Reading Why We Write and seeing the worldâs elite authors dissect the process that made them flourish forced me to confront a brutal truth: I am not a real writer.
All those decades of grinding out abysmal, unreadable novels werenât acts of literary craftsmanshipâthey were performance art, a cosplay so convincing that even I fell for it. I played the role of âthe unappreciated novelistâ with such dazzling commitment that I actually believed it. And what was my proof of authenticity? Misery and failure.
Surely, I thought, only a true genius could endure decades of rejection, obscurity, and artistic suffering. Surely, my inability to produce a good novel was simply a sign that I was ahead of my time, too profound for this crass and unworthy world.
Turns out, I wasnât an undiscovered geniusâI was just really, really bad at writing novels.
Misery is a tricky con artist. It convinces you that suffering is the price of authenticity, that the deeper your despair, the more profound your genius. This is especially true for the unpublished writer, that tragic figure who has transformed rejection into a sacred ritual. He doesnât just endure miseryâhe cultivates it, polishes it, wears it like a bespoke suit of existential agony. In his mind, every unopened response from a literary agent is further proof of his artistic martyrdom. He mistakes his failure for proof that he is part of some elite, misunderstood brotherhood, the kind of tortured souls who scowl in coffee shops and rage against the mediocrity of the world.
And therein lies the grand delusion: the belief that suffering is a substitute for talent, that rejection letters are secret messages from the universe confirming his genius. This is not artâitâs literary cosplay, complete with the requisite brooding and self-pity. The unpublished writer isnât just chasing publication; heâs chasing the idea of being the tortured artist, as if melancholy alone could craft a masterpiece.
Which brings us to the next guiding principle for Manuscriptus Rexâs rehabilitation:
The belief that the more miserable you are, the more authentic you become. This dangerous belief has its origins in a popular song–none other than Steely Danâs brooding anthem, âDeacon Blues.â
Like any good disciple, Iâve worshiped at this altar without even realizing it. I, too, have believed Iâm the âexpanding manââgrowing wiser, deeper, more profoundâwhile simultaneously wallowing in self-pity as a misunderstood loser. Itâs a special kind of delusion, the spiritual equivalent of polishing a rusty trophy.
To fully grasp this faith, I point you to The Wall Street Journal article, âHow Steely Dan Created âDeacon Bluesââ by Marc Myers. There, Donald Fagen and Walter Becker peel back the curtain on the songâs narratorâa man who couldâve just as easily been named Sad Sack Jones. Heâs a suburban daydreamer, stuck in a dull, mediocre life, fantasizing that heâs a hard-drinking, sax-blowing rebel with women at his feet.
Fagen admits the character was designed as a counterpoint to the unstoppable juggernaut of college footballâs Crimson Tideâa gleaming machine of winners. In contrast, Deacon Blues is the anthem of the losers, crafted from a Malibu piano room with a sliver of Pacific Ocean peeking through the houses. Becker summed it up best: âCrimson Tideâ dripped with grandiosity, so they invented âDeacon Bluesâ to glorify failure.
And did it work. âDeacon Bluesâ became the unofficial patron saint for every self-proclaimed misfit who saw their own authenticity in his despair. He was our tragic heroâuncompromising, self-actualized, and romantic in his suffering.
But then I read the article, and the spell broke. We were all suckered by a myth. Like the songâs narrator, we swallowed the fantasy of the âexpanding man,â not realizing he was a con artist in his own mind. This isnât a noble figure battling the worldâs indifferenceâitâs a man marinating in his own mediocrity, dressed up in fantasies of scotch, saxophones, and self-destructive glamour.
Walter Becker wasnât subtle: the protagonist in âDeacon Bluesâ is a triple-L loserâan L-L-L Loser. Not a man on the cusp of greatness, but a man clutching a broken dream, pacing through a broken life. Fagen sharpened the knife: this is the guy who wakes up at 31 in his parentsâ house and decides heâs suddenly going to âstrut his stuff.â
That sad, self-deluded basement dweller? That was the false prophet Iâd built my personal religion around. A faith propped up by fantasies and self-sabotage.
The man who inspired me wasnât a misunderstood genius. He was a cautionary tale. A false path paved with jazz, liquor, and the comforting hum of failure.
