365 Days of Writing, 2026 – 234/235

Days 234 and 235 – Writing Exercise

I was early.

Twenty minutes early.

A long time ago, it had been drummed into me that no one likes anyone who turns up late. 

For anything.

There were no excuses.

Except if you were dead.  My father was very adamant about reasons, and for him that was the only one that would work.

People, he said, had the capacity to understand the transportation network, and basic skills of reading a map, and coordinate the two.

He would have loved having the latest god devices that worked out your trip and told you when you would get there, factoring in the known delays.

I could have arrived five minutes before, but his warning always sat in the back of my mind.

Don’t be late.

It was a pity everyone else didn’t seem to care as much as I did, or saw getting somewhere early as a character fault.

Out of my past four first dates, three were late, and one just didn’t bother to come.  I was giving the app one more chance

My sister had created the profile and basically set me up.  I was not the person she portrayed me as: fun-loving and outgoing, the life of any party.

I didn’t go to parties.

It was not that I couldn’t survive at one; it was not that I could not converse with my contemporaries, or was just a feeling that I would be judged.

Mid-thirties, reasonably well off, a nice apartment, and a car that was oldish but reliable.  I had a library, I pretended I could write, and my day job was basically the same as heading exam papers, looking for insurance fraud in submitted policyholder claim documents.

At least my job was not boring.

Maybe some of the people I worked with were.  We were stashed away in a large room surrounded by reference books and boxes of documents.

The professor, the head of the department, the librarian, who could quote statutes and laws going back a thousand years, the headmistress, a woman of few words and a permanent scowl, the flibbety-gibbet, who spoke in riddles and Gen Z speak, deciphering the new abbreviated cell phone language, the maths teacher, all formulas and algorithms, and me.

I didn’t belong because I had no specialty other than I could see a plot line in a claim statement that could be the start, middle or end of a good story.  Some of those claimants would make the bestseller list if they ever wrote a book.

My sister Jen said I might meet a nice lady at work.

She was wrong.

She said I might meet an old flame at the high school reunion.  They were all happily or unhappily married.

She said if I put myself out there, something might happen.

It did.

I discovered all the good women were taken, or had sworn off men.  I didn’t blame them.  Of all men were like my older brother, just turned forty and married for a third time to a woman young enough to be himself daughter, then I agreed with them.

The waitress had given me time to pick something off the menu and came over.

“Nice carnation.”

She knew why I was there and was kind enough not to make it a subject.

“Seeing if it will look good on my coffin.”

She made a strange face.  “You’re not dying, surely.  Had a mom come in the other day; just got the bad news.  I don’t think I could cope with two in one week “

“Not dying.  Physically, anyway.  Coffee, your biggest mug.”

“Cake?”

“Maybe later, depending…”

She knew exactly what I meant.  She wasn’t old enough to have endured the gamut of world ills she probably saw every day in a cafe like this.

I looked around, a quick assessment of the clientele.

Shop assistants, drinks after work, discussing the worst customers.  They seemed to be the norm these days.  Clerks, weary, trying to pick themselves up before going home.  Star-crossed lovers in that early phase where love leaks out all over the place.  Men in managerial positions, drinking beer, all-knowing, and quite crude in their assessment of their female contemporaries, workers, some even disparaging their wives.  It was rush hour; those not in a hurry were trying to wash away another bad day.

If it was Friday, there would be a different mood, as if they were let off an invisible leash, only to fall into a different kind of malaise.

I wished I was not so interested in the office grapevine.  The mistakes were there, plain as day, and yet there were still people going down that same self-destructive path.

What did the professor call it: human nature.

My waitress, name tag Betty, delivered the coffee with a lopsided smile that would get less warm as the evening dragged on.  No job was worth the treatment she got, unless she needed the job.  There were no rings, so maybe she was not married, had no children or husband to go home to, only to look forward to another day in the snake pit.

Ten minutes to my swipe date.  I kept an eye on the front door, the table I was sitting at selected specially.  I had cased the cafe earlier in the week, much like a secret agent, knowing where the exits were if I had to leave in a hurry.

Two of the girls had not exactly used the most current photograph of themselves, for obvious reasons.  I had, hence the lack of matches; my photo did not match that fun-loving bio.  I looked like the bookworm I was.

I didn’t believe in deception.

A redhead, roll-neck sweater and leather coat, minimal make-up, unruly hair, smiling eyes.

I couldn’t be that lucky.

I wasn’t.

A blonde that was a brunette or perhaps both, with too much rouge and bright red lips.  Green and grey with yellow heels.  Smokes.  Please no.

Thank you, there is a God.

I knew hair colour and styles; my sister had used all of them, and was currently orange, though I was not sure it was because she had gone too far or it was actually a colour.

Her twin, colour-wise, just appeared, someone old enough to know better than to dress like a woman half her age, and it looked rather odd.  She had the confidence to pull it off, but her manner didn’t scream, looking for a steady relationship.

She was with six other girls who arrived before her, but she was clearly the leader of the pack.

And then there’s the one that takes your breath away.  The one that, twenty years later, when you can have a sensible conversation with a grandchild, you tell them, ‘she had me the moment she walked in the door’.

She was not my date.

She was my age, and not worn down by the vicissitudes of life, someone who took care of herself, dressed sensibly, and did not pretend to be something she was not. 

She scanned the cafe, and then smiled, a smile that would lighten even the darkest of rooms, and I envied the person she was meeting.  Jealous perhaps.

A girl, her daughter perhaps.  I sighed.

The exact time ticked over.  No likely candidate.

Yet.

The waitress hovered.  That world-weary look, before the service smile.

“Another?”

“Why not?”

I hoped she was on commission.  Perhaps a sizeable tip.

Sandy blonde with red tips, cut short, gym clothes over a fit body.  Fresh from or going to a workout.  She was lean, wiry, a five-mile run every morning before breakfast.

I could picture her with a large collie dog, all cuddly and lovable.  I don’t know how that image got in my head.  As much as I knew she was the one.

She was not late, not harassed, nor apologetic.  Comfortable with the five minutes either way.  So was I.

Our eyes met, and she smiled.  Relief?  Maybe she had the same luck I did with potential dates.  I stood, no handshakes or air hugs, just a greeting and sit.

“I prefer Josephine, rather than Jo.  People who abbreviate your name seem to always be in a hurry.”

“Francis.  My mother calls me Frank, my brother Frankenstein, and my father hey you, so any of the above will do.”

“Except…”

“The obvious, yes.”

The waitress returned.  “Betty.”

“Josephine.”

They knew each other.  “The usual?”

Josephine nodded.  I had the feeling this was a routine, and ‘the usual’ was a code.  Dump and run.

“If you have somewhere else to be, I’ll understand,” I said.  I’d rather be disappointed now than
prolong the agony.

She looked surprised.  “Why would you say that?”

“I’m very good at reading between the lines.”

“You don’t do this very often.”

“My sister decided I should put myself out there.  She wrote my biography.  I didn’t agree with it, but I didn’t change it.”

“How many?”

“You’re the fifth.  Three didn’t match the bio with the vision, and the fourth didn’t come.  You could have just kept going.”

“I could.  It was a thought.  But then I would not have got to talk to you.  The usual greeting I get is, babe, or some other loose endearment.  That’s about my limit, and then I leave.

“Well, I’m not in a hurry. I will definitely never call you babe; you can pick the subject, and we can talk.  Over coffee.  Betty is expecting me to have cake.”

“The apple pie is nice.”

“You come here often?”

“This is the fifth time for me too.  It’s the longest I’ve stayed.”

In between the small talk, I took a more guarded but studious look at someone who was not what one first thought of her.  Perhaps we see what we want to see, until we take a step back and see what there really is in front of us.

Betty came back with her coffee and two pieces of apple pie.

I looked at her.

“You’re an apple pie guy.  I can tell an apple pie guy when I see one.  We do a great thanksgiving Turkey dinner if you’re hungry.”

“I’ll keep it in mind.”

She smiled, perhaps a bright moment in an otherwise drudge day at the coalface.

“I guess we’d better get the awful stuff out of the way.  What would you like to know?” 

It sounded practical in a doomsday sort of manner.

I thought for a second, perhaps two, about which version of me I’d tell her about.  “I want to say I’m that fun-loving guy my sister thinks I am, but the awful thing called responsibility got in the way.  My friends, or perhaps more appropriately acquaintances, spend their evenings on drinks with the office types, boozy weekends camping or something outdoors, and get into local sports.

