What I learned about writing – Writing what we think

The Unfiltered Mind: Should We Always Write What We Think, Right Now?

We’ve all been there: a thought flares up, an emotion surges, an opinion crystallises in our minds, and the immediate urge is to put it into words. Whether it’s a social media post, a blog entry, or even just an email, the impulse to share what’s on our minds at that very moment can be incredibly powerful.

But should we always succumb to this impulse? And should we worry that our opinions might change, making our current unfiltered thoughts seem inconsistent or even naive in the future? Let’s dive into the fascinating tightrope walk between immediate expression and thoughtful deliberation.

The Immediate Appeal: Pros of Writing What’s On Your Mind Right Now

There’s a lot to be said for capturing the raw, unfiltered essence of your current thoughts and feelings:

Authenticity and Relatability: When you write from the heart, in the moment, it often resonates deeply with others. It’s raw, it’s real, and it allows readers to connect with your humanity, vulnerabilities, and genuine excitement or frustration.

Capturing a Fleeting Moment: Our perspectives are dynamic. Writing what’s on your mind right now captures a snapshot of a specific time, place, and emotional state. This can be invaluable for creative writing, journaling, or even historical documentation of your own growth.

Catharsis and Clarity: For the writer, the act of dumping thoughts onto a page can be incredibly therapeutic. It helps process emotions, organise jumbled ideas, and can even lead to unexpected insights. It’s like talking it out, but with the permanence of the written word.

Sparking Genuine Discussion: Unfiltered thoughts, especially when they challenge norms or express strong emotions, often ignite more passionate and honest conversations. They create a starting point that feels lived-in, rather than perfectly curated.

Unleashing Creativity: Sometimes, the best ideas come from letting our minds wander and capturing those initial sparks before they fade. Overthinking can stifle creativity; immediate expression can unleash it.

The Perils of Impulsivity: Cons of Writing What’s On Your Mind Right Now

However, the “publish now, think later” approach comes with its own set of significant risks:

Regret and Irreversibility: Words, once written and especially once published, can be incredibly difficult to retract. A hastily written thought might cause offence, damage a reputation, or simply be something you deeply regret having shared once the initial emotion has passed.

Lack of Nuance and Context: Immediate thoughts are often driven by strong emotions and may lack the necessary context, research, or empathy that a more considered piece would have. This can lead to misinterpretation, oversimplification, or even spreading misinformation.

Inconsistency and Perceived Fickleness: If your opinions are constantly shifting (which is natural!), a steady stream of “in-the-moment” posts might make you appear inconsistent, unreliable, or not fully committed to any particular stance.

Emotional Overload for the Audience: While authenticity is good, a constant stream of highly charged, unfiltered emotions might be overwhelming or even off-putting for your audience. There’s a fine line between relatable vulnerability and incessant venting.

Digital Footprints: Everything you write online leaves a digital footprint. An opinion expressed in a moment of anger or naivete could resurface years later and impact your professional or personal life in unforeseen ways.

Should We Worry About Our Opinions Changing?

This brings us to the crucial question: should the fact that our opinions might change deter us from expressing what we feel at a particular time?

Absolutely not. To worry about opinion change is to worry about growth.

Our opinions are not static monuments; they are living, breathing entities that evolve with new information, experiences, and reflections. To pretend otherwise is to deny our own human capacity for learning and adaptation.

Embrace the Journey: Your past opinions are part of your journey. They show where you’ve been, what you’ve learned, and how you’ve grown. There’s power in being able to say, “This is what I believed then, and here’s how my perspective has shifted and why.”

Context is Key: The key isn’t to never express a current thought, but to understand the context. If you’re writing a personal blog or journal, documenting your evolving thoughts is a feature, not a bug. If you’re writing a manifesto for a political party, perhaps a more measured and consistent tone is expected.

Transparency Builds Trust: Being transparent about your evolving views can actually build trust with your audience. It shows vulnerability and intellectual honesty, demonstrating that you’re open to new ideas and capable of critical self-reflection.

Finding the Balance: Fleeting Feelings vs. A Set Tone

The true art of writing lies in finding the balance between these two poles:

For Fleeting Feelings: Use platforms and formats that allow for ephemerality and personal reflection. Your private journal, a “thoughts-of-the-day” section on a blog, creative writing, or even temporary social media stories are perfect for capturing the moment without the pressure of eternal consistency.

