ultrahumans,” as they’re known on our sister Earth). That said, the resemblance between the two realities are otherwise as striking as a comparison of Greek and Roman mythologies. A fake pandemic is underway. The populace is gaslit by fake news. Fake “peaceful protestors” are burning, looting, and murdering in cities across the country. A fake election installs a fake President. A fake insurrection provides the excuse for a crackdown on the political opposition, and to stop investigations into a fake election.

That’s just in America. Halfway around the world, a sovereign country resists the takeover of their economy via installation of a foreign-controlled central bank, and the rigged confidence vote to legitimize it. The war drums begin to pound.

The I.U.S. (Institute of Unorthodox Sciences) is working with the Pentagon to locate, classify, track and control ultrahumans. Or terminate them, if they can’t be controlled. Just like normal humans who refused to wear face diapers, take the experimental Darwin Stab, or remain under house arrest because of a flu bug with a 99% survival rate, there’s a handful of ultrahumans who also refuse to be controlled.

Read the full post on Substack!

Acess it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive.

Now try the same exercise with Gen Z. The silence you’ll get in return speaks volumes.

Recent surveys and viral classroom anecdotes point to a growing pattern: Younger viewers are not merely disinterested in older films. Many have never encountered them at all. Movies that once formed the baseline vocabulary of pop culture barely register with Zoomers.

The result is a generation entering adulthood without the cinematic literacy that earlier audiences took for granted. And trifling though it may seem, that culture gap has implications far beyond trivia night.

Film literacy once served as a kind of cultural shorthand. When a storyteller evoked Star Wars, audiences brought decades of associations to the conversation. All the archetypes, moral frameworks, and visual language came preloaded.

And writers could build on that foundation rather than start explaining from scratch. A single reference could do the heavy lifting for entire scenes.

Removing that foundation robs stories of efficiency. Symbolism loses its force because the audience lacks the shared touchstones needed to decode it. As a consequence, films must either overexplain themselves or risk being misunderstood.

Read the full post on Substack!

Acess it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive.

Some rewrite Chapter 1 five times. Others push past ten. A few never stop fiddling with it at all. Each pass feels necessary. Every change seems like an end in itself. Yet each leads inexorably to the next.

This problem isn’t due to a lack of effort. It comes from misunderstanding what a first chapter is supposed to accomplish.

Many writers treat the opening as a miniature version of the entire book. They rush to introduce the setting, explain the lore, establish the cast, and hint at every major theme. That ambition leads to bloated openings packed with information but short on story.

Result: Your readers feel the book start to drag immediately.

A strong first chapter works within tighter constraints. Its job is to establish forward momentum. The key is to present a character in motion, facing a situation that demands action. That situation should naturally raise questions, and those questions are what pull the reader deeper into the story.

Most new authors front-load context and call it motion. They pile on exposition, and multiply maid-and-butler dialogue until the book stalls right out of the gate.

Read the full post on Substack!

Acess it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive.

That corporate narrative trained millions of buyers to assume that whatever price appeared on Amazon’s listings reflected the natural outcome of competition. The algorithm, we were told, would find the lowest number. The market would handle the rest.

Newly unsealed evidence in a California antitrust case tells a shockingly different story.

According to filings by California’s attorney general, Amazon allegedly coordinated with brands and pressured rival retailers to raise their prices rather than undercut its listings. That pressure appears to have extended across multiple industries from clothing to pet supplies, with internal communications showing Amazon urging companies to bring competitors back in line.

One example stands out for its simplicity: A pair of khaki pants listed for less on Walmart triggered a complaint. Within a day, the lower price vanished.

That is not the invisible hand of the market. It is a quite visible hand reaching across the aisle and into your pocket.

The implications reach further than one lawsuit. They strike at the central illusion of the digital retail age: that scale guarantees fairness.

Read the full post on Substack!

Acess it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive.

That excitement didn’t last.

Reports clarified that the casting rumor had no basis in reality. More importantly, internal guidance from Disney instructs writers not to use Mara Jade at all. The character remains noncanon, and under current policy, she cannot appear in official film projects.

That decision says more about the state of the franchise than any casting rumor. Mara Jade, introduced in Heir to the Empire by Timothy Zahn, became one of the Expanded Universe’s defining figures. An ex-imperial spook turned reluctant ally, then eventual love interest for Luke Skywalker, she introduced moral tension that earned fans’ loyalty.

