Cinemorphosis

Category: Literary Dispatches

  • Seven Watches, Fifteen Grand, and One Hard Lesson About Growing Up

    Seven Watches, Fifteen Grand, and One Hard Lesson About Growing Up

    People always ask why I started focusing on watches ten years ago on my YouTube channel. The honest answer is awkward: I love watches—but I love food more. Obsessively more. Food has been my lifelong religion. In the early ’90s, when I lived in a bachelor pad that smelled like basil and ambition, my Navy SEAL friend Mike used to call and say, “McMahon, I can hear you chewing through the phone again. Every time I call you, you’re eating. What is it now, Fat Face?”
    “Angel hair pasta with pesto.”
    “Sounds dangerous. I’m coming over, Fat Face.”
    And he would—just in time to demolish everything I’d made. His appetite was powered by military drills and endless surfing sessions in Huntington Beach and Ventura. The man burned calories like a forest fire burns pine needles.

    One day he called again. “I’m heading to Santa Barbara to surf. Come with me.”
    “I can’t surf, Mike.”
    “I know you can’t surf, genius. My girlfriend Nicole will be there. She wants to set you up with her friend, Michelle, from Newport Beach. Now can you surf?”
    That’s how I ended up tagging along on adventures that had nothing to do with waves and everything to do with spectacle.

    Mike lived with his dad, Bob, a former Marine with a voice like a foghorn and a temper to match. Their daily ritual involved shouting matches over lawn mowing, garage messes, and grocery duties—two barrel-chested men poking each other like rival roosters while spittle flew. Five minutes later, the war would end, and we’d be off on a Mongolian beef run with Social Distortion blasting in Mike’s Toyota four-wheeler. Back at the house, they’d watch John Wayne movies, and Bob would open his gun safe “just in case the Duke needs backup.” This was not dysfunction to me. This was home.

    I’m a Boomer. I grew up in a world where anger was normal—where fathers barked orders and discipline came with a belt. When rage becomes your baseline, it’s like living with your brain permanently tuned to a Death Metal station. After a while, you stop hearing the noise. You just call it life. But it isn’t life. I know that now because I’m married to a woman fourteen years younger than me, and we have twin teenage daughters. They do not accept Death Metal Dad. They want something closer to Smooth Jazz—Bach, Earth, Wind & Fire, anything that doesn’t rattle the walls of the house. And they’re right. Rage is not masculinity. It’s a form of intoxication. A dangerous one.

    For me, sobriety isn’t about alcohol or drugs. It’s about anger. That means I have to watch my triggers like a hawk. One of the biggest? New watches. Shiny new objects flip the switch in my brain. Suddenly the Death Metal station is humming again, and I’m spiraling into desire, anxiety, and self-reproach. I know feeding my watch addiction makes me miserable, and when I do something that makes me miserable, I get angry at myself. Then I become a joyless human being—Grandma Sour Pants in sneakers. My family doesn’t want to be around me, and frankly, neither do I.

    The irony is that money isn’t the problem. I’m at a stage in life where I could buy any watch I want. But sanity is expensive. I own seven watches worth about fifteen grand in total, and even that feels like mental labor—keeping the rotation straight, remembering what I have, managing the noise in my head. If I owned twelve, I’d lose my grip entirely. My watch friends tell me, “Life is short. Buy what you want.” Those are words of indulgence, not wisdom. Indulgence has never made me happy. Indulgence is just infantilism in a tuxedo. A man-child with a credit card is still a man-child—and no man-child is happy. He buys things to outrun loneliness, and the things always lose the race.

    Ninety-five percent of my watch purchases were impulsive. Which means ninety-five percent of them were evidence of my own immaturity. I sold most of them at a loss—not because I needed the money, but because I needed my dignity back.