For a Set Tone or Attitude: When your writing has a specific purpose – building a brand, advocating for a cause, informing a professional audience, writing a definitive guide – then careful consideration, research, and a consistent tone become paramount. This requires pausing, editing, and often seeking feedback.

The “Pause Button” is Your Friend: Before hitting “send” or “publish,” consider asking yourself:

Is this merely venting, or does it contribute something valuable?

Who is my audience, and how might they interpret this?

Will I still stand by these words in an hour, a day, a month?

Am I presenting this as an immutable truth, or as a current perspective? (Adding disclaimers like “My current thinking on this is…” can be incredibly helpful).

Ultimately, our opinions should change. It’s a sign of a vibrant, engaged mind. The goal isn’t to suppress our immediate thoughts, but to develop the wisdom to know when to share them raw, when to refine them, and when to keep them for personal reflection.

The most compelling writing often comes from those who are brave enough to share their authenticity, but wise enough to wield their words with care.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you lean towards immediate expression or careful deliberation? Share your perspectives in the comments below!

365 Days of writing, 2026 – My Second Story 25

More about my second novel

…

So, what really happened to Worthington?

Did John get reunited with his mother in the hospital?

What of Rupert and Isobel?  Did she get to meet the elusive and enigmatic Tsar?

These are all questions that will be answered in due course.

There is also the matter of what happens when John and Zoe/Irina finally meet up after he learns that she regarded him as expendable, and, knowing her as he did, he didn’t doubt for a minute that she meant it.

Is it the folly of falling in love with an assassin?

Once again, we end up at the grandmother’s residence in Sorrento, languishing sans Zoe, contemplating a future that might not include Zoe.

His idea of setting up an investigation bureau is alive and well, run by Rupert, staffed by people who have the skills but not the confidence of others who had employed them.  Rupert is the master of picking lame ducks and turning them into swans.

Isobel, on the other hand, does not improve with age or being in a somewhat iffy, long-range, possible romance thing.

Does Zoe return? Does she call? Can she drag herself away from her recently rediscovered father?

Again, you’ll have to read the book.

…

365 Days of writing, 2026 – My Second Story 25

More about my second novel

…

So, what really happened to Worthington?

Did John get reunited with his mother in the hospital?

What of Rupert and Isobel?  Did she get to meet the elusive and enigmatic Tsar?

These are all questions that will be answered in due course.

There is also the matter of what happens when John and Zoe/Irina finally meet up after he learns that she regarded him as expendable, and, knowing her as he did, he didn’t doubt for a minute that she meant it.

Is it the folly of falling in love with an assassin?

Once again, we end up at the grandmother’s residence in Sorrento, languishing sans Zoe, contemplating a future that might not include Zoe.

His idea of setting up an investigation bureau is alive and well, run by Rupert, staffed by people who have the skills but not the confidence of others who had employed them.  Rupert is the master of picking lame ducks and turning them into swans.

Isobel, on the other hand, does not improve with age or being in a somewhat iffy, long-range, possible romance thing.

Does Zoe return? Does she call? Can she drag herself away from her recently rediscovered father?

Again, you’ll have to read the book.

…

PI Walthenson’s second case – A case of finding the ‘Flying Dutchman’.

Known only to a few, there is a legend that a ship named the ‘Flying Dutchman’ left Nazi Germany in the last weeks of the war and set sail for America, escorted by U-boats, under a different name. Aboard was a trove of treasure and gold worth a ‘king’s ransom’.

It was said that it had been sent to a group of American Nazis to create the Fourth Reich at an appropriate time. Over the years, many expeditions off the coast had searched, but found no trace of the vessel or the treasure.

In other words, it was just a legend created to boost tourism.

…

Fast forward to 2024. Our intrepid private detective, Harry Walthenson, overhears a conversation at Grand Central Station. It was the oddness of the message that caught his attention. An investigation turned up nothing out of the ordinary, and he thinks no more about it.

Then Harry is kidnapped, interrogated, and asked questions over and over about a date and a place, why he went there, and when he could not give satisfactory answers, he was beaten half to death and left for dead on a rubbish heap. He was lucky that it was a living space for homeless men; otherwise, he would have died.

In the aftermath, he once again gives it no more thought.

