Cinemorphosis

Blog

  • I’m a Radio Man Trapped in a YouTube Video

    I’m a Radio Man Trapped in a YouTube Video

    On the final episode of The Gist, Mike Pesca—who is leaving to assume an executive role at a still-undisclosed institution—lamented the passing of an older form of media. He spoke about the intimacy of hearing a voice without being forced to watch it. A voice enters your home stripped of spectacle. It asks for attention rather than demanding it. It does not require jump cuts, dramatic lighting, animated captions, exaggerated facial expressions, or an algorithm trained to hijack your dopamine receptors. Pesca admitted that one reason he was ending The Gist was simple: he no longer wished to compete in the circus.

    He spoke warmly of Julia Turner, whose Culture Gabfest has also come to an end. He noted that Marc Maron has little interest in becoming another video personality. Although Pesca didn’t mention them, Jesse Singal and Katie Herzog of Blocked and Reported have similarly resisted reshaping their podcast into a YouTube product. Pesca observed that the retirement of Maron, the disappearance of Culture Gabfest, and the end of The Gist signal “the end of an era.”

    Listening to him, I realized I have been mourning that era for some time.

    Shortly afterward, David Greene closed an episode of Left, Right & Center by announcing the retirement of NPR’s Don Gonyea. Another unforgettable voice was disappearing from my daily life. I found myself oddly saddened. I wasn’t losing a face. I was losing a companion. Don Gonyea will be missed. So will Marc Maron. So will Mike Pesca. 

    It finally dawned on me while listening to Mike Pesca’s farewell episode of The Gist: I spent fifteen years making YouTube videos, but I was never really a YouTuber. I was a radio man trapped inside a YouTube video.

    I have never formed a deep attachment to YouTubers or Instagram personalities. I connect with voices. I grew up in the age of radio, when a voice carried enough authority to build an audience and enough warmth to become part of a family’s routine. I still remember the oversized preset buttons on my parents’ turquoise Chrysler Newport as Dionne Warwick asked if we knew the way to San Jose and The 5th Dimension floated “Up, Up and Away” through the speakers. In the 1970s, my mother’s Panasonic RF-1080 seemed permanently tuned to KGO 810 AM. Jim Eason, Jim Dunbar, and Ron Owens narrated our days with such consistency that they became as essential to the household as breakfast. When we visited my grandparents in Los Angeles, Michael Jackson drifted through the house while conversations about politics, books, and current events unfolded around him. Living among ideas was not an extracurricular activity. It was simply what adults did.

    Some of my happiest childhood memories involve nothing more than lying on a couch or sitting on the porch while an AM radio broadcaster called a baseball game. Those voices carried me into a dream world more comforting than the one outside my front door. Even now, I suspect that paradise sounds less like angels singing than a baseball announcer calmly describing a lazy fly ball to center field.

    When podcasts emerged in the early 2010s, they felt like radio reborn. I loved the voices. I loved the predictability. A good podcast possessed architecture. It opened with one segment, moved naturally into another, and arrived at a satisfying conclusion. As a writing instructor whose life revolves around lesson plans, outlines, and coherent arguments, I appreciated that structure. A podcast respected the listener’s attention instead of treating it as prey.

    Video rarely shows the same respect.

    Too often, it reshapes personalities into algorithmic caricatures. Everyone speaks with theatrical urgency. Every thumbnail depicts someone whose eyes appear to have witnessed the Second Coming or an alien invasion. Every headline promises that everything you believe has just been DESTROYED. Outrage has become less an emotion than a production budget.

    The internet has perfected a new facial expression: the clickbait gasp. Apparently, no thought is complete until someone opens his mouth wide enough to swallow the thumbnail.

    I find the entire performance exhausting.

    When I think back to watching The Dick Cavett Show as a ten-year-old, I remember almost nothing about the visuals. I remember Cavett’s voice—curious, literate, skeptical, and wonderfully patient. He made intelligence sound inviting rather than performative. Listening to him, I wanted to inhabit a world where thoughtful people spoke in complete sentences, entertained competing ideas, and considered nuance a virtue instead of a liability. Perhaps Cavett planted the seeds of elitism in me. If a conversation lacked subtlety, I assumed it lacked seriousness.

    Reflecting on Pesca’s farewell forced me to confront my own fifteen years on YouTube.

