Showing vs. Telling

 It is almost cliché to tell potential authors they need to show instead of tell. Blog posts abound on the topic. Unfortunately, people seem to little understand what this means. 

The classic example is telling:

Lita was angry when she saw the mess the dog had made.

And showing:

Lightning shot out of Lita's eyes when she surveyed the remains of her stuffed animal scattered down the hallway and Rover staring guiltily up at her with a piece of fluff stuck in his teeth. 

One sentence is certainly more descriptive than the other, but both these examples are not a really good explanation. 

The real difference between "telling and showing" actually has nothing to do with description but rather how you tell the story. For example, an author could spend an entire chapter talking about the villain setting up a trap and going into great description about it. This would be "telling" the reader there is an intricate trap. Imagine if in Raiders of the Lost Ark, it began with people setting up a warning totem, designing the light trap and setting the spears in it, digging out the pit, attaching pulleys and levers and designing a mechanism that caused the spots on the floor to shoot darts out of the walls when people stepped on them, rolling the giant boulder into place and creating the weight triggering system, and finally setting the gold idol in place. This would tell the viewer there was a trap, and the viewer would see how intricate and dangerous it was because of the work that went into creating it. 

However, this does not make for interesting fiction. Readers are not trying to learn how to create traps--although the author should have a good sense of how it was done. Instead they want to see the traps in action. That is what we get in the opening of Raiders of the Lost Ark--not the traps being set, but them being first avoided and then triggered by Indiana Jones. This is the "showing" everyone talks about as being necessary to a good book. It reveals the story by walking the reader though action and conflict.

The one sentence examples above are poor because they focus on description. Showing and not telling is more about reader engagement. I could say, "Five natives worked together slowly pushing the three ton boulder up the steep slope of the cave as sweat poured from their faces and hands." This is very descriptive, but not interesting because there is no conflict. It is only a group of people working hard to achieve a task. However, I could also say, "Five natives worked together slowly pushing the three ton boulder up the steep slope of the cave as sweat poured from their faces and hands, making it difficult to maintain their grasp." In this sentence, I have suddenly added a conflict. Instead of telling what the natives were doing, I showed that they were doing something potentially dangerous. Whether the rock slips and kills them all makes the story more interesting by compelling the reader to keep going to find out if the natives finish the job or not. 

The single sentence examples are also poor because both could be found in good, engaging writing. If the plotline of the overall story is about Lita needing to get to Paris immediately to save her sister and the dog mess is one of many obstacles preventing her from catching her flight, it should be quickly dealt with and related back to the conflict of potentially missing her flight. The focus should be on getting to the flight not on once incident with the dog. The first sentence would be best in this case because this is one little step in the big picture of what is happening to prevent her getting to Paris. If on the other hand, the dog incident is the only reason Lita potentially is going to miss her flight (or potentially miss it), the second sentence would be better. Or if the whole book is about Lita's daily struggles (or her struggles with the dog) and how she overcomes them, the second sentence would be better. In determining which events to be descriptive about and which to glaze over, you need to condense the main plot of your story into 2-3 sentences and then determine how much does the event support that plot. 

In Raiders of the Lost Ark, the plotline is that Indiana Jones' rival, Belloq, is always thwarting him after Jones does most of the work. Belloq joins forces with the Nazis to find the ultimate weapon: the Ark of the Covenant, and Jones must obtain it before them. Natives building the trap would not support this plotline at all. Jones going through the traps only to lose the artifact he obtained to Belloq does support it. 

The Repeat Customer

As a freelancer, I generally prefer repeat customers, and I am sure many other freelancers would agree with me. A repeat customer means they are happy with your work. It also means you know what to expect and they know what to expect. I love repeat customers that come back every few months or so with a new project for me. I especially love it if these projects are diverse and interesting, but I am even okay with general repeat business of the same type.

There is one sort of repeat customer I am not particularly fond of. One of these was Tommy. Now, Tommy was a nice guy who paid me to write something up for him and paid me well. He was very easy to get along with, and I had no complaints. However, after I wrote out a brief story for him and finished the job, he returned two years later. This time, he told me he had made a few changes and he wanted me to edit it. I agreed, of course, but the thought of working on the same project again did not appeal to me. I like lists. I like to check things off my lists. I don't like those things to reappear on my lists. However, I knew Tommy, and I knew he was a good client, so I accepted.

I also once had a house that I bought from a repo bank sale. I scrubbed and repaired and got that house beautiful and sold it. Three years later, I was looking for a house and that one was on the market, so we went and looked at it. Never do this. The people who had it last had completely destroyed everything I did and made the home worse than when I first moved in. I wanted to cry.

Along the same lines, it is always a challenge to accept the same work that a client has "changed" after you had it. My Mona Lisa was now covered in graffiti--and I couldn't, of course, change it back to my story. I wanted to be sick. Needless to say, the next time he asked if I could help him with it, I had to decline. I couldn't bear doing it again. 

Don't do this to a writer. If you hire someone to write your book because you recognize that you are not skilled enough to do it yourself--don't make changes to it when they are done, and if you do--don't hire them to edit it again. There are plenty of freelancers in this world who will tell you what you want and give you whatever garbage you want them to spit out. In short--hire someone who doesn't care about the final project. If you want a good product, pass it off between three or four different good freelancers. If they all agree and you don't, they are probably right.

There are some people who return with the same project and who have not destroyed it. In this case, these are what I call hangers on. You have finished a project gone through multiple editing stages, and they come back three years later and ask you to do another editing pass. There is nothing really wrong with this (unless you aren't going to pay them additional money for the extra pass), but at some point, as a writer, you just want to yell: "Let it go!" You can always polish more, but you have to realize when you are spending 6 hours to find the one remaining typo, that is not the best use of your time.

Stay Away: Weebly/ Square Website Builder

 For those who have followed me a while, you probably know we used to have a real website beyond this blog at Moonfruit.com. Moonfruit was an amazing website-builder; e-commerce; host. We had them for over a decade, I believe. In 2020, because of so many malware attacks on Flash, it was discontinued by Adobe and removed from basically all browsers. Moonfruit had been a victim at one time from one of these attacks, actually, and had shut our websites down for three days, I believe, because of it. Moonfruit, unfortunately, was solely built on Flash. 

At the time it was stopped, Moonfruit announced that it had two options--redo everything from scratch without Flash or stop providing service. Needless to say, they chose the latter and refunded unused funds. This was a sad day because as I already said, Moonfruit was amazing.

I have been trying to find a new provider now for four (almost five) years. I am not necessarily looking for free, but at the same time, we only sell a minimum amount of goods on our website. I don't need a lot of bells and whistles. For the most part, I just link to our Amazon store. Moonfruit allowed us to collect funds from Paypal through our email if people wanted to buy in bulk at a discounted rate or directly from us. 

Today, I decided that I would go with the Weebly set up: $13/month for e-commerce or $10/month if you paid for the full year. This was a great rate! Unfortunately, Square apparently bought Weebly several years ago and is trying to make it obsolete. When I went through the setup, Square directed me to its own website and then did a bait-and-switch where I was going to have to pay $32/month!!! 

Further, I had to actually create an account to find this out. Once you create an account, you cannot delete it--you can only "deactivate" it. This is the biggest bunch of garbage I have ever come across. I will probably have to end up sending a "cease and desist" letter to square telling them all my information better have been removed, my account deleted, and the website that I did not set up or build, but which they are saying now exists (deactivated and without a domain name--because I didn't get that far), removed. This is a big pain in the rear since they are the ones who did not disclose accurate prices up front.

Weebly looks like a good website builder, but I had also looked at Square directly and disliked what I saw. I would stay away from both!

Goodreads Giveaways: Are They Still Worth the Effort and Cost?

Initially, I could list a Giveaway for free if I was paying for the print books and distributing them. I thought Goodreads encouraged independent authors and catered to those who wanted print books, however, this week I discovered that Goodreads now charges $119 to publish ANY Giveaway. This makes doing a Giveaway financially prohibitive for indie authors wanting to give out free copies of print books. The publishing company that indie authors use is already making a profit off us when we order the print books; most indie authors do not have a marketing budget and have to do self-marketing to reduce costs to $0 or as close to that as possible; we are giving away free copies of print books that cost us time and money to purchase and ship. On the flip side, traditional publishers (and some vanity presses) have marketing budgets and print the books at cost and do not make any profit off the copies they give away, and they usually have bulk rate mailing permits that get up to 60% off mailing costs.

I have given away hundreds of free copies of my books through past Giveaways with little to no return (maybe 1-2 new reviews for every 100 books given away--some of the print book Giveaways got me better return rates, but many of the reviews were solely posted to Goodreads and not Amazon where they would boost my marketing placement). If we choose the e-book giveaways, we get the added bonus of free books and distribution but paying $119 for a print giveaway does not get us ANY of this. 