…

After resolving his first case successfully, there’s no rest. Harry’s angry mother comes to his office and demands that he find out where his father has gone. She believes he has run off with a mistress, not for the first time.

Perhaps it was not the wisest decision she has made, because Harry promises to investigate, and adds that she might not like what he finds.

He soon discovered he does not like what he finds, that his father’s friends, a cabal formed at University, have two who are his mother’s current lovers, and another, a criminal blackmailing his father.

Felicity, now his partner, working on a different case, and trying to get answers, uncovers a crime family involved in guarding a disused warehouse on the docks, where she believes Harry had been taken for interrogation, and subsequently dumped nearby to die.

Why are they up to? What is so important that the empty warehouse needs guarding? Who is employing them?

Harry, following up on the death of the blackmailer, traces his death back to an enforcer employed by his grandfather. His mother’s grandfather was a pre-war industrialist who made his fortune in war munitions and shipbuilding.

He was also a member of the American Nazi party.

When Harry also discovers a logbook belonging to a so-called wartime Liberty ship the “Paul Revere” in brackets ‘Freiheitskämpfer’, hidden by his father, and written in a code that is not readily identifiable.

It is no longer a matter of a father who has run off with his mistress; it is a very frightened man in fear of his life, running from a group who will stop at nothing to get the logbook back. And when Harry discovers a family connection to the group, it becomes a race against time to decode the log and find his father before his grandfather does.

…

Coming soon: Harry Walthenson’s new adventure – A case of finding the ‘Flying Dutchman’

A 2am rant: Is that a light at the end of the tunnel?

It’s a long-standing joke that the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an express train coming right at you.

Metaphorically speaking, this is quite often true if you are a pessimist, but since I’ve converted to being an optimist, a bit like changing religions, I believe I’ve seen the ‘light’.  It’s a lot like coming up from the bottom of a deep pool, breaking the surface and taking that first long gulp of air.

Along with that elated feeling that you’re not going to drown.

What’s this got to do with anything, you ask?

Perhaps nothing.

As an allegory, it represents, to me, a time when I finally got over a period of self-doubt, a period where a series of events started to make me question why I wanted to be a writer.

I mean, why put yourself through rejections, sometimes scathing criticism, and then have the people whom you thought were your friends suddenly start questioning your choices after initially wholeheartedly supporting them?

Are we only successful or supportable if we are earning a sufficient wage?  Or better still, a New York Times No. 1 bestselling author?  Or, even better, having sold a million copies?

Is this why so many people don’t give up their day job and then find themselves plying the ‘other’ trade into the dark hours of the night, only to find themselves being criticised for other but no less disparaging reasons?

It seems like a no-win situation, the times when your mettle is tested severely.  But, in the end, it is worth it when the book is finished and published, even if it is only on Amazon.

You can sit back and say with pride, I did that.

That metaphorical light, you may ask.

When somebody buys that first copy!

What I learned about writing – The Accuracy of Non-fiction

The Unbreakable Vow: How Accurate Must Non-Fiction Really Be?

The Ethical Tightrope Walk of the Storyteller

In an age where information is constantly challenged and fact-checking seems like a lost art, the role of the non-fiction writer has never been more vital—or more scrutinised. When a reader picks up a memoir, a history book, or a piece of investigative journalism, they enter into a sacred contract with the author.

That contract is simple: This is the truth.

But how absolute is that requirement? Writing, after all, is an art form, not a police report. Where does artistic license end, and fabrication begin? And what happens when a writer breaks the cardinal vow of non-fiction?


1. The Currency of Trust: Defining Accuracy

Non-fiction is built on trust. Unlike the novelist, whose power lies in invention, the non-fiction writer’s power rests entirely on verifiability.

The Standard is Rigour

For true accuracy, a writer must adhere to several key principles:

  • Verifiability: All key facts, dates, events, and quotes must be traceable to reliable sources (documents, interviews, established historical record).
  • Contextual Honesty: Presenting a fact accurately is not enough; it must be presented within its proper context. Omitting crucial context can turn a truth into a lie of implication.
  • Due Diligence: The writer has an ethical obligation to actively seek out and include information that might contradict their central thesis, rather than cherry-picking facts that bolster their argument.