    Technically, I have always been hopeless. More than once I filmed a watch review so badly that the watch itself remained stubbornly out of focus while the comments section delighted in informing me of my incompetence. As YouTube evolved into an increasingly polished medium—with cinematic lighting, drone footage, elaborate editing, and graphics worthy of cable television—I never evolved with it.

    Nor, I eventually realized, did I want to.

    My interest gradually shifted away from close-up glamour shots of luxury watches and endless “State of the Collection” videos. I became more interested in why we chase possessions than in the possessions themselves. My videos became essays disguised as watch content. The algorithm, understandably, was unimpressed.

    Recently I noticed that six weeks had passed since I uploaded a video.

    I am not abandoning the channel. But I have become suspicious of speaking merely because the algorithm demands another upload. I have no desire to become someone who mistakes constant broadcasting for having something worth saying. Every new video should earn its existence. It should contribute something I have not already said. It should reflect genuine conviction rather than anxiety about disappearing.

    Perhaps that standard is impossibly high.

    Or perhaps it is simply what growing older feels like.

    I am sixty-four now. The older I become, the less interested I am in producing content and the more interested I am in producing thought. The algorithm rewards frequency. Age rewards discrimination.

    If I have learned anything from listening to voices like Mike Pesca, Don Gonyea, Dick Cavett, Jim Dunbar, and Marc Maron, it is that the medium was never the point. The point was never to command attention. It was to deserve it.

    Maybe that is the real end of the era—not the disappearance of podcasts, but the fading belief that a single thoughtful voice, speaking without spectacle, is enough.

    I hope it still is.

  • Breaking Bad for the Book of Romans

    Breaking Bad for the Book of Romans

    The great stories of the Bible—Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah, Moses, David, Job, Jesus, and Paul—deserve to be reimagined as a series of prestige television miniseries, each spanning ten meticulously crafted episodes for a platform such as Hulu or Netflix. The goal would not be to produce religious propaganda or anti-religious satire. The series would avoid both sanctimony and cynicism. Its allegiance would be to literature, art, and compelling storytelling.

    Just as audiences were captivated by Walter White’s extraordinary moral descent in Breaking Bad, they could be equally captivated by Paul’s astonishing transformation on the road to Damascus. Few character arcs in world literature rival its dramatic force.

    Just as we recoil from the nihilistic corruption of Sodom and Gomorrah, we recoil from the feral moral depravity that consumes the Roy family in Succession.

    After reading the work of biblical scholars, believers, agnostics, and skeptics alike, I have come to appreciate that the Bible possesses an artistic and literary power that transcends theological debate. Its stories are filled with psychological depth, moral ambiguity, epic conflict, and unforgettable characters. Faith may shape how viewers interpret these narratives, but it need not determine whether they are moved by them. If adapted with intelligence and artistic courage, these stories could stand alongside the greatest achievements of modern television—not because they preach, but because they illuminate the enduring drama of the human condition.

  • The Great Lachyrmose

    The Great Lachyrmose

    The Great Lachyrmose was the stage name bestowed upon Jeff McMahon, a college writing student, bodybuilder, and part-time laborer at Jackson’s Wine and Spirits on Tunnel Road beside the Claremont Hotel. From 1983 to 1987, the store hosted wine tastings three evenings a week. There were bottles from Bordeaux, Napa, and Tuscany, a polished grand piano in the corner, and customers who came expecting Cabernet, Brie, and melancholy in equal measure.

    The ritual never varied.

    McMahon would be hidden away in the walk-in cooler stacking cases of beer or downstairs wrestling heavy crates of wine. His black T-shirt was perpetually torn, his forearms tattooed with cardboard abrasions, nicks from broken bottles, and fresh cuts courtesy of overzealous box cutters. He looked less like a concert pianist than a dockworker who had taken a wrong turn into a music conservatory.

    Soon someone at the tasting bar would ask, “Where’s Lachyrmose?”

    Another voice would join in. Then another. Before long the room itself seemed to chant for him.

    Store owner Solomon Khan, who understood that theater sells almost as well as Chardonnay, would smile knowingly. If every chair around the tasting bar had been claimed, he would haul out more until the room resembled an impromptu recital hall. Only then would the Great Lachyrmose make his entrance, emerging dramatically from the cellar or the refrigerator like some wounded Romantic hero ascending from the underworld.