“They invite me to parties and find blind dates, but I can’t quite see the point of practical jokes, rough-and-tumble sport, or getting drunk.  My job is boring, but practical; I have a university degree that is and isn’t useful, I like reading, and visiting old parts of Europe.”

“You drink?”

“Beer, wine that’s better than the usual swill my so-called friends indulge in, and the fine dining that goes with it.  On occasion.  A night or two in a posh hotel sometimes makes a difference.”

“By yourself?”

“Mostly.  Sometimes I think I’ve found someone who might appreciate the same, but I’m not sure if I set too high a standard.”

“Then not a guy who expects sex on the first date?”

“Is that what you expect of me?”

“Three out of four so far.”

“Then I apologise for my brethren.  I assure you that is not on my list.  I’d like to get to know a woman a lot better before that becomes an issue.  Anything you’d like to tell me?”

“What were you expecting?”

“That’s a question, not an answer.”

“I can be annoying.”

“I can see that.  More?”

She nodded.

“You look like a morning run type.  Wearing your gym gear here tells me you are possibly pretentious, or you just worked out, though having pie, you might be going after this.”

“Pretentious, eh.  I haven’t been called that for a while.  Perhaps after, to take my frustrations out on a punching bag.  I like classical music, while luxuriating in a spa, drinking champagne.  Not rich enough to stay in posh hotels, and love Italian.  Can speak a few words too.”

I suspect more than a few.  She had some Italian heritage, perhaps a grandmother who came as an immigrant.

“You work in a museum?”

She reminded me of a girl I knew in University who was studying classical art.  It might also have something to do with a lanyard I saw her pushing into her bag as she sat down.

“Something like that.”

OK.  We’ll hang onto that thought and circle back.

I could see momentary indecision in her eyes, the sort that comes with making a choice: to stay or go.  Was it worth investing another five minutes?

“I don’t know how to assess you; you make it very hard to decide whether you are what I think you are, or you’re very good at playing a role.”

“Perhaps it’s simply a fault in my programming.  I told the alien masters that sent me to spy on earthlings not to make me stand out. Obviously they didn’t read the memo.”

She laughed, hopefully because she knew I was joking.

“That’s it, of course.”

If anything was going to send her packing, that would be it.

And then when you least expected it, something comes out of left field.  “You like dancing?  The real stuff, ballroom.”

“Arthur Murray’s twenty-one lessons to become a professional?”

“Twenty-one?  Not the whole of a misspent youth?”

“Had to save room for riding a horse so I could play polo.”

“Polo?”

“I only mastered the horse part.  And then just so I wouldn’t fall off.”

“Oh, I think you master everything you put your mind to.  I was going to give this five minutes.  You have surprised me.  I have an early morning tomorrow, but now I know where to find you; we must go dancing.  For now, you can walk me to the subway.”

It was almost a week before I heard from her again.  I had expected to hear from her after a few days; I had been suitably sent to ex right swipe land because her profile disappeared.

She had found a dance club, if it could be called that, where we could practise the dark arts.  Or the tango, whichever made sense at the time.

I was happy to agree, if not for the dancing but just to meet her again.  She had piqued my interest, but I was under no illusion that I was her perfect match.

I met her outside the building, those few minutes over, cool as a cucumber, and in elegant but free-flowing clothes that changed her whole demeanour.

I wondered if she realised just how intimate ballroom dancing was.  For me, it would be worrisome to be so close, and to be reliant upon someone I didn’t know.

Something else I was aware of, she was totally unaware of the effect she could have on people.  She had this ability to sweep people up into her aura.

Inside, she introduced me to Madamselle Dubois, the proprietor and head of the dance academy.  I had read about her umpteen times, world champion back in an era when dancing mattered.

She obviously knew Josephine could dance; she asked for a dance with me, and I did my best impression of a professional, having left one on my two left feet at home.

Adequate was the grade she gave me.

No time to argue; it was straight into the waltz.  Once I got over the closeness thing and because there were no varying height issues, it was easy to settle into a routine.

It was fun.

It was exhausting.

And strangely, it built trust.  It was as if she had discovered a way that separated the fools from the genuine contenders.  Not that I would say I was one yet.

But there were moments when I felt almost too comfortable, and had to realise this was not about me; it was about her, and I was not going to take advantage of an innocent situation.

We called this a second date. We both agreed, in the middle of attempting a tango, that nothing was going to happen.  Just to be with her was enough.  That part whereby you start ending each other’s sentences was a long way off.

Or so I thought.

We had a third date under the watchful eye of Betty the waitress.  Same time, same table, same coffee.

And, “So, how did the first date go?”

I smiled.  There had to be a few in the cafe, and she would recognise the signs.  Anxious, sweaty palms, indecisiveness.  All of the above.

“We danced.  The Waltz, and then the Tango.”

“Then it’s a case of when is the wedding and where is my invite?”

“It’s just a third date, nothing special.”

Betty’s expression told me she thought otherwise.

Josephine arrived early, and this time wearing business clothes.  They looked more expensive than mine.  I made a mental note that I would have to up my game if this was to continue.

“You’re looking very authoritative.”

“Executive camouflage, Francis.  It’s how I can hide in plain sight.”

Betty became over, saw her, and rolled her eyes.  Then, “The usual.”

Josephine nodded.

“Now.  I had been thinking.  You like posh hotels, and I like travelling on planes; perhaps we can combine the two.  I have a friend who works for an airline, so travelling in style.  You can pick the hotel.”

It was a step forward, together, in another city, in a hotel.  If I was reading the signals correctly, which for me would be a first.

“Anywhere in particular.”

“New York.  I want to go to the top of the Empire State Building, walk in Central Park, and have a pretzel and a hot dog, you know, from the street vendors.”

“Moma?”

“Of course.”

“Do I assume we get a suite or…”

She gave me a rather unfathomable expression, one that made me feel like I’d failed the test.  If it was a test.

“I think we might take that step, and see what happens.  I mean, it’s not something I’ve done before, because usually relationships don’t last that long.  The idea of it is quite salacious, don’t you think?”

The idea had far too many strings attached, and one of them could strangle me.

“I know just the place.  Not sure about the degree of salaciousness, but it has an in-house doctor in case I have a heart attack.”

She smiled, and there was a little wickedness in it.  I didn’t think that was her nature, but more that she was testing the waters.  Date four was not a suggestion that we move to a more interesting level, as much as it was a test, and getting a response.

What would be an appropriate response?

“I’ll send you the date.”

We flew business class, or what I perceived to be business.  Wider seats, better service, front of the plane, first off.  Josephine looked like she travelled only one class, dressed accordingly and fitted in.

I wore a suit, only because I was advised to, because some airlines looked down on the chinos and polo shirt with loafers type.  I was glad I did.

At JFK, I had ordered a limousine to take us to the Midtown Hilton on Sixth Avenue, so we had both the MoMA and Central Park within walking distance.

She was impressed by the limousine, which I had requested the driver take the scenic route, if there was one, then arriving at the hotel in style to be greeted by a special check-in clerk and escorted to our room, one of the Presidential King Suites.  I was a Platinum member with certain privileges

I wanted to make it special.

She was impressed, but not overly so, and I did wonder briefly if she was a rebellious billionaire’s daughter who’d seen it all and then some.

That it had a separate bedroom seemed excessive, but I thought, for two days, it would give her space if she wanted or needed it.  There was only one bed, but it was huge. 

I was still unsure of how the sleeping arrangements would work.  I had no expectation we would be doing anything other than sleeping, and I certainly would not be hinting or suggesting otherwise.

She sat on the end of the bed as I came out of the bathroom.  “Which side?”

“Either is OK.  You?”

“Right.  I sleep better lying on my left side.”

There was a knock on the door, and I went over.  Room service with champagne and canapés.  I had them once before on a previous stay.

“Now you are trying to impress me.”

The waitress popped the cork and poured the first two glasses, then quietly left us alone.

“I’m just doing what I would normally do when I go away for a weekend.  Dinner is at Quality Italian.  It’s not far from here.”

“You are spoiling me.”

“I just want you to be as happy as I feel.”

“Being here with me?”

“Especially being here with you.  It’s always better sharing an experience with someone else.”

She finished her first glass and poured herself another.  Did she need it for courage?  I didn’t think she was secretly an alcoholic, but perhaps a little nervous.  It was an odd sensation with someone I thought was bold and confident, more so than me.

