Exposition isn’t something to avoid; it’s something to master. The best exposition doesn’t feel like exposition at all. It feels like discovery. When readers piece together your world through action, dialogue, and carefully placed detail, they don’t just understand your story; they feel like they’re living inside it.The goal isn’t to hide information from your reader. It’s to make them curious enough to keep turning pages until they find it themselves.
Every story needs context. Readers need to understand who your characters are, where they’re standing, what’s at stake, and why any of it matters. That’s exposition’s job, and it’s one of the most misunderstood tools in a writer’s toolkit.Too little, and readers feel lost. Too much, and they feel lectured. Getting exposition right is less about rules and more about rhythm: knowing what to reveal, when, and through what means.
What Exposition Actually Is
Exposition is the information a story needs to convey so readers can follow what’s happening. This includes:
Backstory: What happened before the story started
World-building: The rules, history, or logic of the story’s setting
Character context: Motivations, relationships, and history
Plot mechanics: How something works (magic systems, technology, politics)
It’s not just the opening chapter’s “info dump.” Exposition happens continuously throughout a story, doled out as needed.
Why Exposition Matters
Good exposition does more than explain; it orients and engages.It builds trust. Readers need to feel confident the author knows the world well enough to guide them through it.It creates stakes. Without understanding what a character stands to lose, tension falls flat. If we don’t know a character’s dead sister was their reason for living, her photo on the mantel means nothing.It grounds the fantastical. In genres like sci-fi and fantasy, exposition is often the bridge between “this is impossible” and “this makes sense within these rules.”It respects the reader’s intelligence, or fails to. Poorly handled exposition can either underestimate readers (spelling out the obvious) or overwhelm them (assuming they can absorb ten new terms in one paragraph).
The Do’s of Exposition
Do weave it into action. Instead of stopping the story to explain, let information emerge through what characters do. A character loading a gun with practiced ease tells us about their history without a single line of backstory.
Do use dialogue naturally. Characters can reveal information to each other, and to readers, but only if it makes sense for them to say it. Avoid dialogue that exists purely to inform the audience (“As you know, Bob, our father died in the war…”).
Do trust the reader. Readers are remarkably good at inferring. You don’t need to explain every detail; trust them to connect dots. This creates active engagement rather than passive absorption.
Do use sensory and specific details. Instead of “The kingdom had been at war for years,” show a specific image: rationed bread, a scarred veteran begging in the street, propaganda posters peeling off walls.
Do stagger information over time. Not everything needs to be revealed immediately. Some questions can, and should, linger, pulling readers forward.
The Don’ts of Exposition
Don’t front-load everything. The dreaded “info dump” in Chapter 1 (pages of history, family trees, and world rules before any story action) kills momentum before it starts.
Don’t explain what’s already clear. If the scene shows a character is angry, don’t also write “She was furious.” Let one method do the work.
Don’t use “As You Know” dialogue. If two characters both already know something, having them state it aloud for the reader’s benefit feels artificial and stiff.
Don’t stop the story to lecture. Exposition that halts pacing, such as paragraphs of pure explanation mid-scene, breaks immersion. If you must explain, integrate it into ongoing action or thought.Don’t over-explain your themes. Trust subtext. If your story’s climax metaphorically resolves a character’s arc, you don’t need a character to say, “And that’s when I realized…”
Finding the Balance: Just Enough, Not Too Much
The sweet spot in exposition comes down to three principles.
1. Necessity Test Before including a piece of information, ask: Does the reader need this now to understand the current scene? If not, save it for later, or cut it entirely.
2. The Iceberg Principle Ernest Hemingway’s famous approach holds that you, the writer, should know far more about your world and characters than you put on the page. What readers see is the tip of the iceberg; the rest exists beneath the surface, lending weight and believability without needing explicit explanation.
3. Show, Then Tell (If Necessary) Whenever possible, let action and behavior reveal information first. Only add direct explanation if the “showing” alone risks confusing readers. This order, showing first and clarifying second, keeps prose active rather than passive.
A Quick Exercise: Spot the Overload
Compare these two examples.Overloaded:
Sarah was 34 years old, a former lawyer who had quit her job after her divorce three years ago, moved to the countryside, and now ran a small bakery that specialized in sourdough bread, a skill she picked up from her grandmother who had taught her to bake as a child in Ohio.
Balanced:
Sarah’s hands moved through the dough with the ease of muscle memory older than her law degree. Her grandmother’s kitchen in Ohio. The last real home she’d had, before three years of yes-dear and no-your-honor.
The second version trusts imagery and implication to deliver the same information (age, profession, backstory, emotional stakes) without listing it.
Enjoyed This Post? Here’s How You Can Help
If this breakdown of exposition helped clarify your writing process, I’d love for you to share it.
Pass it along to a fellow writer, post it in your favorite writing group, or share it on social media. The more writers who master this craft, the better stories we all get to read.I also write books that put these very techniques into practice. If you’d like to see more of my work, visit my Amazon author page to browse my full catalog.
And if you do pick up one of my books, I have one small request: please consider leaving a review. Reviews make an enormous difference for independent authors. They help new readers discover the book, and they let me know what’s resonating with you. Whether it’s a few sentences or a few paragraphs, every review is genuinely appreciated.Thank you for reading, and thank you for supporting independent authors like me.
Happy Saturday, everyone! I wanted to take a moment today to talk about something every writer eventually has to make peace with: the cutting room floor. That metaphorical space where our beloved words, scenes, and clever turns of phrase go once we realize they simply aren’t serving the story.If you’ve been following along, many of you have read 1300 Feet Per Second, and I’m grateful for every bit of feedback that’s come my way. I’ll be honest—the response has been mixed, and that’s exactly the kind of honesty a writer needs. Readers have connected with the story itself, the concept behind it, and especially the character of Archer, a forensic computer specialist who hunts down hackers and other digital criminals. That’s been wonderful to hear.But the criticism has been just as valuable. The main issues readers have pointed out are inconsistencies—the kind of things I, as the author, overlooked (ahem, guilty as charged). And that brings me to why the cutting room floor matters so much.