The Grey Area: When Narrative Needs Taming

The truth is often messy, disorganised, and tedious. To shape a compelling narrative, even the most rigorous writer must perform certain operations that skirt the edges of pure objectivity:

  • Composite Characters: Combining minor, unnamed figures into one character for the sake of narrative flow (e.g., “a nurse” who represents three different nurses the author spoke to). Ethical Boundary: This is acceptable only if the composite character does not perform actions that never happened or fundamentally alter the setting or plot.
  • Dialogue Recreation: Human memory is imperfect. Few people remember the exact wording from conversations years ago. Writers often recreate dialogue based on notes, journals, or the known speaking style of the person. Ethical Boundary: The reconstructed dialogue must faithfully reflect the actual intent and meaning of the original exchange.
  • Compression of Time: Events that occurred over weeks may be described as happening over a day to maintain momentum. Ethical Boundary: This cannot mislead the reader about cause and effect.

In essence, the rule for navigating the grey area is this: You can compress, simplify, or rephrase, but you cannot introduce invention. If the event, the essential characters, or the core outcome did not happen or exist, you have crossed into fiction.


2. The Cardinal Sin: Fabrication and Lying

Fabricating material in non-fiction is not merely a mistake; it is an act of fraud.

A writer lies when they invent interviews, invent sources, invent data, or fundamentally alter the outcome of a factual event simply to make the story “better.”

The motivation for lying is almost always narrative convenience—the truth wasn’t exciting enough, complete enough, or emotionally satisfying. This choice, driven by desperation or arrogance, guarantees catastrophic consequences.


3. The Scorched-Earth Consequences of Lying

The consequences for writers who fabricate or lie about non-fiction material are swift, catastrophic, and often permanent. They touch every aspect of the writer’s professional and personal life.

A. Reputational Death

For a non-fiction writer, reputation is their lifeblood. Once fabrication is discovered, the writer is professionally toxic.

  • Loss of Credibility: A single lie taints every word the writer has ever published and ever will publish. The reader instantly wonders, “If they lied about this date, did they lie about the entire premise?”
  • Ostracization: Publishers, editors, journalists, and academic institutions will severely limit or cease association with the writer. The writer is no longer a professional peer; they are a liability.
  • The Loss of the Subject: If the work was a biography or history, the writer loses the ability to access primary sources or interview subjects, as no one will risk having their story distorted again.

B. Financial and Legal Ruin

Fabrication often leads to substantial financial and legal actions:

  • Book Recalls and Returns: Publishers are often forced to recall and pulp thousands of copies, costing millions. Royalties are stopped immediately, and the author may be required to pay back advances (a “clawback”) based on breach of contract.
  • Lawsuits: If the fabricated material slanders or libels a real person, or invades privacy, the author and publisher face costly civil lawsuits. This is especially true in memoirs, where the writer has misrepresented the actions or character of family members or acquaintances.

C. The Death of the Work

When fabrication is exposed, the work itself ceases to be viewed as literature or history; it becomes a footnote in the history of literary scandal.

  • Academic institutions remove the book from reading lists.
  • Awards won by the book are often revoked.
  • The work, no matter how engaging the fictional elements were, loses its cultural permanence because its foundation is rotten.

The Example of Literary Hoaxes

History is littered with examples of celebrated non-fiction—particularly memoirs—that were revealed to be frauds. These incidents rarely end with the writer receiving a slap on the wrist. They often involve public confession, professional exile, and a permanent asterisk next to their name in literary history. The narrative satisfaction gained by lying is never worth the loss of an entire career.


The Ultimate Responsibility

The job of the non-fiction writer is the challenging, often frustrating, task of wrestling the truth into a readable shape. It means accepting that sometimes, the real story is incomplete, ambiguous, or less dramatic than we might wish.

The commitment to accuracy is not just an ethical preference; it is the scaffolding upon which the entire genre is built. When we pick up a pen or open a keyboard to write non-fiction, we make an unbreakable vow to the reader to stay true to the facts, not because it’s easy, but because the alternative is professional and sometimes personal extinction.

The truth may be messy, but in non-fiction, it is the only story that matters.

365 Days of writing, 2026 – 177

Day 177 – Things to avoid

…

Write Like a Pro: 3 Common Writing Pitfalls to Avoid

Great writing is like a good conversation: it should be clear, engaging, and easy to follow. However, even experienced writers sometimes fall into habits that obstruct the reader’s experience. To help you sharpen your prose, let’s look at three common mistakes—run-on sentences, overlong anecdotes, and unnecessary Latin phrases—and how to fix them.