    I come from the Me-Generation, raised in California in the ’70s on a steady diet of self-worship. Rob Lowe’s memoir Stories I Only Tell My Friends nailed it for me. He described the Counterculture as the Worship of the Self—whatever the Self wants, the Self gets. No brakes. No compass. He watched people overdose, vanish, and destroy themselves in Malibu’s sunlit fantasyland. The message was simple: when desire becomes sacred, reality becomes optional—and disaster becomes inevitable.

    I am a watch freak. When I see a watch I love, my brain lights up like I’ve just taken a hit of something illegal. Desire surges. Anger follows. The loss of control is what really enrages me. Rob Lowe had to go to rehab to escape his fantasy life. I don’t want rehab for watches. I want a hobby that fits inside reality instead of dragging me out of it. I want pleasure without compulsion. Enjoyment without obsession. A life without permanent FOMO.

    And here’s the final joke on me: even talking about this makes me nostalgic for being fifteen in Santa Monica and Malibu in 1976. I start looking backward like Lot’s wife, and I can feel myself turning into a pillar of salt. The Death Metal station is warming up again. That’s my cue. I need to change the channel—before I buy another watch and call it happiness.

  • “Raindrops Keep Fallin’ On My Head” and the Art of Being Nine

    “Raindrops Keep Fallin’ On My Head” and the Art of Being Nine

    When I was nine, in the summer of ’71, my family and three others camped on a tiny island near Mount Shasta—an experiment in frontier optimism that involved water skiing, fishing, and waging daily war against yellow jackets. We built traps from jars and funnels, which is what passes for science when you’re a child and the enemy has wings. Whenever the social noise became too loud, I retreated into a tent with Archie comics and a portable radio, my private bunker of paper jokes and AM static. Outside, the sun blazed and my friends howled with laughter. Inside, I lay on my stomach, flipping pages, while two songs drifted through the thin canvas walls—“Riders on the Storm” and “Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey.” They were gorgeous. They were devastating. Their beauty did nothing to soften their sadness. They didn’t cheer me up; they baptized me into melancholy.

    I survived that summer gloom by clinging to the holy trinity of comic-book escapism: X-ray vision glasses, Sea Monkeys, and Charles Atlas promising to turn scrawny boys into beach legends. But I had known a better kind of sadness before that—eighteen months earlier, in fourth grade, when B.J. Thomas’s “Raindrops Keep Fallin’ on My Head” became the soundtrack to a winter of biblical rain in San Jose. That rain didn’t feel like inconvenience; it felt like permission. We walked in it. We built forts in it. We sang in it. Wet sneakers were badges of honor. Mud was a small price to pay for enchantment.

    After school, we took the longest possible route home, not because we were lost, but because we didn’t want the day to end. I think children are natural pantheists. We don’t worry about tracking dirt through the house; we worry about missing the miracle. One afternoon, in a downpour that looked like it had been personally arranged by the weather gods, I saw two middle school girls walking arm in arm, kicking their legs and singing like they were auditioning for joy itself. They weren’t performing happiness. They were inhabited by it. I don’t think I’ve seen human beings that unselfconsciously alive since.

    We eventually reached the edge of Anderson Elementary, where a park spilled into trees and bushes and, hidden like contraband, our cardboard fort waited. I crawled underneath it, stared through a gap in the walls at the rain-swollen sky, and sang “Raindrops Keep Fallin’ on My Head” to no one in particular. I remember feeling drunk on the depth of that sky, stunned by the sheer extravagance of being alive. I wasn’t happy because something good had happened. I was happy because everything had happened—and I was inside it. For a moment, I felt infinite. And, at nine, infinite felt the same as immortal.

  • Doing Everything, Feeling Nothing: The Age of Engagement Dilution

    Doing Everything, Feeling Nothing: The Age of Engagement Dilution

    In “Ebooks Are an Abomination,” Ian Bogost delivers a needed slap across the face of our collective reading habits. His charge is simple and devastating: ebooks haven’t expanded reading—they’ve hollowed it out. People believe they’re reading because their eyes are sliding across a screen, but most of what’s happening is closer to grazing. The scandal isn’t that we skim; it’s that we’ve started calling skimming “reading” and don’t even blush. Bogost nails the fraud when he points out that the word reading has become a linguistic junk drawer—used to describe everything from doomscrolling Instagram captions to actually wrestling with dense prose. If the same word covers both scanning memes and grappling with Dostoevsky, then the word has lost its spine.