When Feedback Becomes Your Beta
I’ve written before about the importance of beta readers, but here’s a truth many indie and first-time authors have to confront: sometimes reader feedback after publication becomes your only real “beta” process, if you will. Not every manuscript gets the luxury of a dozen sharp-eyed readers before it goes out into the world. Sometimes the world itself becomes your test audience, and the lessons come in the form of reviews and honest conversations.That’s humbling. But it’s also a gift, because it teaches you what to trim next time—and what to trim right now.
Killing Your Darlings
There’s an old piece of writing advice: “kill your darlings.” It sounds dramatic, but it simply means being willing to cut the things you’re most attached to when they don’t earn their place. This applies to whole subplots, sure, but it also applies to the small stuff that quietly bloats a manuscript.Here are the usual suspects that belong on the cutting room floor:Filler words. Words like just, really, very, actually, and that often sneak into prose without adding meaning. Strip them out and your sentences tighten instantly.Redundant description. If you’ve told the reader the room is dark, you don’t need to remind them three paragraphs later. Trust your reader’s memory.Repetition and inconsistencies. This is the big one for me right now. Continuity errors—a character’s eye color changing, a timeline that doesn’t add up, a detail contradicted later—pull readers out of the story faster than almost anything else. Careful trimming and re-reading catch these before they embarrass you (or after, as I’ve learned).Scenes that don’t move the story. If a scene doesn’t advance the plot, deepen a character, or raise the stakes, it’s probably a darling worth killing.
Why the Cut Makes the Story Stronger
Every word you remove sharpens the words that remain. A leaner manuscript reads faster, hits harder, and respects the reader’s time. The cutting room floor isn’t a graveyard—it’s a workshop. What you leave behind on that floor is often the very reason what stays feels so strong.
So as I take the lessons from 1300 Feet Per Second into my next revision and my next project, I’m embracing the trim. Archer’s story deserves a clean, consistent, tightly-woven version of itself, and getting there means being brave enough to cut.Thanks, as always, for reading and for the honest feedback. Keep it coming—it’s making me a better writer.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got some darlings to say goodbye to.
Before You Go…
If this post resonated with you, do me a favor—hit that like button, drop a comment, and share it with a fellow writer who might be wrestling with their own cutting room floor. The more eyes on this blog, the more we can build a community of writers helping each other make those necessary (if painful) cuts. And honestly? I could use all the extra sets of eyes I can get catching those sneaky inconsistencies before they sneak past me again.So tell me in the comments: What’s the hardest darling you’ve ever had to kill? I read and reply to every single one.Until next time—have a wonderful weekend, and above all, keep writing. Those words won’t cut themselves! ✂️📖
🚨 Sheriff, Hear Me Out: Why “They Only Track Cars” Doesn’t Tell the Whole Story on Flock Cameras
I have a lot of respect for the Polk County Sheriff. He’s earned it. So when he recently offered his take on Flock cameras, essentially arguing that critics are overreacting because “they only track cars”…I paid attention. I always do when someone I respect weighs in on an issue I care about.But respectfully, Sheriff: you’re wrong on this one. And I think the details matter enough that it’s worth walking through exactly why. Perhaps you should get some coffee….
“They Only Track Cars”—Then Why Are They in the Park?
Here’s my first problem with that argument: if these cameras only track cars, why are they pointed at parks where cars don’t go? Why are they positioned along walking paths where the only thing passing by is a person on foot, a stroller, or a dog on a leash?That’s not a rhetorical question. It’s a factual inconsistency in the “just cars” defense. If the technology were strictly limited to vehicle tracking, we wouldn’t see it deployed in pedestrian-only spaces. The placement alone tells you the scope of what’s being captured is broader than the official talking point suggests.And that’s before we even get to what these cameras are capable of, versus what they’re currently doing.
AI Is Already There. The Microphones Just Aren’t Turned On. Yet, well maybe not turned on. They are called Raven.
This is the part that should give everyone pause, regardless of where you stand politically: these are AI-driven systems, and not all of the features have been activated—yet.The microphone capability, for example, exists in the hardware. It’s just not turned on right now.That “right now” is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Because here’s the thing about surveillance infrastructure: once it’s built, once it’s installed, once it’s normalized in your community, the switch from “capability that exists but isn’t used” to “capability that is now active” is a policy decision—not a technical one. And policy decisions are made by people. People we elect.Which brings me to the real heart of my disagreement.
Elections Have Consequences. Look at New York.
Sheriff, I know you’re a good actor operating this technology responsibly right now. I believe that. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: the safeguards on this technology aren’t really safeguards—they’re the personal restraint of whoever currently holds power.Today, we have semi-reliable guardrails around traffic light cameras and police body cameras. Not perfect, but functional enough that most people trust the system isn’t being weaponized against them personally. Those guardrails didn’t happen by accident—they were built over years of legal battles, public pressure, and hard-won policy fights.Flock cameras don’t have that history. They don’t have that infrastructure of accountability. What they have is enormous, largely untested capability—deployed before the legal and regulatory framework caught up to it.And that’s where elections come in. Look at New York. Look at how quickly the tenor of law enforcement priorities can shift when a different administration takes office, when a different DA is elected, when a different set of political incentives suddenly control the levers of power.Now ask yourself: what happens when a technology that was previously “neutered” by a responsible operator—someone like you, Sheriff—gets handed to someone who isn’t? What happens when a candidate wins office specifically because they promised to use every tool available, with no restraint, against people they’ve decided are enemies?This isn’t hypothetical paranoia. It’s the entire history of surveillance technology in America. Every tool built with good intentions has, at some point, been used by someone with bad ones. The question was never whether Flock cameras could be misused—it’s when, and by whom.That’s the slippery slope. And once you’re on it, there’s no walking it back. You can’t un-invent the microphone in the camera. You can’t un-train the AI model. You can only hope the person controlling it stays reasonable forever. That’s not a safeguard. That’s a gamble.
