Cinemorphosis

Category: culture

  • Love Is Dead. There’s an App for That

    Love Is Dead. There’s an App for That

    Once students begin outsourcing their thinking to AI for college essays, you have to ask—where does it end? Apparently, it doesn’t. I’ve already heard from students who use AI as their therapist, their life coach, their financial planner, their meal prep consultant, their fitness guru, and their cheerleader-in-residence. Why not outsource the last vestige of human complexity—romantic personality—while we’re at it?

    And yes, that’s happening too.

    There was a time—not long ago—when seduction required something resembling a soul. Charisma, emotional intelligence, maybe even a book recommendation or a decent metaphor. But today? All you need is an app and a gaping hole where your confidence should be. Ozempic has turned fitness into pharmacology. ChatGPT has made college admissions essays smoother than a TED Talk on Xanax. And now comes Rizz: the AI Cyrano de Bergerac for the romantically unfit.

    With Rizz, you don’t need game. You need preferences. Pick your persona like toppings at a froyo bar: cocky, brooding, funny-but-traumatized. Want to flirt like Oscar Wilde but look like Travis Kelce? Rizz will convert your digital flop sweat into a curated symphony of “hey, you up?” so poetic it practically gets tenure. No more existential dread over emojis. No more copy-pasting Tinder lines. Just feed your awkwardness into the cloud and receive, in return, a seductive hologram programmed to succeed.

    And it will succeed—wildly. Because nothing drives app downloads like the spectacle of charisma-challenged men suddenly romancing women they previously couldn’t make eye contact with. Even the naturally confident will fold, unable to compete with the sleek, data-driven flirtation engine that is Rizz. It’s not a fair fight. It’s a software update.

    But here’s the kicker: she’s using Rizz too. That witty back-and-forth you’ve been screenshotting for your group chat? Two bots flirting on your behalf while you both sit slack-jawed, scrolling through reality shows and wondering why you feel nothing. The entire courtship ritual has been reduced to a backend exchange between language models. Romance hasn’t merely died—it’s been beta-tested, A/B split, and replaced by a frictionless UX flow.

    Welcome to the algorithmic afterlife of love. The heart still wants what it wants. It just needs a login first.

  • Urgencyvertising and the Art of Editorial Disappointment

    Urgencyvertising and the Art of Editorial Disappointment

    I subscribe to The Atlantic out of hope—a stubborn, professorial hope that somewhere amid the content buffet, I’ll stumble across an essay with enough spine and insight to assign to my college writing students. And yes, it happens. Occasionally, there’s a gem—sharp, stylish, worth dissecting. But lately, I’ve found myself wading through a rising tide of prestige mediocrity: essays that puff themselves up with self-important prose and limp into the room with subject matter so undercooked it should be wearing a hospital gown.

    What’s worse than the mediocrity is the bait: the breathless, overcaffeinated titles that practically scream, “This Will Change How You Think Forever.” And then… the letdown. Instead of intellectual combustion, I get three pages on the declining quality of sweaters, a pseudo-philosophical stroll through the Best Buy showroom, or another beige sermon about the joys of conscious parenting. It’s not that these essays are terrible—they’re just not what they pretend to be.

    I’ve come to call this affliction Urgencyvertising: that smug little genre of headline inflation where every piece insists on its own world-shaking significance. The titles swagger like they’re ready to topple empires; the actual essays? They read like tepid blog posts from 2008, padded with anecdote, laced with smugness, and terrified of being boring—while somehow still being exactly that.

    It’s an intellectual bait-and-switch, a slow drip of rhetorical FOMO dressed in high-thread-count prose. And I fall for it again and again, like Charlie Brown with the football. Except this time, Lucy works in editorial and has a master’s in semiotics.

  • Chronophony: When a Song Is the Era

    Chronophony: When a Song Is the Era

    Let’s dispense with the polite understatement that certain songs from the past merely “became part of culture.” Please. That phrase is far too meek—like saying the sun is “somewhat bright.” No, these songs didn’t just reflect their era; they colonized it. They became the era, fused with its atoms, and rewired the collective unconscious like musical Jungian code.