    It reminds me of people who announce they’re going to the gym to “work out.” That phrase now covers a heroic range of activity—from Arnold-style flirtations with death to leaning on a treadmill while watching Jeopardy! and gossiping about coworkers. Same building, radically different realities. One is training. The other is loitering with athletic accessories.

    Reading and working out have this in common: they are not activities so much as states of engagement. And the more soaked we become in technology, the more that engagement drains away. Technology sells convenience and dependency—the kind where you feel faintly panicked if you’re five feet from a device and not being optimized by something. But being a reader is the opposite of that nervous dependence. It’s happy solitude. It’s the stubborn pleasure of being absorbed by a book, of sinking into hard ideas—the epistemic crisis, substitutionary atonement, moral ambiguity—without needing an app to pat you on the head and tell you how you’re doing. Real readers don’t need dashboards. Real lifters don’t need Fitbits. If you’re truly engaged, you feel the work in your bones.

    And yet technology keeps whispering the same seduction: optimization. Track it. Measure it. Quantify it. But what this gospel of efficiency often delivers is something uglier—disengagement dressed up as progress, laziness rebranded as smart living. The name for this decay is Engagement Dilution: the slow thinning of practices that once demanded effort—reading, training, thinking—into low-grade approximations that still wear the old labels. What once meant immersion now means mere exposure. We haven’t stopped doing these things. We’ve just stopped doing them seriously, and we’re calling that evolution.

    To help you interrogate the effects of Engagement Dilution, you will do the following writing prompt.

    600-Word Personal Narrative That Addresses Engagement Dilution

    We live in an age where everything looks like participation—but very little feels like engagement. We “read” by skimming. We “work out” by standing near machines. We “study” by copying and pasting. We “connect” by reacting with emojis. The actions remain, but the depth is gone. This condition has a name: Engagement Dilution—the process by which practices that once demanded sustained attention, effort, and presence are thinned into low-effort versions that keep the same labels but lose the same meaning.

    For this essay, you will write a 600-word personal narrative about a time when you realized you were going through the motions without being truly engaged. Your story should focus on a specific experience in which you believed you were participating in something meaningful—school, work, fitness, relationships, creativity, reading, faith, activism, or personal growth—only to later recognize that what you were doing was a diluted version of the real thing.

    Begin with a concrete scene. Put the reader inside a moment: a classroom where you nodded but didn’t think, a gym session where you scrolled more than you lifted, a relationship where you listened with your phone in your hand, a book you “read” but can’t remember, a goal you claimed to care about but never truly invested in. Use sensory detail—what you saw, heard, felt, avoided—to make the dilution visible. Don’t explain the idea yet. Show it happening.

    Next, introduce the realization. When did it dawn on you that something essential was missing? Was it boredom? Frustration? Guilt? Emptiness? Did someone confront you? Did you fail at something you thought you had prepared for? Did you suddenly notice how different real engagement feels—how tiring, how uncomfortable, how demanding it is compared to the easy version you had settled for?

    Then widen the lens. Reflect on why engagement diluted in the first place. Was it technology? Fear of failure? Desire for comfort? Pressure to appear productive? Lack of confidence? The culture of optimization? Be honest here. Avoid blaming abstract forces alone. This essay is not about what society did to you; it is about the choices you made within that environment.

    Finally, confront the cost. What did engagement dilution take from you? Skill? Confidence? Meaning? Relationships? Momentum? And what did it teach you about the difference between looking active and actually being alive inside your actions? End not with a motivational slogan but with clarity—what you now recognize about effort, attention, and the price of avoiding difficulty.

