Cinemorphosis

Category: Literary Dispatches

  • WordPress: My Kettlebell Gym of the Mind

    WordPress: My Kettlebell Gym of the Mind

    I launched my WordPress blog on March 12, evicting myself from Typepad after it was sold to a company that treats blogs the way landlords treat rent-controlled tenants: with bored disdain. Typepad became a ghost town in a bad neighborhood, so I packed up and moved to the gated community of WordPress—cleaner streets, better lighting, and fewer trolls.

    For the past ten weeks, I’ve treated WordPress like a public journal—a digital sweat lodge where I sweat out my thoughts, confessions, and pedagogical war stories from the frontlines of college teaching. I like the routine, the scaffolding, and the habits of self-control. Blogging gives me something I never got from social media or committee meetings: a sense of order in a culture that’s spun off its axis.

    But let’s not kid ourselves. WordPress isn’t some utopian agora where meaningful discourse flourishes in the shade of civility. It’s still wired into the dopamine economy. The minute I start checking likes, follows, and view counts, I’m no longer a writer—I’m a lab rat pressing the pellet button. Metrics are the new morality. And brother, I’m not immune.

    Case in point: I can craft a thoughtful post, click “Publish,” and watch it sink into the abyss like a message in a bottle tossed into a septic tank. One view. Maybe. Post the same thing on Reddit, and suddenly I’m performing for an arena full of dopamine-addled gladiators. They’ll upvote, sure—but only after the professional insulters have had their turn at bat. Reddit is where clever sociopaths go to sharpen their knives and call it discourse.

    WordPress, by contrast, is a chill café with decent lighting and no one live-tweeting your every existential sigh. It’s a refuge from the snarling hordes of hot-take hustlers and ideological bloodsport. A place where I can escape not only digital toxicity, but the wider derangement of our post-shame, post-truth society—where influencers and elected officials are often the same con artist in two different blazers.

    Instead of doomscrolling or screaming into the algorithmic void, I’ve taken to reading biographies—public intellectuals, athletes who aged with dignity, tech pioneers who are obsessed with taking over the world. Or I’ll go spelunking into gadget rabbit holes to distract myself from the spiritual hangover that comes from living in a country where charisma triumphs over character and truth is whatever sells ad space.

    In therapy-speak, my job on WordPress is to “use the tools,” as Phil Stutz says: to strengthen my relationship with myself, with others, and with the crumbling world around me. It’s a discipline, not a dopamine drip. Writing here won’t make me famous, won’t make me rich, and sure as hell won’t turn me into some cardigan-clad oracle for the digital age.

    What it will do is give me structure. WordPress is where I wrestle with my thoughts the way I wrestle kettlebells in my garage: imperfectly, regularly, and with just enough sweat to keep the madness at bay.

  • If Used Wisely, AI Can Push Your Writing to Greater Heights, But It Can Also Create Writer’s Dysmorphia

    If Used Wisely, AI Can Push Your Writing to Greater Heights, But It Can Also Create Writer’s Dysmorphia

    No ChatGPT or AI of any kind was used in the following:

    For close to 2 years, I’ve been editing and collaborating with ChatGPT for my personal and professional writing. I teach my college writing students how to engage with it, giving it instructions to avoid its default setting for bland, anodyne prose and teaching it how to adopt various writing personas. 

    For my own writing, ChatGPT has boosted my prose and imagery, making my writing more stunning, dramatic, and vivid.

    Because I have been a bodybuilder since 1974, I will use a bodybuilding analogy: Writing with ChatGPT is like bodybuilding with PEDS. I get addicted to the boost, the extra pump, and the extra muscle. Just as a bodybuilder can get body dysmorphia, ChatGPT can give writers a sort of writer’s dysmorphia. 

    But posting a few articles on Reddit recently in which a few readers were put off by what they saw as “fake writing,” I stopped in my tracks to question my use of ChatGPT. Part of me thinks that the hunger for authenticity is such that I should be writing content that is more like the natural bodybuilder, the guy who ventures forth in his endeavor with no PEDS. What you see is what you get, all human, no steroids, no AI.

    While I like the way ChatGPT pushes me in new directions that I would not explore on my own and makes the writing process engaging in new ways, I acknowledge that AI-fueled writer’s dysmorphia is real. We can get addicted to the juiced-up prose and the razzle-dazzle.