I’ll Give You This Much: The Tech Is Outpacing the Law
I want to be fair here, Sheriff, because I think you raise a real point even if I disagree with your conclusion: the technology absolutely is outpacing the laws meant to govern it.That’s not a defense of Flock cameras—it’s actually the core of my argument against rushing to deploy them without guardrails first. The right sequence isn’t “deploy now, regulate later.” It’s “regulate first, then deploy.” Once these systems are active, embedded, and normalized across thousands of communities, the political will to roll back capabilities—or to legislate meaningful restrictions—evaporates. It’s far easier to prevent a surveillance state from being built than to dismantle one after the fact.Before these systems go fully active—before every bell and whistle gets switched on—the guardrails need to be in place. Not after. Not “we’ll figure it out once problems arise.” Before.
And Let’s Not Forget: This Is a Private Company Making Bank
Here’s another wrinkle worth sitting with: Flock Safety is a private company, and it’s profiting handsomely from this expansion.We’ve seen this movie before. Remember Ring? A private company selling home security cameras that quietly built partnerships with police departments, shared footage without clear consent, and created a sprawling, decentralized surveillance network—all while marketing itself as a neighborhood safety tool.Flock is following a similar playbook, just with far more centralized power and far more data. When a private company’s business model depends on expanding surveillance infrastructure and selling access to that data to as many law enforcement agencies as possible, their incentives are not the same as the public’s incentives. Profit motive and civil liberties don’t naturally align, and we shouldn’t pretend they do just because the marketing materials use words like “safety” and “community.”
Why This Isn’t Just About Cars
I’ve written before about how Flock cameras fundamentally differ from something like a traffic light camera, and the differences aren’t small. Let me remind you of a few key facts, Sheriff, that I think undercut the “it’s just cars” framing:
Danger/Feature
Flock Cameras (ALPRs)
Traffic Light Cameras
Surveillance Scope
All vehicles, all times, all locations
Only violations, specific locations
Data Retention
7–30 days default, indefinite for investigations
Short, violation-focused
Data Sharing
Nationwide, multi-agency, private & federal access
Local, limited, not networked
Oversight
Often lacking, weak audits, no warrants
Regulated, limited access
Documented Misuse
Stalking, personal disputes, unauthorized searches
Rare
Civil Liberties Risks
Mass surveillance, chilling effects, hacking risk
Minimal, targeted enforcement
Traffic light cameras are triggered by a specific violation, capture a specific moment, and typically purge non-violation data within days. Flock cameras run continuously, retain data indefinitely once flagged, and feed into networks that span thousands of agencies, law enforcement and private entities alike, often without a warrant.There have already been documented cases of officers misusing license-plate-reader systems to track people they personally knew. That’s not a “just cars” problem. That’s a power problem. And power, unchecked, tends to find new and creative ways to be misused.
Documented Cases Where Flock Cameras Were Used to Track People (Not Just Cars)
#
Date / Location
What Happened
How the Camera Was Used
Source
1
June 2026 – Public Trail (Condor camera demonstration)
A reporter filmed a Condor‑mounted Flock camera pivoting, following, and zooming on her as she walked the trail, proving the system can lock onto a person in real time.
The camera’s pan‑tilt‑zoom (PTZ) capability was illustrated, showing it can “track” an individual rather than merely read a license plate.
2
2025 – Milwaukee, WI (Officer Josue Ayala)
The officer searched the license‑plate number of his ex‑girlfriend > 200 times over two months, using the Flock interface to locate her movements.
The system was employed as a personal “people‑search” tool, not for any traffic violation.
3
2025 – Covington, GA
A detective was fired after an internal‑affairs investigation showed he had used the Flock portal to track a female coworker 41 times between January and July.
The officer accessed the real‑time routing feature to monitor the coworker’s vehicle and, by extension, her location.
4
2024 – Multiple U.S. jurisdictions (404 Media investigation)
Police departments entered descriptive searches such as “heavy‑set male with a black‑and‑white hat,” “person on skateboard,” and “person wearing orange vest and construction hat” to find individuals, bypassing the license‑plate‑only design.
The ALPR interface was used to locate specific people based on physical characteristics, effectively turning the system into a people‑tracker.
5
2025 – General findings reported by Engadget
Dozens of documented instances were compiled showing officers using Flock to stalk ex‑girlfriends, current partners, and other personal targets.
The system’s “real‑time routing” and historical search logs allowed officers to see where a suspect’s car (and thus the person) had been.
6
2025 – Omaha, NE (court documents)
A police officer accessed Flock data to locate an undercover officer’s vehicle after a tip, effectively using the system to pinpoint a person of interest.
The camera network supplied the officer’s location by matching the undercover cop’s license plate, but the intent was to identify the person behind the car.
7
2025 – Oklahoma City (reported by Mother Jones)
A police officer used the Flock portal to locate a former romantic partner by repeatedly searching her license‑plate number and reviewing the car’s movement history.
The officer’s motive was personal, not law‑enforcement‑related, showing the system’s capacity for non‑criminal people tracking.
What These Cases Reveal
People‑centric searches: Officers are entering descriptive, non‑vehicle queries (e.g., “person wearing orange vest”), proving that the system can be used to locate individuals based on appearance, not just a license plate.
Real‑time routing feature: The “START REAL‑TIME ROUTING” button (seen in multiple investigations) lets users watch a vehicle’s live path, effectively turning the camera into a live‑tracking tool for the person inside.
Personal stalker cases: Several documented incidents involve officers using the system to monitor ex‑girlfriends, coworkers, or acquaintances—clear evidence of misuse beyond legitimate public‑safety purposes.
Broad deployment: These examples span multiple states (Wisconsin, Georgia, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and national investigations), indicating that the issue isn’t isolated to a single department.
While Flock cameras are marketed as “license‑plate‑only” tools, the documented cases above demonstrate that law‑enforcement agencies have repeatedly leveraged the technology to track people—often for personal, non‑criminal reasons. This reveals a gap between the company’s public statements and the reality of how the system is being employed on the ground.