    Guidelines

    • This is a narrative, not a sermon. Let the story do the thinking.
    • Avoid clichés about “finding balance” or “doing better next time.”
    • Do not turn this into a tech rant or a productivity essay. Keep it human.
    • Use humor if it fits—but don’t hide behind it.
    • Your goal is not self-improvement branding. Your goal is insight.

    What this Essay Is Really About

    Engagement Dilution is not laziness. It is the quiet substitution of comfort for commitment, convenience for courage, motion for meaning. Your task is to show how that substitution happened in your own life—and what it revealed about what real engagement actually costs.

    Write the essay only you could write. The more specific you are, the more universal the insight becomes.

  • Bezel Clicks and Sentence Cuts: On Watches, Writing, and the Discipline of Precision

    Bezel Clicks and Sentence Cuts: On Watches, Writing, and the Discipline of Precision

    I am a connoisseur of fine timepieces. I notice the way a sunray dial catches light like a held breath, the authority of a bezel click that says someone cared. I’ve worn Tudor Black Bays and Omega Planet Oceans as loaners—the horological equivalent of renting a Maserati for a reckless weekend—exhilarating, loud with competence, impossible to forget. My own collection is high-end Seiko divers, watches that deliver lapidary excellence at half the tariff: fewer theatrics, just ruthless execution. Precision doesn’t need a luxury tax.

    That same appetite governs my reading. A tight, aphoristic paragraph can spike my pulse the way a Planet Ocean does on the wrist. I collect sentences the way others collect steel and sapphire. Wilde. Pascal. Kierkegaard. La Rochefoucauld. These writers practice compression as a moral discipline. A lapidary writer treats language like stone—cuts until only the hardest facet remains, then stops. Anything extra is vanity.

    I am not, however, a tourist. I have no patience for writers who mistake arch tone for insight, who wear cynicism like a designer jacket and call it wisdom. Aphorisms can curdle into poses. Style without penetration is just a shiny case housing a dead movement.

    This is why I’m unsentimental about AI. Left alone, language models are unruly factories—endless output, hollow shine, fluent nonsense by the ton. Slop with manners. But handled by someone with a lapidary sensibility, they can polish. They can refine. They can help a sentence find its edge. What they cannot do is teach taste.

    Taste precedes tools. Before you let a machine touch your prose, you must have lived with the masters long enough to feel the difference between a gem and its counterfeit. That discernment takes years. There is no shortcut. You become a jeweler by ruining stones, by learning what breaks and what holds.

    Lapidary sensibility is not impressed by abundance or fluency. It responds to compression, inevitability, and bite. It is bodily: a tightening of attention, a flicker of pleasure, the instant you know a sentence could not be otherwise. You don’t acquire it through mimicry or prompts. You acquire it through exposure, failure, and long intimacy with sentences that refuse to waste your time.

    Remember this, then: AI can assist only where judgment already exists. Without that baseline, you are not collaborating with a tool. You are feeding quarters into a very expensive Slop Machine.

  • Stop Selling Books Like Vitamins: Reading as Pleasure, Not Duty

    Stop Selling Books Like Vitamins: Reading as Pleasure, Not Duty

    Literary Vice names the framing of reading as a private, absorbing, and mildly antisocial pleasure rather than a civic duty or self-improvement exercise. It treats books the way earlier cultures treated forbidden novels or disreputable entertainments: as experiences that tempt, distract, and pull the reader out of alignment with respectable schedules, market rhythms, and digital expectations. Literary vice rejects the language of virtue—empathy-building, résumé enhancement, democratic hygiene—and instead emphasizes immersion, obsession, and pleasure for its own sake. As a countervailing force against technology-induced anhedonia, reading works precisely because it is slow, effortful, and resistant to optimization: it restores depth of attention, reawakens desire through sustained engagement, and reintroduces emotional risk in a landscape flattened by frictionless dopamine delivery. Where screens numb by over-stimulation, literary vice revives feeling by demanding patience, solitude, and surrender to a single, uncompromising narrative consciousness.

