Photo by Sammie Sanders on Pexels

Share

Grotesque rumors have circulated suggesting that people just aren’t reading anymore and literature ought to be delivered in a particular manner. This is entirely not true.

Print sales for the US are up and are escalating at record levels in the UK.[1]

Albeit readers perhaps have more treacherous schedules, which greedily evaporate their personal time, this is apparently not an indicator that people have stopped reading. One might even concede to the gossip that we have slightly shortened attention spans, or we read in the vagaries of time. Perhaps. This does not mean a lesser appetite for literature.

However, it does tell us one thing. One must meet the reader where they travel, and with inspiration.

Whilst the world sits back watching in horror—what used to be entertaining prose being bled of all its exciting elements—we have positioned ourselves for rebellion. Readers who are time-poor must be provided with accessible formats.

Go on now, read a few short stories. Are they punchy? Clever? Do they infuriate you? Do they make you laugh, cry or provoke thought? Some maybe, but most are written in the way that makes one feel like a salt mine and a sandpit had a love child.

No wonder people aren’t reading anymore!

Writing has become so formulaic, dry, and “rule following” that there is no longer entertainment when reading most of what is published these days. This is not because great writers are not out there. It seems to be a phenomenon set in motion ONLY because boundaries have
been insinuated on both the reader and the writer which, quite frankly, neither want. Can’t we demand more?

Short form articles have merely lowered the threshold for elegant readers who still have an appetite for reading but have abandoned dry prose.[2] What
would one expect when readers are bogged down with busy work schedules, poorly
attended personal time, and boredom on page one? One needs only to look at the
success in number of The Booker Prize Quick Read launch!

From the horse’s mouth—statistics from The Reading Agency’s & The Booker Prize Short Read data—here are the problems with reading:

1. 55% read less than they intended
(basically all of us)

2. 35% find it hard to finish

(a CLUE for clever writers...shorter is better)

3. 33% said a “quick and easy read” would help them read more

(DING, DING, DING)

All is not lost. We have our answer! We are just too busy massaging our own egos to listen. Meet the reader with their desires.

These are signals (or statistics) that readers are coming back.

What we want as readers is a writer’s rebellion!

Write what is amazing…write what is beautiful. There is a reason that magazines who defied popularity among publishers became so successful. They ignored the cooperate
shillings that were fed to the public and offered something unique!

Vanity Fair did it by ignoring the boring! Even The New Yorker admitted as much.

So, let us do the same!
We too can begin…

#IgnoringTheBoring

This is a call for readers to demand more, but it is also a call for writers to make writing exciting again!

PUBLISH THE OPPOSITE OF MASS MARKET!

[1] Publisher’s Weekly

[2] The Booker Prize

AVAILABLE ONLY @ THE OXFORD REVIEW

Share

Finally, the Writer’s Personality Test is finally here!

If you were a book, which genre would you be? (Click the Link Below)

The Oxford Review Presents The Writer’s Personality Test

By Bella, Editor-in-Chief 5 July 2026 Part 10: Why You Are Not Getting Published

Where Does One Find Tips for Writing Action, Dialogue, and Exposition/Backstory in Concert with One Another?

The Oxford Review has created a formula to help you combine Action, Dialogue, and Exposition/Backstory to keep your reader engaged, advancing plot and balancing the prose in your manuscript. An important clue for the writer is to use this formula to combine these writing elements as if they were the electrons that surrounded a nucleus of story. Each should always work in tandem with the other elements to encircle the story. Authors usually work in their niche which is usually only one of these elements, but writers must employ all of them to create bestselling books.

Authors often work in their niche, which is usually only one of these elements but writers must employ all of them to create bestselling books.

Many novels described, listed or reviewed as
bestsellers by Goodreads, The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times have this formula in common.

For Instance, in The Women by
Kristin Hannah we find these elements braided together, just as our formula
requires.

Action:

Her opening scene begins in motion. Frankie is swirling inside a social event which later creates contrast to the theme of isolation. At this party we also learn that her brother is leaving for war.