Here is where the “white noise”comes from… Why the Confusion Exists
Misinformation online – Reddit threads and social‑media posts sometimes claim “Flock cameras are already tracking Bluetooth/Wi‑Fi,” but experts and the company’s own documentation refute those claims, pointing out that the only Bluetooth present is for maintenance, not data capture.
Third‑party add‑ons – Vendors like Leonardo DRS are actively marketing SignalTrace to police departments that already have ALPRs (including some that use Flock). When a department buys both, it can look like a single “Flock‑plus‑SignalTrace” system, even though the underlying camera itself remains unchanged.
And here are more facts: Multiple independent reports confirm that the Raven audio‑detection module has already been installed and is actively paired with Flock Safety’s Falcon ALPR cameras in several jurisdictions.
Source
What it says
Reddit – r/FlockSurveillance
Users report that “some cities are adding the Raven microphone to their flock cams” and describe it as an upgrade from a pure shot‑detection system to a broader “distress‑sound” detector
OFFICER Magazine
Describes the Raven as an “audio detection device that detects gunshots, locates the source, and works in tandem with the Flock Safety Falcon™ ALPR camera”
WANE‑15 (Fort Wayne, IN)
Announces a pilot where the Raven “integrates directly with Flock Safety’s broader investigative platform … allowing officers to compare audio alerts with license‑plate‑reader information” .
GovTech
Explains that “Raven can trigger cameras to begin recording, but it relies on cameras to do the actual processing … Flock Safety plans to rely solely on its AI algorithms to identify a sound” .
City of El Mirany blog
Notes that “when gunfire is detected, any existing FLOCK Safety Falcon license‑plate‑recognition camera nearby is automatically activated to capture additional visual evidence”.
Wikipedia (June 2026 entry)
Cites a WSLS‑TV report that a “Flock device, identified as a Flock Raven …” was deployed in the field .
These pieces come from different media types (industry magazines, local news, a city‑government blog, a community‑run forum, and a reputable encyclopedia entry) and all converge on the same fact: the Raven audio sensor is being mounted on, and actively used with, existing Flock cameras.
What “active” looks like in practice
Audio‑triggered recording – When the Raven’s AI recognises a qualifying sound (e.g., a gunshot or a scream), it sends an approximate location to the Falcon camera, which then starts recording video of the scene .
Data fusion in FlockOS – The audio alert is logged alongside the license‑plate reads, letting investigators correlate sound events with vehicle movements .
Pilot deployments – Fort Wayne’s police department is testing this integration, and other agencies such as Morgan Hill PD and Albany PD have publicly announced full‑scale use.
Why the evidence matters
Transparency & oversight – Knowing that the audio component is already live underscores the urgency of establishing clear policies (data retention, civilian oversight, audible‑recording consent) before further roll‑outs.
Surveillance scope widens – The original ALPR only captured static vehicle data; Raven adds a real‑time acoustic layer that can pick up events even when no car is present (e.g., a shooting in a park).
Potential for mission creep – Because the audio feeds are automatically linked to video, the system can be used for situational awareness far beyond the original “license‑plate only” premise.
And lets not forget about Flock Alpha…Drones.
Sheriff, I don’t doubt your intentions. I don’t doubt that, under your watch, this technology is being used responsibly. But my objection has never really been about you. It’s about the next person. And the person after that. And whether the guardrails we build now will hold when someone with very different intentions eventually takes the reins.”They only track cars” isn’t a safeguard, it’s a description of current, voluntary restraint. And voluntary restraint is not a substitute for enforceable law. Before we flip on every feature this AI is capable of before the microphones go live, before the data-sharing networks expand further, before we hand this much power to a private company with a profit motive, we need real guardrails in place. Not because I think you’ll misuse this technology, Sheriff. But because I guarantee you, someone eventually will. And by then, it’ll be too late to put the genie back in the bottle.
Suggested reading on the subject is Orwell’s 1984, perhaps you heard of it?
If that is not enough, try my latest novel…The Corrected Cityits a page turner.
Nobody remembers the first camera. Twenty years after the Year of Fires, the city is safe. Assault is down eighty percent. Nobody has been murdered in eleven years. The screens say good morning by name, the clinics answer in minutes, and the past is kept tidy by people like Mara Venn, who has spent eleven years at the Ministry of Public Memory correcting the record so that no citizen ever has to live inside a contradiction.
Then a corrupted file comes across her desk, and she is very good at her job, and she restores it. What surfaces is four minutes of footage the official history cannot survive, a wind reading nobody bothered to falsify, twenty-seven names missing from a memorial roll, and a photographer in a government coat who tipped his head to the right exactly the way her sister does.
She can prove it. She cannot prove it to anybody who would still be alive afterward, starting with her sister, who reads the names of the dead on air to four hundred thousand people and believes every word. A near-future thriller about surveillance that arrives as kindness, history that is corrected rather than censored, and the quiet, decades-long work of putting the truth somewhere it can be found.
We’ve all felt it. That flash of contempt when someone mentions who they voted for. The eye-roll. The quiet recalculation of a person we thought we knew. In a single moment, a friend, a neighbor, a family member gets sorted into a box marked them. I want to make a case for putting down that reflex, not because it’s polite, but because it’s the truth. The person who votes differently than you is not stupid, not evil, and not beyond understanding. More often than not, they’re something far more relatable: a human being doing their best with the information they’ve been handed.
Garbage In, Garbage Out
Programmers have an old saying: garbage in, garbage out. Feed a system bad data and it will produce bad results, no matter how sophisticated it is. Your mind works the same way. Here’s the uncomfortable part: almost none of us choose our information diet as freely as we think. We inherit it. We drift into it. We follow the sources that feel comfortable, that confirm what we already suspect, that give us the satisfying jolt of being right. If you consume only left-leaning media and dismiss everything else as propaganda, you will build a mental model of the right that is a caricature. If you consume only right-leaning media and wave away the rest as lies, you’ll do the same in reverse. Both people walk away certain, and both are working from incomplete pictures painted by someone else. The tragedy isn’t that we disagree. Healthy societies have always disagreed. The tragedy is that we’ve stopped believing the other side is even reasoning. We’ve concluded they must be broken.