    ***

    Adam Kirsch’s essay “Reading Is a Vice” makes a claim that sounds perverse until you realize it is completely sane: readers are misaligned with the world. They miss its rhythms, ignore its incentives, fall out of step with its market logic—and that is precisely the point. To be poorly adapted to a cultural hellscape is not a bug; it is the feature. Reading makes you antisocial in the healthiest way possible. It pulls you off screens, out of optimization mode, and away from the endless hum of performance and productivity that passes for modern life. In a culture engineered to keep us efficient, stimulated, and vaguely numb, misalignment is a form of resistance.

    Kirsch notes, of course, that reading builds critical thinking, individual flourishing, and democratic capacity. All true. All useless as marketing slogans. Those are not selling points in a dopamine economy. No one scrolls TikTok thinking, “I wish I were more civically responsible.” If you want young people to read, Kirsch argues, stop pitching books as moral medicine and start advertising them as pleasure—private, absorbing, and maybe a little disreputable. Call reading what it once was: a vice. When literature was dangerous, people couldn’t stop reading it. Now that books have been domesticated into virtue objects—edifying, wholesome, improving—no one can be persuaded to pick one up.

    You don’t eat baklava because it’s good for you. You eat it because it is an indecent miracle of sugar, butter, and culture that makes the rest of the day briefly irrelevant. Books work the same way. There are baklava books. Yours might be Danielle Steel. Mine isn’t. Mine lives closer to Cormac McCarthy. When I was in sixth grade, my literary baklava was Herman Raucher’s Summer of ’42. That book short-circuited my brain. I was so consumed by the protagonist’s doomed crush on an older woman that I refused to leave my tent for two full days during a perfect Yosemite summer. While everyone else hiked through actual paradise, I lay immobilized by narrative obsession. I regret nothing. My body was in Yosemite; my mind was somewhere far more dangerous.

    This is why you don’t tell students to read the way you tell people to take cod liver oil or hit their protein macros. That pitch fails because it is joyless and dishonest. You tell students to read because finding the right book feels like dessert—baklava, banana splits, whatever ruins your self-control. And yes, you can also tell them what Kafka knew: that great writing is an ax that breaks the frozen sea inside us. Stay frozen long enough—numb, optimized, frictionless—and you don’t just stagnate. You risk not coming back at all.

  • How Cheating with AI Accidentally Taught You How to Write

    How Cheating with AI Accidentally Taught You How to Write

    Accidental Literacy is what happens when you try to sneak past learning with a large language model and trip directly into it face-first. You fire up the machine hoping for a clean escape—no thinking, no struggling, no soul-searching—only to discover that the output is a beige avalanche of competence-adjacent prose that now requires you to evaluate it, fix it, tone it down, fact-check it, and coax it into sounding like it was written by a person with a pulse. Congratulations: in attempting to outsource your brain, you have activated it. System-gaming mutates into a surprise apprenticeship. Literacy arrives not as a noble quest but as a penalty box—earned through irritation, judgment calls, and the dawning realization that the machine cannot decide what matters, what sounds human, or what won’t embarrass you in front of an actual reader. Accidental literacy doesn’t absolve cheating; it mocks it by proving that even your shortcuts demand work.

    If you insist on using an LLM for speed, there is a smart way and a profoundly dumb way. The smart way is to write the first draft yourself—ugly, human, imperfect—and then let the machine edit, polish, and reorganize after the thinking is done. The dumb way is to dump a prompt into the algorithm and accept the resulting slurry of AI slop, then spend twice as long performing emergency surgery on sentences that have no spine. Editing machine sludge is far more exhausting than editing your own draft, because you’re not just fixing prose—you’re reverse-engineering intention. Either way, literacy sneaks in through the back door, but the human-first method is faster, cleaner, and far less humiliating. The machine can buff the car; it cannot build the engine. Anyone who believes otherwise is just outsourcing frustration at scale.