    Secondly, we can outsource too much thinking to AI and get lazy rather than do the work ourselves. In the process, our critical thinking skills begin to atrophy.

    Third, I think we can fill our heads with too much ChatGPT and live inside a hazy AI fever swamp. I recall going to middle school and on the outskirts of the campus, you could see the “burn-outs,” pot-addicted kids staring into the distance with their lizard eyes. One afternoon a friend joked, “They’re high so often, not being high must be a trip for them.” What if we become like these lizard-eyed burnouts and wander this world on a constant ChatGPT high that is so debilitating that we need to sober up in the natural world upon which we find the non-AI existence is its own form of healthy pleasure? In other words, we should be careful not to let ChatGPT live rent-free in our brains.

    Finally, people hunger for authentic, all-human writing, so moving forward on this blog, I want to continue to push myself with some ChatGPT-edited writing, but I also want to present all-natural, all-human writing, as is the case with this post. 

  • Manuscripnosis: A Vexing Tale of Self-Sabotage

    Manuscripnosis: A Vexing Tale of Self-Sabotage

    I suffer from a humiliating literary affliction: when I’m not trying to write a book—when I’m simply crafting loose, witty blog posts—my prose sings. It breathes. It struts across the page like it owns the place. In those moments, I’m not an “author,” I’m just a clever diarist with decent rhythm and a nose for irony.

    But then comes the fatal whiff—that intoxicating scent of a book deal drifting in from the distance like a mouth-watering freshly-baked coconut macaroon. Suddenly, I begin to try. I sit up straighter. I structure. I strategize. I lean into “craft.” And that’s when my prose, once alive and sinewy, collapses like a soufflé that sensed it was being watched. Gone is the energy, the voice, the mischievous verve. What remains is a flaccid husk of what could have been—something that reads less like a potential bestseller and more like a workshop handout no one asked for.

    This, dear reader, is the vicious, looping paradox I call Unintended Book Syndrome. The moment I stop writing and start authorshipping, my words die on the vine.

    The clinical term, I believe, is Manuscripnosis: a trance-like state in which blog-worthy brilliance is transfigured into joyless literary taxidermy the moment the idea of a “real book” enters the room. I have lived with this disorder for decades. I’ve tried everything—lowering expectations, denying ambition, even faking indifference. Nothing works. The moment I think this could be a book, the prose curls up and dies like a Victorian heroine too delicate for publication.

    Sometimes I fantasize about quitting writing altogether. But abstinence only makes it worse. The despair of not writing eclipses even the misery of writing badly. Which means I am doomed to live forever in this creative purgatory—hovering between genius and garbage, blog post and book, dopamine and dread.

  • The Salma Hayek-fication of Everything and the Beautocalypse

    The Salma Hayek-fication of Everything and the Beautocalypse

    If technology can make us all look like Salma Hayek, then congratulations—we’ve successfully killed beauty by cloning it into oblivion. Perfection loses its punch when everyone has it on tap. The same goes for writing: if every bored intern with a Wi-Fi connection can crank out Nabokovian prose with the help of ChatGPT, then those dazzling turns of phrase lose their mystique. What once shimmered now just… scrolls.

    Yes, technology improves us—but it also sandblasts the edges off everything, leaving behind a polished sameness. The danger isn’t just in becoming artificial; it’s in becoming indistinguishable. The real challenge in this age of frictionless upgrades is to retain your signature glitch—that weird, unruly fingerprint of a soul that no algorithm can replicate without screwing it up in glorious, human ways.

    If technology can make us all look like Brad Pitt and Selma Hayak, then none of us will be beautiful. In this hellscape, we all suffer inside the Beautocalypse–the collapse of beauty through overproduction: When everyone’s flawless, no one is.

    Likewise, if we can all use ChatGPT to write like Vladimir Nabokov, then florid prose will no longer have the wow factor. Technology improves us, yes, but it also makes everything the same. Retaining your individual fingerprint of a soul is the challenge in this new age. 