Who Benefits From Your Contempt?
Ask yourself a simple question: who profits when you hate your neighbor? Not you. Not your community. Division is a business model and a political strategy. Outrage drives clicks. Fear drives donations. A frightened, angry, divided public is easy to sell to and easy to steer. There are people (call them puppet masters, call them algorithms, call them incentive structures) for whom your contempt is a resource to be mined. When you dehumanize the other side, you’re not winning. You’re doing the exact job the manipulators need done. You’ve become an unpaid employee of the outrage machine. The moment you realize this, something shifts. That person you were about to write off? They may be a victim of the same manipulation you are. You’re not fighting each other. You’re both being played.
Don’t Feed the Comment Section
Watch the comments under any breaking news clip or live stream and you will see the same pattern: within seconds, before anyone could possibly know what happened, the thread is already a brawl. That is not an accident, and it is not a fair sample of your countrymen. Some of those accounts are bots. Some are paid. Some belong to real people who have learned that cruelty is the fastest way to be seen. All of them are rewarded for it, because the platform measures success in replies, and nothing generates replies like an insult aimed at somebody’s family, faith, or politics. The vitriol is not a flaw in the comment section; it is the product.
So remember what a comment section is not. It is not the public. It is not your neighborhood. It is not a debate. It is a slot machine that pays out in adrenaline, and the house always wins. Do not engage. Do not correct the obvious troll, do not answer the bait, and do not draft the devastating reply you will reread six times before you post it. You will not change that account’s mind, because there may not be a mind behind it, and the algorithm counts your outrage as engagement either way. Close the tab instead. Then go say something generous to an actual person, in a place where your words land on someone who can be reached.
Forgiveness Is Not Agreement
Let me be clear about what I’m not saying. Forgiveness doesn’t mean you abandon your convictions. It doesn’t mean every idea is equally valid or that we should stop debating what’s true and good. Some ideas are better than others, and that matters. What forgiveness does mean is separating the idea from the person. You can think someone is deeply wrong and still treat them as fully human. You can argue passionately and still assume they arrived at their view honestly. You can hold your ground without grinding someone into the dirt. Contempt closes minds, including your own. Curiosity opens them.
A Plan to Reduce the Friction
Good intentions fade fast. So here’s a concrete, doable plan for lowering the temperature in your own corner of the world.
Audit your information diet. For one week, notice where your news comes from. Is it one perspective? Add at least one credible source from the “other side,” not to convert you, but to understand how reasonable people reach different conclusions.
Steel-man before you strike. Before criticizing an opposing view, state it so accurately that someone who holds it would say, “Yes, that’s exactly what I mean.” If you can’t, you don’t understand it well enough to reject it yet.
Ask one more question. When you disagree, resist the counterpunch. Instead ask: “What experience led you to see it that way?” People rarely hold views for no reason. Find the reason and you’ll find the human.
Draw a hard line at dehumanization. Disagree with ideas all day long. But the instant you catch yourself thinking a whole group is stupid, subhuman, or beyond hope: stop. That’s the manipulation working. Name it and reject it.
Never argue in the comment section. Scroll past it. That thread is not a conversation, and half of it may not even be human. If something you read there makes your chest tighten, that is the design working, so close the tab and take the point up with a real person instead.
Protect relationships over arguments. Before a heated conversation, ask yourself: Do I want to be right, or do I want to keep this person in my life? You can often do both, but only if the relationship comes first.
Practice one act of grace a week. Compliment someone you disagree with. Thank a neighbor whose sign you’d never put in your yard. Small acts of goodwill rehumanize faster than any argument.
Model it publicly. Be the person who refuses to pile on. When everyone else is dunking, be the one who says, “I disagree, but I get where you’re coming from.” Grace is contagious. So is cruelty. Choose which one you spread.
The World They Don’t Want You to Build
Imagine a dinner table where people vote differently and still pass the potatoes with a smile. Imagine a comment section where someone changes their mind because they were treated with dignity instead of ridicule. Imagine looking at the person across the aisle and seeing not an enemy, but a fellow traveler who got fed a different set of stories. That world is quieter, kinder, and far harder to manipulate. Which is exactly why it’s worth building. It starts with a single decision, available to you right now: the next person who votes differently, I will treat with respect. Not because they’ve earned it. Because it’s who you’ve decided to be, and because refusing to hate is the most quietly rebellious thing you can do in an age that profits from your rage.
You sit at your desk, stare at a blank page, and wrestle with ideas that only you can hear. Yet, some of the most celebrated authors swear by the power of a writers’ community. Below, we’ll explore why joining a group like Carrollton Leage of Writers https://www.carrolltonleagueofwriters.com/(CLW) can transform that isolated habit into a dynamic, growth‑fueling experience.
In my travels I promote CLW, the Carrollton League of Writers (and since we meet over Zoom, as well as in person, distance is no barrier). The pushback I often hear is that writing is a solitary act. My response: writing may start as a solitary act, but the journey to becoming a better writer is inherently social.I offer this reminder to them: CLW provides the feedback loop, accountability, creative spark, and emotional scaffolding that solo work often lacks. By tapping into the collective intelligence and goodwill of a writers’ group, you gain the following:
Sharper prose, thanks to honest critique
Faster momentum, through accountability
Richer ideas, by way of synergy
A supportive community that celebrates every step
So the next time you hear that writing is a solitary process, remember: the best stories are often forged in collaboration, even if the final product bears a single name. Join CLW, and let the power of many minds make your voice louder, clearer, and more compelling.
1. Instant, Honest Feedback
Speedy critique: Instead of waiting weeks for a beta reader, you get fresh eyes on a paragraph within days.
Balanced perspective: Group members point out both strengths and blind spots, helping you tighten prose, clarify plot holes, and sharpen dialogue.
Safe space: CLW’s “constructive criticism only” policy ensures feedback is honest but never hurtful.