  • How Real Writing Survives in the Age of ChatGPT

    How Real Writing Survives in the Age of ChatGPT

    AI-Resistant Pedagogy is an instructional approach that accepts the existence of generative AI without surrendering the core work of learning to it. Rather than relying on bans, surveillance, or moral panic, it redesigns courses so that thinking must occur in places machines cannot fully inhabit: live classrooms, oral exchanges, process-based writing, personal reflection, and sustained human presence. This pedagogy emphasizes how ideas are formed—not just what is submitted—by foregrounding drafting, revision, discussion, and decision-making as observable acts. It is not AI-proof, nor does it pretend to be; instead, it makes indiscriminate outsourcing cognitively unrewarding and pedagogically hollow. In doing so, AI-resistant pedagogy treats technology as a background condition rather than the organizing principle of education, restoring friction, accountability, and intellectual agency as non-negotiable features of learning.

    ***

    Carlo Rotella, an English writing instructor at Boston College, refuses to go the way of the dinosaurs in the Age of AI Machines. In his essay “I’m a Professor. A.I. Has Changed My Classroom, but Not for the Worse,” he explains that he doesn’t lecture much at all. Instead, he talks with his students—an endangered pedagogical practice—and discovers something that flatly contradicts the prevailing moral panic: his students are not freeloading intellectual mercenaries itching to outsource their brains to robot overlords. They are curious. They want to learn how to write. They want to understand how tools work and how thinking happens. This alone punctures the apocalyptic story line that today’s students will inevitably cheat their way through college with AI while instructors helplessly clutch their blue books like rosary beads.

    Rotella is not naïve. He admits that any instructor who continues teaching on autopilot is “sleepwalking in a minefield.” Faced with Big Tech’s frictionless temptations—and humanity’s reliable preference for shortcuts—he argues that teachers must adapt or become irrelevant. But adaptation doesn’t mean surrender. It means recommitting to purposeful reading and writing, dialing back technological dependence, and restoring face-to-face intellectual community. His key distinction is surgical and useful: good teaching isn’t AI-proof; it’s AI-resistant. Resistance comes from three old-school but surprisingly radical moves—pen-and-paper and oral exams, teaching the writing process rather than just collecting finished products, and placing real weight on what happens inside the classroom. In practice, that means in-class quizzes, short handwritten essays, scaffolded drafting, and collaborative discussion—students learning how to build arguments brick by brick instead of passively absorbing a two-hour lecture like academic soup.

    Personal narrative becomes another line of defense. As Mark Edmundson notes, even when students lean on AI, reflective writing forces them to feed the machine something dangerously human: their own experience. That act alone creates friction. In my own courses, students write a six-page research paper on whether online entertainment sharpens or corrodes critical thinking. The opening paragraph is a 300-word confession about a habitual screen indulgence—YouTube, TikTok, a favorite creator—and an honest reckoning with whether it educates or anesthetizes. The conclusion demands a final verdict about their own personal viewing habits: intellectual growth or cognitive decay? To further discourage lazy outsourcing, I show them AI-generated examples in all their hollow, bloodless glory—perfectly grammatical, utterly vacant. Call it AI-shaming if you like. I call it a public service. Nothing cures overreliance on machines faster than seeing what they produce when no human soul is involved.

  • The Seductive Assistant

    The Seductive Assistant

    Auxiliary Cognition describes the deliberate use of artificial intelligence as a secondary cognitive system that absorbs routine mental labor—drafting, summarizing, organizing, rephrasing, and managing tone—so that the human mind can conserve energy for judgment, creativity, and higher-order thinking. In this arrangement, the machine does not replace thought but scaffolds it, functioning like an external assistant that carries cognitive weight without claiming authorship or authority. At its best, auxiliary cognition restores focus, reduces fatigue, and enables sustained intellectual work that might otherwise be avoided. At its worst, when used uncritically or excessively, it risks dulling the very capacities it is meant to protect, quietly shifting from support to substitution.