And it wasn’t just novelty. The fans connected with a character whose arc had intentional development and closed with a major payoff.

That kind of attachment cannot be manufactured overnight. Not that Disney didn’t try repeatedly, giving us a decade of Mary Sues that left audiences cold.

Read the full post on Substack!

Acess it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive.

Now, Amazon is revising that promise. They have announced that they will discontinue Kindle for PC on June 30, replacing it with a new version restricted to newer systems and controlled distribution channels.

On its own, that change may sound like routine software maintenance. But this isn’t an isolated update. It’s part of a broader pattern.

As we’ve covered here, Amazon is also cutting off older devices from the Kindle store, preventing them from purchasing or downloading new books, despite remaining fully functional.

Put those two decisions together, and they resolve into a clearer picture:

• Restricted access

• centralized control

• redefined ownership.

And readers agreed to none of it.

Read the full post on Substack!

Acess it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive.

Now, in a move that would have seemed unlikely even five years ago, a Bloodborne movie has been given the green light. And word is, it’s a faithful, R-rated adaptation. Interestingly, renowned YouTuber JackSepticEye, whose playthrough of the game has garnered over 5 million views, is slated to produce.

More interesting still, the production involves creators who may actually understand the game.

That detail suggests a quiet but significant change in how movie studios are approaching adaptations of other media.

For decades, Hollywood has assumed that intellectual property can be stripped for parts. Just throw a few recognizable names, familiar images, and touchstone moments into some hack writer’s script, and fans will lap it up, regardless of how the rest is rewritten to fit current agendas.

That approach produced a long string of product whose trailers looked like more or less the source material but pulled the run out from under audiences. Skinsuit characters and stories replaced with propaganda have become memes for good reason.

It was inevitable that audience enthusiasm would decline. Now, the gravy train is running out as ex-film industry professionals are driving Ubers, and big shots like Steven Spielberg are putting studios on notice.

Read the full post on Substack!

Access it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive.

Recent controversy surrounding A.I.-assisted animation in high-profile productions has forced studios into public clarifications and, in some cases, outright apologies. In one widely discussed incident, Wit Studio of Attack on Titan fame admitted that generative tools had been used in an opening sequence and pledged to revise the material after backlash from viewers and industry professionals.

That response is not happening in a vacuum. Across multiple animation pipelines, especially in Japanese production circles, a pattern is forming. Some directors and studios are beginning to draw explicit boundaries around the use of A.I. in final output. Their interviews and public statements are placing ever more emphasis on human authorship as a defining feature of animation.

The tone is notable. These are not marketing slogans. They are defensive positions.

Nor is this trend confined to anime. S-Game recently stated their reluctance to use A.I. Their reasoning was not framed in terms of nostalgia or tradition alone. Instead, the argument centered on artistic intent and the integrity of drawn motion.

S-Game’s CEO cut through the usual appeals to efficiency: “Human artistry is not merely a means for creating value … Every single piece of content in our game has been crafted by the hands of real artists.”

It is true that A.I. tools excel at speeding production. They can assist with in-between frames, background generation, and rough compositing. Those advantages reduce costs and shorten schedules on paper. Yet animation is more than a collection of visual elements. It is the controlled construction of motion. Attempts to automate that craft can’t help but be reductive.

Read the full post on Substack!

Access it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive.

That tech utopia creation myth is crumbling before our eyes.

In recent weeks, journalists have gone on strike over the use of generative tools in their own newsroom. Reporters who once treated automation as a distant concern now face replacement by systems trained on their own writing.

That development alone would be significant. It becomes more telling when viewed alongside parallel events unfolding across practically all media.

In the video game sector, an independent publisher recently warned that storefronts are being flooded with low-effort, automated titles. The sheer volume of A.I. games is killing discoverability. Developers who once competed on quality now find themselves buried beneath an avalanche of disposable content.

From a business standpoint, the problem is obvious: excess supply reduces scarcity, which lowers perceived value. It’s Econ 101.

Anime offers us another data point. A studio tied to Attack on Titan, one of the most recognizable franchises in the medium released an opening sequence that incorporated generative imagery. Viewers noticed the difference, and the swift backlash spread across social media. Within days, the studio issued an apology and pledged to revise the sequence.

Read the full post on Substack!