In simpler terms: To run a Giveaway for 100 e-books of one of my books, The Corruption, would cost $119. I would not have to worry about distribution or anything else. 

To run a Giveaway for 100 print books of The Corruption would cost your fee $119 plus $538 for mailing costs, another $75 for shipping supplies, and $575 for the actual books plus the cost of shipping the books to me. I would also have to go to the time and effort to address and mail each one--probably a 2 day project.

Both of these options would give me about 2 reviews and 0 new purchases of books. On the other hand, I can promote my books in other ways that are equally or more effective on other platforms, including Amazon and this blog for free. 

So I asked Goodreads these questions:

(1) Why does it now cost for both print books and e-books? 

(2) Did you decide to cost authors more so that you could make print book Giveaways exclusive to big budget publishing companies like Harlequin? 

(3) What benefit are you providing to indie authors by charging us the exact same amount for two entirely different Giveaways--one where you take care of purchasing and distributing the books and another for the same price but where we have to do all the work and pay additional costs to give our print books away? 

This was the response I received: 

Thank you for reaching out to us with your concerns about the Goodreads Giveaway program. We greatly appreciate your detailed feedback and the time you've taken to share your experience as an independent author. Let me address each of your points:

Regarding the costs for both print and e-book giveaways:

The introduction of fees for all giveaways was implemented to cover operational costs and to improve the quality and reach of the program. We aimed to ensure the sustainability of the service and potentially increase the visibility of giveaways to readers.

On the impact on independent authors vs. large publishing houses:

I want to assure you that our intention was not to exclude independent authors or favor large publishing companies. The standardized pricing was an attempt to streamline the giveaway process for all participants. However, we recognize that this change has had a significant impact on independent authors with limited budgets, and we appreciate you bringing this to our attention.

Concerning the benefits provided for the cost:

The Giveaway program aims to offer increased visibility on Goodreads, potential for more entrants and reader engagement, automated winner selection and notification, and simplified distribution for ebook giveaways. However, we understand that these benefits may not fully justify the costs, especially for print giveaways where authors bear additional expenses and logistical responsibilities.

Your detailed breakdown of the costs involved in running print giveaways versus e-book giveaways is particularly insightful. We recognize the significant difference in effort and additional costs required for print giveaways, and your point about the disparity in pricing despite these differences is well-taken.

Please know that your feedback is invaluable to us. Goodreads continuously evaluates its services, and insights from authors like yourself are crucial for understanding the real-world impact of our policies. I will personally ensure that your concerns are passed along to our product team for consideration in future updates to the Giveaway program.

We appreciate your past promotion of Goodreads Giveaways on your blog and understand if you feel the need to update your review based on these changes. Your perspective as an active member of the indie author community is especially valuable to us.

If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this further, please don't hesitate to reply to this email. We're committed to supporting authors and improving our services based on user feedback.

Thank you again for your candid feedback and for bringing these important issues to our attention.

Needless to say, with this new development, I plan to start doing print book giveaways on this blog sometime in the next 6 months instead of using Goodreads. I hope Goodreads lowers its price for print giveaways in the future, but until then I cannot recommend independent authors using them.

Our Favorite Words

Every author has them--those go-to words that they use repeatedly. I recently updated The Inconvenient Widow because one comment said I used the word "feel" too often and that was telling not showing. (It wasn't. For the record, I used "feel" about as often as Jane Austen did in Pride and Prejudice. I did, however, use it THREE TIMES in one paragraph--much to my embarrassment.)

My usual downfalls are "however" (I've already used it once here), "really"(yes, I know, I use that below),  "actually" (come on--I've only used all these once...in this extremely short post), etc.

I have referenced this teacher's post before, and since she is actually a good English teacher, she has a great idea in her post that is similar to what I do. She tells her class to circle every time they use the word "then" (not one of my favorite words, thankfully) and cut out all but one of them. Now, she is talking to high schoolers, I'm sure, and is probably lucky to get more than 500 words of writing for any assignment. In an 80,000 word novel, you probably will not be able to cut out all but one of your favorite word. 

What I do when editing, is I use the "find" feature and type in my favorite words one at a time. I then evaluate whether I really need the word in each case. Most of the time, I don't. Some people prefer paying for a tool like ProWritingAid, but in my opinion this is expensive. Maybe if I forked over the money, I would love it and become a lifetime member...probably not. I hate AI telling me what to fix. I would rather end up paying more in my life and having a human editor look at my work. 

Humans will always be better than AI. At one time, I did have a subscription to Grammarly. I got frustrated with it because I could not pick a style manual to have it use. I could choose "formal" or "business" or other useless garbage, which is why this irritated me. Their plagiarism checker was bad, though, and I recently reviewed their AI checker, which was also bad.

I encourage you to learn your favorite words and then work to reduce the number of times you use them. You may question why you need to do this--but for every favorite word you have, it will probably be someone else's pet peeve.

Then or And Then?

The latest Internet fad in defiance of grammar is using "then" as a coordinating conjunction. All the dictionaries seem to have picked it up, but most real publishing houses and journalists thankfully have not. The dictionaries admit that "then" is an adverb or adjective--and despite no rules for being able to use an adverb as a coordinating conjunction--they proceed to say that it is proper to place a comma before "then" and use it as one in the middle of a sentence. They probably consulted AI about it. 

Many teachers are also going along with this craze--except for one who points out very clearly the reasons it cannot be used as one. The gist of her argument is that "then" can be moved around in a sentence--and cannot. 

WRONG: I went to the store, then I ate lunch.  

Consider: I went to the store, I ate lunch then. 

I went to the store, I then ate lunch.

All three of the above sentences (1) contain comma splices, (2) make sense and (3) mean the exact same thing.

Now, let's look at that with a real coordinating conjunction:

I went to the store, and I ate lunch.

I went to the store, I and ate lunch.

I went to the store, I ate and lunch.

I went to the store, I ate lunch and. 

The only one of the above that would be classified as a sentence is the first one. 

My favorite Wall of Shame English Teacher whined that "I ran backward, and then I ran forward" was wrong because it "just didn't sound right to him." No grammar source (read one of the main style guides such as APA, Harvard, or MLA) was his inspiration. Instead, he was teaching his kids what sounded right to him. Sum peepl mite think dis sounds rite. That doesn't make it grammatically correct.

I am familiar with several style guides. None of them would allow you to stick a comma in front of an adverb. 

Apparently, the editors at Oxford, Cambridge, and Webster have all started copying from AI. They all pretty much say the same thing, but Cambridge is most ironic. After stating how to use the adverb "then" as a coordinating conjunction without ever calling it that (because it isn't) it then gives some real world examples ("Examples of then") at the bottom of the page with citations of where they were found. The only time "then" is proceeded by a comma is when it is after an introductory clause. Since all introductory clauses should be followed by a comma--that is what is regulating the use of the comma. You also do not have "and then" after a introductory "if" clause. (Notably, there is no real world use of "then" as a coordinating conjunction in any of Webster's real world examples either.)

I can see how AI would screw this up and come to the conclusion after searching millions of webpages for an answer that you can use a comma before then. After all, how many times do people say, "If X, then Y?" Then is probably the most common word after an introductory phrase. Once one dictionary had their AI determine if this was correct and started it, the rest probably picked it up like wildfire. It just goes to show that even formerly good websites can have bad information on them. With AI taking the place of human writers and editors and the already prevalent problem of one website copying another shamelessly all over the Internet, soon it will no longer have value as an information sharing portal. 

New Book: There and Back Again: On the Road with the Kennedy Campaign

 I am a decades-old independent. I don't normally get involved with political campaigns, but this year, I worked for and volunteered for the Kennedy Campaign. I decided to write a memoir about what I did and why I believe the campaign eventually withdrew from the 2024 Presidential Election in the United States.

I gave it a long name, but with non-fiction, it seems book names keep getting longer:

There and Back Again:: On the Road with the 2024 Kennedy Campaign and Starting an Independent Revolution 

A few weeks ago, I published a post on memoirs. I do have proof of the things that I say happened in mine, so hopefully it won't stir up the usual lawsuits. I also hope people learn from the mistakes the campaign made. 

Showing and Telling

Authors are frequently told to show instead of tell. But what does that mean? I mean technically, you are telling a story--right? The standard example is to say:

She felt sad.  (telling)

She bawled her eyes out. (showing)

The problem with oversimplifying this is that sometimes, telling is just as important as showing--I know I will probably now be flogged for sacrilege. This blogger explains it well.

So without any context, "She felt sad" would actually be the better choice above. There are actually a lot of reasons why someone could be bawling their eyes out. If you do not give enough context, your reader may be confused. If for example, Amelia is in the kitchen cutting an onion with her eyes glued to her favorite movie the day after her husband had died, and her son, whom she has not seen in a long time, walks through the door and sees her bawling her eyes out, the reader cannot really conclude why she is bawling her eyes out--even though plenty of showing and setting the scene has occurred. Is she happy to see her son? Is she happy that Scarlett is going to start over again at Tara? Is she affected by the chemicals in the onions? Is she sad because her husband had died? 