1. Ditch the Run-On Sentences

A run-on sentence happens when two or more independent clauses are joined improperly, often without the necessary punctuation or conjunctions. They force the reader to hold their breath until they hit a period, which kills the rhythm of your content.

What NOT to write:

“I went to the store to buy groceries for the party but they were closed so I had to go to the neighbor’s house to ask for some sugar and then I realized I forgot my wallet at home anyway.”

How to do it properly:

  • Use a period: “I went to the store to buy groceries for the party, but it was closed. I had to go to my neighbour’s house for sugar, only to realise I’d left my wallet at home.”
  • Use a semicolon: “The store was closed; consequently, I had to ask my neighbour for sugar.”

2. Stop Cramming Stories into One Sentence

New writers often try to pack an entire narrative arc—the setting, the conflict, and the resolution—into a single, breathless sentence. If a story requires more than one sentence to explain, give it the space it needs. Breaking your thoughts into multiple sentences allows the reader to digest the information one piece at a time.

What NOT to write:

“When I was hiking in the Rockies last summer, I saw a massive grizzly bear standing just a few yards away from the trail, and my heart started racing as I slowly backed away, hoping it wouldn’t notice me while I reached for my bear spray, and eventually, I made it back to safety without a scratch.”

How to do it properly:

“While hiking in the Rockies last summer, I saw a massive grizzly bear standing just yards from the trail. My heart raced as I slowly backed away, praying it wouldn’t notice me reaching for my bear spray. Thankfully, I made it back to the trailhead without a scratch.”


3. Avoid Obscure Latin Phrases

Using Latin phrases like ad hoc, post hoc, or quid pro quo can make your writing feel pretentious or exclusionary. Unless you are writing for an academic, legal or medical journal, your goal should be clarity. If a simple English word does the job, use it.

What NOT to write:

“We formed the committee ad hoc to handle the budget crisis, but their efforts were ipso facto doomed from the start.”

How to do it properly:

“We formed a temporary committee to handle the budget crisis, but their efforts were inherently doomed from the start.”

Note: If you feel a specific Latin phrase is essential, ensure it is widely understood (like “et cetera” or “per se”), but even then, using plain English is almost always the more professional choice.


The Takeaway

Good writing isn’t about how many complex structures you can cram into a paragraph; it’s about how much value you can provide to the reader with the least amount of friction.

Remember:

  1. Break up your clauses to avoid run-ons.
  2. Give your stories the breathing room of multiple sentences.
  3. Choose common English over dusty Latin.

Your readers will thank you for it!

…

365 Days of writing, 2026 – 177

Day 177 – Things to avoid

…

Write Like a Pro: 3 Common Writing Pitfalls to Avoid

Great writing is like a good conversation: it should be clear, engaging, and easy to follow. However, even experienced writers sometimes fall into habits that obstruct the reader’s experience. To help you sharpen your prose, let’s look at three common mistakes—run-on sentences, overlong anecdotes, and unnecessary Latin phrases—and how to fix them.


1. Ditch the Run-On Sentences

A run-on sentence happens when two or more independent clauses are joined improperly, often without the necessary punctuation or conjunctions. They force the reader to hold their breath until they hit a period, which kills the rhythm of your content.

What NOT to write:

“I went to the store to buy groceries for the party but they were closed so I had to go to the neighbor’s house to ask for some sugar and then I realized I forgot my wallet at home anyway.”

How to do it properly:

  • Use a period: “I went to the store to buy groceries for the party, but it was closed. I had to go to my neighbour’s house for sugar, only to realise I’d left my wallet at home.”
  • Use a semicolon: “The store was closed; consequently, I had to ask my neighbour for sugar.”

2. Stop Cramming Stories into One Sentence

New writers often try to pack an entire narrative arc—the setting, the conflict, and the resolution—into a single, breathless sentence. If a story requires more than one sentence to explain, give it the space it needs. Breaking your thoughts into multiple sentences allows the reader to digest the information one piece at a time.

What NOT to write:

“When I was hiking in the Rockies last summer, I saw a massive grizzly bear standing just a few yards away from the trail, and my heart started racing as I slowly backed away, hoping it wouldn’t notice me while I reached for my bear spray, and eventually, I made it back to safety without a scratch.”