    Without ceremony he would sit at the piano and spend the next hour filling the room with mournful nocturnes, elegiac waltzes, and slow-moving ballades that drifted through the store like woodsmoke on a winter evening. Conversations softened. Wine glasses paused halfway to waiting lips. Even the cash register seemed embarrassed to interrupt.

    The most enchanting audience members were the neighborhood’s young mothers.

    They would arrive carrying restless infants whose nightly resistance to sleep had exhausted every parental strategy except surrender. Somehow the Great Lachyrmose accomplished what rocking chairs, lullabies, and desperate pacing could not. One melancholy piano piece after another worked its quiet spell until tiny eyelids surrendered. The babies collapsed into peaceful sleep with astonishing reliability. Their grateful parents would offer Lachyrmose a smile and a gentle nod before slipping out into the Berkeley night, precious cargo cradled carefully in their arms.

    It became one of the strangest guarantees in town. Jackson’s could promise good wine. Lachyrmose could promise sleeping babies.

    As the years passed, however, something inside the pianist began to shift. He grew restless with his own success. He wanted brighter harmonies, quicker tempos, unexpected turns. He wanted music that laughed as often as it sighed.

    His audience revolted.

    The regulars did not come for experimentation. They came for emotional comfort. They wanted the familiar sorrow they had come to love, returning to those melancholy melodies with the same devotion families reserve for a grandmother’s chicken pot pie. Every new composition was politely tolerated before someone inevitably asked for one of the old sad songs.

    Success had quietly become a cage.

    The Great Lachyrmose had become a prisoner of his own repertoire.

    So when McMahon accepted his first college teaching position, he quietly retired the character and left Jackson’s behind. For the first time, he could play whatever music interested him rather than whatever melancholy his audience wished to hear.

    He gained artistic freedom, but he lost something as well.

    He lost the strange little community that had gathered around a grand piano in the corner of a wine shop. He lost the nightly ritual of emerging from the cellar to a room full of expectant faces. He lost the grateful parents carrying sleeping babies into the darkness.

    Even now, decades later, he occasionally misses the Great Lachyrmose. The music has changed. Life has changed. But belonging—that rare feeling that one’s peculiar gifts answer someone else’s unspoken need—is not so easily replaced.

  • The Artist and the Fundamentalist

    The Artist and the Fundamentalist

    In The War of Art, Stephen Pressfield argues that the artist flourishes only within a civilization wealthy and stable enough to afford “the luxury of self-examination.” Such a culture gives artists the freedom to create because it believes in human progress. It assumes that, however flawed humanity may be, those flaws can gradually be overcome. Art and humanism therefore become inseparable. The artist is sustained by the conviction that mankind is moving forward, and art is both evidence of that progress and one of its engines.

    I grew up dimly aware that my family and their friends subscribed to this liberal humanist vision. I found it comforting. I accepted its assumptions without much reflection because they made the world seem orderly and hopeful. Yet I cannot honestly say I embraced its ideals. My ambitions were narrower. The world’s problems belonged to someone else. My concern was building a pleasant kingdom for myself. Beyond the walls of that kingdom, humanity would simply have to fend for itself.

    Only later did I recognize what Pressfield sees as the shadow cast by humanism. Opposing it is not merely pessimism but fundamentalism.

    Fundamentalism begins with the conviction that human beings are too fallen, too corrupt, and too powerless to redeem themselves. Salvation cannot come through gradual human improvement; it must arrive through divine revelation or absolute doctrine. That revelation may come through Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Karl Marx, or any other figure invested with unquestionable authority. If Pressfield were writing today, he might extend the list to include secular gurus whose followers seek not merely advice but complete personal transformation.

    Regardless of the prophet, the psychology remains the same. Fundamentalism grows from humiliation, alienation, and the longing for certainty, belonging, purpose, and power. The believer attaches himself to a leader whose doctrine promises nothing less than total metamorphosis. On this point, Pressfield’s analysis closely parallels that of Eric Hoffer in The True Believer, who argued that mass movements flourish among people desperate to escape the burdens of individual identity.

    History provides familiar examples. Pressfield notes that Hebrew fundamentalism intensified during the Babylonian captivity. White Christian fundamentalism expanded in the American South after Reconstruction. Germans embraced the mythology of the Master Race following the national humiliation of World War I. The particulars differ, but the emotional architecture remains remarkably consistent.