I've seen someone else advise that instead of saying, "Jim walked into the store," you should say, "Jim skipped/sauntered into the store." Although it is true that you should be more descriptive, this is not really the difference between telling and showing. Bawling someone's eyes out and being sad are not synonyms. Walking and sauntering are. Using more descriptive synonyms is important, but it is not the same as showing. Showing usually turns a single sentence into many sentences because you are creating a mood with your writing instead of just stating a fact. 

Some have said telling is giving all the details: 

Dad sat up in bed. He swung his legs over the side of the bed. He stretched. He stood up. He walked to his drawer. He opened the drawer. He pulled out his socks. He carried his socks back to the bed. He sat down on the bed. He lifted his right foot. He slid one sock on his right foot. He set his right foot down. He lifted his left foot. He slid a sock on his left foot. He set his left foot down.

and showing would be:

Dad got up and put on his socks. 

However, this is actually removing unnecessary details. It is another important part of writing, but not really the difference between telling and showing. If you notice you are using the same words or phrases at the beginning of several sentences in a row, you might be getting into too much detail about your character's actions.  

Another place where new writers seem to do this is with dialogue. If you explained something in detail to one person in the story--for example, what happened while the character was at work, you do not have to repeat the same thing to everyone that your characters proceed to tell the same thing--i.e. he comes home and tells his wife what he did, then his son comes home and he explains it to him, then his friend stops by and he explains it to him. Simply saying, "He explained what he did at work to XXX," is fine. Realism to the point of tediousness is best left for authors like Beckett. 

There is a guy on this Reddit who nails it, even though it doesn't seem that he realizes he has nailed it. In fact, it seems he has completely confused telling and showing:

"Agatha, Jim's mom, handed out packed lunches to Jim and his two younger brothers. 'I'll see you tonight.'" (showing)

Agatha said, "Here is your lunch, Jim, my eldest son of three. Goodbye. You must now leave. I'll see you tonight."  (telling)

I was looking at a sample of K A Hambly's book Danny Hallows and the Stones of Aurora on Amazon today, and came across something similar (well a lot of something similar):

"...King Vortigen is planning an attack on Willow Creek which, in case you don't know, is in the Earth Realm..."

So, ignoring that the sentence is not punctuated properly and that the author says almost exactly the same thing a few pages later, what makes this telling? You could say that it is in dialogue and that is why it is telling, but it did not have to be in dialogue. One aspect of "telling" is when you "break the fourth wall" as actors say. It is when the way you have worded something abruptly pulls the reader out of the world you have created and reminds him/her that s/he is reading a book. 

Saying, "King Vortigen is planning an attack on Willow Creek in the Earth Realm," would have informed the reader of the same thing, but it would not have done it in a clunky way that pulls the reader out of what is happening. Now, there are some authors and styles of writing fiction that deliberately pull the reader out of the book (The Princess Bride comes to mind), but those stories pull the reader out in an almost rhythmic way. When this style is done correctly, the story itself--if read without the deliberate interruptions--keeps you immersed in it. 

All the people in the book who are being told Willow Creek is on Earth in the Amazon example should and do already know this. The only purpose for the statement it to try to let the reader (subtly?) know this bit of information in case s/he did not read the first book (although it was probably equally blatant in there). 

So, going back to the first example, consider, "Amelia, our main character, was in the kitchen of her house. Yesterday, her husband died and had a funeral, but she did not like him." The wall was broken by directly telling the reader that Amelia is the main character, and she did not like her husband. Although I can think of many reasons why you would have to tell the reader your character is sad, I can think of few reasons why you would have to tell the reader directly that Amelia does not like her husband, but it is a very directional thing. If someone says something and the character responds to it and it is important for the reader to knows how the character feels immediately when responding, "telling" the reader would be appropriate--needed actually. If on the other hand, you are setting up a scene and the reader does not need to know something immediately but can meander around the scene picking up clues, you want to "show." 

Showing would be, "Amelia stood in the kitchen cutting an onion--irritated that it was having more of an effect on her eyes than her husband's funeral did, yesterday. Maybe she should have snuck an onion in her purse so her mother-in-law would not have complained about her lack of emotion so loudly in front of everyone. She kept looking over at her favorite movie playing on her iPhone, but her mind just could not get into it. She wondered how she was going to pay off all the debts that louse of a man had run up without him. Suddenly, she heard the back screen door slam shut and turned to see her son standing inside it. "Jimmy!" she said with a smile through her tears and ran to embrace him." 

Fishing for Free Work? You Decide.

 I have had two people contact me about freelancing jobs whom I believe are fishing for free work. 

The first one, I was dumb. I set up our contract so he paid in three payments. I usually weight the first payment so if a person doesn't follow through I won't lose as much. So, for example, if the job was $120, I instead of having three $30 payments, I would do $80, $20, $20. By using SafePay, it ensures that I will at least get $80 for the job. In this case, I delivered the full rough draft after one payment. A week after delivering it, he told me he was busy and he would get to reviewing it soon. I haven't heard from him since. I know that what I have given him was plenty to complete the project. I keep hoping he will eventually get back with me, but he kept saying how he was in a hurry to get this project out, so I am pretty sure he has been "busy" getting it out. 

How can you as a freelancer protect yourself if something like this happens? If you are the only author, you should immediately register your work with the copyright office here. It costs $45--so if the work is worth more than that, definitely do it. 

I would like to think that he will come back, and if he does and pays me in full, even though I have registered the copyright, he will still have all the rights to it until he dies because that is in my contract. However, I retain all rights until I am paid in full. The problem is that this is not his first time in the business. He has produced other works. that is why I am afraid my money is gone, for now.

Once you register something with the copyright office, you can always loan or sell your rights to someone else. Unlike other means of trying to make legal claims on any work you created, including scripts and artwork, the copyright office registry is the only way to officially protect you.

This brings me to my second potential fisher. She posted a job about a month ago, and I sent in a bid. Like the above guy, she has her own business and has apparently been doing this a while. In the job post, she wanted me to use "Illustrator" to do what I already do in Word. I told her in my quote I would do this if that is the program she uses. She then contacted me and told me it was Adobe In-Design. Again, I told her I could do it in that program if she prefers. She then asked if I had any samples of work done using In Design. At this point, she also went from solely talking about book layout to now talking about cover design--something that was not in the job description nor discussed before this. I repeated that I do not usually work on that platform. (Adobe constantly sucks up memory when I am using its programs.) I then told her that regardless of the program I use, my layouts will be the same. I sent her links to books on Amazon (where she could presumably see the layouts) and one file of a book cover. She responded that she was in a hurry, and she could not open anything. 

Now, at this point, I almost was about to throw in the towel and tell her to just hire me, and I would refund her money if she wasn't happy. Please never suggest that in a quote! You basically are telling them they can only use you once, but they can get it free. I learned this from experience. 

With some of the jobs, I do give people the option of paying only $25.00 and I will do 5-10 pages of editing (for example) so they can get an idea of what working with me is like. The fact is, though, I have tons of samples in my portfolio--they may not all be updated, but there are many samples that show my work. There should have been no reason for her to even request the things she already has. So, before making the rash decision I would later regret, I sent her more samples and links. I still haven't heard from her. 

I mean, the money goes into SafePay. I can see not wanting to work with a freelancer and waste time, but this job has been posted for a  month. She could have hired me--I quoted 2 days to finish--and if I didn't complete the work as she wanted or if I didn't meet the deadline, she could have filed an arbitration with Guru and gotten her money back. She must have liked something about my bid, or she would not have started talking with me. The work I am willing to do for her for $175, she is selling on her website for $450. She had over 50 people apply for this job. I imagine most are lower than my bid, but I wonder how many are giving her free work?

Why You Should NOT Let AI Make Your Pictures

 So, I had an employer give me a children's book to upload to Amazon. If you aren't familiar with this process, there were two major mistakes she made that caused her to hire me, and these are the main reason I get hired: (1) Amazon paperback books have to have a minimum number of pages--24 pages for a paperback and 75 for a hardcover. If you have fewer pages than this, you will get an error. 

You can fix this by writing more or by only putting out a Kindle ebook. In her case, since she had done a children's picture book with relatively few pictures, I had her give me more pictures, which is another option for expanding content. You cannot simply add 20 blank pages to your 4 page book. Kindle will not allow this and will flag you if you try to do this. 

Now, adding more pictures can be a problem if you commissioned a set of pictures and you would have to pay to have more created. I could have taken the pictures she had and photoshopped some of them to change them enough to be another picture for the book if necessary. This would have probably been cheaper than if she commissioned entirely new artwork for which she wanted all the rights. (When you commission artwork for a children's book, you have to make sure the person creating the art knows what you intend to do with it, and I recommend signing a contract with the person that states it is okay for you to use the work in that way.)