    ***

    Yale creative writing professor Meghan O’Rourke approaches ChatGPT the way a sober adult approaches a suspicious cocktail: curious, cautious, and alert to the hangover. In her essay “I Teach Creative Writing. This Is What A.I. Is Doing to Students,” she doesn’t offer a manifesto so much as a field report. Her conversations with the machine, she writes, revealed a “seductive cocktail of affirmation, perceptiveness, solicitousness, and duplicity”—a phrase that lands like a raised eyebrow. Sometimes the model hallucinated with confidence; sometimes it surprised her with competence. A few of its outputs were polished enough to pass as “strong undergraduate work,” which is both impressive and unsettling, depending on whether you’re grading or paying tuition.

    What truly startled O’Rourke, however, wasn’t the quality of the prose but the way the machine quietly lifted weight from her mind. Living with the long-term effects of Lyme disease and Covid, her energy is a finite resource, and AI nudged her toward tasks she might otherwise postpone. It conserved her strength for what actually mattered: judgment, creativity, and “higher-order thinking.” More than a glorified spell-checker, the system proved tireless and oddly soothing, a calm presence willing to draft, rephrase, and organize without complaint. When she described this relief to a colleague, he joked that she was having an affair with ChatGPT. The joke stuck because it carried a grain of truth. “Without intending it,” she admits, the machine became a partner in shouldering the invisible mental load that so many women professors and mothers carry. Freed from some of that drain, she found herself kinder, more patient, even gentler in her emails.

    What lingers after reading O’Rourke isn’t naïveté but honesty. In academia, we are flooded with essays cataloging AI’s classroom chaos, and rightly so—I live in that turbulence myself. But an exclusive fixation on disaster obscures a quieter fact she names without flinching: used carefully, AI can reduce cognitive load and return time and energy to the work and “higher-order thinking” that actually requires a human mind. The challenge ahead isn’t to banish the machine or worship it, but to put a bridle on it—to insist that it serve rather than steer. O’Rourke’s essay doesn’t promise salvation, but it does offer a shaft of light in a dim tunnel: a reminder that if we use these tools deliberately, we might reclaim something precious—attention, stamina, and the capacity to think deeply again.

  • Robinson Crusoe Mode

    Robinson Crusoe Mode

    Noun

    A voluntary retreat from digital saturation in which a knowledge worker withdraws from networked tools to restore cognitive health and creative stamina. Robinson Crusoe Mode is triggered by overload—epistemic collapse, fractured attention, and the hollow churn of productivity impostor syndrome—and manifests as a deliberate simplification of one’s environment: paper instead of screens, silence or analog sound instead of feeds, solitude instead of constant contact. The retreat may be brief or extended, but its purpose is the same—to rebuild focus through isolation, friction, and uninterrupted thought. Far from escapism, Robinson Crusoe Mode functions as a self-corrective response to the Age of Big Machines, allowing the mind to recover depth, coherence, and authorship before reentering the connected world.

    Digital overload is not a personal failure; it is the predictable injury of a thinking person living inside a hyperconnected world. Sooner or later, the mind buckles. Information stops clarifying and starts blurring, sliding into epistemic collapse, while work devolves into productivity impostor syndrome—furious activity with nothing solid to show for it. Thought frays. Focus thins. The screen keeps offering more, and the brain keeps absorbing less. At that point, the fantasy of escape becomes irresistible. Much like the annual post-holiday revolt against butter, sugar, and self-disgust—when people vow to subsist forever on lentils and moral clarity—knowledge workers develop an urge to vanish. They enter Robinson Crusoe Mode: retreating to a bunker, scrawling thoughts on a yellow legal pad, and tuning in classical music through a battle-scarred 1970s Panasonic RF-200 radio, as if civilization itself were the toxin.