Dialogue:

“How come there are no pictures of women up here,
except for wedding pictures?”

“It’s a heroes’ wall.”

“Women can be heroes.”

Dialog is used to solidify the social class, gender expectations and patriotism in the story which all tie into the action that is presented.

Professor Bryan Delaney at Harvard Lecture Hall 2026

Exposition/Backstory:

Here in Frankie’s interior thoughts tell us that
Frankie has been taught to admire courage, duty, and service, but to ignore any
lure to be courageous herself.

This interiority and backstory give the dialog a
more complex meaning by illuminating feelings and creating tension to set a
specific mood for the action.

Each element works in tandem to support one another. Here is your
combination of action, dialogue and exposition/backstory in play:

· Frankie is
at the party.

· People are
speaking about war and duty.

· There is an
emotional current which makes these themes ingrained ideals.

· She has an
epiphany.

· The idea
that she can be noble or courageous moves the plot forward.

How To Create the Best Dialogue (Dialog),
Action and Exposition/Backstory:

Dialogue: According to The Center for Fiction, one must be careful to make sure that dialogue (or US spelling,
dialog) sounds particular or distinct to each character. The Writer’s Digest suggests that one must also include subtext
(saying one thing but meaning another). Finally, FoxPrint Editorial states that dialogue must contain pressure
(disagreement, seduction, rivalry, misunderstanding, avoidance or withholding
truth).[1][2][3]

Action: According to The Write Practice, action gives scenes movement or physical life
(showing, not telling). This creates choices under pressure which can reveal
desire, fear, courage, dishonesty, selfishness or an arc of change. Finally, it
also creates a consequence, allowing growth, stagnation or change.[4]

Exposition/Backstory: The
reason all writers lean on exposition, and backstory, is to provide context so
the reader can understand the stakes, deep need, scene, setting, relationships
and emotional positioning of each character. According to The Write Practice, strong exposition (in small doses) can provoke
curiosity in the reader.[5]

And as you may have figured out from The
Oxford Review’s formula in play,
these elements work best if presented in small doses, working in tandem with
one another.[6]

[1] The Center for Fiction

[2] Writer’s Digest

[3] FoxPrint Editorial

[4] The Write Practice

[5] The Write Practice

[6] The
Oxford Review Literary Journal

An Open Letter to Authors

NEW! The Oxford Review is forming a writing group called 🫧BUBBLES🫧

🫧Bubbles🫧answers, “How Do I Join a Writing Group”.

A place where (you) new, established and burgeoning writers meet once per month to share (up to) 15 pages of their writing. In return, we work in smaller 🫧bubble🫧 groups to exchange praise, gentle suggestions, craft tips, encouragement, and friendship.

We meet in small,🫧BUBBLES🫧and if you do not like your 🫧 BUBBLE 🫧 you can ask to “pop” over to a new 🫧BUBBLE🫧 and find other 🫧BUBBLES🫧 that fit your float!

After all, writers are just different, and it is nice to find our own 🫧Bubbles🫧.

🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧

NO Pages? NO Problem (One needs not submit writing to attend).

We are still delighted to welcome you into our 🫧bubbles 🫧 writing group.

· One Zoom hour

· Once per month

· One fabulous experience

🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧

*If 15 pages feels unimaginable, feel free to attend so that you can:

· Act as a generous reader

· Bring heuristics from the writing world

· Provide gentle suggestions or encouragement

· Offer friendship to others suffering the querying trenches

This is for published, unpublished, writers, authors and book club members!

If you are interested, please click on our🫧Bubbles🫧link (below) and fill out our form to sign up and receive more information.

🫧CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR 🫧BUBBLES🫧 WRITING GROUP

Leave a comment

So, how do I write a compelling protagonist?

If we were writing Hedy Lemarr as a character, we could dissect these three elements:

• Public Life: Actress

• Private Life: A ‘virtual prisoner’ in a ‘gilded cage’ whilst married to Freidrich Mandl who tried to purchase and destroy all copies of her film Ecstasy.

• Secret Life: She escaped disguised as her maid. She became a secret inventor collaborating with George Antheil and together they designed a ‘secrete communication system’.