She, however, bypassed the above trouble because all her pictures were AI generated. Now, bypassing the above trouble by using AI is not necessarily a good alternative. Although it was relatively easy to go back into the program and spit out 5 or so more pictures, the pictures were awful. I am not talking about just the new pictures. All the pictures were awful. There were five-legged cats and one chipmunk had a foot instead of a tail. The animals were not proportional to each other--with a giant rat towering over a small skunk. One picture had a happy woodland creature returning to its home--except there as a demon or something that looked like a demon with evil teeth and empty eyes waiting on the porch. 

There are plenty of critiques of AI-generated children's book art, so I won't go into all the details, but in addition to the above, the main characters did not look the same from page to page. 

You may think--what does a 4-year old care about real art? And, to some extent this is true. However, as an adult with children there are several things I know--one is that if I don't like reading a children's book to my kids, it will "disappear." I also believe that a parent's primary goal should be to educate their children so they can become participating members of society. If they learn at 4 that there is nothing wrong with five-legged cats (or worse they learn not to scrutinize art), they are never going to have a sense of when it is okay to actually draw a five-legged cat (i.e. for the cover of some fantasy novel that contains a creature that looks like a five-legged cat). If we don't teach kids the rules, they will grow up unable to follow any of them or to know when is a pointed time to break them. We feed into the Tiktok society where they only read headlines, scan clickbait articles, and watch brief, poorly-done video clips on repeat.  

We are already reaping the rewards of giving children "participation" rewards for doing nothing and not rewarding children who actually achieved things because we wouldn't want their peers to be jealous. What we have created are adults who have no reason to try to accomplish anything because someone will cheer them on regardless and the government or their parents will give them everything they need to survive without effort. These adults get a job but don't work. 

With the AI binge and no gatekeeper, our next generation of kids will no longer care about good artwork or good literature. They won't have attention spans long enough to bother with it. 

Internet Archive Password Security

 So, Internet Archive is one of my go-to resources for older books (along with Google and Gutenberg). During COVID, they apparently stopped keeping track of how many copies of newer, still-copyrighted books they were allowing people to browse at the same time. This led to a copyright lawsuit they lost--in case you haven't been following the news. So about three days ago, I decided to create a free account to be able to officially lend some of these books. 

...And then they were hacked. I normally use different passwords for just about everything I have an account for and these are randomized letters numbers and symbols. However, I am getting a little lazy in my old age, and although my G-mail account has a different password, I decided to link the Internet Archive account to my G-mail. So, although the password itself wasn't a big deal, I was concerned that the hackers might have been able to find a way into my G-mail account. 

This meant, that I immediately changed my password for my G-mail. 

The irony is that I was actually musing about a week ago that I was surprised our government (or any government) has not hacked into Internet Archive and gotten rid of some of the data stored there, but I digress. Allegedly, a pro-Palestinian group did this. 

There are two important lessons you should learn from this (1) the Wayback Machine (run by Internet Archive) is an amazing resource for saving web page history. I frequently use them for citations I put in my books. If you are looking for a charity to support, I recommend supporting them so they can upgrade their security and keep this valuable resource protected. (2) Don't use the same passwords for different accounts and don't link one account to another. I believe the hackers just wanted to make the news and probably wouldn't have gone any further, but they did publish what they found. If I had the same password for my G-mail account, it might already have been compromised. 

For some freelancers, a compromised account might be nothing more than a headache. However, I frequently work under NDAs (non-disclosure agreements). I take the security of those who hire me seriously. That means that don't store their projects on the cloud, and I follow other best practices--especially if they hired me and requested an NDA. If, however, I had been more lax in using the same passwords and in storing stuff on my Google account, I could have had a security breach as well. 

I encourage writers who deal with this sort of work to make sure your passwords for different accounts are truly different. There are free online password generators you can use if you have trouble thinking up random ones, I would just change them up a bit before using them to be safe. I then keep password hints (without writing out the full password) and the accounts each belongs to on a list in a drawer. 

Bad Jobs 4

 Wanted: A freelancer to set up a YouTube channel for me, create all the content, and make me money.

Here's the thing, if I am going to do all the work--I want all the money. When I ghostwrite books for people, they come to me with ideas. I take those ideas and turn them into marketable products, but I certainly don't do the marketing. If they don't take that step, they probably won't earn much. But if I am starting a YouTube channel to become the next influencer, and you want me to not only make the content, but come up with the ideas and market the channel--forget it. You don't get money for doing nothing.

Now, in theory, you could cheaply pay someone, who maybe isn't a good story writer but who has an imagination--to come up with a series of story prompts for you. Then you could pay a good writer to write each story and a good editor to edit them. Then you could pay someone to develop a marketing plan and market the book(s) for you. If it is done well, it would take a large investment up front, but you could still make money off of it. The difference is that you are putting in a large amount of money and hoping for a good return. You are taking on the risk. If a freelancer has the skills to do all of that, though, even a huge amount of money will probably not convince them to do it all for you--because presumably their work is making you more money than what you are paying them.

Memoirs: The Ultimate Revenge

 Memoirs and Autobiographies are both supposed to be factual representations of the authors life. However, it is a well-known fact that autobiographies will contain some bias--they should however be well-researched so that the author's memories are backed up by other sources. Memoirs, on the other hand, require no research. They claim to be glimpses of history as the author remembers it.

Most memoir writers write about scandalous things--growing up in poverty, abuse, and crime are common causes. All memoir writers seem to have an agenda--whether it is shocking members of the Pulitzer Prize committee into giving them an award or getting their families back for some perceived injustice or, in the case of JD Vance, advancing political careers. All three motives would be suspect if the person stuck with the researched truth, they are disgusting when research and family members frequently come forward to debunk the "memory." 

Aside from J D Vance's Hillbilly Elegy--were he supposedly documents his childhood being raised by Appalachian "hillbillies"--two other memoirs come to mind: Angela's Ashes (which won a Pulitzer) and Running with Scissors. These become talked about and make the authors rich while destroying the reputations of real people. Further, some of the "memories" are actually not even memories. They are pure fiction.

Consider Angela's Ashes--Mr. McCourt states he worked for the devout Catholic, Mrs. Brigid Finucane, and wrote threatening letters to collect money from people who owed her. When she died, he stole money from her and tossed her book where she kept track of the debts. No person in Limerick can remember this Mrs. Brigid Finucane. There were only Jewish moneylenders anywhere in Limerick. There was, however, a Vincent Finucane who ran a Radio shop, but Mr. McCourt never worked for him. During this time, Mr. McCourt did work for Jackie Brosnan. Jackie Brosnan is never mentioned in the book. 

Jackie Brosnan, however, did sell bicycles. Presumably, like Mrs. Brigid Finucane, he bought the items he was selling or built them for less money than what he sold them for. He then had a payment plan where people could take the bicycles home and come in each week to pay him for them. Again, this set up is similar to the one Mr. McCourt describes for Mrs. Finucane. Just as he was responsible for helping to get the money from those who did not repay Mrs. Finucane, he was also responsible for getting money from those who did not pay Mr. Brosnan. 

Curiously, he states he stole from Mrs. Finucane after she died. I wonder if the truth was that he was acting like most go-betweens for money lenders and stealing money from the people who owed Mr. Brosnan. Pilfering a little off here and there. We will never know because Mr. Brosnan adored Mr. McCourt and trusted him completely. He knows that Mr. McCourt lied in his book, but he still does not think anything bad about it and believes the book to be mostly true. 

In the case of Running with Scissors, the family sued the author. This was settled out of Court--which means the publishing company paid a big sum to shut the family up. The author has implied to people since that he won the case. 

The problem I have with people like this who do not care about truth--and I understand memory is fickle; I understand that sometimes we remember things differently than how they really were--but these authors take the truth and realize it isn't dramatic enough and so they fabricate things and claim they are "memories." Mr. McCourt knew he worked for Jackie Brosnan and not Brigid Finucane. He knew Jackie Brosnan was a kind gentleman whose payment plans allowed many people who could not afford bikes to have one. He should have known that in order for Mr. Brosnan to stay in business, the accounts needed to be collected. Still, he created a fictional character, made her a evil Catholic (he has big beef against the Catholic church and any of its adherents), and then made himself a hero by destroying her debt book when she died. 

J.D. Vance claims to have grown up with hillbillies, but he didn't really live in the hills of Appalachia. He lived in a coal town in Ohio. Most Appalachian people do not relate to his book, but the rest of America eats it up as honest truth. 

