Creating Composite Characters in Fiction

1–2 minutes

I’m still editing Needle’s Edge. It’s biographical fiction. Think of those movies that open with based on true events or some such, save for the Coen Brothers.

This book is about prostitutes and the drug culture around the Philadelphia-adjacent area, PA, DE, NJ, and MD, circa 2016 to 2023, give or take. It primarily follows one woman in particular. I call her Sarah, one of those change the names to protect the innocent sorts of things.

Although renamed, Sarah is real. The events are real. But I also consider other renamed sex workers, particularly Alice, Amanda, Ashley, and some whose names even start with other letters.

Read the entire article on Substack.

Back Again

I haven’t substantially written any fiction since September 2025, as I’ve been focusing more on philosophy. I documented much of this on my Substack. Interestingly or otherwise, ChatGPT Work was running in the background, and it prompted a reminder that formed a question: Would you like help organising an approach to finish Needle’s Edge? – something I hadn’t touched since 22 September last year. I ignored it for a few days, thinking that I may have inadvertently done something. And then I clicked it.

In essence, it read: I can help you to create an action plan and manage your schedule – things like this. I’ve been considering reengaging with this book for the entire time, but I wanted to publish some philosophical material, and can’t really do both because each requires its own headspace. And then one project became another, each feeling more important than fiction. It still feels this way, but I’ve got a half dozen fiction books in process and at least as many unfinished philosophical manuscripts. Such is the life of a writer. In fact, such is life – c’est la vie.

I’ll leave this here, but I expect to not only share my writing process, but to articulate the backstory for this particular novel – half a decade in the works.

NB: I asked Gemini to generate the cover image based on a recent photo of me cast as an author writing a manuscript with pen and paper. This is the result. I’m not sure why it’s given me a sports coat, as I was wearing a tracksuit at the time, per usual. Whatevs. Otherwise, it’s pretty me-ish.

Psychic Distance

I was too clever by half. I am drafting a new project, likely to be a novella, and I wanted to try something different.

Before Claude dashed my hopes, I thought I was onto something novel. The working title is Two Kings. The device was to employ a camera-dolly metaphor from a third-person perspective. Distant scenes were captured even in a casual past tense, whilst close shots would be intimate, in the immediate present tense.

I imagined framing, focus, aperture, and focal length. Is it a wide establishing shot or macrophotography?

As I discovered, this technique was published in The Art of Fiction: Notes on Craft for Young Writers by John Gardner in 1991. In summary, it looks something like this:

LevelDescriptionTypical effect
FarHistorical, panoramic, formal, report-likeScope, authority, irony, myth, social structure
Medium-farCharacter viewed from outside, with some interpretationSocial legibility, behavioural reading
MediumCharacter’s feelings or attitudes stated plainlyOrdinary narrative access
CloseCharacter’s perceptions, assumptions, and pressure shape the proseImmediacy, sympathy, tension
Very closeSyntax and imagery approach thought, sensation, or psychic ruptureEmbodiment, panic, desire, shame, dissociation, revelation

I don’t wish to overshare his book, but this is the essence. I have since read the book and will incorporate some of it, including this, in this manuscript.

On Close Reading – The Godfather Notebook

When I engage with fiction, I don’t tend to do close reads. I reserve these for academic nonfiction works. I was intrigued when I came across a post on Francis Ford Coppola’s notes on The Godfather, a book he eventually scripted and shot as director. The notes are published in The Godfather Notebook.

Obviously, Coppola had a reason to close-read or deep-read, but who among us annotates fiction quite like this? To be honest, I don’t even markup my own manuscripts this heavily. Do you?

I don’t want to comment much past sharing the technique. Open these thumbnails for more details.

NB: I don’t have the book myself. I obtained these images from the Amazon.com product page.

There Is No Anti-Memetics Division: An Impression by Ridley Park

I’ve recorded an impression – a sort of review – for There Is No Anti-Memetics Division by QNTM.

Video: There Is No Anti-Memetics Division: An Impression by Ridley Park

I’ll allow the content to speak for itself. tl;dr? I like it.

Audio-Video: Also on Spotify.

Working with an Editor

1–2 minutes

Working with an editor shouldn’t be scary. Unless, of course, you frighten easily.

Let’s begin with the great paranoia of writers everywhere: They’ll steal my idea! Relax. No one’s skulking through the shadows waiting to pinch your half-finished manuscript about a misunderstood vampire who paints feelings. Ideas are cheap. They rain down like confetti. The reason every other book or film feels vaguely familiar isn’t because everyone’s plagiarising everyone else; it’s because there are only so many ways to dress the same skeleton. Your story’s clothing — the style, the voice, the rhythm — that’s what matters.