She took a sip and put down her glass, and came over to where I was standing by the windows.  The view was breathtaking.

She slipped her hand in mine.  “Thank you.”

I turned to look at her.  She seemed totally relaxed.

“You’re welcome.”

She smiled.  “It’s the fourth date.  Do we talk about family now?  Seems a good fit with champagne and canapés.”

Of course, families were always a touchy subject and often the cause of catastrophic breakups.  Better to sink the ship now than later.

“Why not.”

Some time after I’d prepared for our dining experience, and Josephine had taken over the bathroom and turned it into a Hollywood make-up centre, she put her head out the doorway and asked for an opinion.

It was a sudden death moment.  I was appallingly bad at giving opinions.  My sister had long since learned never to ask my opinion.

I stood in the door and took in the vision before me.  There were no words other than stunning.  That was when my heart missed a beat.

What was fascinating was that she was totally unaware of the impact she made, still fussing over details.  It was never going to be about her making an impact; it would be everyone else around her.  It was going to be interesting when we walked into the restaurant.

But that wasn’t all that happened to me.  In one of those unguarded moments when hands touched and eyes met, and breathing stopped, there was only one conclusion.

We kissed.  Briefly.  Like old friends who greeted each other perfunctorily, and then forgotten, as if it was just routine.

We walked to the restaurant and turned heads.  We arrived, and half the establishment stopped, just to see who she was, and it felt like I would have heard a pin drop.

We ate Italian food she selected.  We drank San Giovese reds, and Italian dessert, and she said she had died and gone to heaven.

The maitre’d sent us back to the hotel in a cab.  Perhaps one too many glasses of wine.

Now was the tricky part.  Was she impaired? Would I have to make a decision, and knowing me, it would be the wrong one?  Was she relying on me to be the perfect gentleman?

I got inside the door and leaned against it.  She was not drunk, but just happy.  She did a swirl in the middle of the room and stopped, looking at me.

“I don’t bite.”

I didn’t want to ruin the moment, but I knew no matter what I did, I was going to.  My sister said it was because I overthought everything, that I could not just pick the simplest outcome and execute it.

She held out both her hands.  I closed my eyes, made a decision and went to her, taking her hands in mine.

“I had a lovely evening, Francis,”  I noted she never called me Frank.  “Everything was perfect.  Now, all you have to do is stop thinking.  I don’t want perfection.  I want someone who cares, and you do.  I can feel it.  I’m trying very hard not to fall in love with you, and it’s not working.”  A tear crept out from her left eye and slowly trickled downwards.

“You had me the moment we danced the waltz.  I’ve been trying so hard from that moment not to wreck it.”

“You won’t.  You can’t.  Just be you.  No one else.  You don’t have to be who you think I want you to be.  That’s been my problem for a long time, looking for something that doesn’t exist.”

I think we were all like that.  Until we saw the light, or didn’t. “Then what do we do now?”

“We close our eyes and make a wish.”

©  Charles Heath  2026

365 Days of writing, 2026 – Beyond the second novel

History and how to integrate it

Weaving Reality into Fiction: Should You Use Real History and Figures in Your Epic Book Series?

If you are currently staring at a blinking cursor, mapping out the architecture of an endless series of novels, you aren’t alone. Writing a multi-book saga is a monumental undertaking. You have to sustain character arcs, invent subplots that don’t feel like filler, and—most importantly—build a world that feels lived-in and real.

One of the most powerful tools in a long-form author’s arsenal is the integration of actual history, real-world locations, historical figures, and authentic organisations.

When working on an endless series, is it a good idea to anchor your fiction in factual reality? The short answer is: Yes, absolutely. But like any powerful narrative tool, it requires a delicate touch. Let’s explore why blending fact with fiction works so well, the pitfalls to avoid, and how to do it effectively to hook your readers for the long haul.


Why Real-World History Adds Authenticity to Long Series

When readers commit to a sprawling book series (think of George R.R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire or Bernard Cornwell’s The Saxon Stories), they are looking for immersion. They want to escape, but they also want the world to obey internal logic and historical weight. Here is why injecting real history helps:

1. It Provides a Built-In Foundation

Inventing a sociopolitical system, economic structure, and cultural norms from scratch for a massive universe is exhausting. By drawing inspiration from—or directly utilising—actual historical periods, you save mental bandwidth. Real history gives you tried-and-true templates for warfare, political intrigue, religious conflicts, and technological limitations.

2. It Instantly Grounds the Reader

If your characters walk down a muddy, cobblestone street in a fictionalised version of 17th-century London, mention a real tavern that existed at the time, or interact with a lesser-known historical diplomat, the world immediately snaps into focus. Real-world anchors allow readers to visualise the scene faster because they have cognitive shortcuts to draw from.

3. It Adds Gravitas and Stakes

Real history is messy, brutal, and unpredictable. When fictional characters collide with real historical events (like a devastating plague, a sudden coup, or the eruption of a volcano), the stakes instantly skyrocket. Readers know that in real life, not everyone survives, which adds genuine peril to your endless series.


How to Use Real Elements Without Turning Your Novel into a Textbook

The biggest danger of using real history, places, and people in fiction is infodumping. You’ve spent hours down a Wikipedia rabbit hole researching the 14th-century wool trade, and now you want to make sure your reader knows it.

Don’t.

Here are four golden rules for balancing fact and fiction in a long-running series:

Rule 1: Use Real Places as a Canvas, Not a Blueprint

Whether you are writing urban fantasy, historical fiction, or sci-fi set on Earth, treat real locations as mood boards. If you are setting scenes in an actual cathedral or a specific street, focus on sensory details—the chill of the stone, the smell of coal smoke, the echo of footsteps—rather than giving a geographical lecture.

Rule 2: Bend Historical Figures to Fit Your Narrative Arc

When introducing real individuals, remember that you are writing a story, not a biography. If a real-world general needs to arrive a week early to fit your plot’s pacing, or if a monarch needs to display a personality trait that drives your protagonist crazy, take creative liberties. Just make sure the core essence of the historical figure remains recognisable if they are well-known.

Rule 3: Leverage Real Organizations for Conflict

Secret societies, trade guilds, religious orders, and military units that actually existed (or closely mirror historical ones) add instant legitimacy to your world. When your characters go up against a bureaucracy modelled after the Roman Senate or a merchant guild modelled after the Hanseatic League, the conflict feels sophisticated and institutional, rather than cartoonish.

Rule 4: Leave Room for the Unknown

History is full of gaps, lost artifacts, and unsolved mysteries. This is a fiction writer’s playground. Take a real historical anomaly—the Voynich manuscript, the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower, or Roanoke Colony—and build your fictional mythology into the historical blind spots.


The Secret Weapon for Endless Series: Continuity

If you are writing a long series, continuity is your greatest challenge. One of the hidden benefits of using real history, geography, and organisations is that history doesn’t change.

If you invent a purely fictional political system across ten books, you run the risk of contradicting yourself regarding laws, geography, or cultural customs. But if you tether your world to real-world historical constraints (e.g., how fast a horse can travel in the winter of 1240, or the actual political friction between the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor), reality does half of the world-building heavy lifting for you. You have a built-in encyclopedia that your readers might already be familiar with!


Final Verdict: Strike the Balance

Blending actual history, real individuals, and authentic organisations into an endless series of novels is a masterclass in world-building. It rewards curious readers, grounds fantastical or sprawling plots, and lends an undeniable weight of authenticity to your pages.

Just remember: You are writing a story, not a history lesson. Use the facts as stepping stones to spark your imagination, not as chains that restrict your creativity. When history and imagination collide on the page, that’s where the real magic happens.


Are you currently working on a long book series? Do you prefer total invention or historical grounding? Let us know your thoughts and writing struggles in the comments below!

365 Days of writing, 2026 – Beyond the second novel

History and how to integrate it

Weaving Reality into Fiction: Should You Use Real History and Figures in Your Epic Book Series?

If you are currently staring at a blinking cursor, mapping out the architecture of an endless series of novels, you aren’t alone. Writing a multi-book saga is a monumental undertaking. You have to sustain character arcs, invent subplots that don’t feel like filler, and—most importantly—build a world that feels lived-in and real.

One of the most powerful tools in a long-form author’s arsenal is the integration of actual history, real-world locations, historical figures, and authentic organisations.