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian is another one of these injustices. The man who wrote this book, which is making a lot of money as it is being pitched to school children across the U.S. (probably because of one of its sexually explicit material). If you want to read about the stereotype of an Indian, this book let's you know the stereotype is true. The sad thing is that I used to live with a Shawnee woman. I met a lot of Indians and none of them behaved like the people in this book. I never saw any of them drink or beat their kids. I only saw people who wanted to live in harmony with nature. So I can tell you from first hand experience this "Absolutely True Diary" is a lie. 

In addition to the families of these people, these books feed negative stereotypes of poor Irish people, poor Appalachian people, and poor Indians. They win prizes and are forced upon students of all ages as "good literature" when they are nothing more than the National Enquirer backed by Academics. There should be some requirement to verify the information found in any memoir or autobiography before it is given any award or distributed to students as mandatory reading. 

What really makes these memoirs MUSTN'T reads is that when people fabricate their memoir and get publicity because they wrote fiction they promoted as truth, it takes away from people who really went through horrible experiences like Jaycee Lee Dugard and her A Stolen Life: A Memoir. This book also contains some raw sexual experiences, since she was raped for decades by her kidnappers and writing the book was therapy. However, this book is a lesson--a lesson to people in law enforcement that they should always do their jobs even if they are threatened with lawsuits for doing them and a lesson to others that no matter what the situation you can survive. Her follow-up Freedom is equally enlightening.

Employers: Your AI-Detection Checker May Be Bogus

 So, if you can't detect that it was written by AI, how do you expect a computer to do it for you? There was a person who posted a job stating s/he would be using several AI detection programs to ensure that if you were using ChatGPT, you were, at least, "humanizing" it. Well, I decided to take the garbage ChatGPT put out for me and check it. Here's what I got: 

Grammarly: 

Said the AI work was 100% written by a human. Granted, this is supposed to be for writers checking to see if their AI generated work will pass, but I would not use it. I have paid for a subscription to Grammarly in the past ($30/mo) to check for typos. It did a good job of that, but it would not let me choose which style manual I wanted to use for each check. Since different style manuals have different rules, it would sometimes flag me for a typo when it was not. I also did not feel the plagiarism checker was that great and so I used a different service for that. 

Quillbot 

Actually detected the AI generated writing and my writing correctly. The free checker allows up to 25,000 words. They also offer other free services and paid services for $19.95/mo.

ZeroGPT Said only 80% of the AI generated writing was written by a computer. For my writing it said it was only 1.72% AI generated. Only allows 15,000 characters for free. Paid plans are $7.99/$18.99 per month.

Merlin  Similar results to ZeroGPT. This one only gives you three free credits and a max of 10,000 characters each time. It costs $15 per month to get full access--which I had to click my "credits" button to see--and more expensive plans exist.

GPTZero Correctly detected AI generated writing as being 100% AI. They were sure that my writing was human--but it was a 3% chance it was generated by AI. This one only allowed 5000 characters without signing up. For $10/mo you can process 150,000 words each month. There are more expensive pricing plans as well.

Copyleaks Does not give you a percentage--it just says AI generated or not. It correctly identified the AI and mine. The AI detector alone is $7.99/mo.

Undetectable AI This one said the AI generated writing was likely written by a human. They are selling an AI humanizer so it makes sense their detector would say an AI generated text is human. 

Phrasly AI Said only 80% of the AI generated writing was written by a computer. For mine, it was 100% sure it was written by a human. They only let you do 2000 words per check. This is another AI "humanizer." 

Leap Said the AI text was "possibly" written by a human and gave 57%. My content was "very likely human" with a score of 16%. They allowed 20,000 characters. They are also in the business of generating AI content. 

Originality AI This one said the AI content was 100% written by a computer and accurately said mine was 100% human. This website gives you three free scans (less than 300 words each), but it requires a credit card to use it. You can pay $60 for 600,000 scanned words that expire in 2 years if unused or pay $15.95/ $136.58 for the two monthly plans.

Brandwell (formerly Content at Scale): This predicted the AI content and human content for me but did horrible in tests below. They only allow 5000 characters to test their detector. At $249/month for 1-user, I don't think its worth it.

GPT-2 Output Detector Demo: This said the ChatGPT article was 99% real. It also said my work was 99% real. This is open source, but I am not seeing a benefit to using it because its results are highly variable.

Turnitin: I did not test this myself because they do not have a place to test their software on the website. You have to contact an agent to get any information. They also don't have prices posted that I could find because they have a monopoly on schools--and they probably shouldn't. However, this tool was tested here. The results are concerning because 100% human produced content was flagged as AI 11% of the time, and this is the tool most teachers use. It is very important for teachers getting a positive with this software to double check the content a couple of other places. Or--better yet--why don't we just train our teachers to detect garbage? When a high school student turns in garbage, make him/her redo it. Ask questions in the margins that must be answered by the student or addressed in the redo. Make the student redo it during class without a computer. (Whoa--writing something by hand--scary.) If s/he did the research, recalling important points without looking them up is necessary. I, personally, believe making students redo poor work (1) teaches them to do it better because they have to apply what the teacher criticized; (2) if they end up having to do the work any way, AI generated schoolwork does not help them; (3) it is possible that some students do write as bad as AI--they will probably grow up to be computer programmers--why fail them for skills they never learned solely on the basis of another computer program?

In a recent study using five of the above, Originality.ai was 100% accurate for AI but 10% of the human written were classified as AI, Turnitin had huge variability--ironically none of the human generated articles were flagged and Turnitin is notorious for flagging human work as AI generated. GPT-2 Output detector did awful for me, but in the study it apparently performed well. GPTZero, which did well in my limited test, did awful in the study along with Content at Scale (which is now Brandwell). Like my tests, these five in the study were only tested in one subject. Notably, humans trained to look for AI scored 96%. 

I discussed the biggest problem with these AI detectors being used in academics, but in freelancing, they can also cause problems. For an employer to use these tools to solely decide if a person should be paid for their work or not is just as wrong as the teachers who fail students based on them. If you read the article and it sounds fine to you, does it matter the source? I have no clue how an AI-generated article could sound fine, but if you think it's okay, there shouldn't be a problem. If you do have a problem with the work, I would take the same approach as the teacher--make the freelancer rewrite it and include questions and critique. 

I allow two free rewrites for my work (I can't think of a time when someone asked me for a second). Every freelancer should allow at least one--make sure you are upfront in asking about this. However, if the freelancer can fix the issues, the should be allowed a chance to do so before you refuse to pay. This is why I like Guru's SafePay--the freelancer will get paid if s/he does the work and you will get your money back if s/he does not.

Bad Jobs 3

 Wanted: Freelancer to create a plein air landscape watercolor painting of a scene that includes ocean cliffs with an "aquatic beast," a fjord, and a beach with crustaceans skittering across it. It can be a fantasy landscape.

Soooo, the definition of "plein air" is to take your easel somewhere and paint quickly, capturing the lighting of that exact moment. I wonder how this employer expects his freelancer to travel to such a specific landscape and capture specific animals or "beasts"? I especially wonder how the freelancer would get to a fantasy realm to paint it in the moment...

Categorizing Your Job

Many employers don't know what they want. This is often evident in the vague or meandering requests they post. Some freelancers may ask questions or bid on these because if they think they can figure it out after a conversation with the employer. However, lately I have been seeing a lot of mis-categorized posts. This presents a big problem because most freelancers do not skim every category when looking for work. 

Guru has the following categories: 

Programming & Development

Design & Art

Writing & Translation

Administrative & Secretarial

Business & Finance

Sales & Marketing

Engineering & Architecture

Legal

Education & Training

Other

Programming and Development has to do with computer programming. If you need a website developed or coding adjusted, this is where the job should go. Still, people will post "Create a Website for Me" jobs in Writing & Translation. If you want website content (i.e. the written words that go on the website), Writing & Translation would be the right spot, but if you want the overall layout and the coding that goes into that layout, you should stick with a developer. Along the same lines, some people put website design jobs in the Design & Art category--which is not really what they need. 

Design & Art is for imagery. If you need something photoshopped, you would not send it to a computer programmer, it needs to go to a visual designer. A book cover design should be posted here and not in Writing & Translation. A business logo would also be here--not in the Business & Finance section. 

Writing & Translation is for writing, rewriting, editing, formatting documents, and obviously having things translated. One person wanted a copyrighted document rewritten and posted it in "legal" because he wanted it done legally. Legal is for legal advice--not fixing plagiarism or lifting someone else's work and recreating it so it isn't plagiarized. Every freelancing author should know how to do this legally. However, trying to hire a lawyer or paralegal to fix plagiarism will not work because that isn't their specialty, unless they also specialize in writing. The irony is that I charge a lot more for fixing plagiarism than I do for say, editing something. I'm sure some people think they can get a better deal by lifting something and changing it-and it's true there is AI that rewrites things for you, but I have never tested that and I am not sure how good it is. Grant writing also falls here. 