  • “Good Enough” Is the Enemy

    “Good Enough” Is the Enemy

    Standing in front of thirty bleary-eyed college students, I was deep into a lesson on how to distinguish a ChatGPT-generated essay from one written by an actual human—primarily by the AI’s habit of spitting out the same bland, overused phrases like a malfunctioning inspirational calendar. That’s when a business major casually raised his hand and said, “I can guarantee you everyone on this campus is using ChatGPT. We don’t use it straight-up. We just tweak a few sentences, paraphrase a bit, and boom—no one can tell the difference.”

    Cue the follow-up from a computer science student: “ChatGPT isn’t just for essays. It’s my life coach. I ask it about everything—career moves, crypto investments, even dating advice.” Dating advice. From ChatGPT. Let that sink in. Somewhere out there is a romance blossoming because of AI-generated pillow talk.

    At that moment, I realized I was facing the biggest educational disruption of my thirty-year teaching career. AI platforms like ChatGPT have three superpowers: insane convenience, instant accessibility, and lightning-fast speed. In a world where time is money and business documents don’t need to channel the spirit of James Baldwin, ChatGPT is already “good enough” for 95% of professional writing. And therein lies the rub—good enough.

    “Good enough” is the siren call of convenience. Picture this: You’ve just rolled out of bed, and you’re faced with two breakfast options. Breakfast #1 is a premade smoothie. It’s mediocre at best—mystery berries, more foam than a frat boy’s beer, and nutritional value that’s probably overstated. But hey, it’s there. No work required.

    Breakfast #2? Oh, it’s gourmet bliss—organic fruits and berries, rich Greek yogurt, chia seeds, almond milk, the works. But to get there, you’ll need to fend off orb spiders in your backyard, pick peaches and blackberries, endure the incessant yapping of your neighbor’s demonic Belgian dachshund, and then spend precious time blending and cleaning a Vitamix. Which option do most people choose?

    Exactly. Breakfast #1. The pre-packaged sludge wins, because who has the time for spider-wrangling and kitchen chemistry before braving rush-hour traffic? This is how convenience lures us into complacency. Sure, you sacrificed quality, but look how much time you saved! Eventually, you stop even missing the better option. This process—adjusting to mediocrity until you no longer care—is called attenuation.

    Now apply that to writing. Writing takes effort—a lot more than making a smoothie—and millions of people have begun lowering their standards thanks to AI. Why spend hours refining your prose when the world is perfectly happy to settle for algorithmically generated mediocrity? Polished writing is becoming the artisanal smoothie of communication—too much work for most, when AI can churn out passable content at the click of a button.

    But this is a nightmare for anyone in education. You didn’t sign up for teaching to coach your students into becoming connoisseurs of mediocrity. You had lofty ambitions—cultivating critical thinkers, wordsmiths, and rhetoricians with prose so sharp it could cut glass. But now? You’re stuck in a dystopia where “good enough” is the new gospel, and you’re about as on-brand as a poet peddling protein shakes at a multilevel marketing seminar.

    And there you are, gazing into the abyss of AI-generated essays—each one as lifeless as a department meeting on a Friday afternoon—wondering if anyone still remembers what good writing tastes like, let alone hungers for it. Spoiler alert: probably not.

    This is your challenge, your Everest of futility, your battle against the relentless tide of Mindless Ozempification–the gradual erosion of effort, depth, and self-discipline in any domain—writing, fitness, romance, thought—driven by the seductive promise of fast, frictionless results. Named after the weight-loss drug Ozempic, it describes a cultural shift toward shortcut-seeking, where process is discarded in favor of instant optimization, and the journey is treated as an inconvenience rather than a crucible for growth. 

    Teaching in the Age of Ozempification, life has oh-so-generously handed you this cosmic joke disguised as a teaching mission. So what’s your next move? You could curl up in the fetal position, weeping salty tears of despair into your syllabus. That’s one option. Or you could square your shoulders, roar your best primal scream, and fight like hell for the craft you once worshipped.

    Either way, the abyss is staring back, smirking, and waiting for your next move.

    So what’s the best move? Teach both languages. Show students how to use AI as a drafting tool, not a ghostwriter. Encourage them to treat ChatGPT like a calculator for prose—not a replacement for thinking, but an aid in shaping and refining their voice. Build assignments that require personal reflection, in-class writing, collaborative revision, and multimodal expression—tasks AI can mimic but not truly live. Don’t ban the bot. Co-opt it. Reclaim the standards of excellence by making students chase that gourmet smoothie—not because it’s easy, but because it tastes like something they actually made. The antidote to attenuation isn’t nostalgia or defeatism. It’s redesigning writing instruction to make real thinking indispensable again. If the abyss is staring back, then wink at it, sharpen your pen, and write something it couldn’t dare to fake.