When working on an endless series, is it a good idea to anchor your fiction in factual reality? The short answer is: Yes, absolutely. But like any powerful narrative tool, it requires a delicate touch. Let’s explore why blending fact with fiction works so well, the pitfalls to avoid, and how to do it effectively to hook your readers for the long haul.


Why Real-World History Adds Authenticity to Long Series

When readers commit to a sprawling book series (think of George R.R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire or Bernard Cornwell’s The Saxon Stories), they are looking for immersion. They want to escape, but they also want the world to obey internal logic and historical weight. Here is why injecting real history helps:

1. It Provides a Built-In Foundation

Inventing a sociopolitical system, economic structure, and cultural norms from scratch for a massive universe is exhausting. By drawing inspiration from—or directly utilising—actual historical periods, you save mental bandwidth. Real history gives you tried-and-true templates for warfare, political intrigue, religious conflicts, and technological limitations.

2. It Instantly Grounds the Reader

If your characters walk down a muddy, cobblestone street in a fictionalised version of 17th-century London, mention a real tavern that existed at the time, or interact with a lesser-known historical diplomat, the world immediately snaps into focus. Real-world anchors allow readers to visualise the scene faster because they have cognitive shortcuts to draw from.

3. It Adds Gravitas and Stakes

Real history is messy, brutal, and unpredictable. When fictional characters collide with real historical events (like a devastating plague, a sudden coup, or the eruption of a volcano), the stakes instantly skyrocket. Readers know that in real life, not everyone survives, which adds genuine peril to your endless series.


How to Use Real Elements Without Turning Your Novel into a Textbook

The biggest danger of using real history, places, and people in fiction is infodumping. You’ve spent hours down a Wikipedia rabbit hole researching the 14th-century wool trade, and now you want to make sure your reader knows it.

Don’t.

Here are four golden rules for balancing fact and fiction in a long-running series:

Rule 1: Use Real Places as a Canvas, Not a Blueprint

Whether you are writing urban fantasy, historical fiction, or sci-fi set on Earth, treat real locations as mood boards. If you are setting scenes in an actual cathedral or a specific street, focus on sensory details—the chill of the stone, the smell of coal smoke, the echo of footsteps—rather than giving a geographical lecture.

Rule 2: Bend Historical Figures to Fit Your Narrative Arc

When introducing real individuals, remember that you are writing a story, not a biography. If a real-world general needs to arrive a week early to fit your plot’s pacing, or if a monarch needs to display a personality trait that drives your protagonist crazy, take creative liberties. Just make sure the core essence of the historical figure remains recognisable if they are well-known.

Rule 3: Leverage Real Organizations for Conflict

Secret societies, trade guilds, religious orders, and military units that actually existed (or closely mirror historical ones) add instant legitimacy to your world. When your characters go up against a bureaucracy modelled after the Roman Senate or a merchant guild modelled after the Hanseatic League, the conflict feels sophisticated and institutional, rather than cartoonish.

Rule 4: Leave Room for the Unknown

History is full of gaps, lost artifacts, and unsolved mysteries. This is a fiction writer’s playground. Take a real historical anomaly—the Voynich manuscript, the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower, or Roanoke Colony—and build your fictional mythology into the historical blind spots.


The Secret Weapon for Endless Series: Continuity

If you are writing a long series, continuity is your greatest challenge. One of the hidden benefits of using real history, geography, and organisations is that history doesn’t change.

If you invent a purely fictional political system across ten books, you run the risk of contradicting yourself regarding laws, geography, or cultural customs. But if you tether your world to real-world historical constraints (e.g., how fast a horse can travel in the winter of 1240, or the actual political friction between the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor), reality does half of the world-building heavy lifting for you. You have a built-in encyclopedia that your readers might already be familiar with!


Final Verdict: Strike the Balance

Blending actual history, real individuals, and authentic organisations into an endless series of novels is a masterclass in world-building. It rewards curious readers, grounds fantastical or sprawling plots, and lends an undeniable weight of authenticity to your pages.

Just remember: You are writing a story, not a history lesson. Use the facts as stepping stones to spark your imagination, not as chains that restrict your creativity. When history and imagination collide on the page, that’s where the real magic happens.


Are you currently working on a long book series? Do you prefer total invention or historical grounding? Let us know your thoughts and writing struggles in the comments below!

365 Days of Writing, 2026 – 233

Day 233 – Brevity in writing

The Goldilocks Dilemma in Content Creation: How to Find Your Readers’ Sweet Spot

Let’s be honest: in the digital age, attention is the world’s most valuable currency.

Every time someone opens a browser, scrolls through social media, or checks their email inbox, they are bombarded with thousands of competing messages. Videos auto-play, notifications ping, and headlines scream for a fraction of a second of their day.

For writers, bloggers, and marketers, grabbing the reader’s attention is only half the battle. Keeping it is where the real war is fought.

This brings us to the eternal debate of the digital writing world: brevity. We are constantly told to keep it short, keep it punchy, and cut the fluff. But in our quest to be concise, are we starving our readers of the depth they actually crave? Is there a line where “short” turns into “shallow,” and “long” turns into “boring”?

Let’s explore the Goldilocks dilemma of content length—how to know what is too much, what is not enough, and how to keep your readers hooked right down to the final period.


The Death of the Attention Span (And Why It’s a Myth)

You’ve probably heard the statistic a dozen times: Humans now have an attention span of 8 seconds—shorter than a goldfish.

It’s a great soundbite, but it’s largely a myth. People don’t have inherently shorter attention spans today; rather, they have higher standards for what deserves their attention.

If a reader clicks on your article and immediately bounces back to Google, it’s rarely because the piece was too long. More often, it’s because the introduction was sluggish, the formatting was a wall of text, or the content failed to deliver on the promise of the headline.

When a reader is genuinely engaged, they will happily spend 10, 15, or 20 minutes reading a deeply reported, comprehensive piece. Conversely, if content is unengaging, even a 300-word blog post will feel like an eternity.

The goal isn’t necessarily to make your writing short. The goal is to make it effortless to consume.


When Is It “Not Enough”? (The Danger of Under-Delivering)

In the rush to respect the reader’s time, many creators swing too far in the direction of brevity. They strip away nuance, context, and personality, leaving behind a skeletal shell of information.

This is what we call the Wikipedia trap or thin content.

When your content isn’t enough, you run into three major problems:

  1. You sacrifice value: If a reader can find the exact same surface-level information in the first three results of a Google search, you haven’t given them a reason to stay.
  2. You lose authority: Short, superficial answers rarely build trust. Readers want to know why something is true, not just what is true. Depth demonstrates expertise.
  3. The “Unsatisfied Bounce”: Have you ever clicked an article, scrolled through a few vague paragraphs, and realised you learned absolutely nothing new? It’s frustrating. When content is not enough, it leaves the reader feeling cheated out of their time.

The Rule for Minimum Viable Length: Your piece should be only as long as it takes to completely solve the reader’s problem, answer their question, or deliver an emotional payoff. If you leave loose ends, you haven’t written enough.


When Is It “Too Much”? (The Danger of the Digital Dump)

On the flip side, we’ve all encountered the bloated blog post. You know the ones: 5,000 words of meandering prose that could easily have been summarised in 500 words.

Writers often fall into this trap for the wrong reasons—trying to hit arbitrary SEO word counts, over-explaining simple concepts, or simply falling in love with the sound of their own typing.

When your content is too much, the symptoms are glaring:

  • Fluff and padding: Using three adjectives where one would do; repeating the same point in different ways just to extend the paragraph.
  • Buried leads: Making the reader wade through a 500-word personal anecdote about your weekend before getting to the actual topic they searched for.
  • Cognitive overload: Hitting the reader with so much data, jargon, and unstructured thoughts that their brain simply shuts down.

Remember the cardinal rule of editing, famously attributed to writer Elmore Leonard (via Anton Chekhov): “Leave out the parts that readers skip.”

If a paragraph doesn’t move the narrative forward, answer a pressing question, or add distinct value, mercilessly cut it.


Finding the Sweet Spot: How to Keep Readers Hooked

So, how do you find the magical middle ground where length ceases to matter and engagement takes over? It comes down to a blend of structural psychology and empathetic writing.

1. Hook ‘Em Fast, Then Feed Them

Your introduction is the handshake. Make it firm, welcoming, and clear. Tell the reader immediately what they are going to get out of the piece. Once you’ve made that promise, dive straight into the substance without unnecessary throat-clearing.