Administrative & Secretarial also seems to get a lot of Writing & Translating jobs. In general, secretaries, HR people, assistants, medical coding, customer service, clerks, data entry, receptionists, administrators, etc. fit in this category. These are unskilled writers to some extent. For example, they may write a letter, write a memo, or enter data that has already been written. You would not ask them to write your business story or a press release because their writing skills are probably not up to the task. You also would not ask for a business plan here. That would go in Business & Finance.

Business & Finance is for accounting jobs, auditors, analysts, management, fundraisers, market research analysis, logistics, financial advisors, event planners, and logisticians. Estimators might be found here or in Engineering & Architectural (if you are looking for construction estimates--supply chain estimates for other industries would only be here). These people help others run businesses. 

Sales & Marketing should be self-explanatory. If you want to market your book, these people should be able to help you. Yes, a book marketer might be also found in Writing & Translation, but if a person does marketing, presumably they will also check under this heading. Sales consultants would also be here. 

Engineering & Architecture would be product designers and creators. This is where you could get 3D images and CAD drawings for your product or building. You could consult these people on patent papers, but you should also talk with someone in legal once the item is created. 

Legal is for legal advice. You plagiarized someone, and they are taking you to court. What is the quickest way out of this? If you need a contract written up or a will, this is where you could find freelancers who specialize in that work. 

Education & Training is for people looking for tutors for school--although I don't know why you would go to Guru for that. Wyzant has a much better selection. It is also for people who want to develop a training course. Creating training videos could go here or in Other. Library technicians, teachers, guidance counsellors, executive coaches, fitness trainers, life coaches, people who can teach you how to use MS Word or how to code in JAVA. This is where you would find freelancers who want to teach.

Other is unfortunately a category that contains all sorts of jobs and usually many of these would be better classified in one of the above categories. If you are looking for actors, video editors, clothing manufacturing, established live-streamers who can present your product, researchers, app testers, temporary event staff, chemist, etc. Basically anything that doesn't fit in any of the above categories, except people post a mishmash of jobs that do. 

Posting your job in the wrong category means the right freelancer may not see it. For example, I do design as well as writing and translation and I do video editing, so I check Other and Design & Art frequently, but I do not check Administrative & Secretarial. That means if you posted your book editing job there, I will never see it. Further, the people who will see it and bid on it, are probably not qualified to do so.

Teacher Wall of Shame 3

 So here is a teacher, who presumably teaches English, and has posted on her website about correcting vague pronouns. The problem is that either she does not understand the concept herself (most probable) or she has relied too much on other websites to explain it for her. Her statements are that "this" is a vague pronoun and needs to be turned into an adjective and followed by a noun to clarify a sentence. That statement in itself is not necessarily wrong--at least I can't think of an example where "this" should not be followed by a noun at the moment. However, her limitation of specific pronouns as being "vague" is wrong. "She" is not on her list, but it most certainly can be a vague pronoun. Consider these horrible sentences:

Sally and Megan went to school. She rode a bike while she walked. 

Who rode the bike? Who walked? It is obvious that "she," used in this context, is vague. In most cases authors don't realize they are committing this error because they know what they are talking about. In these cases, most readers assume what is being referred to by the pronoun correctly.

The experiment was performed in Toby's backyard. It was fenced in to keep onlookers out.

Was the experiment fenced in or was Toby's backyard fenced in? Most people would assume it was the backyard, but if Toby did not have a fence around his backyard, then temporarily fencing in the experiment would be easier than doing the whole thing. Now, where I could not think of an example of 
"this is" that was not vague. I most certainly can think of an example where "it is" is not, despite the teacher's protestations. 

The experiment will be quick. It is found on page 345. 

There is no question as to what "it is" refers in the above sentence. "It is" is not vague because the only thing to which it could refer is "the experiment." 

Perhaps the above teacher was sick the day they taught this at her school, but that is no excuse for misinforming her students about it. She needs to figure out what vague pronouns are. Part of her problem is that she went to https://www.aje.com and https://writingcommons.org/ Both of these websites are advertising their own paid writing courses and editing services. Why would they explain anything clearly to anyone? They want you to pay them to do it. Ironically, it seems the Writing Commons link is broken, probably because they lifted the sentence they used from an state university website worksheet: https://www.unh.edu/student-success/sites/default/files/media/2022-07/resources-vague-pronouns-writing.pdf If you go to that worksheet, you will find an excellent, brief definition for vague pronouns. 

Bad Jobs 2

Here's another winner: The employer wants someone to record themselves doing a forward roll for 1-3 minutes. The longer you can do it--the more you can make. Apparently, there are people who have decided to become long distance somersaulters. I, like the guy who wrote that, would probably be sick. 

The problem I have with this request, even though it has some legitimacy, is that the person says it is for a fitness program and it was needed before the school year started. This is not necessarily something I think kids should be trying for as a fitness goal. What's wrong with running or even walking, which most people would see as being more normal if they were to meet you doing it on the street? Also, why do you have to keep going for 3 minutes? Once you demonstrate it, it should be good enough for the kids. Further, no mechanics of how to do the roll was requested to be included. 

Part of me wants to think that this is just some well-meaning person wanting to start a new fad, but there is just too much that makes me think its someone with an odd fetish. For example, only fit, female somersaulters were told to apply. 

Granted, when I first started, I would go head-over-heels for easy jobs like this. But as I gotten older and not been able to find any of those projects on the web (I usually can track down my work), I have become more cynical and think they might not have used those things as they were intended. This also comes from the one project I did that I was able to track down. This woman I worked for swore up and down she was not writing erotica (I do not work on erotica projects). However, I had to remove a lot of sex from the original content. I gave it back to her and later found she not only added all the sex back in but also listed it as a XXX book!!  These days when I get the feeling that something is not right, I back out. This is why my contract has a clause in it saying I can stop working at any time I deem the project to be unethical.

Insecurity

 Okay, so I have a pretty big head. I know I am trained to write. I am confident in my writing skills, and I feel I put out some pretty good stuff. I even go back over my stuff and find spots where I pat myself on the back and tell myself those were genius.

However, the moment I finish a project and hand it over to an employer is the moment the nerves in my stomach start to build. I like my work, and my employer must have liked my work enough to hire me, but I am never 100% certain he or she will be happy with what I produce. 

In the course of my career, I have had people who were not happy. In most cases, I can fix it with my first rewrite. In some cases, it did not reflect the quality of my work but rather the ignorance of the person hiring me. One person complained because I could not put a square image on a kindle page. I did not distort the image at all, I merely trimmed it and slightly changed the placement of some of the text. Without changing the ratio, the image would have shrunk and only filled half the screen. She was irate. 

The other one was a guy who had written a screenplay. This guy was in the business of making school posters. He had no writing or film experience. All he wanted was for me to give him my opinion of the screenplay. I did--it was awful. He then called me and cussed me out for 30 minutes. He told me every other freelancer he had hired thought it was amazing. I told him it couldn't be produced as written. He said he had an "in" with the Navy so he knew it would be produced. (This was a work of fiction that mildly referenced the Navy, by the way.) It was big and ugly, and it didn't help on my end that after he berated me, I charged him full price instead of the discount I had originally given him. Sorry, if you want to cuss me out and berate me, I charge extra.

Needless to say, despite the rave reviews from all the other freelancers he hired, I have never seen this movie produced. 

Anyway, until I get feedback I sit waiting anxiously for some. Today, I am distracting myself by working on something else.

Why ChatGPT Is Not a Writing Tool

I have actually had people tell me ChatGPT is a great story writing tool (among other things). So, I decided to give it the writing prompt I came up with as an example for another post: "Write a 1,500 word story about two raccoons who go into a restaurant." The first thing you should note is that I asked for a "story" and ChatGPT gave me an essay--and it knows that is what it gives me because it says so in the first paragraph. This is the unedited response it gave me: 

Title: The Tale of Two Raccoons: An Unlikely Restaurant Encounter

Introduction

In the world of storytelling, some scenarios stretch the bounds of imagination and reality, and the tale of two raccoons walking into a restaurant is one such imaginative adventure. This whimsical scenario, while far from ordinary, invites a deeper exploration into themes of curiosity, adaptation, and the unexpected intersections of nature and human environments. This essay delves into the narrative of these two raccoons as they navigate a human establishment, shedding light on both the humor and the underlying commentary of this unusual situation.

Setting the Scene

Imagine a cozy restaurant nestled in a bustling city, a place where the aroma of gourmet dishes mingles with the soft hum of conversation and clinking cutlery. The establishment prides itself on its welcoming atmosphere and diverse clientele. It is here, in this very restaurant, that our story begins. As the door swings open, two raccoons enter, their striped tails and masked faces standing out starkly against the backdrop of fine dining. The sight of these nocturnal creatures in a human eatery is both surreal and intriguing, challenging the boundaries of normalcy and inviting both the patrons and the staff into a moment of peculiar wonder.