Access it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive.

And it bombed.

But years later, this bombastic racing anime’s reputation has only grown; both as a cult hit and as a quiet indictment of the industry.

The common explanation for why Redline made a lasting impression has to do with effort. Its seven-year production included 100 thousand hand-drawn frames. That’s a level of obsessive detail few contemporary studios can stomach.

Yet the finished product speaks for itself. Watch and see:

Read the full post on Substack!

Access it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive.

And no, these e-readers are not broken. Their batteries hold charges, the screens still display text, and their buttons are responsive.

Yet once Amazon withdraws support, these Kindles’ core features will disappear. Users will lose access to the Kindle store, and registration will fail after a reset.

The result: A device that once served as a personal library becomes a plastic lockbox.

What’s worse is that there is no technical necessity behind this power grab. It’s a brazen display of control.

As many have been warning for years, digital media always came with strings attached. When you purchase a physical book, it remains yours regardless of the publisher’s politically motivated mood swings.

But when you purchase a digital file tied to a platform, continued access depends on that platform’s cooperation.

That’s a reality which has just hit home for countless Kindle users.

Read the full post on Substack!

Access it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive.

“Should I edit while writing, or wait until the draft is finished?”

At first glance, both approaches seem reasonable. One promises more polished prose from the outset. The other emphasizes forward motion. You’ll find experts advocating for both schools of thought with equal confidence.

Yet the results tell a different story.

Writers who edit as they go tend to stall out. Authors who finish first drafts quickly are more likely to improve faster.

That pattern reveals a deeper truth: Editing and drafting are separate processes that require different mindsets.

Drafting comes from the right brain. When composing, you are discovering the story, weighing character decisions, and testing ideas in real time. Even if you outline, that just means you’re exploring with a map. Imperfection is not only expected; it is necessary. After all, this is where you get the suck out.

Editing is left-brained. It demands precision. You have to slow down, evaluate word choices, and refine language. No sentence can escape your scrutiny. Every paragraph must be judged for clarity and effect.

Trying to do both at once is like trying to play classical music in your head while the radio blasts a progressive rock song.

Read the full post on Substack!

Access it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive.

Print is dead. No, eBooks are dead. Audio books are taking over. All the money is in subscription services. Until it’s in serializing free first and charging later. Now that A.I. has entered the arena, the forecasts of doom have come rolling in.

And panic follows in their wake.

Those with a sense of history know there’s nothing new under the sun. Entrepreneurs in every industry will tell you that formats, sales channels, and marketing platforms are in constant flux.

Yet in an ever-changing market, two principles remain constant. They governed publishing a century ago when oldpub seized their paper monopoly. They ruled it a decade ago when Amazon achieved dominance. And they will continue to guide it long after the current A.I. disruption has run its course.

Those rules are:

1. Find your customers

2. get the stories they want into their hands.

Everything else is quibbling over details.

Read the full post on Substack!

Access it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive.

But the once-revolutionary platform that allowed indie authors to build careers gradually created the conditions for newpub to destroy itself.

A.I. has flooded digital shelves with books produced at a pace no author can match. Whole genres swell to bursting with books assembled in mere hours. Some are harmless curios. Others are cynical attempts to game KDP’s rankings and search algorithm.

Amazon has seemed content to let discretion be the better part of valor.

But not for long.

For a couple of years now, Kindle Direct Publishing has required authors to disclose A.I.-generated content when manuscripts are uploaded or updated. This method of self-reporting remains voluntary, mainly on the honor system.

It’s no wonder why Amazon’s enforcement of their A.I. disclosure policy has been relatively lax. Look around online, and you’ll soon come upon countless humorous stories of automated services falsely flagging War and Peace or the Gettysburg Address as “mostly machine-written.”

What the A.I. slop merchants have missed is that, like LLMs themselves, A.I. detection tools are advancing rapidly. After all, the companies developing them have strong incentives to improve their accuracy. They realized a while back that the main fault with current tools is they’re basically the same models as the LLMs they’re being tasked with ferreting out.

In other words, they’re built to imitate human writing, not to spot imitations. The current generation of A.I. detection tools are basically saying, “We have investigated, and exonerated, ourselves.”