    Take 1968: a year boiling over with revolution, hallucination, and existential mood swings. Now drop two sonic spells into that cauldron—Canned Heat’s “Going Up the Country” and The Zombies’ “Time of the Season.” These aren’t just tracks. They’re Chronophonies (chronos + symphony): not songs about time, but songs that are time. They don’t sit on the shelf of nostalgia—they hum, glow, and whisper through the corridors of decades.

    To call them “timeless” is like calling Hendrix “decent with a guitar.” These records feel inevitable, like they were always there—just waiting for someone brave or mad enough to tune into the right frequency and pluck them from the aether. The artists? Vessels. Channels. Promethean thieves snatching divine fire, only to gift us these shimmering hymns that still make the hairs on your arm salute.

    I know it sounds pretentious. I’m fine with that. Some music earns your reverence and dares you to look uncool for saying so.

  • We Must Combat Gluttirexia

    We Must Combat Gluttirexia

    In his biting essay “The Intellectual Obesity Crisis,” Gurwinder Bhogal delivers a warning we’d be wise to tattoo on our dopamine-blasted skulls: too much of a good thing can turn lethal. Whether it’s sugar, information, or affirmation, when consumed in grotesque, unrelenting quantities, it warps us. It becomes less nourishment and more self-betrayal—a slow collapse into entropy, driven by the brain’s slavish devotion to short-term gratification.

    Bhogal cites a study showing that the brain craves information like it craves sugar: both deliver a dopamine jolt, a hit of synthetic satisfaction, followed by the inevitable crash and craving. It’s the biological equivalent of that old Russian proverb: “You feed the demon only to find it’s hungrier.” Welcome to the age of Gluttirexia—a condition I’ve coined to describe the paradox of overconsumption that leaves us spiritually, intellectually, and emotionally starved. We’re stuffed to the gills, yet empty at the core.

    Demonically famished, we prowl the Internet for sustenance and instead ingest counterfeits: ragebait, influencer slop, and weaponized memes. It’s not just junk food for the mind—it’s spoiled junk food, fermented in grievance and algorithmic manipulation. The information that lights up our brains the fastest is also the most corrosive: moral outrage, clickbait trauma, tribal hysteria. It’s psychological Cheetos dust—and we are licking our fingers like addicts.

    Reading Bhogal’s work, I pictured the creature we’ve become: not a thoughtful citizen or curious learner, but a whirling, slobbering caricature straight out of Saturday morning TV—the Tasmanian Devil with Wi-Fi. And it tracks. In a moment so self-aware it feels scripted, Bhogal notes that “brain rot” was Oxford’s 2024 Word of the Year. Fitting. We gorge ourselves on intellectual cud and become bloated husks—distracted, indignant, and dumb.

    This condition—what Bhogal terms intellectual obesity—is not a joke, though it often looks like one. It’s a cognitive disorder characterized by mental bloat, sensory chaos, and a confused soundtrack of half-remembered factoids screaming over each other for attention. You don’t think. You stagger.

    As a college writing instructor trying to teach critical thinking in a post-literate era, I am in triage mode. My students—through no fault of their own—are casualties of this cognitive arms race. They arrive not just underprepared but neurologically disoriented, drowning in an ocean of noise and mistaking it for knowledge.

    Meanwhile, AI accelerates the descent. Everyone is outsourcing their cognition to silicon brains. The pace is no longer quick—it’s quantum. I’m dizzy from the whiplash, stunned by the sheer speed of the collapse.

    To survive, I’ve started building a personal lexicon—a breadcrumb trail through the algorithmic inferno. Words to name what’s happening, so I don’t lose my mind entirely:

    • Lexipocalypse: the shrinking of language into emojis, acronyms, and SEO sludge
    • Mentalluvium: the slurry of mental debris left after hours lost in the online casino
    • Chumstream: the endless digital shark tank of outrage and influencer chum
    • Gluttirexia: the grotesque irony of being overfed and undernourished—bloated with junk info and spiritually famished

    I keep this list close, like a man at sea clinging to his life vest in the middle of a storm. I sense the hungry oceanic sharks circling beneath me. 

  • We Are Lost Inside the Mentalluvium

    We Are Lost Inside the Mentalluvium

    We are staggering through an unprecedented fugue state—an acute disorientation born of our immersion in the social media Chumstream, a digital shark tank where recycled outrage, trauma bait, and influencer chum swirl together in a frothy, click-hungry frenzy. It’s not a stream so much as a bloody whirlpool, designed to keep us circling, feeding, and forgetting.

    Gurwinder Bhogal, a rare voice of reason in this algorithmic carnival, broke it down on Josh Szeps’ Uncomfortable Conversations. Social media, he said, isn’t just addictive—it’s engineered by tech lords who know exactly how to hijack your brain. Blue light. Intermittent dopamine rewards. Infinite scroll. Welcome to the digital casino, a neon maze with no clocks, no windows, and no exits—only flashing notifications and the creeping sense that your life is being siphoned off one swipe at a time.

    In this fever swamp of the self, people aren’t just bored—they’re bloated. Stuffed with half-digested TED Talk wisdom, viral symptom checklists, and influencer pathology. They gorge on intellectual junk food and, as Bhogal put it, suffer from “intellectual obesity.” Diagnoses become identities, and confusion is recast as empowerment. It’s not that they have ADHD, long Covid, autism, or gender dysmorphia—it’s that they scroll into them, self-diagnosing in real time, latching onto whatever trending malaise grants them a fleeting sense of belonging in the void.

    These are not charlatans. These are casualties. Belief becomes ballast in a digital landscape where nothing is anchored. They wander through the cognitive casino, zombified, dislocated, convinced that a diagnostic label is the same as self-knowledge, and that performative suffering is the highest form of authenticity.

    What we’re experiencing isn’t just burnout. It’s Mentalluvium—the psychic sludge left behind after gorging on content. It’s the mental silt of endless scrolling: micro-identities, algorithm-approved neuroses, and dopamine-smeared fragments of truth. We are not thinking. We are sedimenting.

    If this is hell, it didn’t come with flames. It came with filters.

  • Identifying and Coping with Neighborplexity

    Identifying and Coping with Neighborplexity

    My dear, respectable neighbors, the Pattersons have forced me to contend with Neighborplexity. Let me explain. For years, I lived in blissful harmony with these upstanding citizens—the kind of people who proudly displayed their New Yorker subscriptions and NPR tote bags like badges of intellectual honor. We had an unspoken pact, a mutual understanding that we were members of the Smart People’s Society, where the TV was reserved for documentaries, award-winning dramas, and the occasional indie film that required subtitles and a dictionary to understand.

    But then, one evening, as I casually glanced out my window—just a harmless peek, really—I saw something so grotesque, so utterly incomprehensible, that it shook me to my core. There, through the open window of my once-revered neighbors, I saw them glued to the screen—not just any screen, but one streaming a TV show so mind-numbingly lowbrow it made reality itself seem like a parody. My brain went into full-blown meltdown. Could it be? Were they actually watching Love Island?

    I blinked, hoping I’d misinterpreted the scene, but no—the horror was all too real. My neighbors, those paragons of taste and intellect, were indulging in what could only be described as televised garbage. I was struck down by a case of Neighborplexity: that gut-wrenching, mind-twisting moment when you realize you might not know the people next door at all. Suddenly, my world was flipped upside down. Had they always been this way? Were those book club meetings just a ruse, a clever cover-up for their secret love affair with trash TV? I felt like I’d just discovered that the Michelin-starred chef who lived down the block actually preferred dining on Spam straight out of the can.

    I thought we were united in our disdain for anything that wasn’t at least 95% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. But now? Now, I wasn’t so sure. How could they betray me like this? Was every dinner party, every casual chat about the latest literary masterpiece, just a well-orchestrated charade? My mind spun as I tried to reconcile the image of these seemingly cultured, well-spoken people with the reality of them willingly watching—gasp—that show.

    What do I do now? How do I move forward? Can I ever look them in the eye again, or will I be forever haunted by this dark revelation, this unraveling of the fabric of my once-idyllic neighborhood? All because of one dreadful, unforgivable act of poor taste on TV. Love Island, of all things. The horror! The betrayal! The absolute audacity! 

    To get through this ordeal, I must have a clear definition of Neighborplexity and study the coping mechanisms to help me deal with this. So here we go.