2. Design for the Skimmer (Visual Rhythm)

Here’s a dirty little secret of the internet: People don’t read online—they scan.

Even the most dedicated readers use their eyes to preview a page before committing. If they see a massive, unbroken block of text, flight instincts kick in.

  • Use short paragraphs (1–3 sentences).
  • Utilise bold text for key takeaways.
  • Break up monotony with bullet points and numbered lists.
  • Include subheadings that act as signposts along the reader’s journey.

By creating visual rhythm, you make a long article feel short and manageable.

3. Match Length to Intent

Content length should always be dictated by the user’s intent.

  • If someone wants to know the current weather, a 2,000-word essay on meteorology is too much.
  • If someone wants to learn how to build a retirement portfolio from scratch, a 300-word summary is not enough.

Always ask yourself: What does the reader need to walk away with to feel satisfied? Give them exactly that, packaged as cleanly as possible.


The Bottom Line

Writing isn’t about hitting an arbitrary word count; it’s about choreography. It’s about taking a reader by the hand and leading them on a journey from point A to point B without losing them in the weeds or rushing them off the path.

Forget the obsession with being short. Forget the anxiety of needing to be long.

Instead, focus on being clear, valuable, and engaging. If you do that, your readers won’t care how long your article is—they’ll just be glad they stayed until the end.


What’s your take? Do you prefer bite-sized reads, or do you love sinking your teeth into long-form deep dives? Let’s discuss in the comments below!

365 Days of Writing, 2026 – 233

Day 233 – Brevity in writing

The Goldilocks Dilemma in Content Creation: How to Find Your Readers’ Sweet Spot

Let’s be honest: in the digital age, attention is the world’s most valuable currency.

Every time someone opens a browser, scrolls through social media, or checks their email inbox, they are bombarded with thousands of competing messages. Videos auto-play, notifications ping, and headlines scream for a fraction of a second of their day.

For writers, bloggers, and marketers, grabbing the reader’s attention is only half the battle. Keeping it is where the real war is fought.

This brings us to the eternal debate of the digital writing world: brevity. We are constantly told to keep it short, keep it punchy, and cut the fluff. But in our quest to be concise, are we starving our readers of the depth they actually crave? Is there a line where “short” turns into “shallow,” and “long” turns into “boring”?

Let’s explore the Goldilocks dilemma of content length—how to know what is too much, what is not enough, and how to keep your readers hooked right down to the final period.


The Death of the Attention Span (And Why It’s a Myth)

You’ve probably heard the statistic a dozen times: Humans now have an attention span of 8 seconds—shorter than a goldfish.

It’s a great soundbite, but it’s largely a myth. People don’t have inherently shorter attention spans today; rather, they have higher standards for what deserves their attention.

If a reader clicks on your article and immediately bounces back to Google, it’s rarely because the piece was too long. More often, it’s because the introduction was sluggish, the formatting was a wall of text, or the content failed to deliver on the promise of the headline.

When a reader is genuinely engaged, they will happily spend 10, 15, or 20 minutes reading a deeply reported, comprehensive piece. Conversely, if content is unengaging, even a 300-word blog post will feel like an eternity.

The goal isn’t necessarily to make your writing short. The goal is to make it effortless to consume.


When Is It “Not Enough”? (The Danger of Under-Delivering)

In the rush to respect the reader’s time, many creators swing too far in the direction of brevity. They strip away nuance, context, and personality, leaving behind a skeletal shell of information.

This is what we call the Wikipedia trap or thin content.

When your content isn’t enough, you run into three major problems:

  1. You sacrifice value: If a reader can find the exact same surface-level information in the first three results of a Google search, you haven’t given them a reason to stay.
  2. You lose authority: Short, superficial answers rarely build trust. Readers want to know why something is true, not just what is true. Depth demonstrates expertise.
  3. The “Unsatisfied Bounce”: Have you ever clicked an article, scrolled through a few vague paragraphs, and realised you learned absolutely nothing new? It’s frustrating. When content is not enough, it leaves the reader feeling cheated out of their time.

The Rule for Minimum Viable Length: Your piece should be only as long as it takes to completely solve the reader’s problem, answer their question, or deliver an emotional payoff. If you leave loose ends, you haven’t written enough.


When Is It “Too Much”? (The Danger of the Digital Dump)

On the flip side, we’ve all encountered the bloated blog post. You know the ones: 5,000 words of meandering prose that could easily have been summarised in 500 words.

Writers often fall into this trap for the wrong reasons—trying to hit arbitrary SEO word counts, over-explaining simple concepts, or simply falling in love with the sound of their own typing.

When your content is too much, the symptoms are glaring:

  • Fluff and padding: Using three adjectives where one would do; repeating the same point in different ways just to extend the paragraph.
  • Buried leads: Making the reader wade through a 500-word personal anecdote about your weekend before getting to the actual topic they searched for.
  • Cognitive overload: Hitting the reader with so much data, jargon, and unstructured thoughts that their brain simply shuts down.

Remember the cardinal rule of editing, famously attributed to writer Elmore Leonard (via Anton Chekhov): “Leave out the parts that readers skip.”

If a paragraph doesn’t move the narrative forward, answer a pressing question, or add distinct value, mercilessly cut it.


Finding the Sweet Spot: How to Keep Readers Hooked

So, how do you find the magical middle ground where length ceases to matter and engagement takes over? It comes down to a blend of structural psychology and empathetic writing.

1. Hook ‘Em Fast, Then Feed Them

Your introduction is the handshake. Make it firm, welcoming, and clear. Tell the reader immediately what they are going to get out of the piece. Once you’ve made that promise, dive straight into the substance without unnecessary throat-clearing.

2. Design for the Skimmer (Visual Rhythm)

Here’s a dirty little secret of the internet: People don’t read online—they scan.

Even the most dedicated readers use their eyes to preview a page before committing. If they see a massive, unbroken block of text, flight instincts kick in.

  • Use short paragraphs (1–3 sentences).
  • Utilise bold text for key takeaways.
  • Break up monotony with bullet points and numbered lists.
  • Include subheadings that act as signposts along the reader’s journey.

By creating visual rhythm, you make a long article feel short and manageable.

3. Match Length to Intent

Content length should always be dictated by the user’s intent.

  • If someone wants to know the current weather, a 2,000-word essay on meteorology is too much.
  • If someone wants to learn how to build a retirement portfolio from scratch, a 300-word summary is not enough.

Always ask yourself: What does the reader need to walk away with to feel satisfied? Give them exactly that, packaged as cleanly as possible.


The Bottom Line

Writing isn’t about hitting an arbitrary word count; it’s about choreography. It’s about taking a reader by the hand and leading them on a journey from point A to point B without losing them in the weeds or rushing them off the path.

Forget the obsession with being short. Forget the anxiety of needing to be long.

Instead, focus on being clear, valuable, and engaging. If you do that, your readers won’t care how long your article is—they’ll just be glad they stayed until the end.


What’s your take? Do you prefer bite-sized reads, or do you love sinking your teeth into long-form deep dives? Let’s discuss in the comments below!

The 2am Rant: It’s market day…

These donuts are whole, with jam injected into them and are delicious.  You cannot stop at one, which is why you get five.

They are like the donuts I used to get from the Dandenong market when I was a child.  Back then, nearly 60 years ago, I used to go every Tuesday to get fruit and vegetables, and sometimes clothes, because there were other stalls selling useful household items.

Back then we used to get donuts, and for a long time, I had never managed to get back when the market was open to relive those childhood memories.

This trip we do.

The Dandenong Market had changed considerably since the last time I remember it.  The building where my eldest son used to play basketball has been turned into a market for meat, fish, and food stalls.

It has grown to be about ten times the size it used to be, making it seem like a difficult task to find the donut van, but we entered by the right entrance, and there it was.

And the donuts?

They were exactly as I remembered.

While we’re in the area, we also made a trip to the Springvale market.  When I lived in Victoria, there was no such market; this had only been around since the immigrant Vietnamese have made their home in Springvale, and in places, it reminds you of similar markets in Singapore, Hong Kong, or China.

It was a fascinating half-hour of wandering around, almost feeling like you are somewhere in Southeast Asia.

With markets like these, who would really need a supermarket?  And a bonus?  The street food.

365 Days of Writing, 2026 – 232

Day 232 – The Hollywood writer mentality

“I’m a Hollywood Writer, So I Put on My Sports Jacket and Take Off My Brain”: Deconstructing Ben Hecht’s Ultimate Industry Satire


“I’m a Hollywood writer, so I put on my sports jacket and take off my brain.”