  • Languishage: How AI is Smothering the Soul of Writing

    Languishage: How AI is Smothering the Soul of Writing

    Once upon a time, writing instructors lost sleep over comma splices and uninspired thesis statements. Those were gentler days. Today, we fend off 5,000-word essays excreted by AI platforms like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude—papers so eerily competent they hit every point on the department rubric like a sniper taking out a checklist. In-text citations? Flawless. Signal phrases? Present. MLA formatting? Impeccable. Close reading? Technically there—but with all the spiritual warmth of a fax machine reading The Waste Land.

    This is prose from the Uncanny Valley of Academic Writing—fluent, obedient, and utterly soulless, like a Stepford Wife enrolled in English 101. As writing instructors, many of us once loved language. We thrilled at the awkward, erratic voice of a student trying to say something real. Now we trudge through a desert of syntactic perfection, afflicted with a condition I’ve dubbed Languishage (language + languish)—the slow death of prose at the hands of polite, programmed mediocrity.

    And since these Franken-scripts routinely slip past plagiarism detectors, we’re left with a queasy question: What is the future of writing—and of teaching writing—in the AI age?

    That question haunted me long enough to produce a 3,000-word prompt. But the more I listened to my students, the clearer it became: this isn’t just about writing. It’s about living. They’re not merely outsourcing thesis statements. They’re outsourcing themselves—using AI to smooth over apology texts, finesse flirtation, DIY their therapy, and decipher the mumbled ramblings of tenured professors. They plug syllabi into GPT to generate study guides, request toothpaste recommendations, compose networking emails, and archive their digital selves in neat AI-curated folders.

    ChatGPT isn’t a writing tool. It’s prosthetic consciousness.

    And here’s the punchline: they don’t see an alternative. In their hyper-accelerated, ultra-competitive, cognitively overloaded lives, AI isn’t a novelty—it’s life support. It’s as essential as caffeine and Wi-Fi. So no, I’m not asking them to “critique ChatGPT” as if it’s some fancy spell-checker with ambition. That’s adorable. Instead, I’m introducing them to Algorithmic Capture—the quiet colonization of human behavior by optimization logic. In this world, ambiguity is punished, nuance is flattened, and selfhood becomes a performance for an invisible algorithmic audience. They aren’t just using the machine. They’re shaping themselves to become legible to it.

    That’s why the new essay prompt doesn’t ask, “What’s the future of writing?” It asks something far more urgent: “What’s happening to you?”

    We’re studying Black Mirror—especially “Joan Is Awful,” that fluorescent, satirical fever dream of algorithmic self-annihilation—and writing about how Algorithmic Capture is rewiring our lives, choices, and identities. The assignment isn’t a critique of AI. It’s a search party for what’s left of us.

  • 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.

  • 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.
  • Waiting for the Angels to Descend and Hand Me the Perfect Book Title on a Velvet Pillow

    Waiting for the Angels to Descend and Hand Me the Perfect Book Title on a Velvet Pillow

    After reading Emmanuel Carrère’s Yoga—a meandering, self-lacerating spiral of spiritual ambition, narcissism, and depressive collapse—I’ve found myself inspired, if not outright possessed, by the urge to write my own autobiographical novel. Not about yoga, of course. I have the flexibility of a rusted lawn chair. Mine would be about my lifelong addiction to exercise. Working title: Kettlebell.

    It has a certain Zen austerity to it. One word. Heavy. Spherical. Monastic. A blunt object and a metaphor all in one. A symbol of focus in a world engineered for entropy. While others turn to wine, weed, or weaponized mindfulness apps, I have turned to iron. Cold, unyielding, mildly concussive iron.

    Of course, I could flirt with cleverness—titles like The Church of Sweat or The Temple of Gains—but those reek of Instagram influencers and overpriced gym merch. Kettlebell is purer. But then again, Dumbbell tugs at me. It’s honest. It’s humiliating. It suggests what I secretly suspect: that I’ve spent a lifetime mistaking pain for virtue and resistance training for redemption. I am a Dumb Bell. A heavy object being swung around in circles, hoping to find peace through repetition.