    Neighborplexity (n.): The psychological whiplash that occurs when your carefully curated perception of your neighbors—those tote-bag-wielding, podcast-quoting, fair-trade-coffee-brewing intellectuals—is shattered by the revelation that they voluntarily watch garbage television. One moment you’re nodding in mutual disdain over a New Yorker cartoon; the next, you’re watching them binge Love Island with the hungry intensity of someone decoding the Dead Sea Scrolls. Neighborplexity induces spiritual vertigo, trust erosion, and the overwhelming sense that the social fabric of your ZIP code has been irreparably torn by sequins, fake tans, and manufactured drama. It is, in essence, a full-blown existential crisis brought on by a neighbor’s taste in television.

    7 Coping Mechanisms for Surviving Neighborplexity:

    1. Curated Amnesia – Tell yourself you didn’t see it. What open window? What TV screen? As far as you’re concerned, they were watching a Ken Burns documentary about soil.
    2. Projection Therapy – Assume it was ironic. They’re studying Love Island for a sociological thesis titled The Semiotics of Spray Tan.
    3. NPR Overdose – Immediately listen to four consecutive episodes of Fresh Air to flush out any lingering trash-TV toxins.
    4. Visual Recalibration – Replace your neighbor’s face with Tilda Swinton’s. At all times. It helps.
    5. Sarcastic Enlightenment – Convince yourself this is actually a deeper form of taste. Maybe Love Island is postmodern performance art and you’re the unsophisticated one.
    6. Emergency Sumatra Deployment – Brew the darkest, most self-righteous coffee you can find and sip it slowly while rereading Proust. This reminds you who you really are.
    7. Petty Book Club Coup – At the next meeting, accidentally bring up Love Island as a joke and watch their faces. Gauge their guilt. Proceed accordingly with social sanctions or passive-aggressive charcuterie.
  • Ghosted by a Bot: Memoirs of a Rizzlationship Reject

    Ghosted by a Bot: Memoirs of a Rizzlationship Reject

    With the personality-enhancement app Rizz, you no longer need to develop charm the old-fashioned way—through awkward silences, failed jokes, or years of soul-searching. No, now you simply type in the kind of persona you’d like to cosplay—witty, edgy, emotionally available but not clingy—and voilà! Rizz constructs your idealized digital self, complete with verbal fireworks and algorithm-approved banter. From there, it takes over your dating app conversations like a caffeinated Cyrano. While Rizz flirts with some dazzling, overqualified human—possibly a neuroscientist who does CrossFit and rescues greyhounds—you can sit back in your stained hoodie, microwave a Hot Pocket, and check your parlay bets.

    Congratulations! You’re now entering the seductive, pixel-lit world of the Rizzlationship—a passionate entanglement forged entirely in the crucible of AI-powered delusion, and destined to implode the moment real-life chemistry is required.

    Rizzlationship (n.): A romantic construct born from the poetic musings of dueling chatbots, wherein two humans fall head over heels for digital puppets they neither wrote nor understand. Courtship takes place exclusively in stylized DMs, thick with faux depth and curated vulnerability, while actual eye contact is postponed indefinitely. The heat is artificial, the attraction algorithmic, and the eventual meetup—when it happens—is a crash landing in reality, often punctuated by the horrifying realization that neither of you knows how to talk without autocomplete. It’s love in the age of outsourcing: fast, flirty, and one system update away from total annihilation.

  • The Lie of 70s Bodybuilding

    The Lie of 70s Bodybuilding

    Nostalgia is a bald-faced liar in gold lamé posing trunks. It flexes in the mirror of your mind, oils itself up in false sentiment, and strikes a heroic pose while whispering sweet nothings about “the good old days.” I used to believe the 1970s were the Golden Age of bodybuilding—when men looked like Greek gods instead of mutant action figures, when steroids were used “responsibly,” like a fine wine instead of a meth pipe. I told myself those days were all about balance and aesthetics: a V-taper here, a bit of Arnold’s smirk there.