If you’ve ever spent more than forty-eight hours in a writers’ room, felt the soul-crushing despair of a studio note that asks you to “make the protagonist more likable while also making them entirely unhinged,” or watched a masterpiece get sliced into digital confetti by a focus group, that quote hits you right in the solar plexus.

It is sharp, cynical, hilarious, and dripping with the kind of world-weary exhaustion that only a true veteran of the studio system could muster.

The man behind the quip? Ben Hecht.

Often called the “Shakespeare of Hollywood,” Hecht was a legendary screenwriter, playwright, and journalist who helped shape the Golden Age of cinema. He won the very first Academy Award for Best Original Story (for 1927’s Underworld), wrote or co-wrote stone-cold classics like His Girl FridayScarface, and Notorious, and quietly doctored dozens of scripts without credit (including polishing Gone with the Wind).

Yet, despite his immense success and undeniable genius, Hecht maintained a notoriously love-hate relationship with the motion picture industry. His famous sports jacket quote is more than just a snappy punchline; it is a profound commentary on the commodification of art, the absurdity of the studio system, and the psychological armour required to survive as a creative in Tinseltown.

Let’s unpack what Hecht meant, why it still resonates today, and what modern writers can learn from his cynical wisdom.


The Uniform of Compromise: What the Sports Jacket Represents

To understand Hecht’s joke, you have to look at the visual language of Hollywood.

In Hecht’s era—and largely still today—the film industry was a place of stark contrasts. On one side stood the suits: the studio moguls, the producers, and the executives who viewed movies not as high art, but as an assembly-line manufacturing process. On the other side stood the artists: the directors, actors, and writers who often viewed themselves as tortured visionaries.

By joking that he puts on a “sports jacket”—traditionally a casual, slightly corporate, uniform-of-convenience piece of menswear—to “take off his brain,” Hecht is performing a brilliant piece of psychological self-defense.

He is acknowledging the transactional nature of his work. A sports jacket says, “I’m professional enough to take your money, but I’m detached enough not to break my heart when you ruin my scene.”

Putting on the jacket is the physical ritual of putting on the work persona. It is the moment the artist steps out of the realm of pure imagination and enters the boardroom, where imagination is often treated as a liability rather than an asset.


Why Hollywood Demands You “Take Off Your Brain”

Why would a Pulitzer-winning, brilliantly gifted wordsmith feel the need to check his brain at the studio gate?

Because commercial filmmaking—at its worst—is hostile to genuine intellect and originality. Hecht understood a fundamental truth of the studio system: executives rarely want a thinker; they want an obedient problem-solver.

When Hecht implies he takes off his brain, he’s pointing out several classic industry traps:

  1. The Homogenization of Art: Studio notes have a way of filing down the sharp edges of a story until it fits neatly into a demographic-friendly box. If you keep your brain fully engaged, you’ll fight for every nuanced character beat. If you take your brain off, you just nod, smile, and change the third act so the dog doesn’t die.
  2. The Illusion of Effort: In Hollywood, there is often an inverse relationship between how hard you think and how happy the studio is. If you overcomplicate a plot with deep thematic resonance, the executives get confused. And confused executives give terrible notes.
  3. Self-Preservation: Caring too much in Hollywood is a fast track to an ulcer. Hecht was prolific because he treated screenwriting with a certain professional detachment. He knew that pouring your entire soul into a 120-page document only to have a 24-year-old development executive say, “Can we add a talking animal?” is a recipe for madness.

Ben Hecht: The Ultimate Hollywood Mercenary

To truly appreciate the quote, you have to look at Hecht’s paradoxical career.

Hecht was no hack. He was a literary titan. Before moving to Hollywood, he was a star reporter for the Chicago Daily News and a novelist whose books were banned for being too racy. He co-wrote The Front Page, one of the greatest stage comedies about journalism ever produced.

Yet, Hecht had no romantic illusions about the movies. He once famously said of Hollywood: “It’s a place where people die of nostalgia for a place they never were.”

He went to Hollywood explicitly for the money. He famously knocked out scripts with terrifying speed, paid off his debts, bought a luxurious lifestyle, and funded his political activism (including working tirelessly behind the scenes to rescue European Jews during the Holocaust).

Hecht’s sports jacket quote encapsulates his mercenary philosophy. He viewed screenwriting as a trade—a very lucrative, highly entertaining trade, but a trade nonetheless. He kept his “real” brain—his literary soul—reserved for his novels, plays, and journalism, while happily taking studio checks to punch up gangster flicks and screwball comedies.


The Modern Relevance: Does the Sports Jacket Still Fit?

Nearly a century after Hecht’s heyday, his cynical wisdom is more relevant than ever.

Today’s writers face an even more algorithm-driven landscape. Writers’ rooms are increasingly corporatised, IP (Intellectual Property) is king, and “brand synergy” often trumps narrative logic.

If you talk to working writers in streaming or franchise-heavy feature films today, they will tell you that Hecht’s ritual is alive and well. It might not be a literal sports jacket—today, it might be slipping on a pair of noise-cancelling headphones before a Zoom call with twenty executives, or adopting a cheerful tone of voice while secretly plotting how to subtly sneak your thematic message past the censors.

Wearing the metaphorical sports jacket today means learning how to separate your identity from your output. It means realising that a corporate note telling you to “add more action to the first ten minutes” isn’t a personal indictment of your artistic integrity; it’s just the weather in Los Angeles.


How to Wear the Jacket Without Losing Your Mind

Is Hecht’s quote a counsel of despair? Not necessarily. In fact, for modern creatives, it can be deeply liberating.

Here is how you can channel the spirit of Ben Hecht without selling out completely:

  • Protect Your “Real” Brain: Like Hecht, keep a creative sanctuary for yourself. Write the indie script, pen the personal essay, paint the canvas, or build the passion project where no studio notes can reach you.
  • Treat It Like a Job (Because It Is): When you put on your professional hat, remember that commercial writing is a collaborative, service-oriented art form. Sometimes, you just need to write the car chase, collect the check, and go home.
  • Cultivate Professional Detachment: Don’t fall in love with your first draft—or your fifth. Be willing to kill your darlings before an executive does it for you with a chainsaw.
  • Keep Your Sense of Humour: Hollywood is inherently ridiculous. If you can’t laugh at the absurdity of a notes meeting where three people debate the emotional arc of a CGI raccoon, you won’t survive the town.

Final Thoughts

Ben Hecht’s quip about the sports jacket and the brain is ultimately a survival manual disguised as a punchline. It reminds us that navigating the commercial art world requires a delicate balance: enough professional savvy to play the game, and enough self-awareness not to let the game consume your soul.

So, the next time you log on to a painfully corporate notes call, or stare blankly at a feedback document that asks you to “change the genre from thriller to romantic comedy by tomorrow morning,” just smile, zip up your metaphorical sports jacket, and remember the words of the great Ben Hecht.

Just keep your real brain safe where they can’t touch it.


What’s the most absurd studio note or feedback you’ve ever received? How do you protect your creative soul while working in commercial media? Let’s talk about it in the comments below!

365 Days of Writing, 2026 – 232

Day 232 – The Hollywood writer mentality

“I’m a Hollywood Writer, So I Put on My Sports Jacket and Take Off My Brain”: Deconstructing Ben Hecht’s Ultimate Industry Satire


“I’m a Hollywood writer, so I put on my sports jacket and take off my brain.”

If you’ve ever spent more than forty-eight hours in a writers’ room, felt the soul-crushing despair of a studio note that asks you to “make the protagonist more likable while also making them entirely unhinged,” or watched a masterpiece get sliced into digital confetti by a focus group, that quote hits you right in the solar plexus.

It is sharp, cynical, hilarious, and dripping with the kind of world-weary exhaustion that only a true veteran of the studio system could muster.

The man behind the quip? Ben Hecht.

Often called the “Shakespeare of Hollywood,” Hecht was a legendary screenwriter, playwright, and journalist who helped shape the Golden Age of cinema. He won the very first Academy Award for Best Original Story (for 1927’s Underworld), wrote or co-wrote stone-cold classics like His Girl FridayScarface, and Notorious, and quietly doctored dozens of scripts without credit (including polishing Gone with the Wind).