How does the writer illustrate a secret life whilst writing their public life?

Hedy walks out of her Hollywood studio, grabs her cigarette nervously and looks over her right shoulder. She smiles and waves at the black car awaiting her as usual. The window rolls down slightly, and a mysterious hand cuffed in an expensive suit waves her over. She looks down in her purse and folds the small paper that reads: ‘Tomorrow at 5pm I will be there to save you’. The horn honks impatiently. She closes her clutch and gives the mysterious man a Hollywood smile as she grits her teeth whilst walking toward him. She smiles to herself realizing she has designed a secret communication system that Freidrich will never find.

• Public Life: Walking out of the studio in Hollywood (she is an actress).

• Private Life: An overbearing, impatient husband with the potential to become jealous.

• Secret Life: A clandestine meeting, a plan, and a smile to hide her real intentions.

Writing nonfiction can be accomplished in several ways which we explain below. To write good non fiction, one should ask themselves a few questions: Can nonfiction be puritanical, gossipy, or fashionable? Why yes it can and we can explain how.

Literary nonfiction should read like unforgettable, immersive journalism. The writer must not only use pacing and tension, but they must also employ the artistry of a fiction novel. One must get the facts straight. Always. Or risk losing credibility.

There are exceptions. Perhaps the sky was not drained of sunshine, nor the frown drawn quite as tight as tight as a drum, but these are concessions made for Literary Nonfiction. A fiction we allow to walk the highwire of storytelling without a safety net. In the end, this form of nonfiction is merely truth dressed in a Chanel LBD twirling an alligator Birkin bag as it invites you to lunch in San Tropez at Le Club 55. It is an upscale tattle-tale subgenre, whose success is usually a black-swan event.

[Stock Image from Pexels]

Creative nonfiction avoids these rules like the plague and is known in some circles as the embellisher’s diary. Facts can be subjective, mostly without consequence. Whilst they are prone to interpretation, and subjectivity, they perhaps are drawn with a pen of hyperbole. This subgenera is also the flat tire on a Mercedes, even if it is like the gossipy cousin you love to catch up with, it will likely never go anywhere in sales.

[Stock Image from Pexels]

And then there is historical nonfiction which has always left the spoils to the winner, sometimes even at the expense of truth.

Whatever subgenre you choose, there is always that annoying use of style. Get it right, or you lose the reader. This is particularly important as nonfiction books statistically sell less copies than fiction books.^[1] And since creative nonfictiontends to KO literary nonfiction at the sales booth, it would appear that readers love to smuggle fiction into memoir through interpretation bias.

Pay careful attention to the characters and storyline with a laser-sharp beam. This means selecting facts and scenes that can help you turn a spotlight on your nonfiction focus. As digression is less acceptable in nonfiction, one should remember to keep it to a minimum. Should you make such a faux pas and stray remember Joe Bonomo’s advice to return to the essay’s DNA.^[2]

If one is puritanical and a sycophant to the rigidity of nonfiction without the subgenre then here are some tips: The first craft rule should be the elimination of fluff. Facts are stubborn, beautiful things that do not require a heavy frosting of adjectives to make them palatable. If the weather is cold, say it is cold. No need to pontificate, calling it a “terrifically frigid day when the temperature dropped below zero, burning the outer extremities requiring three layers of plaid.”

According to fans of John Hersey, that is not writing. It is fashion design. And well, though his voice has been described as, “calmly reactive, bordering on affectless,”—he did win the Pulitzer Prize at thirty.^[3]

The prose must be clear throughout and above all, fair. The syntax must be precise. Literary nonfiction requires a doggedness that asks difficult questions and maintains space between the reporter and the subject.

Above all, whichever method you take, do not bore the reader. The glamorous readers of today are busy, have thin patience, and above all must be entertained.

Armed with this information, The Oxford Review still asks that you follow your heart in nonfiction. We have, more than once, invited the gossipy cousin to spill the tea in an article. We have also admired that literary Chanel dress and wondered why we’ve not been invited back to lunch. Thus, if it is entertaining, please do submit it to The Oxford Review. We will be wating with bated breath.

