When you let dumb, venial men run the world who care about their power and trust their opinion over that of others better educated them themselves, people die. Centuries of progress wiped out because money does buy power and there is always someone willing to seek their soul.

#vaccine #antivax #medicine #rfkjr #mRNA #medicine https://www.thebulwark.com/p/this-is-what-destroying-the-vaccine-market-looks-like-moderna-flu-prasad-fda?utm_source=flipboard&utm_content=TheBulwark/magazine/Bulwark+Latest

#WritersCoffeeClub #WCC 2026.02.09 — Do you subscribe to ‘show, don’t tell’? Why, or why not?

This is the difference between stating meaning and evoking meaning. Each have their place.

Word choice matters. The right word not only draws the reader into a story, it lets the author tailor specific meanings to make specific points. What I write in first draft sometimes feels like instructions to future-me, explanations of what is happening, noted and forgotten in order to prevent halting composition or breaking my fugue. Meta. When there is no reference or context, I do think it is all right to tell the reader what is going on, to explain, to prevent misconception, to force the author's meaning down the reader's throats, hopefully courteously, especially when dealing with internal convolutions of a character's (or the narrator's) mind.

Mostly, however, I find myself reading these explanations of mine and often replacing to-be constructions with active verbs like ran or shove, removing attributive-sense constructions like he-saw/heard/felt, adding description through action, and bringing in the senses, all five in a paragraph or passage if possible. Sentences get recast, rewritten. Thus not, "He saw a rose," but, "He inhaled through his nose, turned, and reached for a velvety red petal, but, always clumsy, scratched his thumb."

Do you see what I did?

Such things effect pacing. It's a trade off. Making experience concrete adds weight to the narrative, adds words, and can extend the reading time going from point A to point B. The above example is 19 words instead of 5, but I never simply stated it was a rose.

[Author retains copyright (c)2026 R.S.]

#BoostingIsSharing
#gender #fiction #writer #author
#writing #writingcommunity #writersOfMastodon #writers
#RSdiscussion

#WritersCoffeeClub #WCC 2026.02.04 — How much detail do you use to describe your settings?

Here's the thing. I love, Love, LOVE Charles Dickens. Sometimes I emulate his florid writing style, but I know better; I fix all fluffy florid flowery fabulosity during revision.

My answer here is that I detail the setting by having the POV interact with it. At first, when moving into a scene, it's what catches the POV's interest, not necessarily a description at all. It might even miss something a reader might consider germane, like other character's clothes or lack thereof. Intentional, of course, since I'm an author who is manipulating the reader's experience to say something about the characters society and therefore through contrast that of the reader's. What's not described (and later discovered by the reader) is a statement all of its own. From thence forward, it's what happens and the physicality of dealing with the setting and its occupants and nothing more, even if there's an irrelevant elephant in the room. If the POV doesn't notice it, or wouldn't care? No description. Nada. Nothing. Zilch. Bupkis. The following two excerpts demonstrate what I do from a passage I published in yesterday's word weavers (https://eldritch.cafe/@sfwrtr/116011495876300289):

I brought up my wings, tapping joints on the wood ceiling, blocking the glaring light of the sprite lantern hung in the center of the room, creating an ever smaller shaded space we alone occupied; it didn't matter he was bigger than me.

We know the POV has wings, but she taps them (sound) against a wood ceiling (modifies sound adds an image of planking, and the feel of wood by extension). Blocks a lamp. It's bright. Throws shade. (Sight) It's a room. He's bigger than her, and she's slowly encircling him.

My splayed feathers filtered the dimness to blue, making his darkening bruises stand out. Lines of scabs on his scraped knees resembled distant barbed wire. Sweat. I remembered it was salty. My nose twitched. I'd liked his male scent—might have recognized him by it, but this? Acidic. Acrid. Mixed with someone else's stink.

Blue feathers splayed out (a visual). They cast blue light. (Implied translucency) This illuminate the man's wounds. (A visual description of only what matters) Sweat: first taste then smell describes the couple's past explicitly. Then there's the shadow-appearance (via his smell) of someone else who's sweat is mixed in. Is this jealousy implied by the word stink? (Precise word choice with descriptive implications.)

I do my best to translate any inadvertent tracts of pure description into interaction with the setting, and if there are characters, they become part of the setting. Works a lot better, and keeps the reader where the action is.

[Author retains copyright (c)2026 R.S.]

#BoostingIsSharing
#writing #writingcommunity #writersOfMastodon #writers
#RSdiscussion

@GossiTheDog Not yet found an application that uses general AI (vs machine learning non-LLM as a subsystem) that doesn't hinder my work. Easier to work it out myself from scratch and refine it than to correct a mediocre billion-dollar hot mess. #ai #genAI