The slacker man-child isnât just a tragic figure crooning in Steely Danâs âDeacon Blues.â No, he walks among usâlounges among us, reallyâand I knew one personally. His name was Michael Barley.
We met in the late 1980s at my apartment swimming pool while I was teaching college writing in Bakersfield, a place that practically invents new ways to suffocate ambition. A failed musician who had dabbled in a couple of garage bands, Michael was in his early thirties and bore such a stunning resemblance to Paul McCartney that he couldâve landed a cushy gig as a Vegas impersonator if only ambition hadnât been a foreign concept to him. He had it all: the same nose, the same mouth, the same melancholy eyes, even the same feathered, shoulder-grazing hair McCartney rocked in the ’70s and ’80s. Sure, he was shorter, stockier, and his cheeks were pockmarked with acne scars, but from a distanceâand, really, only from a distanceâhe was Paulâs sad-sack doppelgänger.
Michael leaned into this resemblance like a man squeezing the last drops from a dry sponge. At clubs, heâd loiter near the bar in a black blazerâhis self-anointed âBeatles jacketââwearing a slack-jawed half-smile, waiting for some starry-eyed woman to break the ice with, âHas anyone ever told youâŚ?â His pickup strategy was less a plan and more a form of passive income. The women did all the work; he just had to stand there and exist. The hardest part of the night, I suspect, was pretending to be surprised when they made the McCartney connection for the hundredth time.
And then he disappeared. For six months, nothing.
When Michael resurfaced, he wasnât Michael anymore. He was Julian Frenchâan “English musician” with a secondhand accent and thirdhand dreams. He had fled to London, apparently thinking the UK was clamoring for chubby McCartney clones, and when that didnât pan out (shocking, I know), he slunk back to Bakersfield to live in his parentsâ trailer, which, in a tragicomic twist, was attached to an elementary school where his father worked as the janitor and moonlit as a locksmith.
But Michaelâexcuse me, Julianâwas undeterred. He insisted I call him by his new British name, swore up and down that his accent was authentic, and we returned to our old haunts. Now, at the gym and in nightclubs, I watched him work the crowd with his faux-charm and faux-accent, slinging cars and cell phones like a man with no Plan B. His Beatles face was his business card, his only sales pitch. He lived off the oxygen of strangersâ admiration, basking in the glow of almost being someone important.
But hereâs the truth: MichaelâJulianâwasnât hustling. He was coasting. His whole life was one long, lazy drift powered by the barest effort. He never married, never had a long-term relationship, never even pretended to have ambition. His greatest challenge was feigning humility when people gushed over his discount McCartney face.
Time, of course, is undefeated. By middle age, Julianâs face began to betray him. His ears and nose ballooned, his jowls sagged, and the resemblance to Paul McCartney evaporated. Without his one-note gimmick, the magic died. The women, the friends, the salesâthey all disappeared. So, back to the trailer he went, tail tucked, learning the locksmith trade from his father, as if turning keys could unlock the door to whatever life heâd wasted.
And me? I didnât judge him. I couldnât.
Because deep down, I knew I was just as susceptible to the same delusionâthe myth of the “Expanding Man.â That romantic fantasy of being a misunderstood artist, swaddled in self-pity, wandering through life with the illusion of authenticity. Like the anti-hero in âDeacon Blues,â Julian wasnât building a life; he was building a narrative to justify his stagnation.
And wasnât I doing the same? By the late â90s, I was approaching 40, professionally afloat but personally shipwreckedâemotionally underdeveloped, the cracks in my personality widening into canyons. I, too, was toeing that fine line between winner and loser, haunted by the possibility that Iâd wasted years buying into the same seductive lie that trapped Julian.
Thatâs the genius of the âDeacon Blueâsâ Doctrineâa religion as potent as opium. It sanctifies self-pity, addiction, and delusions of grandeur, repackaging them into a noble code of suffering. It convinces you that stewing in your own misery is a virtue, that being a failure makes you authentic, and that the world just isnât sophisticated enough to appreciate your “depth.”
But hereâs the truth no one tells you: eventually, life hands you your ass on a stick. Thatâs when you find out which side of the line youâre really on.