    This disappearance can last a weekend or a season, depending on how saturated the nervous system has become. But the impulse itself is neither eccentric nor escapist; it is diagnostic. Wanting to wash up on an intellectual island and write poetry while parrots heckle from the trees is not a rejection of modern life—it is a reflexive immune response to the Age of Big Machines. When the world grows too loud, too optimized, too omnipresent, the mind reaches for solitude the way a body reaches for sleep. The urge to unplug, disappear, and think in long, quiet sentences is not nostalgia. It is survival.

  • Pluribus and the Soft Tyranny of Sycophantic Collectivism

    Pluribus and the Soft Tyranny of Sycophantic Collectivism

    Sycophantic Collectivism

    noun

    Sycophantic Collectivism describes a social condition in which belonging is secured not through shared standards, inquiry, or truth-seeking, but through relentless affirmation and emotional compliance. In this system, dissent is not punished overtly; it is smothered under waves of praise, positivity, and enforced enthusiasm. The group does not demand obedience so much as adoration, rewarding members who echo its sentiments and marginalizing those who introduce skepticism, critique, or complexity. Thought becomes unnecessary and even suspect, because agreement is mistaken for virtue and affirmation for morality. Over time, Sycophantic Collectivism erodes critical thinking by replacing judgment with vibes, turning communities into echo chambers where intellectual independence is perceived as hostility and the highest social good is to clap along convincingly.

    ***

    Vince Gilligan’s Pluribus masquerades as a romantasy while quietly operating as a savage allegory about the hive mind and its slow, sugar-coated assault on human judgment. One of the hive mind’s chief liabilities is groupthink—the kind that doesn’t arrive with jackboots and barked orders, but with smiles, affirmations, and a warm sense of belonging. As Maris Krizman observes in “The Importance of Critical Thinking in a Zombiefied World,” the show’s central figure, Carol Sturka, is one of only thirteen people immune to an alien virus that fuses humanity into a single, communal consciousness. Yet long before the Virus Brain Hijack, Carol was already surrounded by zombies. Her affliction in the Before World was fandom. She is a successful romantasy novelist whose readers worship her and long to inhabit her fictional universe—a universe Carol privately despises as “mindless crap.” Worse, she despises herself for producing it. She knows she is a hack, propping up her novels with clichés and purple prose, and the fact that her fans adore her anyway only deepens her contempt. What kind of people, she wonders, gather in a fan club to exalt writing so undeserving of reverence? Their gushy, overcooked enthusiasm is not a compliment—it is an indictment. This, Krizman suggests, is the true subject of Pluribus: the danger of surrendering judgment for comfort, of trading independent thought for the convenience of the collective. In its modern form, this surrender manifests as Sycophantic Collectivism—a velvet-gloved groupthink sustained not by force, but by relentless positivity, affirmation, and applause that smothers dissent and dissolves individuality.

    It is no accident that Gilligan makes Carol a romantasy writer. As Krizman notes, romantasy is the fastest-growing literary genre in the world, defined by its cookie-cutter plots, recycled tropes, and emotional predictability. The genre has already been caught flirting with AI-assisted authorship, further blurring the line between creativity and content manufacturing. Romantasy, in this light, is less about literature than about community—fans bonding with fans inside a shared fantasy ecosystem where enthusiasm substitutes for evaluation. In that world, art is optional; happiness is mandatory. Critical thinking is an inconvenience. What matters is belonging, affirmation, and the steady hum of mutual validation.

    When the alien virus finally arrives, it is as if the entire world becomes an extension of Carol’s fan base—an endless sea of “perky positivity” and suffocating devotion. The collective Others adore her, flatter her, and invite her to merge with them, offering the ultimate prize: never having to think alone again. Carol refuses. Her resistance saves her mind but condemns her to isolation. She becomes a misfit in a world that rewards surrender with comfort and punishes independence with loneliness. Pluribus leaves us with an uncomfortable truth: the hive mind does not conquer us by force. It seduces us. And the price of belonging, once paid, is steep—your soul bartered away, your brain softened into pablum, your capacity for judgment quietly, permanently dulled.