Yet, despite his immense success and undeniable genius, Hecht maintained a notoriously love-hate relationship with the motion picture industry. His famous sports jacket quote is more than just a snappy punchline; it is a profound commentary on the commodification of art, the absurdity of the studio system, and the psychological armour required to survive as a creative in Tinseltown.

Let’s unpack what Hecht meant, why it still resonates today, and what modern writers can learn from his cynical wisdom.


The Uniform of Compromise: What the Sports Jacket Represents

To understand Hecht’s joke, you have to look at the visual language of Hollywood.

In Hecht’s era—and largely still today—the film industry was a place of stark contrasts. On one side stood the suits: the studio moguls, the producers, and the executives who viewed movies not as high art, but as an assembly-line manufacturing process. On the other side stood the artists: the directors, actors, and writers who often viewed themselves as tortured visionaries.

By joking that he puts on a “sports jacket”—traditionally a casual, slightly corporate, uniform-of-convenience piece of menswear—to “take off his brain,” Hecht is performing a brilliant piece of psychological self-defense.

He is acknowledging the transactional nature of his work. A sports jacket says, “I’m professional enough to take your money, but I’m detached enough not to break my heart when you ruin my scene.”

Putting on the jacket is the physical ritual of putting on the work persona. It is the moment the artist steps out of the realm of pure imagination and enters the boardroom, where imagination is often treated as a liability rather than an asset.


Why Hollywood Demands You “Take Off Your Brain”

Why would a Pulitzer-winning, brilliantly gifted wordsmith feel the need to check his brain at the studio gate?

Because commercial filmmaking—at its worst—is hostile to genuine intellect and originality. Hecht understood a fundamental truth of the studio system: executives rarely want a thinker; they want an obedient problem-solver.

When Hecht implies he takes off his brain, he’s pointing out several classic industry traps:

  1. The Homogenization of Art: Studio notes have a way of filing down the sharp edges of a story until it fits neatly into a demographic-friendly box. If you keep your brain fully engaged, you’ll fight for every nuanced character beat. If you take your brain off, you just nod, smile, and change the third act so the dog doesn’t die.
  2. The Illusion of Effort: In Hollywood, there is often an inverse relationship between how hard you think and how happy the studio is. If you overcomplicate a plot with deep thematic resonance, the executives get confused. And confused executives give terrible notes.
  3. Self-Preservation: Caring too much in Hollywood is a fast track to an ulcer. Hecht was prolific because he treated screenwriting with a certain professional detachment. He knew that pouring your entire soul into a 120-page document only to have a 24-year-old development executive say, “Can we add a talking animal?” is a recipe for madness.

Ben Hecht: The Ultimate Hollywood Mercenary

To truly appreciate the quote, you have to look at Hecht’s paradoxical career.

Hecht was no hack. He was a literary titan. Before moving to Hollywood, he was a star reporter for the Chicago Daily News and a novelist whose books were banned for being too racy. He co-wrote The Front Page, one of the greatest stage comedies about journalism ever produced.

Yet, Hecht had no romantic illusions about the movies. He once famously said of Hollywood: “It’s a place where people die of nostalgia for a place they never were.”

He went to Hollywood explicitly for the money. He famously knocked out scripts with terrifying speed, paid off his debts, bought a luxurious lifestyle, and funded his political activism (including working tirelessly behind the scenes to rescue European Jews during the Holocaust).

Hecht’s sports jacket quote encapsulates his mercenary philosophy. He viewed screenwriting as a trade—a very lucrative, highly entertaining trade, but a trade nonetheless. He kept his “real” brain—his literary soul—reserved for his novels, plays, and journalism, while happily taking studio checks to punch up gangster flicks and screwball comedies.


The Modern Relevance: Does the Sports Jacket Still Fit?

Nearly a century after Hecht’s heyday, his cynical wisdom is more relevant than ever.

Today’s writers face an even more algorithm-driven landscape. Writers’ rooms are increasingly corporatised, IP (Intellectual Property) is king, and “brand synergy” often trumps narrative logic.

If you talk to working writers in streaming or franchise-heavy feature films today, they will tell you that Hecht’s ritual is alive and well. It might not be a literal sports jacket—today, it might be slipping on a pair of noise-cancelling headphones before a Zoom call with twenty executives, or adopting a cheerful tone of voice while secretly plotting how to subtly sneak your thematic message past the censors.

Wearing the metaphorical sports jacket today means learning how to separate your identity from your output. It means realising that a corporate note telling you to “add more action to the first ten minutes” isn’t a personal indictment of your artistic integrity; it’s just the weather in Los Angeles.


How to Wear the Jacket Without Losing Your Mind

Is Hecht’s quote a counsel of despair? Not necessarily. In fact, for modern creatives, it can be deeply liberating.

Here is how you can channel the spirit of Ben Hecht without selling out completely:

  • Protect Your “Real” Brain: Like Hecht, keep a creative sanctuary for yourself. Write the indie script, pen the personal essay, paint the canvas, or build the passion project where no studio notes can reach you.
  • Treat It Like a Job (Because It Is): When you put on your professional hat, remember that commercial writing is a collaborative, service-oriented art form. Sometimes, you just need to write the car chase, collect the check, and go home.
  • Cultivate Professional Detachment: Don’t fall in love with your first draft—or your fifth. Be willing to kill your darlings before an executive does it for you with a chainsaw.
  • Keep Your Sense of Humour: Hollywood is inherently ridiculous. If you can’t laugh at the absurdity of a notes meeting where three people debate the emotional arc of a CGI raccoon, you won’t survive the town.

Final Thoughts

Ben Hecht’s quip about the sports jacket and the brain is ultimately a survival manual disguised as a punchline. It reminds us that navigating the commercial art world requires a delicate balance: enough professional savvy to play the game, and enough self-awareness not to let the game consume your soul.

So, the next time you log on to a painfully corporate notes call, or stare blankly at a feedback document that asks you to “change the genre from thriller to romantic comedy by tomorrow morning,” just smile, zip up your metaphorical sports jacket, and remember the words of the great Ben Hecht.

Just keep your real brain safe where they can’t touch it.


What’s the most absurd studio note or feedback you’ve ever received? How do you protect your creative soul while working in commercial media? Let’s talk about it in the comments below!

The 2am Rant: How about this for a plotline?

No matter how hard you try, how seamless, on paper the plan is, the odds are something will go wrong. That is not to say I am a fatalist, or a glass half empty kind of traveler, because most of the trips I have planned, and taken, have been relatively painless.

Except our good luck had to finally run out.

It was not a matter of bad planning; it was just one of those times when events didn’t quite go according to plan. It happens.

For instance, the simple objective was to get from Brisbane in Australia to Florence in Italy. There is no direct flight. Booking on an airline site is a horrendous experience, fares are ridiculously high, and there is no accommodating stopovers.

This is a trip that only a travel agent can handle.

The objective, travel to London via Hong Kong, or Singapore, or any medium distant airport, then on to London, or Paris, or where-ever, then to Florence. No overnight stopover, staying in a hotel, not this time, in either of Hong Kong or London.

Simple.

Not.

It was as horrendous for the agent as it was navigating the airline’s internet site. It was not something that could be done, sitting opposite her as she deftly navigated the highways and byways of the travel system on her computer. This was a longer, more intricate job.

Two days later she had the solution for the Brisbane, Hong Kong, London, and thence Florence trip. It would require a stay of 10 hours in Hong Kong, the connections didn’t align according to price constraints, and then a 14 hour layover in London as flights to Florence were not aligned either. All well and good. Cathay Pacific for the trip to London and Vueling Airlines for the Florence leg. At least we would arrive in Florence at a reasonable hour, about 6pm.

On paper, it was the most practical solution in the circumstances.

Reality proved it to be something else entirely.

At Brisbane airport, we were given boarding passes for the flights through to London, but by some quirk of fate had our baggage checked through to Florence. How this could be done without boarding passes for the London to Florence flight was a surprise. Back in Brisbane, the check-in person told us she could not give us a boarding pass for the London to Florence leg because the system would not issue it. We could she said, get it easy enough when we arrived in London.

The first leg went smoothly enough, though we did not realize until we got on the plane that it stopped over in Cairns for an hour or so. This was not a problem, just made the time between Brisbane and Hong Kong longer than we anticipated.

In Hong Kong, we had no trouble getting into the lounge I’d booked. The problem came with the interpretation of using the bathroom facilities, and it took several hours before we finally realized that the bathroom facilities were not part of the lounge but operated independently and you had to book your place. By that time there were a large number of people ahead of us (who obviously knew the problems associated with these facilities) and it annoyed me that the lounge staff did not mention it when we arrived.