2. Accountability That Actually Works
Regular deadlines: Knowing you’ll share a chapter at the next meeting keeps procrastination at bay.
Progress tracking: Seeing peers hit word‑count milestones nudges you to stick to your own targets.
Public commitment: When you announce a goal in a group, you’re more likely to follow through—psychology calls it the social contract effect.
3. Creative Synergy & Idea Cross‑Pollination
Brainstorming boost: A single “what if?” from another writer can spin an entire subplot into existence.
Genre mash‑ups: Exposure to diverse styles (poetry, speculative fiction, memoir) sparks fresh approaches you might never try alone.
Collective problem‑solving: Stuck on a character’s motivation? Someone’s life experience may hold the key.
4. Skill‑Sharing Beyond the Page
Editing tricks: Learn when to use a semicolon vs. a dash from a peer who’s an editor.
Marketing basics: Members often share insights on query letters, social media outreach, and self‑publishing platforms.
Technical tools: Discover new software (Scrivener, Dabble, or even AI‑assisted outlines) through demos and peer recommendations.
5. Emotional Support & Motivation
Writer’s block relief: Hearing that others face the same dip in inspiration normalizes the struggle.
Celebrating wins: From finishing a first draft to landing a literary agent, the group becomes your cheer squad.
Loneliness antidote: Regular meet‑ups—whether virtual or in‑person—replace the echo chamber of a solitary desk with genuine camaraderie.
6. Networking Opportunities
Guest speakers: CLW often invites published authors, agents, and editors for Q&A sessions.
Collaboration projects: Anthologies, joint newsletters, and co‑authoring experiments arise naturally in a tight‑knit community.
Referral pipeline: A member’s agent may become your agent—word‑of‑mouth connections are priceless.
7. Improved Discipline & Craft Mastery
Writing prompts: Weekly prompts push you out of comfort zones, expanding your stylistic range.
Workshops: Structured exercises (e.g., “show, don’t tell” drills) give you a tangible way to practice and internalize techniques.
Progress reviews: Periodic “where am I now?” sessions highlight growth that’s easy to miss when you’re only looking at drafts.
TLDR
Writing may start as a solitary act, but the journey to becoming a better writer is inherently social. CLW provides the feedback loop, accountability, creative spark, and emotional scaffolding that solo work often lacks. By tapping into the collective intelligence and goodwill of a writers’ group, you gain:
Sharper prose (thanks to honest critique)
Faster momentum (through accountability)
Richer ideas (via synergy)
A supportive community (that celebrates every step)
So, the next time you hear “writing is a solitary process,” remember: the best stories are often forged in collaboration, even if the final product bears a single name. Join CLW, and let the power of many minds make your voice louder, clearer, and more compelling
Speaking of writing…Here is my latest release:Gods And Insects... Ted Smith’s title says Special Advisor, Office of Administration.
For nineteen years his actual job has been making problems go away, and the largest one is a fleet of tanker trucks that emptied radioactive drilling waste along nine states of interstate shoulder, one rainstorm at a time. The cancers never clustered around the wells, where anyone would have thought to look. They gathered in a thin ribbon along the highways, in truck stops and hay fields and school districts downhill of the road, spread across a map nobody owned.
Then an oncologist asks Ted about occupational exposure, and Ted lies.
Three pages after a senator’s airport earmark, buried in a spending bill nobody will read, sits a rider that seals twenty years of monitoring data and makes every one of those deaths legally unprovable. It reaches the Senate floor in nine days. The only reporter who can stop it is the one the White House is busy making famous, and she has not yet understood that the medal they are hanging on her is a leash. Nobody has to lie once the bill passes. That is the point of the bill.Gods and Insects is on KDP
In the late 1900s, I was spending a significant amount of time on the road, driving nearly 1,000 miles a week. Back then, I lived in Houston, a city notorious for its unpredictable weather and sprawling roadways. One of the most well-known highways in Houston is Loop 610, a giant ring encircling the city. It was (and still is) a requirement that hazardous material trucks use the loop instead of cutting through the downtown area. This rule made sense, given the risks involved in transporting dangerous substances through such a densely populated area. But one particular day on the loop changed the trajectory of my life in the most unexpected way.
A Rainstorm, a Leaky Truck, and a Spark of Curiosity
Houston weather is nothing if not unpredictable. You can be driving under sunny skies one minute and find yourself in the middle of a torrential downpour the next, and that’s exactly what happened on this day. As I made my way around Loop 610, following a chemical transport truck, the skies opened up. The rain poured down, and visibility became challenging. Yet, something about that truck caught my attention.There was an unusual amount of water draining from the back of the vehicle…far more than seemed normal, even during a rainstorm this heavy. My curiosity got the better of me. Why was there so much water spilling from this truck? Was it just rain runoff, or was there something else going on?Instead of continuing on my usual route through town via Highway 59, I decided to follow the truck, keeping a safe distance. I watched as the rain let up and the sun came out again. But here’s the strange part: the water draining from the truck didn’t stop. It kept flowing as if the storm had never ended.
A Suspicious Pattern and a Moment of Realization
The truck didn’t return to Highway 59 after completing its loop around the city. Instead, it kept circling. I followed it for a while, trying to make sense of what I was seeing. Was something leaking? Was the truck dispersing something intentionally? After completing more than one full loop around the city, I realized I’d wasted enough time, and likely exposed myself to who-knows-what. I decided to let it go and head home.But the experience stuck with me. Long after I stopped following that truck, I couldn’t shake the questions from my mind. What could have been leaking from that vehicle? Was it an accident, or something more sinister? The idea kept nagging at me, and before I knew it, a story began to form in my imagination. That day, the seed for my novel Gods and Insects was planted.
From a Leaky Truck to a Novel 30 Years Later
It took over three decades for the story to fully come to life. Gods and Insects, like my previous novel The Corrected City, sat in the proverbial file cabinet for years, stored away on an old hard drive while life moved on. But writing has always been my craft, my passion. With over 100,000,000 words written (yes, that’s with an M!), my skills have sharpened over time, and I finally felt ready to breathe new life into this story.The result? A novel born from a real-life moment of curiosity, suspense, and a little bit of danger. Gods and Insects is now available, and for the next 90 days, it’s free to read on Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP).