    At the heart of every fundamentalism lies a fear of freedom.

    Freedom sounds exhilarating until one remembers what it demands. To be free is to risk failure. It is to lose the comforting structures of tribe, clan, village, and inherited identity. As Pressfield writes, freedom often produces “the dislocation and emasculation experienced by the individual cut free from the familiar and comforting structures of the tribe and the clan, the village and the family.”

    The fundamentalist recoils from this uncertainty. He does not want the open horizon of modernity. He wants the closed gate of certainty. He retreats into an imagined golden age where moral boundaries are fixed, identities are unquestioned, and every problem has already been solved. As Pressfield puts it, he “gets back to basics. To fundamentals.”

    In this sense, modernism and humanism become close allies. Both assume that humanity can shape its future, define itself, and allow individuals to flourish according to their own talents and choices. Fundamentalism, by contrast, turns its face toward the past. Its paradise always lies behind it.

    This explains why Pressfield concludes that fundamentalism and art are fundamentally incompatible. “Fundamentalism and art are mutually exclusive. There is no such thing as fundamentalist art.”

    Art thrives on ambiguity, exploration, imagination, and discovery. Fundamentalism demands certainty, conformity, and obedience. The artist creates. The fundamentalist polices. Where the artist opens possibilities, the fundamentalist narrows them. His creative energies are redirected toward destruction—not necessarily of buildings alone, but of ideas, books, institutions, and people perceived as threats to the sacred order.

    No figure occupies the fundamentalist imagination more completely than Satan.

    His greatest creative act is the continual reinvention of evil itself. Satan may appear as rock music, fantasy novels, Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Hollywood, secret cabals, lizard people, transgender ideology, vaccines, or universal healthcare. The names change with the generation, but the psychological function remains constant. Evil must always have a face. The fundamentalist spends so much time imagining Satan that he develops an almost obsessive fascination with the very force he claims to despise.

    Pressfield’s concept of Resistance appears in both worlds, but it assumes opposite meanings.

    For the artist, Resistance is the inner force that tempts one toward laziness, distraction, and fear instead of disciplined creation. For the fundamentalist, Resistance becomes temptation toward sin. His response is not artistic labor but deeper immersion in sacred texts, ritual, and ideological action. His mission is not to create a better future but to restore a purified past in which everyone submits to the same moral code.

    Humanists may believe in God, but they see themselves as collaborators rather than passive subjects. They become, in Pressfield’s phrase, “co-creators,” working alongside the divine to improve the world while allowing individuals to flourish according to their unique gifts. The fundamentalist regards that very freedom as rebellion. Individual autonomy becomes apostasy.

    Humanism flourishes where societies enjoy prosperity, stability, and hope. Fundamentalism flourishes where humiliation, scarcity, and inequality convince people that freedom has failed them. Under those conditions, many become willing to exchange liberty for certainty, even if certainty demands submission to an oppressive vision of the past.

    For Pressfield, the struggle to produce art therefore becomes more than a personal discipline. It becomes a civilizational duty. Art enlarges human freedom. It nourishes the forces that move civilization forward while starving those that would drag it backward into fear and absolutism.

    Yet the deepest battle is never merely political. It is internal.

    Pressfield concludes with an observation that echoes across philosophy and theology alike: “The paradox seems to be, as Socrates demonstrated long ago, that the truly free individual is free only to the extent of his own self-mastery. While those who will not govern themselves are condemned to find masters to govern over them.”

    These final lines remind me of Paul. In Romans, Paul confesses that he cannot master himself. He longs to do what is right, yet repeatedly finds himself doing the very thing he hates. His will is divided. His moral resources are exhausted. Left to himself, he cannot overcome his own depravity and must therefore throw himself upon the mercy of Christ.

    At first glance, Paul’s confession resembles the psychology Pressfield attributes to the fundamentalist. Both begin with an acknowledgment of human brokenness and the inadequacy of individual willpower. But the resemblance may end there.

    Pressfield’s fundamentalist flees freedom because it terrifies him. Unable to bear uncertainty, he surrenders his judgment to an authoritarian doctrine that promises absolute certainty, rigid purity, and the restoration of a mythical golden age. His faith expresses itself through conformity, ideological warfare, and the relentless identification of enemies. He seeks salvation by submitting to external authority and demanding that others do the same.