The Raccoons' Perspective

From the raccoons' perspective, this restaurant is a realm of sensory overload. The interior, with its polished wooden tables and ambient lighting, contrasts sharply with their natural habitat—forest floors and urban alleyways. The raccoons, driven by their inquisitive nature and innate intelligence, exhibit a mixture of curiosity and caution. Their heightened senses of smell and hearing pick up on the rich tapestry of scents and sounds, making the restaurant a new and exciting landscape to explore.

The raccoons approach the tables with an almost deliberate intent. Their nimble paws, accustomed to foraging and manipulating objects, now encounter an array of human artifacts. They are particularly intrigued by the plates and utensils, which seem to offer a tantalizing array of new textures and shapes. This interaction highlights the raccoons' adaptability and problem-solving skills, as they attempt to understand and engage with their unfamiliar surroundings.

The Restaurant's Reaction

The reaction of the restaurant staff and patrons is one of initial shock, followed by a mix of amusement and bemusement. The sight of raccoons—creatures typically associated with trash cans and night-time scavenging—inside a refined dining setting is unexpected and surreal. The staff, caught off guard, initially responds with a blend of confusion and concern, unsure of how to address the situation without disrupting the dining experience for other guests.

One might imagine the restaurant manager, a composed and professional individual, momentarily grappling with the situation before deciding on a course of action. The manager's response may involve a delicate balance of diplomacy and practicality. Efforts might be made to gently guide the raccoons outside, all while maintaining the dignity of the establishment and ensuring that the patrons remain entertained rather than distressed by the unusual visitors.

Interactions with Humans

As the raccoons continue their exploration, their interactions with the humans in the restaurant become a focal point of the narrative. Children, ever the enthusiasts of animal encounters, might be particularly enchanted by the sight of the raccoons. Their innocent wonder contrasts sharply with the more reserved reactions of adults, who may react with a mix of fascination and skepticism.

Some patrons might view the raccoons' presence as a delightful anomaly, a story to share and remember. Others, however, might find the situation unsettling, reflecting a broader theme of how human societies often struggle with the intrusion of the wild into their carefully curated spaces. This tension between nature and civilization becomes a subtle undercurrent in the narrative, highlighting the delicate balance that exists between human environments and the natural world.

Symbolism and Themes

The encounter of the two raccoons in the restaurant serves as a rich symbol for several broader themes. One prominent theme is the idea of curiosity and exploration. The raccoons' foray into an unfamiliar environment represents the innate drive to discover and understand the world beyond one's usual boundaries. Their behavior reflects a broader human tendency to seek out new experiences and challenges, often leading to moments of unexpected discovery and growth.

Another theme is the interaction between nature and human civilization. The raccoons' intrusion into the restaurant symbolizes the frequent encroachment of wildlife into human spaces, a phenomenon driven by various factors such as urban expansion and environmental change. This encounter prompts reflection on the impact of human activities on wildlife and the need for greater coexistence and understanding between the two realms.

Conclusion

The tale of the two raccoons walking into a restaurant, while fanciful and humorous, offers a nuanced reflection on curiosity, adaptation, and the intersection of human and natural worlds. It challenges our perceptions of normalcy and invites us to consider the broader implications of such unusual encounters. Through the lens of this whimsical scenario, we gain insight into the complexities of interaction between different species and the delicate balance that must be maintained to ensure harmony between human environments and the natural world. In the end, this narrative not only entertains but also encourages a deeper appreciation for the unexpected moments that arise when nature and civilization converge.

Word Count: 873

This essay was not what I was looking for or expecting. However, upon reading it, I can tell it was definitely written by an unimaginative computer (or perhaps a really bad writer). I also question that if real world raccoons walked into a real world establishment that everyone would be bemusedly watching them. I picture a lot of screaming and running--even on the part of the staff. Does ChatGPT realize these things carry diseases? Further, it is just over half the word count I requested, which means there needs to be a lot of fluff added that will make the story even worse. 

This should just be scrapped and rewritten by a human because most of this is just garbage and repetitive drivel. However, I edited the first few paragraphs so you can see what is wrong: 

Introduction

In the world of storytelling, some scenarios stretch the bounds of imagination and reality, and the tale of two raccoons walking into a restaurant stretches the bounds of realityis one such imaginative adventure. Although the original scenario does stretch the bounds of imagination as well as reality, the realistic scenario ChatGPT spit out does not stretch the bounds of imagination--someone could easily leave a door propped open and two raccoons, smelling food could walk inside. This whimsical scenario while far from ordinary,  redundant with "whimsical" invites a deeper exploration into themes of curiosity, adaptation, and the unexpected intersections of nature and human environments. This essay delves into those topicshe narrative of these two raccoons as they navigate a human establishment, shedding light on both the humor and the underlying commentary of this unusual situation. I could not find the theme of "adaptation" below. I think ChatGPT believes a manager shooing raccoons out is "adaptive" but learning to live with raccoons in his restaurant would be more fitting of that subject. Note that this paragraph went from 84 words to 45. 

Setting the Scene

Imagine that nestled in the heart of a bustling city there exists a cozy restaurant nestled in a bustling city, a place where the aroma of gourmet dishes mingles with the soft hum of conversation and clinking cutlery. This is a common typographical error--a misplaced modifier. By placing "city" right before "a place where the aroma of..." it is the city and not the restaurant that is being described grammatically, which is confusing. The establishment prides itself on its welcoming atmosphere and diverse clientele. It is here, in this very restaurant, that our story begins. As a waiter stands holding the door open and saying goodbye to one of the regularsthe door swings open, two raccoons enter, their striped tails and masked faces standing out starkly against the backdrop of fine dining. This is the furthest ChatGPT can apparently reach with imagination. The rest of this piece treats the raccoons as if they are real and the scenario is real, but here we have the door swinging open and have to ask--does it swing open on its own or are the raccoons swinging it open or is perhaps a doorman opening the door for them? This is an important question to resolve and by not resolving it, ChatGPT is doing what it is well-known to do, writing fluff without substance. The sight of these nocturnal creatures in a human eatery is both surreal and intriguing, challenging the boundaries of normalcy and inviting both the patrons and the staff into a moment of peculiar wonder. There are several things wrong here. In one sentence, we have three words/phrases that mean "bizarre:" "surreal," "challenging the boundaries of normalcy," and "peculiar." Without a thesaurus, this would read: "The sight of these...creatures is both bizarre and intriguing, bizarre and inviting [those in the restaurant] into a moment of bizarre wonder." I also do not picture anyone having a moment of "peculiar wonder" if two raccoons walk in--"terror" would probably be more appropriate. Most people should realize that two raccoons can be dangerous. They bite and carry a lot of diseases. 

The Raccoons' Perspective

From the raccoons' perspective, this restaurant is a realm of sensory overload. The interior, with its polished wooden linen-tableclothed tables to hide under and ambient lighting, contrasts sharply with on first glance is similar to their natural habitat—forest floors and urban alleyways. So, the problem is that a dimly lit diner and a dimly lit alleyway are similar--not contrasting. Polished wooden tables would also be similar to a stand of small trees in a forest--but you would not have polished wooden tables in a fine dining establishment as a general rule--the tables would be clothed in fine linen (hence why they were traditionally known as "white tablecloth restaurants"). It has pointed out similarities between the fine dining establishment and alleyway while stating the environments contrast. Further, if two raccoons are walking into a place that serves "gourmet dishes" it is most likely this diner is in the city and not in some country dive--so the raccoons would have no knowledge of "forest floors." Since the first sentence set up a contrast, it is important to recognize the comparison and spring into the contrast from that: Their heightened senses of smell and hearing pick up on the rich tapestry of scents and sounds, making the restaurant a new and exciting landscape to explore. The contrasts between a climate-controlled, busy restaurant and an alleyway would also be in the number of people and tables filling the space. The raccoons, are driven inside by their inquisitive nature, hunger, and innate intelligence, exhibit a mixture of curiosity and caution. Again, we see redundancy-- "inquisitive nature" and "curiosity." If they were cautious, they would not have entered. Their heightened senses of smell and hearing pick up on the rich tapestry of scents and sounds, making the restaurant a new and exciting landscape to explore. It is necessary to move this sentence to create some contrast after saying we were doing that.