And honestly, ask yourself if your idea is really so revolutionary. Probably not. I sometimes test mine on an AI just to see if the collective hive mind has already beaten me to it. Usually it has. I just tilt it differently. Star Wars? A Western in space. Lucas literally invited Joseph Campbell over to discuss myth templates, then sprinkled some lasers on top. Nothing wrong with that — unless you start believing it’s unique.

Now, what does an editor actually do? They read your work and offer feedback. When that happens, you’ve basically got three choices:

I. Ignore it. Maybe the suggestion feels wrong. Good. Trust that feeling. Nothing’s worse than bowing to authority and regretting it later. Imagine the post-publication chorus: Why on earth did you do that? — and your only defence is, Well, my editor said so. Pathetic. Give twelve editors the same chapter, you’ll get twelve different answers. Writing has rules, yes — but most are decorative.

II. Accept it. Hit ‘Accept all revisions’. Voilà — you’re suddenly brilliant. It’s tidy, efficient, and possibly catastrophic.

III. Consider it. The middle ground. Let the note spark something else entirely. Maybe they’re wrong about what to fix but right that something’s off.

Some advice will be structural, some grammatical. Both are optional. I, for one, commit grammatical heresy whenever my characters open their mouths. People don’t speak like Oxford dons; they stumble, repeat, and misuse words spectacularly. Editors sometimes flag this as ‘awkward’. I call it ‘human’. Grammar is for dissertations. Dialogue is for life.

On Accidental Kinship and the Limits of Originality

I don’t read sci-fi. It rarely resonates with me. I’ve read many classics, but I don’t get the hype. As a speculative fiction author, I sometimes operate in an adjacent space – close enough to borrow a few ideas, but never quite belonging. I’m not interested in fetishising technology or celebrating so-called human ingenuity. But if an idea serves the story? I’ll use it.

One concept I wanted to explore: the definition of life itself, and what sentience means when we can barely define it for ourselves.

Not long ago, I began working on a story: some people leave Earth to inhabit another planet in a different solar system. Nothing revolutionary there. They land on what appears to be an uninhabited world – uninhabited, that is, by our current definition of life. Instead, the planet itself is alive. Not in the Gaia hypothesis sense of interconnected ecosystems, but truly interactive. Responsive. Alien in ways that challenge every assumption about consciousness.

Of course, there are more details – dual suns in a figure-eight orbit, shifting gravity, time that expands and contracts, organisms that defy classification. But those are mechanics. The heart of the story is simpler: what happens when survival requires abandoning the frameworks that made you human?

As is my protocol, I fed my manuscript into AI and asked: is this idea unique? If not, what’s it similar to? Who am I adjacent to?

I got names. Titles. Books and films. Most had superficial similarities but different intents. Then one stood out: Solaris, Stanisław Lem’s 1961 novel. I hadn’t read it, so I got a copy.

There were so many commonalities it felt like discovery and defeat in equal measure.

Lem wrote Solaris before humans had meaningfully left Earth’s atmosphere. Published in 1961, it predated material space exploration by years. On October 4, 1957, the Soviets launched Sputnik 1 – the first artificial satellite. Four years later, Yuri Gagarin became the first human to orbit Earth, his flight lasting just 108 minutes. The first American in space, Alan Shepard, flew in 1961. John Glenn orbited in 1962.

Lem imagined a sentient ocean on an alien world orbiting twin suns before we’d even confirmed planets existed beyond our solar system. His protagonist grapples with a consciousness so alien that communication may be impossible – not because of language barriers, but because shared reference points don’t exist.

In some ways, Solaris also shares DNA with Jeff VanderMeer’s Annihilation – that same sense of an environment that isn’t hostile so much as indifferent, operating by rules humans can barely perceive, let alone comprehend. But where VanderMeer leans into existential dread, Lem’s tone is colder, more philosophical. Less visceral horror, more intellectual vertigo.

My story, working title: Goldilocks, sits somewhere between them. It has Lem’s alien sentience and dual-sun orbital mechanics. It has VanderMeer’s gradual unravelling of human perception and sanity. But it also has something neither quite touches: the brutal intimacy of being the last of your species, seeking warmth in a universe that offers none.

So is my idea original? Not entirely. Does that matter? I’m not sure anymore.

Lem wrote his novel sixty years ago, before we’d touched the moon, before we knew what exoplanets looked like, before we’d meaningfully begun asking whether consciousness requires a brain. He imagined sentience beyond human comprehension – and did it so thoroughly that anyone following feels like they’re retracing his steps.

But perhaps that’s the point. Originality isn’t about being first. It’s about what you do with inherited ideas – how you refract them through your own obsessions, anxieties, and questions.

Lem asked: can we ever truly know an alien intelligence?

VanderMeer asked: what happens when the environment rewrites you?

I’m asking: what does it mean to be human when humanity itself is ending?

Maybe that’s enough distance. Maybe it’s not. Either way, the story exists now – half-written, haunted by its predecessors, searching for its own voice in the silence between stars.

The Veneer of Human Exceptionalism in Art

Robotic La Joconde

I don’t want to develop a reputation as an AI apologist – I really don’t. But I do want to strip away the veneer humans so lovingly lacquer over themselves: the idea that art is some mystical emanation of a “soul,” accessible only to those blessed by the Muse and willing to suffer nobly in a garret.

Video: YouTube Short by Jonny Thompson of his interview with Rachel Barr

Rachel Barr argues that AI art can never be the same as human art, no matter how “perfect,” because AI has no feelings or drive. Cue the violins. These arguments always seem to hinge on metaphysical window-dressing. When Rachel says “we”, she’s not talking about humanity at large; she’s talking about herself and a very particular subset of humans who identify as artists. And when she invokes “masters”, the circle shrinks still further, to the cloistered guild who’ve anointed themselves the keepers of aesthetic legitimacy.

But here’s the bit they’d rather you didn’t notice: feelings and drive aren’t prerequisites for art. They’re just one of the many myths humans tell about art, usually the most flattering one. Strip away the Romantic varnish and art is often craft, habit, accident, repetition. A compulsive tic in oil paint. A mistake on the guitar that somehow worked. A poet bashing words together until something sticks.

And I say this not as a detached observer but as a writer, artist, and musician in my own right. I sympathise with the instinct to defend one’s turf, but I don’t need to steep myself in hubris to retain self-worth. My work stands or falls on its own. It doesn’t require a metaphysical monopoly.

So when someone insists AI art can never be “the same,” what they mean is it doesn’t flatter our myths. Because if an algorithm can spit out a perfect sonnet or an exquisite image without the tortured soul attached, then what have we been worshipping all this time? The art itself, or the halo around the artist?

Perhaps the real fear isn’t that AI art lacks feelings. It’s that human art doesn’t require them either. And that’s a blow to the species ego – an ego already so fragile it cracks if you so much as ask whether the Mona Lisa is just paint on a board.

Needle’s Edge: Pregnancy Continuity

As per my recent post, I need a sanity break. I’ve been editing Needle’s Edge all day. Each time I hit a milestone, I consider drafting a blog post, but then I choose to persist. Not this time.

I’ve been untangling the spaghetti of a misplaced – or rather, overextended – pregnancy. It had stretched on for too long, so I weeded out contradictory events. Some of these had dependencies, so I relocated or eliminated them to preserve flow.

In the process, I re-oriented her conception date and reset any foreshadowing that tied into it. To keep myself honest, I started tracking her progress in the manuscript with markers: <p=X>. With each time-specific event, I increment X.

So far, I’ve reviewed 24 sequential scenes, not counting the half-dozen relocated ones I had to rework just enough to maintain continuity. This leaves the protagonist at 29 weeks. That also meant pruning irrelevant references, for instance, cutting any mention of pregnancy before it even began.

Being a typical human pregnancy, my target is 38 to 40 weeks. That leaves me with another 10-odd weeks to rummage through. Once I’ve untangled the draft, I still need to return for line edits, colour, and shape.

Editing is often pitched as polishing, but sometimes it’s surgery. Today, I’ve been elbows-deep in the operating theatre.

Focus Matters

This is as much a reminder for me as a PSA. Time is the most limited resource you’ve got.

Consider your goals, and plan accordingly. Not everyone has concrete goals. As writers, we likely do. Finish that sentence, that page, that chapter, that draft, those edits, that book…

There’s social media – that’s this place – video games, partying, family and mates, eating and sleeping. Whatevs.

And don’t forget to take care of your mental health.

You may have many goals – or just one or two. Consider opportunity costs.

This blog post is distracting me from my editing. Still, I want to share. maybe it will help you.

Perspective is key.

Define your goals. Prioritise them. Make it happen.

Go away now!