^[1] Success in books: a big data approach to bestsellers

^[2] Locating an Essay’s DNA

^[3] John Hersey and the Art of Fact

The Oxford Review and the director of Rosecliff Literary have teamed up to create this space for writers by including an In-House traditional publishing path by connecting you with a top agency within our magazine. This is a space where writers and authors can solicit direct answers about submitting your short stories and poems to Literary Journals and Literary Agents.

In this video, we cover everything from how to prepare for a pitch event, what they are looking for, word counts, genres that are in, genres that are out and how you can be more successful.

In a world where rejection feels like a personal affront and the person to whom you have queried has become an apparition, there are options. Where do you turn when everyone has their hand out for money?

@Jessica__Berg on Instgram provides free traditional publishing advice and @imgoodbella, The Oxford Review online and provide a series on Why You’re Not Getting Published ranging from deep dives to simple fixes for common mistakes that authors overlook.

If the freebies are not enough and you just need personalized guidance, you can request a one page editorial review of your short story prose, or if you plan on building your short story into a novel, Jessica can provide a step-program to tighten your prose to fit the traditional book publishing market.

Among the vibrant images of David Hockney’s work that are being shared everywhere in the wake of his death, a print caught my eye. In his trademark cobalt and mint, he declares: ‘They say you need 3 things for PAINTING: the HAND, the EYE, the HEART. Two won’t do’.

I’m certain I look for all three when reading a poem for the first time: technique, vision and emotional impact.

Some poems hit the sweet spot and seem effortless, concealing the crafting and re-drafting, those hours spent tweaking line-endings, trimming away the fat and searching for the perfect image for the last line.

The poems that appeal to me work both on the page and in performance. After all, poetry has its origins in song and the oral storytelling tradition found in every culture, so it has always needed to be memorable. I like Don Paterson’s phrase ‘the lyric weave’ for the way a poem creates a sound world that reinforces the effects of the language and imagery the poet has chosen.

Cover of the inaugural issue of Poetry: A Magazine of Verse, October 1912. Public domain.

Poetry can use all the senses, of course, and I love poems that create vivid, individual worlds. Sometimes a couple of brand names like Weetabix or Horlicks can evoke a time or place so powerfully, whilst a mundane object, such as a battered frying pan, can bring a person or relationship to life right before our eyes.

I’m always ready to be surprised/amused/haunted/shocked/moved by a poem. Perhaps even all at the same time! But I want to feel the poem is authentic. Grandiose philosophical pronouncements don’t interest me at all.

Hendrick van Balen and Jan Brueghel the Elder, Abundance and the Four Elements, c. 1615. Museo Nacional del Prado. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

AI is empty of emotion, connection, deep need and the scaffolding that it takes to create a layered characters. AI does not look for the public life, private life and the secret life and it does not engage the reader in a meaningful way.

And, that is the entire reason as readers we return to your prose again and again. Full video top on Substack explaining some telltale signs.

Lit-Nouveau: The Oxford Review’s term to describe a condensed version of literary writing which Oxonians fear may become compulsory… and perhaps they are right.

In this era of Episodic Content and Micro-Dramas, there is a zeitgeist frothing in the literary world where even longform literature is subject to compression and acceleration. And whilst one might believe that literature is safe from the vagaries of social currents, it most certainly is not. I would even suggest that it is imperative that we put on our swimmies and attempt not to drown.

Perhaps we can learn from the Italian theatre groups who coined the term canovaccio, a short deadline where the speaker has already prepared a draft report.

Consider this your canovaccio to The Oxford Review’s Lit-Nouveau.