    Still, perhaps I’m playing into the oldest self-help trap of them all—masquerading self-deprecation as enlightenment. Perhaps the search for the perfect title is simply a glorified avoidance ritual, a form of literary procrastination wrapped in velvet. Because deep down, I know the book isn’t just about fitness. It’s about how I’ve used discipline as anesthesia, reps as prayer beads, and physical exhaustion as a form of epistemology. I don’t know what God looks like, but I suspect He smells like workout chalk and vanilla protein shakes.

    Some mornings I feel like a garage-dwelling mystic, swinging kettlebells under flickering LED light, muttering mantras between sets. Other days I feel like an absurd parody of Sisyphus—except instead of rolling a boulder up a hill, I’m performing goblet squats in my tattered gym shorts, chasing transcendence in 30-second rest intervals.

    And now, on the brink of another workout, I’m wasting precious calories spiraling into a metaphysical title crisis. Maybe the perfect name will descend from the sky, borne aloft by angels in sweatbands and Lululemon, whispering, “This is it. This is your brand.” They will hand me the title on a velvet pillow. Or maybe I’ll figure it out in the middle of a brutal set, when my soul finally detaches from my body like a spent shell casing and whispers, “Just call it Garage Monk and be done with it.”

    One way or another, the iron awaits. And it does not care what the book is called.

  • The Gospel According to Dad: A Parable of Rocks, Regret, and Cabernet

    The Gospel According to Dad: A Parable of Rocks, Regret, and Cabernet

    I was sixteen. My parents were recently divorced. Once a month, I’d visit my father at his swanky apartment and we’d discuss my future.

    One night, my father stared at me across the dinner table, a slab of rare steak leaking its red juices into a mountain of mashed potatoes. He squinted, as if trying to determine whether I was his son or a lost philosophy major who’d wandered in from a patchouli-scented commune.

    “So,” he said, carving off a bloody corner, “what are your career plans?”

    I gave him the truth. “Not totally sure, but I’m leaning toward philosophy.”

    He dropped his knife like I’d just confessed to joining a nudist circus. “Why in the hell would you want to do a thing like that?”

    “The search for meaning,” I said.

    He snorted and chased his chew with a gulp of red wine, as if meaninglessness required lubrication. “Don’t waste your time.”

    “Meaning is a waste of time?”

    He wiped his mouth like he was preparing to deliver a TED Talk from the underworld. “Let me tell you a little story.”

    And then came one of Dad’s home-brewed parables—equal parts whiskey, cynicism, and divine apathy:

    “A young man, about your age, stood on a beach and looked up at the heavens. ‘God,’ he said, ‘help me find meaning.’ And God, being the cosmic wiseass that He is, replied, ‘Look at all the rocks around you. One of them has the meaning of life written on it. Go find it.’ The young man looked around—millions of rocks—and said, ‘But God, that’ll take forever.’ And God said, ‘That’s your problem, not mine.’”

    I already regretted everything.

    “Decades passed. The man turned over every rock. He aged like a leather shoe abandoned in the desert. No inscription. He grew sunburned, brittle, and spiritually constipated. Finally, in his nineties, he looked up at the sky, trembling with rage, and shouted, ‘God! I’ve been faithful! No pleasure, no joy, no Netflix—just rock-flipping! And I found nothing!’”

    Dad leaned in, eyes gleaming.

    “And God said: ‘That’s right, you dumb shit. Now die.’”

    There was a silence. Even the mashed potatoes seemed stunned.

    I blinked. “Where in the hell did you hear that story?”

    He leaned back, smug as a snake on a warm rock. “Made it up. For your benefit.”

    “My benefit? What am I supposed to take from this bleak little fable?”

    He ticked the lessons off like commandments: “One, God doesn’t give a shit. Two, there is no meaning. Three, stop thinking so damn much and just live your life.”

    “Easy for you to say,” I muttered. “Cruising around in your fancy car, living in your swanky bachelor pad, drinking overpriced wine.”

    “Worry not, my son,” he said, swirling his cabernet like it owed him rent. “You’ll get yours someday.”

    “So you’ve found paradise?”

    He shrugged. “Far from it. But it’s got central air. And that’ll have to do.”