The Hong Kong to London leg was as all long haul flights are. We knew what to expect, and arrived in London around 6 am. We arrived at terminal three and the lounge we’d booked was in terminal three. All we needed was a boarding pass to get in.

Oops.

That was not the case.

Because we could not get back into terminal three without a forward boarding pass we had to exit and go through customs and immigration. We were told that the only way to get a boarding pass for the Florence flight was to go to the airline counter.

The problem was Vueling did not have an airline counter.

This is where tempers started to flare. 7:30 in the morning, no means of getting into the lounge which we had paid a lot on money for, and no one in the terminal being helpful.

The Vueling web site was impossible to use.

The telephone number rang out.

At this point, I was beginning to believe the airline didn’t exist and we had been ripped off.

Only by a quirk of fate, reading the departures board, did I see a flight for Vueling leaving at 10 am, with the check-in counter displayed.

By this time we had spent two very frustrating hours and I was nothing short of angry.
At the gate, the head of the check-in counter, a representative of Vueling was surprised we had any problems, particularly in Brisbane, but happily issued the boarding passes.

When we mentioned the baggage she advised us it was lucky we did, otherwise it would have gone missing. She took the tag numbers and sorted that problem out.

The airline, it seems, is well respected, and based on the service I received, I had to say I agreed

The problem was back in Brisbane with an inexperienced check in person.

There was only one problem in getting to the lounge, now four hours later than we had advised, the fact we had to go back through customs, and in doing so, the duty-free that we had brought from Hong Kong was now outside the limits allowed, and the customs staff were adamant despite the circumstances we could not take it with us. $400 worth of goods finished up in the bin.

It would be true to say that day the customs staff at Heathrow were not the best ambassadors for their country, and one, in particular, would be best doing service elsewhere where human contact was not a requirement. As for the others, they were as helpful as they could be, but rules unfortunately were rules.

At last, rather distressed over the duty-free, and the lateness of our arrival at the lounge, there was no possibility of getting a short sleep before going to Florence. At least we did not have the same problems using the bathroom facilities, our room I’d book had them included in the room.

We rested, and figured nothing else could go wrong.

Not. Again!

The plane was advertised to leave London at about 3 pm. We left the lounge expecting to get to the gate on time. We checked on the departure board for the flight to get the gate number, only to see a notice ‘delayed’. When that delay passed 5 pm, two hours later, we decided to go to the counter and find out what was happening.

Only to find there was no airline counter. Again!

We asked at least a dozen people, including the special helpers the airport who there is plenty of signage to say to go to if you have a problem, but not one of them knew where the counter was or who was looking after the affairs of the airline. By this time other irate passengers of the delayed flight were massing, also seeking answers. One discovered who the agent was, and we descended on the counter as a large group.

The first person I saw at the counter was the woman who had checked us in that morning. For her, it had been a long day, and it was getting longer.

The problem, the plane had been delayed on an earlier leg, yes it would be arriving, having just left the lat airport, and we would be embarking about 7:30. For our trouble, we got a meal voucher, and at least we could have a reasonably good dinner.

The plane arrived, we embarked, the service was good and the people on board as cheerful as they could be given the delays and the discontented passengers.

We arrived in Florence just before midnight, our driver to take us to the hotel was waiting for us, and the hotel upgraded us to a very nice room.

All in all a harrowing journey, but at the end, basically a six-hour delay, and two very tired, but happy people. And we were in Florence, in summer. What more could anyone want?

365 Days of Writing, 2026 – 231

Day 231 – Writing in the first person

The Power of “I”: Unlocking the Advantages of the First-Person Novel

When you crack open a novel and the very first word you read is “I,” an unspoken social contract is formed between you and the narrator. You aren’t just an observer looking down from a cloud; you are strapped directly into the passenger seat of someone else’s mind.

First-person point of view (POV) is one of the most intimate and enduring tools in a writer’s arsenal. From classic masterpieces like The Catcher in the Rye and Jane Eyre to modern psychological thrillers like Gone Girl, the “I” narrator has the power to grip readers and refuse to let go.

If you’re an aspiring author trying to decide which POV to use, or a passionate reader wondering why certain books feel so visceral, understanding the advantages of the first-person novel is essential.

Let’s dive deep into the unique strengths of the first-person perspective and why it continues to dominate bestseller lists.


1. Unmatched Intimacy and Emotional Resonance

The single greatest advantage of the first-person novel is proximity. In first-person, there is no filter between the character’s internal emotional landscape and the reader.

  • Direct Access to Thoughts: We don’t just see characters cry; we hear the frantic, self-deprecating, or hopeful loops playing in their heads as they wipe away the tears.
  • Instant Empathy: Even if a narrator makes terrible choices, experiencing their motivations, fears, and heartbreaks firsthand makes them deeply human. We understand why they do what they do, even if we don’t agree with it.

This level of intimacy creates a profound bond. Readers often finish a great first-person novel feeling like they have just said goodbye to a real-life friend.

2. A Distinct, Unforgettable Voice

In a crowded literary marketplace, voice is everything. First-person narrative allows authors to showcase a character’s unique personality not just through their actions, but through how they speak and think.

Think of Holden Caulfield’s cynical, slang-heavy cadence in The Catcher in the Rye, or Humbert Humbert’s hyper-articulate, manipulative prose in Lolita. The narrator’s voice becomes the music of the book.

  • Rhythm and Diction: A weary detective, a sarcastic teenager, and a medieval peasant will all describe a rainy Tuesday differently. First-person forces the writing to be utterly specific to that character’s worldview, elevating the prose and making the storytelling infinitely more textured.

3. The Power of the Unreliable Narrator

One of the most thrilling narrative devices available in fiction is the unreliable narrator—and it only truly works in the first person.

Because we are locked inside one character’s perspective, we are vulnerable to their biases, blind spots, delusions, or outright lies.

  • Building Suspense: When a narrator is convinced of something that the reader slowly realises is false, the tension skyrockets.
  • The “Aha!” Moment: Twists hit harder in first-person because the reader has been actively complicit in believing the narrator’s deception. Think of Gillian Flynn’s Gone Girl, where Nick and Amy Dunne’s conflicting first-person accounts keep readers guessing until the very end.

4. Heightened Suspense and Stakes

When the protagonist is the one telling the story, a very specific rule applies: They survived long enough to tell the tale.

While this might seem like a spoiler (we know the protagonist doesn’t die in chapter three), it actually heightens suspense in clever ways.

  • The “How” Over the “If”: Instead of wondering if the character will survive, the reader wonders how they possibly escaped the nightmare they are currently describing.
  • Subjective Danger: Because we only know what the narrator knows, we are ambushed by plot twists right alongside them. If they can’t see the killer sneaking up behind them in the dark, neither can we.

5. Built-In Focus and Streamlined Pacing

Third-person multi-POV novels can sometimes suffer from narrative bloat as authors jump between five different subplots across different continents. First-person acts as a natural anchor.

  • Laser-Focused Narrative: Everything in a first-person novel filters through the protagonist’s experiences. If they aren’t there to witness it, it doesn’t happen (unless they hear about it secondhand). This keeps the plot tight, fast-paced, and intensely focused on the core conflict.
  • Character-Driven Plots: First-person naturally prioritises internal growth and psychological transformation over sprawling world-building, making it the go-to choice for character-driven stories.

Potential Pitfalls to Keep in Mind

While the advantages are powerful, writing in the first person comes with unique challenges:

  • The “Head-Hopping” Restriction: You cannot show scenes where the protagonist is absent.
  • The “I-Ego” Problem: If your narrator is too passive, whiny, or unlikable without being fascinating, readers will drop the book fast.
  • Information Limits: It can be difficult to naturally reveal things the narrator wouldn’t reasonably know.

However, in the hands of a skilled writer, these limitations often force creative solutions that make the story even stronger.


Conclusion: Is First-Person Right for Your Next Read—or Your Next Book?

The first-person novel is more than just a stylistic choice; it is an immersive experience. It transforms reading from a passive activity into a deeply empathetic, psychological journey. Whether you are looking to get lost in a complex character study, unravel a twisty mystery, or feel the raw electricity of a unique literary voice, the “I” narrator delivers like no other POV can.

Are you a writer planning your next project, or a reader with a favourite first-person novel? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!