What’s coming down the pike is a whole other animal. One well-placed tech worker in a Fortune 500 company informed me that the tools they’ve got in beta right now are uncannily accurate at clocking A.I. output. They’ll be even better when they exit training and launch, which will be soon. Once those systems mature, every major platform will integrate them. They’ll have no choice.

Read the full post on Substack!

Access it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive

In this case, a 78 percent A.I.-generated title billed as authored work slipped past oldpub editors and onto major UK retail platforms. But readers noticed, and as you’d expect, their immediate reaction was swift and hostile.

It turns out that the big publishers don’t know better than their readers after all. Predictably, oldpub scrambled to run damage control, along with calling for more regulation. But imposing additional platform restrictions won’t solve the underlying problem: in a word, hunger.

Because readers are starving for authenticity.

For years, the common wisdom in oldpub and newpub alike held that volume was the key to success. Massaging the robot to move rapid-release titles was the winning strategy.

Now the algortihms have evolved from selling books to producing them. And the publishers who used to swear by the robot find themselves cursing it.

That reversal should not surprise anyone who’s been paying attention. The same pattern has already played out across film, television, and music. The collapses of those industries showed us that removing all effort from production drops quality to zero.

Contrary to common misperception, the latest A.I. book scandal did not create this problem. What it did was expose it. Because readers’ response exceeded rejection, approaching closer to revulsion. They demonstrated an intuitive understanding that most establishment gatekeepers lack:

Read the full post on Substack!

Access it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive.

The fact that this question comes up so often reveals widespread confusion about what editing is meant to accomplish.

Many writers treat the editing process like a checklist:

1. Finish the draft

2. hire an editor

3. make final revisions

4. publish.

That mindset leads to wasted time, muddled revisions, and manuscripts that still feel off even after multiple passes. The key to avoiding those pitfalls is understanding the right editorial sequence.

A developmental edit addresses the structural level: plot, pacing, character arcs, and thematic consistency all fall under its purview.

A line edit focuses on the sentence level, refining tone, clarity, and overall language use.

Each type of editing servess a distinct purpose, and each depends on the other being handled at the right time. Dev edits come first; then, when the structure has been made sound, editorial focus should move to the line level. Reversing the order creates problems that add up quickly.

Read the full post on Substack!

Access it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive.

Overshadowed by the more famous horror tales of H. P. Lovecraft, it often gets filed away as a black sheep of his catalog. But that oddball reputation sells it short. For beneath its episodic structure and surreal imagery lies one of the most important bridges between mythic fantasy and cosmic horror ever written.

Revisiting it now, years after first picking it up, revealed just how much Lovecraft’s novella influenced my approach to storytelling.

Unlike Lovecraft’s better-known tales of dread, hisDream-Quest unfolds less like a descent into terror and more as a pilgrimage through an alien dreamland. Randolph Carter’s journey across the Dreamlands reads like a distorted echo of older questing tales, yet every step forward introduces new layers of uncertainty. The archetype of a hero seeking a distant goal is there, but the ground beneath him never stops moving.

That instability is the first of many worthwhile lessons the novella has to teach us.

Many modern stories rely on clearly defined rules that govern their settings. Readers are given systems to learn and maps to study, with the unintended consequence of making outcomes easier to anticipate.

Read the full post on Substack!

Access it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive.

This bit of stunt hiring has been framed as audacious by fans and detractors alike. But all the hype just stirs up controversy around a rather conventional decision. Colbert has written professionally; at least for the small screen, and he did have a small job on Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy. As for the political implications, the apalling Rings of Power has well acquainted Tolkien fans with Hollywood’s contempt.

The truth is that when studios contemplate returning to Middle-earth, they almost always circle the same well-trodden territory. We know they are playing it safe because there has yet been no talk of adapting the one Tolkien tale guaranteed to shock audiences.

No, I don’t mean “Leaf by Niggle.” The woefully passed-over story in question has been a key part of the legendarium since the earliest days, has been a best-selling book in its own right, and features the darkest, most intense, and most challenging themes in Tolkien’s whole corpus.

That gripping story is, of course, The Children of Hurin. And its absence from the big screen says more about Hollywood’s artistic cowardice than it does about the source material. If there was ever a Tolkien story suited for a bold and uncompromising adaptation, it is the tragic saga of Turin Turambar.

And if there is one living director equipped to bring Turin’s tragedy to the silver screen, it is Robert Eggers.

Read the full post on Substack!

Access it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive.