Writing the Thieves Guild

One of the questions I get every so often is “How can you produce not just one, but three audio dramas on a weekly schedule?” The short answer is that I’m cheating, but I don’t want to be glib, so I figured I’d provide a bit more detail.

I say I cheat because two of the current audio dramas–Artifacts of the Arcane & Thursday–are being fairly strictly adapted from already existing novels. They aren’t cut and paste adaptations, but it’s close. All I have to do is remove dialogue tags and adapt to small things that are really only applicable to prose. That doesn’t take much time, so there’s not much writing involved.

That’s not the case for The Thieves Guild. I finished adapting my existing work from the first two novels over four months ago. Ever since then I’ve been writing each episode every week. It’s a pretty strict schedule. I didn’t skip a week when my daughter got married in November, and I didn’t skip a week for Christmas or New Year’s. So, in a lot of ways, it’s just embracing the habit of writing.

The habit looks like this: On Tuesday or Wednesday I go over the past four to six episodes and which characters were the focused points-of-view. Generally speaking, I’ll choose the character who has had the longest wait for an update to their story and write about them. I don’t always do this. For example, this week I added a new point-of-view character. Also, sometimes I combine two characters in a single episode. I also did that this week. But, generally speaking, I’ll see which character is owed a story, and I write about them.

The next part of the process is pretty simple and one that terrifies some writers: With a Thursday deadline, I spend time on Tuesday and Wednesday thinking over what the episode will cover. That’s right: There is no outline for the Thieves Guild, and there is no specific medium-term plotting. In writing terms, we call this “pantsing,” as in “writing from the seat of your pants.”

To dig into that a little bit more: I do have some broad ideas on where I want to go, but that is informed by the on-the-spot decisions I’ve made over time. For example, right now I know what is going to happen with the politics of Ness. I know which characters are going to fall into which role. But I have no idea what is going to happen with the other cities, and I don’t know what role that Ralan will play long-term once things settle down in Ness.

And that leads me into the actual writing: I write the full episode, which is usually 1,500 to 2,000 words, on Wednesday night and Thursday morning. It is not difficult because, as I noted, I have an idea of where the scene will go but not what is happening in the scene. So the writing is actually quite fun. It’s like I’m actually reading a story that I’m interested in.

Once the story is written, it goes off to production, and I put the story aside, not thinking of it again until the next week.

A few things make this work for me:

The first is that I spent many years writing a 2,000 word column with a weekly deadline. So the idea of filling that much text in a week is something I have plenty of experience and comfort in.

The second is that I write fairly fast and fairly precise. I usually have an episode written in two or three hours. After that there is not much editing that needs to be done. Sometimes (oddly enough, like this week’s episode), I’ll be producing the audio and I’ll have a brainstorm about how the scene could go better. I’ll then rewrite it on the fly while in production. This is not unlike how some productions go in Hollywood, actually.

Finally, I’m one of those writers that can context switch easily. I can move from “domestic chore brain” or “work brain” to “writing brain” fairly easily.

A question I get rarely but I still get asked is how I’m able to create such a complex narrative, with different people plotting with different goals and with minor things from episode 2 suddenly showing up in episode 60. The answer is a bit of a cop out: It just seems to work. I can’t really explain it. Much of it is serendipity. For example, there is a major bombshell coming in the story. I’m hinting at it now, as the idea hit me a couple episodes ago, and when the bombshell drops everyone will say, “That makes so much sense! All the hints were there from the beginning! What an exquisite job Jake did plotting this!”

Not really. What I saw were a bunch of disconnected things that worked in the moment that I was able to stitch together into this cohesive story component that somehow works perfectly with all the things going on around it. There are examples throughout the series. Pietro’s books are the best example. They were a small setting detail to add ambience to Pietro’s basement quarters, but many episodes later they became much more. Rogers’ defense of the Pit was meant to just create some action, but it will turn out to be a major part of his story. And Rogers himself is a great example: He was a bit character that I didn’t intend to focus on for more than a short section of the series, but now he’s a major character.

And I think that kind of explains the whole process for me: I write the series like the listeners experience it. I discover new things. I let the story take me where it will. And I really enjoy finding little surprises.

My Dissonance With Social Media

One of the things that I constantly struggle with is that my usage of social media seems radically different than most other people. Generally speaking, I join a social network to interact with my friends and, in some instances, friends of friends. I’m not really interested in anything else. This is admittedly not at all normal.

When Bluesky launched I joined and followed a few people that I know. I expanded that list as more people I knew joined the platform. When I went to read posts on Bluesky I stuck to a custom feed called “OnlyPosts,” which showed only posts (no re-posts or “reskeets”) from people I followed. Today I use the “Following” feed, which is essentially the same thing… people that I follow. I don’t really follow people I don’t know, and I don’t subscribe to any other feeds.

This “friends-only” approach is the same way I used to use Facebook, only I was much more stringent with my friend choices. At the point I left Facebook, I had 117 friends, and I used to joke that it was 100 too many. On the content side, all my posts were set to private or “friends-only.”

On various forums and groups I’m part of things like “starter packs” and follow lists are used enthusiastically by people, and it is so alien to me. Why would I follow people that I don’t know? That sounds overwhelming and alien to me. And if the list is about a subject I’m interested in, why not just go to a forum or Reddit? Those are robust areas of finding discussions about an interest.

So, as I noted, my approach to social media is not normal. I get that. And I certainly don’t mean to imply it’s better or a more healthy way to embrace social media. In fact, it’s decidedly less social. But I do have to acknowledge that I struggle to understand the truly social approach. Why would I follow hundreds of people I don’t know? Is it because I’m old? Is it because I’m pathologically introverted? Is it because I’m arrogant and don’t care what others think? (It’s most likely not that, but it’s tough to be objective).

This all came to a head when I left Instagram and Facebook. What I loved about Facebook was its synchronous connections. If I set my posts to friends-only, people I interact with would have to be friends. Bluesky is not like that. If I post on Bluesky it is required to be public. So that intimacy is gone. I don’t have to read everyone, but I have to broadcast to everyone. Same with other social networks of any legitimate size. How can I have a smaller, intimate social connection online?

And I think that is perhaps the essence of my dissonance. For me, connections online are indeed close and intimate and deep. Is that true of everyone? If so, how do they share with their intimate friends in a social or group setting? Is that Facebook? Or do they not have an intimate group and just text or email? I really don’t know, but I’m definitely feeling that gap.

My current solution is to interact with friends via text or Signal or email. It’s one on one, which is obviously intimate and private. It is working, but I still feel there is that gap—that group gathering place where those friends overlap in a private place. This has been Facebook, but since I left Facebook I don’t know what it will be. Maybe it doesn’t exist.

So how about you? How does social media fit in your life and where are your intimate group settings? Is that Facebook? A Discord forum? Or do you not need such a place?

Off of Facebook & Instagram

I’m a fairly private person, and most of my social networking has been minimal outside of a controlled environment like Facebook. There I would have all my posts set to private, and I would interact with a limited group of friends. That said, I’ve always been unhappy with the state of social media. To me, community gatherings should never be controlled by corporations, whether its public parks or online social connections. The recent actions of various social media companies has made me even more sure of that, and due to that I’ve decided to go with my conscience and not support those locations. So I’ve left Facebook and Instagram.

I’ll be posting on this topic in more detail, but the result is that I’ll be communicating in a more open fashion here on my website. So this site, which was ostensibly just about my writing, will be much more wide-ranging in the future. I’m sure there are things that will interest some of you and some things that will bore you. Either way, you’ll be getting a community version of me that is at least a bit more open and less hidden by a corporate walled garden.

In a lot of ways that’s the price I’m going to pay. As I noted, I’m a private person, but if being social online requires that I be more, well, social, then so be it. For better or worse.