Sometimes, inspiration strikes in the most unexpected ways. For me, it was a mysterious chemical truck, a rainstorm, and a moment of curiosity that I couldn’t ignore. The resulting novel dives into themes of mystery, danger, and the unknown…born from a real-life experience that could have ended very differently.If you’re a fan of suspenseful, thought-provoking stories, I think you’ll find Gods and Insects well worth your time. Plus, it’s free on KDP right now, so there’s no excuse not to dive in and experience the tale for yourself.Enjoy the read, and remember, inspiration can strike when you least expect it. Sometimes, all it takes is a leaky truck on a rainy day to spark a story worth telling.
Your Turn: Join the Conversation and Dive Into Gods and Insects
Now that you’ve heard the story behind the story, I’d love to hear from you!
💬 Drop a Comment Below
Have you ever had a moment of curiosity that stuck with you for years? Maybe an unusual encounter, a strange sight, or a “what if” question that wouldn’t leave your mind? Share your story in the comments. I read every single one, and who knows, your experience might just inspire my next novel! I’d also love to hear your thoughts on this piece. Did the mystery of that leaky chemical truck grab your attention? What do you think was really going on?
Ready to see where that rainy day in Houston led? For the next 90 days, Gods and Insects is completely FREE on Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP). That’s right: zero cost, all suspense. Whether you’re a longtime sci-fi fan, a lover of mystery and intrigue, or someone who enjoys a story with real-world roots, this novel has something for you.👉 [Click here to download your free copy today!] (Insert your KDP link)Don’t wait. This free offer won’t last forever. Once the 90 days are up, the opportunity is gone.
⭐ Loved It? Leave a Review!
Here’s the thing about being an indie author: reviews are our lifeblood. They help other readers discover the book, they boost visibility on Amazon, and honestly? They mean the world to writers like me who’ve poured decades into their craft.So if you read Gods and Insects and enjoy it (or even if you have constructive thoughts to share), please take just two minutes to leave an honest review on Amazon. It doesn’t have to be long. Even a sentence or two makes a huge difference. Your words could be the reason another reader picks up this book and gets pulled into the mystery.
To recap:
💬 Comment below with your thoughts or your own “curious moment” story.
Thank you for being part of this journey. Every reader, every comment, and every review helps keep the stories coming. Now go grab that book, and happy reading! 🚚💧📚
September 9, 2011, started like any other day. While stuck at a traffic light, I was on the phone with our New York office. Something happened; they put me on hold, and as I drove to the Dallas office, I listened to the world change. We can argue about the rumors that still surround Building 7, but suffice it to say, the world changed.
My normal way of dealing with grief is not to drone on about it with friends or family. My way is to write about it. If you follow me at all, you have no doubt read my blog post about writing letters or emails to people who are, let’s say, less than congenial. I use expletives and what have you to get the anger out of me and into the digital ethos, and of course, as much as I want to, I never send it. Burning bridges and being known as a hothead will get you nowhere.
Fast-forward six weeks after 9/11 and at least 3,000 deaths by “some people who did some things.” Bush and his administration enacted the Patriot Act, which is still alive and well today. The things those people did allowed our government to strip away some of our rights, trading them for safety. “Do you feel safe?”
Fast-forward to the Flock cameras, data centers, Alexa devices, smartphones, and, of course, drones. Do you feel safe?
Those Flock cameras, I learned, have microphones.
So, while spending these summer months of 100-plus-degree days clearing out old computer hardware, I found that file from 2011. I had started a book about a fictional city where a horrible event occurred, and much like the Patriot Act, what we see today closely resembles what I put into my book. Being a fan of Orwell, I wrote a dystopian near-future novel that is all but ready for one last edit.
Stay tuned for more updates and for when the book drops.
I am thinking about putting it on KDP Unlimited for those of you who can read it for free. Follow, hit that like button, and comment below if you have ideas you would like to share.Best,
A Writer’s Honest Take on Contests, Scams, and Chasing the Dream
What are the odds?As a writer and author, I occasionally post a story from a prompt and feed the machine $5 for a “chance” to win a contest. I also play the lottery from time to time. Not that I have an ice cube’s chance in hell of winning, but I do it when I travel. Long car trips on flat, nothing roads are a great way to ask the proverbial “what if?”
What would I do with X millions if I won? It could happen, right? Fortunately, I know what statistics are, so I don’t get too carried away with the fantasy. The same is true for casting my story onto the Reedsy website. Often, I look at the winning story and ask, how the hell did that one win?! I think I know.
The Predators in My Inbox
Putting my own vanity aside, the same skepticism applies to the predators who comment on my books through email, asking me if I would consider allowing them to be my agent. Truthfully, I could use their pitch about my book as a cover blurb. Of course, AI wrote it, and of course, it’s a scam designed to prey on my ego.
So I ask once again: what are the odds?
I have at least five people with the first name “Lauren” as new followers on my Reedsy story site.
All of the Laurens have different last names, and each of them is tempting my ego to override my God-given good sense. They want me to hand over money so they can “take my writing to the next level.”
The Engagement Game
IMHO, if I really wanted my story to win, I’d get everyone on this blog to go over there and “like” my story. That would tweak the algorithm, and maybe then a judge might actually read it and think, “Wow, that’s pretty good.”
Again IMHO, I seriously doubt someone sits down and reads 300-plus stories, each week and carefully weigh the pros and cons of each before crowning a winner. Much like monetized social media with its clicks, likes, and comments, contest platforms probably use engagement as a tool. (If I’m wrong, feel free to comment.)
So Why Do I Keep Paying the $5?
Ever since I ran across a young woman on YouTube (I think her name was Laura) who was going through school at the time parroting what she learned in vlogs, I wanted her company to succeed. They’re a bona fide business now and offer many services. I write, and I pay the money for feedback from other writers that range from “Wow, that’s a great story!” to “You need to make your character feel more like a living person instead of a zombie.”