How to do it properly:

“While hiking in the Rockies last summer, I saw a massive grizzly bear standing just yards from the trail. My heart raced as I slowly backed away, praying it wouldn’t notice me reaching for my bear spray. Thankfully, I made it back to the trailhead without a scratch.”


3. Avoid Obscure Latin Phrases

Using Latin phrases like ad hoc, post hoc, or quid pro quo can make your writing feel pretentious or exclusionary. Unless you are writing for an academic, legal or medical journal, your goal should be clarity. If a simple English word does the job, use it.

What NOT to write:

“We formed the committee ad hoc to handle the budget crisis, but their efforts were ipso facto doomed from the start.”

How to do it properly:

“We formed a temporary committee to handle the budget crisis, but their efforts were inherently doomed from the start.”

Note: If you feel a specific Latin phrase is essential, ensure it is widely understood (like “et cetera” or “per se”), but even then, using plain English is almost always the more professional choice.


The Takeaway

Good writing isn’t about how many complex structures you can cram into a paragraph; it’s about how much value you can provide to the reader with the least amount of friction.

Remember:

  1. Break up your clauses to avoid run-ons.
  2. Give your stories the breathing room of multiple sentences.
  3. Choose common English over dusty Latin.

Your readers will thank you for it!

…

“The Things we do for Love”, the story behind the story

This story has been ongoing since I was seventeen, and just to let you know, I’m 72 this year.

Yes, it’s taken a long time to get it done.

Why, you might ask.

Well, I never gave it much interest because I started writing it after a small incident when I was 17, and working as a book packer for a book distributor in Melbourne

At the end of my first year, at Christmas, the employer had a Christmas party, and that year, it was at a venue in St Kilda.

I wasn’t going to go because at that age, I was an ordinary boy who was very introverted and basically scared of his own shadow and terrified by girls.

Back then, I would cross the street to avoid them

Also, other members of the staff in the shipping department were rough and ready types who were not backwards in telling me what happened, and being naive, perhaps they knew I’d be either shocked or intrigued.

I was both adamant I wasn’t coming and then got roped in on a dare.

Damn!

So, back then, in the early 70s, people looked the other way when it came to drinking, and of course, Dutch courage always takes away the concerns, especially when normally you wouldn’t do half the stuff you wouldn’t in a million years

I made it to the end, not as drunk and stupid as I thought I might be, and St Kilda being a salacious place if you knew where to look, my new friends decided to give me a surprise.

It didn’t take long to realise these men were ‘men about town’ as they kept saying, and we went on an odyssey.  Yes, those backstreet brothels where one could, I was told, have anything they could imagine.

Let me tell you, large quantities of alcohol and imagination were a very bad mix.

So, the odyssey in ‘The things we do’ was based on that, and then the encounter with Diana. Well, let’s just say I learned a great deal about girls that night.

Firstly, not all girls are nasty and spiteful, which seemed to be the case whenever I met one. There was a way to approach, greet, talk to, and behave.

It was also true that I could have had anything I wanted, but I decided what was in my imagination could stay there.  She was amused that all I wanted was to talk, but it was my money, and I could spend it how I liked.

And like any 17-year-old naive fool, I fell in love with her and had all these foolish notions.  Months later, I went back, but she had moved on, to where no one was saying or knew.

Needless to say, I was heartbroken and had to get over that first loss, which, like any 17-year-old, was like the end of the world.

But it was the best hour I’d ever spent in my life and would remain so until I met the woman I have been married to for the last 48 years.

As Henry, he was in part based on a rebel, the son of rich parents who despised them and their wealth, and he used to regale anyone who would listen about how they had messed up his life

If only I’d come from such a background!

And yes, I was only a run away from climbing up the stairs to get on board a ship, acting as a purser.

I worked for a shipping company and they gave their junior staff members an opportunity to spend a year at sea working as a purser on a cargo ship that sailed between Melbourne, Sydney and Hobart in Australia.

One of the other junior staff members’ turn came, and I would visit him on board when he would tell me stories about life on board, the officers, the crew, and other events. These stories, which sounded incredible to someone so impressionable, were a delight to hear.

Alas, by that time, I had tired of office work and moved on to be a tradesman at the place where my father worked.

It proved to be the right move, as that is where I met my wife.  Diana had been right; love would find me when I least expected it.