THE FORMULA FOR LIT-NOUVEAU

1. Your first paragraph must be action, a call to action or an inciting event

2. Your short story must be episodic in nature (treat every two pages as a short episode in a series)

3. Within the first two pages, there must be yearning, deep need or a hero’s quest.

4. Eloquently weave in your backstory through exposition and dialogue

5. Keep your dialogue truncated (most people do not speak in full paragraphs)

6. By page six we need to know why we are following you (easily accomplished if you follow step two)

Yes, this is different from the literature that we are used to, but it does not mean it cannot be both beautiful and striking. Whilst Penny Dreadfuls, Roman-Feuilletons and Chapbooks were the bastards of the literary world when they were first conceived, they gained momentum and (more importantly) popularity.^[1],[2],[3]

‘La scadenza è breve, ma il relatore ha già elaborato un canovaccio nella relazione in parola’.

^[1] Penny Dreadful

^[2] Roman-Feuilletons

^[3] The History of Chapbooks

Lit-Nouveau: The Oxford Review’s term to describe a condensed version of literary writing which Oxonians fear may become compulsory… and perhaps they are right.

In this era of Episodic Content and Micro-Dramas, there is a zeitgeist frothing in the literary world where even longform literature is subject to compression and acceleration. And whilst one might believe that literature is safe from the vagaries of social currents, it most certainly is not. I would even suggest that it is imperative that we put on our swimmies and attempt not to drown.

Perhaps we can learn from the Italian theatre groups who coined the term canovaccio, a short deadline where the speaker has already prepared a draft report.

Consider this your canovaccio to The Oxford Review’s Lit-Nouveau.

THE FORMULA FOR LIT-NOUVEAU

1. Your first paragraph must be action, a call to action or an inciting event

2. Your short story must be episodic in nature (treat every two pages as a short episode in a series)

3. Within the first two pages, there must be yearning, deep need or a hero’s quest.

4. Eloquently weave in your backstory through exposition and dialogue

5. Keep your dialogue truncated (most people do not speak in full paragraphs)

6. By page six we need to know why we are following you (easily accomplished if you follow step two)

Yes, this is different from the literature that we are used to, but it does not mean it cannot be both beautiful and striking. Whilst Penny Dreadfuls, Roman-Feuilletons and Chapbooks were the bastards of the literary world when they were first conceived, they gained momentum and (more importantly) popularity.^[1],[2],[3]

‘La scadenza è breve, ma il relatore ha già elaborato un canovaccio nella relazione in parola’.

^[1] Penny Dreadful

^[2] Roman-Feuilletons

^[3] The History of Chapbooks

Share

In this era of Episodic Content and Micro-Dramas, there is a zeitgeist frothing in the literary world where even longform literature is subject to compression and acceleration. And whilst one might believe that literature is safe from the vagaries of social currents, it most certainly is not. I would even suggest that it is imperative that we put on our swimmies and attempt not to drown.

Perhaps we can learn from the Italian theatre groups who coined the term canovaccio, a short deadline where the speaker has already prepared a draft report.

Consider this your canovaccio to The Oxford Review’s Lit-Nouveau.

THE FORMULA FOR LIT-NOUVEAU

1. Your first paragraph must be action, a call to action or an inciting event

2. Your short story must be episodic in nature (treat every two pages as a short episode in a series)

3. Within the first two pages, there must be yearning, deep need or a hero’s quest.

4. Eloquently weave in your backstory through exposition and dialogue

5. Keep your dialogue truncated (most people do not speak in full paragraphs)

6. By page six we need to know why we are following you (easily accomplished if you follow step two)

Yes, this is different from the literature that we are used to, but it does not mean it cannot be both beautiful and striking. Whilst Penny Dreadfuls, Roman-Feuilletons and Chapbooks were the bastards of the literary world when they were first conceived, they gained momentum and (more importantly) popularity.^[1],[2],[3]

‘La scadenza è breve, ma il relatore ha già elaborato un canovaccio nella relazione in parola’.

^[1] Penny Dreadful

^[2] Roman-Feuilletons

^[3] The History of Chapbooks

Today we sat down with Christina Gilligan, someone who embodies an ever-elusive state of elegance. Despite the betrayal that she encountered, she rose above the heartache to show compassion for others who had been duped as well. She meditated on sympathy in the mist of this war-torn AI battle in which brother seems pitted against brother.