The raccoons approach the nearest unoccupied tables with an almost deliberate intent. After telling us they approach the tables, we get "almost deliberate." Either they are approaching mindlessly because they have rabies or they are doing it deliberately. There is no "almost" deliberate. It is also important that the reader know these tables do not have people at them. If two raccoons are approaching tables with people at them, there is something seriously wrong with them (read: rabies). TAfter climbing on one, their nimble paws, accustomed to foraging and manipulating objects like trash can lids, now encounter an array of human artifacts. They are particularly intrigued by the plates and utensils, which seem to offer a tantalizing array of new textures and shapes. Once again, ChatGPT is unfamiliar with texture of plates and silverware. Both are smooth, so by saying their is a contrast in textures, without describing what has a different texture and why, is confusing. Further, I would think a raccoon would be more interested in the foods than in empty plates. ChatGPT also makes a common new writer error by having the raccoons approach the tables but then not explain that they move to the table tops before talking about them playing with stuff on top of them. Some steps can be generalized or skipped, but in this case we go from approaching tables to playing with cutlery and that jump is a bit too far.--This interaction highlights the raccoons' adaptability and problem-solving skills, as they attempt to understand and engage with their unfamiliar surroundings. What adaptability? What problem solving? They are playing with things in their environment just as they always do. That does not show adaptation nor is there any problem solving involved. 

As you can see, it is quite a slog to fix. In most cases, slogging through reduces the word count by half. However, I wonder how many teachers are accepting this drivel as good work? I already see many websites with garbage articles like this that say nothing, really. 

I know, you are thinking, "Oh, yeah? Do you think you can do any better?" So, after getting the awful results above, I put an original short story on Amazon. Feel free to critique it at will.

Bad Jobs 1

 I thought I had already started a series like this, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. If I do, I will change the name. 

Wanted: Someone to manage our LinkedIn content, do in-depth analysis and research industry trends, and respond to comments. Will pay $2-3 per hour. 

Keep in mind that people hired through contracts (at least in the US) have to pay their own taxes, which usually amounts to half my yearly earnings. We also have to have our own insurance, own retirement, as well as pay business expenses--yes, having a working, updated computer and an internet connection is expensive. We also occasionally have to pay for data loss recovery. 

I usually burn through a computer every 2-3 years. I have to replace my laptop keyboards every year (except on this Dell--it lasts about 2 years). 

Before posting a job, find out how much a person doing that job would make per hour. (This might require some math and an Internet search that doesn't involve Google's AI.) If you can't afford to pay that person, you probably are not going to be able to find a top notch freelancer. Why pretend? The person who posted this, whose project description is clearly looking for the cream of the crop, so far has only collected bids from people whose profiles are less than impressive. One of them hints s/he has a team of content creators using ChatGPT to create work. If you want ChatGPT content--just use it yourself.

The other problem with hiring someone at such a low price is that you may end up with a freelancer who is milking the clock just to get by. There will inevitably be solid freelancers who bid on something like this (usually one or two), but these people will also be asking for a lot more than $2-3 per hour to build your brand on LinkedIn. Unfortunately, if you don't have the time or ability to put in and do it yourself, you have to pay.

I understand it is hard to start a marketing campaign, but at the same time, if you aren't going to do it right, why waste the time and money?

What to Look for in a Freelancer

Posts looking for low-cost freelancers to write books are numerous. Everyone seems to think that they can pay peanuts and make millions. There are many YouTubers and bloggers promoting this pipe dream. "Buy my book, and it will tell you exactly how to make millions without doing anything." 

The problem is that most people can't write books that other people want to read. There will always be a small population that will buy anything. That small number of people who buy your poorly written book will only get you bad reviews. That will lead to no one else buying your book. I would guess the average person who posts a poorly written book on Amazon or some other platform makes about $10 total for their effort. 

Don't get me wrong--marketing, pricing, and many other things go into the complex web of making money off any publication, but the heart of the matter is that nothing else will help a poorly written book.

I understand that some people can't afford to pay 0.05-0.10 per word (or more depending on the caliber and experience of the freelancer). This is the other big problem with a "selling e-books to get rich" scheme. Can these people, who can't afford a decent author afford to pay 0.01 per word or more to have a ChatGPT garbage book or a poorly written book fixed? Probably not, but no one can afford a slat of negative reviews about his/her book. This sinks your ranking on Amazon because you will eventually stop getting any reviews for that product. 

A well-written book, however, can promote other books that you have to offer. A good book, that you promote properly, is better advertising for your next book than any other advertising. This is why authors at a professional level should put out a new book at regular intervals. 

So, what do you do if you can't hire quality? Your best chance is to find a really good writer who is new and trying to build a profile. Whether you are a freelancer or an employer here are some pointers:

1. ChatGPT will never--even at the paid level--give you a satisfying book. Plus, the likelihood your book is plagiarized at least in part is high.
2. Look at writing samples. A good freelancer, even when starting out, will have some samples they can offer. If a freelancer has never written anything before, paid or otherwise, that is not the person you want to hire. 
3. You can pay for a sample--I recommend $30 for a 1500 word sample. The only time you need to ask for a sample should be if you did not see samples that met your exact criteria or you want to ensure the sample is written by the freelancer. If you request a sample, give a one-scene premise i.e., write a 1500 word sample for me about two raccoons that walk into a restaurant and ask to be served. Judge based on project perimeters being met--did they write about what you asked? If they wrote about something else, they either struggle with instructions, are not very creative, or they used a sample from something else (it might even be plagiarized). Did the story make sense? If the story needs explanation to make sense to you (even if they followed the premise), the freelancer isn't a good writer. A good writer should be able to get his/her ideas across without explanation. Did they follow grammar rules? It is true some grammar rules are flexible. As long as a person is consistent about serial comma usage, for example, that is the important thing--not whether they use them or not. However, other rules are not flexible. If the person uses run-on sentences, comma splices, or incomplete sentences (without justification), those are warning flags to stay away. How close to the 1500 words were they? It would be difficult to write a creative story and hit exactly 1500 words. However, a person who writes 1000 words will probably give you less than you want and someone who writes 2500 will give you more. More is not necessarily good and less is not necessarily bad, but if you felt the story was too quick and find out it was short or if it dragged on and was long, you might want to consider someone else. How much "fluff" is in the story? Fluff is used be poor authors to meet word counts or make their writing longer than necessary. There are two types. First, there is redundancy and repetition. For example, "The big, huge, large skyscraper loomed in the far distance." "She walked up the sidewalk to the home. She ambled along slowly." Another type of fluff can be intentional or unintentional. This is when a person writes overly wordy sentences. "There is a current situation in which many people who live in our society today seem to have a preference for reading stories about zombies." This could convey the same meaning by saying: "Currently, many people prefer to read zombie stories." The text goes from 25 words to 8 and the readability is greatly improved. Authors frequently and unintentionally do this (especially people who are trying to sound more knowledgeable and academic). However, every author, especially one submitting a sample, should proofread their work and catch this. 
4. Things you are looking for in any sample: (1) Consistent use of viewpoint. Switching from first person to third person (or second person) is not acceptable. (2) Consistent use of tense. I cannot tell you how many freelancers have samples posted on their profiles where they flip tenses throughout the first few paragraphs. (3) Consistent use of grammar rules. Again, there are many freelancers who don't know what a sentence is or who haven't proofread their samples. (4) Story coherence. If the story starts out with a teenage viewpoint and then the same character develops and adult viewpoint, there are coherence issues. If the story says it takes place in 1700 and talks about getting in a car, again there are coherence issues. (4) Genre confusion. The biggest area where this takes place is usually between romance/erotica. Few books, even erotica, open in the middle of a sex scene. Fantasy/Science fiction is another area of confusion. Some people think they are writing fantasy because their science fiction novel has fantasy type aliens, but it isn't. Even George Lucas got a little confused on this because he felt adding the "force" into Star Wars made it a "Science fantasy." Science fiction--is fictional science. It has the veneer of being scientific, but it contains many fictional (fantasy) elements--instant matter teleportation (which defies relativity), artificial gravity without inertia, etc. 
5. The most obvious warning signs are: (1) The samples posted do not match the job you want or are not relevant. For example, a person with only graphic design samples or transcription samples is not a writer. A person who sends you a sample that is a product description when you are looking for a fiction writer or who instead of writing about raccoons writes about aliens either doesn't understand the project or isn't experienced in it. (2) they send you a proposal filled iwth typos and without punctuationor capitalization (Yes, that was on purpose.) If someone doesn't take the time to proofread their proposal or really care about it, you can expect that they won't really care about their work, either. (3) They want upfront payments when you are using either Guru SafePay or the equivalent on Upwork. Unless there is an upfront cost, such as for non-computer artwork, there is no reason for someone to ask for money upfront unless they are not planning on doing a good enough job to collect later. It is completely reasonable for a freelancer to ask you to put the project cost in escrow with Guru or Upwork prior to beginning work. The freelancer does not have access to these funds. (4) The freelancer has a lot of low ratings. What is a lot? That depends on the website. On Amazon, for example, I don't buy from anyone who has lower than 97% positive feedback. On Guru, most freelancers have 99% or higher. If someone does not yet have a rating, make sure it is because they have not yet worked. If they are new, you need to rely more heavily on their samples and references if they have any. You can also do a check online and see if you can find reviews on other websites

You can hire a decent, new freelancer on a budget. Do not expect miracles and be prepared to have someone proofread his/her work.