A Modest Proposal for Reedsy
I propose the following adjustments to the current contest model:
Introduce Written Feedback for All Entries Provide each contestant, regardless of outcome, with a brief written critique from a qualified reader or editor. Even two to three sentences of constructive commentary would deliver meaningful value.
Adjust the Entry Fee to $10 Increasing the fee from $5 to $10 offsets the cost of providing individualized feedback and positions the contest as a premium, value-added service rather than a low-stakes lottery.
Expand the Prize Pool A larger prize, funded in part by the adjusted fee structure, would attract a greater number of participants and elevate the prestige of the competition.
Anticipated Benefits
Increased Participant Retention: Writers will feel they are receiving tangible value for their investment, win or lose.
Enhanced Platform Credibility: Offering expert feedback reinforces the platform’s role as a professional development resource, not merely a contest host.
Higher Entry Volume: A larger prize purse combined with guaranteed feedback is likely to draw new entrants and reengage lapsed ones.
Stronger Competitive Positioning: Few writing contests currently offer feedback as part of the standard entry package. Adopting this model would differentiate the platform in a crowded market.
Feasibility Considerations
Assuming contest judging is conducted by human evaluators rather than automated tools, the additional effort required to generate short-form feedback should be minimal relative to the review process already underway. In practical terms, if judges are already reading entries to determine winners, capturing a few lines of impressions per submission is a modest incremental task with significant participant-facing value.
The proposed changes represent a low-risk, high-reward adjustment to the existing contest structure. By transforming the entry fee into an investment in personal development rather than a speculative gamble, the platform can strengthen participant loyalty, grow contest participation, and reinforce its standing as a trusted partner to the writing community.
A Note to My Fellow Writers
To every writer out there navigating this strange landscape with me, this one’s for you.
If you’re like me, your inbox is probably overflowing with “We love your book!” messages from “xyz Publishers” @gmail.com.
Go ahead, borrow that AI-generated blurb if it flatters you, have a laugh, and move on.
We’ve all seen them. We all know the game.
And if you, like me, still enter contests with your eyes wide open, take heart. The genuine followers you gain along the way, the ones who take the time to read your story and leave a thoughtful comment, are the real prize.
They aren’t trying to scam you. They’re walking the same road you are.There are too many of us to name, but we share something powerful in common: the desire to be the best writers we can be.
We keep showing up. We keep submitting. We keep writing, even when the odds feel long and the noise feels loud.
That shared drive is what makes this community worth being part of.
I’ve shared several tips on this blog to help fellow writers sharpen their craft, and I’ll keep adding more.
If any of this resonates with you, follow along for future posts, drop a comment below and tell me about your own experiences, and let’s keep lifting each other up.We’re in this together.
That Flattering Email in Your Inbox? It’s Probably a Scam.
Let’s be honest: authors have egos. I’m no exception. We pour our souls into our work, and when someone notices—really notices, it feels like validation wrapped in a warm hug. Scammers know this. They count on it. And they’re getting disturbingly good at exploiting it.I’ve seen my fair share of suspicious emails over the years, but I have to admit—this one nearly got me.
The Email That Almost Fooled Me
Picture this: a polished, professional message lands in your inbox from someone claiming to be a “Consulting Publisher at Bloomsbury Publishing (UK).” The tone is warm. The praise is specific. They mention your book by name and describe it with the kind of glowing language that makes your heart skip a beat.Here’s what “Faiza S. Khan” had to say about my novel, The Ocean Within:
“I was genuinely impressed by its compelling blend of scientific speculation, environmental intrigue, and high-stakes suspense… The novel’s focus on the fragile balance between human progress and the immense, often unpredictable forces beneath the Earth’s surface creates a story that is both intellectually engaging and emotionally compelling.”
Flattering, right? They even praised its “strong commercial appeal” and suggested it “extends beyond genre conventions.” This email knew exactly which buttons to push.
The Red Flags Hiding in Plain Sight
Here’s the thing about well-crafted scams: they sound almost legitimate. But when you slow down and look closer, the warning signs emerge:
Unsolicited contact from a major publisher. Traditional publishers like Bloomsbury don’t typically cold-email unknown authors gushing about their self-published or small-press work.
Vague next steps. The email asks about your “current publishing arrangements” and whether you have an agent—information that helps scammers tailor their pitch (or their ask for money).
Too much flattery, too little substance. The praise is elaborate but generic enough to apply to almost any thriller with environmental themes.
No verifiable contact details. A quick search often reveals these “consulting publishers” don’t exist on the company’s official website.
Why This Matters
Scams like this prey on our deepest hopes as writers. They exploit the dream of being “discovered” by a prestigious publisher. And once they have your attention? The requests begin…fees for “editorial reviews,” payments for “international distribution,” or contracts that sign away your rights.So what should you do if an email like this lands in your inbox?
Pause before you respond. Excitement clouds judgment.
Verify the sender. Search the person’s name on the publisher’s official website or LinkedIn.
Contact the publisher directly. Use contact information from their official site—not the email.
Trust your gut. If it feels too good to be true, it probably is.
The Bottom Line
I won’t pretend I wasn’t tempted, even for a moment to believe that Bloomsbury had stumbled upon my work and fallen in love with it. That’s the power of a well-crafted scam. But the best defense we have as authors is awareness, skepticism, and community.If you’ve received something similar, you’re not alone. Share your experience, warn your fellow writers, and remember: your talent is real, even when the emails praising it aren’t.
Have you encountered a publishing scam? Drop your story in the comments—let’s help each other stay vigilant.
About the cover:
The Ocean Within is a gripping, science-driven thriller that explores the fragile balance between humanity and the forces of nature. Perfect for fans of Michael Crichton, Andy Weir, and Kim Stanley Robinson, this novel will leave you breathless—and questioning how much we really understand about the world beneath our feet.
You must be logged in to post a comment.