Having been quite impressed by her grace I wonder if perhaps we could put down our swords for just one moment and find compassion for those who are trying to make their way through the murky waters of publication.

We certainly could learn something from Christina. Even in the face of betrayal, she has become an advocate with a sympathetic ear and a forgiving heart for others.

Christina Gilligan’s Instagram moniker is: @Christinatheauthor. Please listen to the podcast providing insight on her experience with hiring an artist through Fiverr to create a book cover for her forthcoming novel The Study.

3 August 2023 Release Date of The Study

The Study: Five years after a revolutionary treatment changed her life, Banks Ahn is faced with the reality that it may not have changed her for the better.

Share

The Oxford Review Literary Journal

How do I win The Oxford Review Prize in Literature?

Clever: A rarely uttered British term which can infer mental dexterity, a skilful adept mind or a sharp witty person. This can include someone with a rapier wit, a clever quip or even a circle of dilettanti with a propensity and desire to pursue esoteric knowledge.

That is right. We do not mean dilettanti in the pejorative way. We mean it in the Oxford way…the Inkling way. The way in which one might summon the philologists or those influenced by medieval history, mythology, folklore, archaeology, poetry and high historic fantasy. Writing in the lyrical way. The way in which Tolkien—in letters to his fiancé—confessed his desire to emulate Morris by writing with “chunks of poetry.”^[1]

The way in which those beloved dilettantes of the 18th Century drove interest to the Middle Ages Studies by collecting antiquarian medieval artifacts which they discussed at parties.^[2] The way in which they opened doors to uncharted studies, published esoteric texts through the Camden Society and encouraged the improvement of methodology.

What We Really Want:

Whether you are submitting nonfiction, fiction, commentary, satire, poetry, a literary leaning scientific paper or even a spirited but well-argued letter to the Editor, The Oxford Review will have a keen eye for anything in the vein of clever.

We welcome a sharp wit or mercurial tongue, provided it delivers a cogent argument. Also, please avoid ad hominem attacks, and remember that introducing logical fallacies is like throwing hotdogs at a charging lion. Please refrain.

Now, go out there and give them a proper drubbing. Get busy changing the world by leading revolutions like Hemingway, writing a soliloquy like Shakespeare, beautiful diatribes like Voltaire, a rapier criticism like Updike or conceptualizing binary learning like Edward Thorndike. Now that would garner some respect.

Of course, having stirred the blood properly, we shall await your submission with bated breath.

^[1] “With chunks of poetry in between”: The Lord of the Rings and Saga Poetics

^[2] Society of Dilettanti

Written By Bella

The Oxford Review Literary Salon

Friday, 29 May 2026

Onus: The inexplicable burden that self-righteous people put on the helpless and less privileged in exchange for the glory of wallowing in their messianic complexes.

Should we crucify bootstrapping indie authors for unknowingly using AI art for their book covers?

True, we artists were thrilled to expose our parents’ erroneous assertion that ‘there’s no money in art’ as utterly misguided, imprudent and categorically wrong! Or were they?

If we embrace AI, our craft may prove altogether ephemeral. However, if we accept certain components of AI (like book covers), it will likely convert us from civilized upright walking, elegant humans into troglodytes.

Do we assimilate? Do we engage? Do we accept it begrudgingly? As both a painter and a writer, I am terrified and confused! And I’ll be damned if the words, ‘you were right’ slither out of my mouth.

What I do know: it is not our place to judge writers who employ artists to create book covers, only later to find that the cover was in fact generated with AI. I implore you to approach this with compassion, empathy and grace whilst considering that these writers have fallen victim to scam artists.

Before we put these unfortunate authors on the proverbial cross, I argue that we are required to investigate our own misfortune as a model for leniency and tolerance. We mustn’t devolve into barbaric uncivilized people when we disagree. Polite dialogue and measured debate will allow all sides to be considered.

Let us not use the straw man argument that real artists using the blood, sweat and tears to paint, draw or create magnificent works will suffer or be squeezed out. Your big famous publishing companies assimilated years ago by using Canva, Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop. Hand-painted or drawn art on book covers has been lost to convenience and affordability since the late 1980s.