…

lovecoverfinal1

What I learned about writing – A slice of life, or a slice of imagination?

The Feast of the Impossible: Why We Don’t Want a Slice of Life, But a Slice of the Imagination

There is a culinary term often used in creative circles: the “slice of life.” It refers to narratives that capture the ordinary, the mundane, the painfully relatable reality of human existence. It’s the story of the difficult commute, the awkward first date, the slow, inevitable march of rent payments and domestic chores.

And while critics and readers praise these narratives for their mirror-like accuracy, a growing chorus of us—the dreamers, the schemers, the creators—have started to push the plate away.

We are perfectly familiar with reality. We live in it every day. Why, then, should we dedicate our precious leisure time to consuming its reheated leftovers?

We are not interested in a slice of life; what we want is a slice of the imagination.


The Tyranny of the Mundane

The argument against the strict “slice of life” isn’t an argument against authenticity; it’s an argument against limitation.

Reality, for all its occasional beauty, is often characterised by bureaucratic ennui, disappointing physics, and a predictable set of social rules. The slice of life, at its most restrictive, holds us hostage to these limitations. It dictates that things must be believable, that characters must struggle with only the problems we currently possess, and that the scope of human experience must fit within the current legal code and the known laws of thermodynamics.

When we turn to art, literature, or media, we are not looking for confirmation that the world is exactly as depressing and limited as we suspected. We are looking for a lift.

We seek the moment of transcendence—the moment that allows us to step outside the constraints of our five senses and the 24-hour news cycle. The slice of life provides comfort in shared familiarity; the slice of the imagination offers freedom in glorious impossibility.

The True Taste of Imagination

What exactly is this “slice of the imagination”?

It is the narrative that begins not where the road ends, but where the road should have begun if we had been allowed to choose the construction materials ourselves.

It is the hidden history whispered by an exiled queen on a planet visible only through a telescope carved from ice. It is the intricate workings of a clockwork city powered by collective dreams. It is the raw, untamed emotion of a character whose heartbreak causes the actual atmosphere to fracture.

Imagination gives us narratives designed not to confirm the limits of our world, but to test the limits of our humanity under impossible pressures.

Why Imagination Is More Authentic Than Reality

Despite popular misconception, investing in the imaginative is often a deeper, more rigorous exploration of truth than merely documenting the real.

  • It isolates the core idea: If you want to explore the nature of sacrifice, you can write a story about a parent giving up a promotion for their child (a slice of life). Or, you can write about a space traveller forced to stop the flow of time at the exact moment their daughter smiles, knowing they will be trapped alone in that instant forever (a slice of imagination). The latter, while impossible, isolates and intensifies the emotional truth of sacrifice far more effectively.
  • It offers universal empathy: A narrative depicting the specific political struggles of 1980s Eastern Europe might struggle to resonate with a modern teenager in Sydney. However, a story about an oppressed people fighting a magically-enforced totalitarian regime (Fantasy) or resisting a hive-mind alien force (Sci-Fi) speaks directly to the universal human impulse for freedom, regardless of the historical moment.
  • It is the blueprint for the future: Every innovation, every breakthrough, every architectural marvel that defines our modern existence began as a “slice of the imagination.” The aeroplane, the smartphone, the idea of universal healthcare—all were once impossible concepts derided by those content with the current “slice of life.” To celebrate the imagination is to celebrate potential itself.

The Imperative of Invention

To choose imagination is not to choose childish escapism; it is to choose necessary fuel. We need stories built out of invented metal and arcane logic because they train our minds to accept the possibility of a world radically different from the one we inhabit.

The imagination is the muscle we use to solve problems we haven’t encountered yet.

It is the necessary ingredient for those who refuse to accept the status quo—the engineers, the artists, the social reformers, and the writers who believe that if Reality is flawed, the only ethical response is to invent something better.

So, the next time you sit down to read, watch, or create, allow yourself to look past the documentary style and the accurate mirroring of your weekly routine. Demand complexity. Demand strangeness. Demand dragons, ships that sail between dimensions, and philosophical conundrums posed by sentient black holes.

Take the slice of the imagination. It’s a messy, glorious, impossible meal, and it’s the only one that truly nourishes the soul.


What is the most important “impossible” story that changed your perspective on the world? Share your favourite slice of the imagination in the comments below!