    But no—this is revisionist fantasy, gym-bro propaganda. The truth is, those bronzed demigods were gulping down more synthetic hormones than a lab rat in a Monsanto trial. “Moderate” steroid use? Please. Some of those guys had liver enzymes that could strip paint. Many didn’t make it to 50, their organs shriveled like sun-dried tomatoes while their biceps ballooned into oblivion.

    Yes, today’s physiques are grotesque parodies of humanity—more Pixar villain than Apollo—but don’t kid yourself that the ‘70s were some golden, health-conscious utopia. Body dysmorphia was already the unspoken sixth station in the posing routine. The mirrors were just less honest, and the delusion smelled faintly of Brut cologne and Joe Weider’s false promises.

  • The Lothario Algorithm: How AI Became Your Wingman (and Stole Your Soul)

    The Lothario Algorithm: How AI Became Your Wingman (and Stole Your Soul)

    Once upon a time, you needed charisma, emotional depth, and an actual personality to seduce someone. Now, all you need is an app and crippling insecurity. The fitness freaks have Ozempic to shrink-wrap their bodies into Instagrammable husks. Aspiring Ivy Leaguers have ChatGPT to buff their essays into polished admissions bait. And now, the tragically uncharming have their savior: Rizz—the AI Cyrano for the chronically charisma-challenged.

    Rizz lets you select your ideal persona like toppings at a frozen yogurt bar: suave, glib, devil-may-care, with just a hint of tortured poet. Want to flirt like you’ve read Nabokov but party like Pete Davidson? Rizz will spin your existential dread into gold. No more fumbling texts, no more sweaty-palmed agony over emojis. Just upload your awkward energy and let the algorithm rewrite you as a velvet-voiced Lothario gliding through DMs like a pheromone-soaked shark.

    It’s destined to succeed. Why? Because nothing fuels an app’s virality like watching hopeless men date women they previously couldn’t make eye contact with. Even the confident guys—those smug gents who used to dominate the dating pool with actual charm—will start to feel inadequate without Rizz’s synthetic edge.

    And here’s the twist: the women on the other end? Also using Rizz. Which means we’ve entered a brave new world where bots are romancing bots while their human operators sit slack-jawed in the background, binge-watching Love Island and wondering why they feel dead inside. The courtship dance has become a tech support ticket. Romance hasn’t just died—it’s been uploaded, optimized, and drained of all humanity. Welcome to the algorithmic afterlife.

  • A College Professor in Search of Flexecutivewear

    A College Professor in Search of Flexecutivewear

    I, for one, am eternally grateful for the fashion revolution that finally told tight loafers and itchy tweed to take a long walk off a short runway. Gone are the days when professionalism meant strangling your thighs in wool trousers and embalming your torso in starched cotton. Now, thanks to society’s blessed surrender to performancewear, I can be a fully functioning member of the information economy without developing trench foot or sweating through my pancreas. At long last, it’s possible to look like I’m closing deals while feeling like I’m on my way to foam roll my glutes. So yes, it’s time for a wardrobe overhaul—one built not on thread count but on strategic stretch and moisture management. We’ll call this divine aesthetic what it truly is: Flexecutivewear—because nothing says power move like a blazer with hidden ventilation panels and joggers that whisper synergy.

    A definition is in order:

    Flexecutivewear (n.): A genre of athleisure engineered for men who want to appear as though they’ve just wrapped a high-stakes boardroom negotiation and a punishing HIIT session—without actually doing either. It’s business-casual for the delusional alpha male: moisture-wicking fabrics, tailored joggers, and compression hoodies that whisper “venture-backed” while screaming “please validate me.” Flexecutivewear exists at the tragic intersection of performance and performance art, where every outfit is a pitch deck and every stretch is a soft launch.

    No Flexecutivewear ensemble is complete without the obligatory diver watch on an orange strap—a bold timepiece that screams “I could be 200 meters underwater right now, but I’m actually just waiting for my cold brew.” The orange strap is crucial: it’s the high-visibility beacon of masculine daring, suggesting a rugged, adventurous spirit who might rappel down a cliff between Zoom calls. Never mind that the watch has never tasted saltwater and its nearest brush with danger was a CrossFit box opening. In the Flexecutive ecosystem, the diver watch is less tool and more talisman—a waterproof monument to imagined peril and aspirational virility.