So why must the small creative writer carry the burden of righting this wrong and swallowing the cost? In some ways, this technology is levelling the playing field for those who would never have the opportunity to market a book without AI.

We all want the less fortunate voices to be heard as loud and clear as those with privilege, do we not? To those morally superior people I say: hold on just one moment. Let’s recap your argument.

A recent post alerted the hoi polloi that ‘If your event has a flyer that uses AI, we won’t support you.... Use Canva like the rest of us!’

Canva? The app that has fully integrated AI in its software as a ‘design partner, building component, natural language and design styles’? Excuse us while we laugh. There is no Wizard of Canva whipping up magical options in their studio.

Psst, lean in for this one. The frontman behind Canva’s magic studio is none other than OpenAI/ChatGPT. And the crumbling of the self-righteous pedestal doesn’t stop there. You did know that Canva is accepting NanoBanana images to use in editable, layered Canva designs?

Oh wait, does that mean their argument to use Canva to create book covers instead of AI was just run over by reality? That same reality also backed up in reverse to hear the body thumping as it murdered your argument a second time.

Those of us who have been writing since the ancient birth of WordPerfect remember the chicken little panic and promises of the proverbial dead bodies of writers being dragged down the road to sacrifice.

For newbies, spellcheck, thesaurus and digital dictionaries were considered a devil’s tool meant to cause intellectual decline, promotion of laziness and the obsolescence of editors.^[1]

Perhaps we are becoming categorically stupid. But here we are. As there is nothing new under the sun, we can all agree with Plato in Phaedrus where Socrates asserts that written text—rather than oral tradition—would create troglodytes (my words not his), and that it would give only ‘the appearance of wisdom… [and] provides a forgetfulness in the soul.’^[2] He goes further, suggesting that the spoken word carries weight and consistency, and that the written word ‘rolls around promiscuously’.

Plato’s writings were prescient, and yet years later we are rolling in books, writing them, enjoying the controversy… and perhaps the promiscuity.

Yet somehow, we are still attacking indie authors with emotional and verbal pitchforks used by silk weavers of Lyon who brutally beat the humane, well intentioned Joseph-Marie Jacquard, dragging him to the Rhône to drown him.^[3]

His crime? A desire to relieve the misery of overworked labourers. Why did they attack him? The Jacquard loom threatened wages and jobs. Sound familiar?

If one is fighting progressive technology through brutality, isn’t this devolution not evolution?

We must now ask the hard question: What is your solution when you have crossed a bridge that has crumbled behind you? You cannot wish for the bridge to rebuild itself, but what you can do is figure out how to survive.

The clever ones will find a path. Will you?

^[1] The Surprising History of Spell Checkers—and What It Means for AI-Anxious Editors

^[2] Plato’s Philosophical Answer to the Three Deficiencies of the Written Word

^[3] Joseph-Marie Jacquard & The Jacquard Loom

Confusion: The art of feigning ignorance whilst making boorish statements about the social, physical or moral aptitude of writers.

True, it is not the most stable career, and many of us are quite bogged down in our megalomaniacal belief that one day someone will see the brilliance in our writing… but I argue that we are not the deluded ones.

No! That accolade goes to those who claim that all writers are tracksuit goblins sprawled out on our threadbare recliners shoving monster munch and fried mars bars down our throats whilst clapping out romance novels in the dark of night.

I will not rob you of the scientific research that proves we are more prone to a DSM-5 diagnoses. Nor will I dispute our more serious crimes, such as procrastination. We will not deny using a thesaurus or spending four hours down a proverbial rabbit hole on the origins of Middle English for a one-line reference in our novel. And shamefully, I will not even dispute our café addiction, where we go to take up space, annoy fellow patrons, and write vigorously despite the untenable noise, crowded spaces or the fact that we have internet at home.

I can assure you, many of us do not own recliners, enjoy long walks after meals, are revolted by turkey dinosaurs, and abhor solitude. Some of us do not even own a cat.

What I came here to proclaim is that we writers are glamorous too!

From our series of Writers are Glamorous too.