    Paul’s theology points in another direction. His surrender is not to an ideology but to grace. Rather than claiming moral superiority, Paul begins by confessing his own moral bankruptcy. Rather than condemning outsiders, he first indicts himself. The transformation he seeks is not the recovery of a glorious past but the creation of a new heart. His dependence on God is meant to produce humility rather than triumphalism, compassion rather than self-righteousness, and freedom from sin rather than domination over other people.

    Yet the distinction remains difficult to untangle.

    Does Paul’s doctrine of grace ultimately liberate the individual, or does it still require the surrender of autonomy that Pressfield warns against? Can genuine freedom ever arise from admitting one’s inability to save oneself? Or does every appeal to divine authority contain the seeds of authoritarianism? Is Pressfield correct that self-mastery is the highest form of freedom, or is Paul correct that true freedom begins only when we acknowledge the limits of self-mastery and accept grace?

    These questions haunt me during both my waking and sleeping hours. I have not resolved them. I suspect I may never fully resolve them. But the struggle itself—the struggle to understand freedom, discipline, grace, and human flourishing—has become one of the defining pursuits of my life.

  • The Hairball Apocalypse and the Courage to Snake a Drain

    The Hairball Apocalypse and the Courage to Snake a Drain

    Hair buildup in the shower drain has clogged the primary bathroom about half a dozen times over the past twenty-four years. The warning signs never change. Murky, fetid water begins rising inside the marble shower basin, and with it rises my imagination. Within seconds I have diagnosed tree roots invading the pipes, a collapsed main sewer line, catastrophic plumbing failure, and the financial ruin that surely follows.

    Reality is considerably less cinematic.

    We’re talking about hair.

    I have called plumbers in the past. This time I decided to become one—or at least impersonate one.

    I borrowed my neighbor’s hand-held auger and spent the evening crouched over the shower, sweating through my shirt while my knees protested every minute on the tile floor. The auger finally broke through the clog. Victory. I turned on the shower, watched the water disappear, and congratulated myself.

    Two minutes later the water was pooling again.

    Apparently, I had not defeated the enemy. I had merely tunneled through it.

    So I waited for the water to drain, fed the auger back into the pipe, cranked again, and tried another test. This time the shower remained clear for nearly three minutes before surrendering once more to the same soggy defeat.

    The diagnosis had become obvious.

    I needed to go deeper.

    My neighbor owns a drill-powered auger, but when I borrowed the manual one around seven o’clock the previous evening, he answered the door wearing a bathrobe and dripping wet after climbing out of his hot tub. It seemed an inappropriate moment to ask for a plumbing tutorial. Some acts of neighborliness should have limits.

    Today I’ll borrow the powered version.

    Better yet, I have already bought my own. I ordered a RIDGID Power Spin, which works either by hand or by attaching it to my DeWalt drill. The hand crank removes, the drill locks onto the drive shaft, and suddenly I possess a machine whose existence I was blissfully unaware of forty-eight hours ago.

    The RIDGID arrives in a couple of days.

    Now I have to learn how to use the thing.

    This matters for reasons that extend well beyond one clogged shower.

    In principle, I should not have to pay someone hundreds of dollars to spin an auger down a drain. In principle, I should not become helpless every time a clog predictably appears after business hours, on a weekend, or during a holiday. In principle, I should understand that knowledge and self-reliance are among the most effective antidotes to anxiety.

    The clog itself was never the real problem.

    My ignorance was.

    There are, it seems to me, two kinds of homeowners. The first sees a wad of wet hair, sighs, reaches for the proper tool, and solves the problem before dinner.

    The second sees the identical clump of hair and imagines collapsing sewer lines, excavators in the front yard, and a plumbing invoice large enough to require grief counseling.

    I have spent too much of my life belonging to the second category.

    My goal is to graduate into the first.

    So I will arm myself with knowledge, a RIDGID Power Spin, and the quiet confidence that comes from knowing the difference between a plumbing emergency and a hair clump masquerading as one.

    Of course, I also bought plumber’s gloves, work goggles, knee pads, and heavy-duty coveralls.

    I only hope they transform me into a competent handyman.

    Otherwise, I have merely assembled an exceptionally convincing handyman costume.

  • Why a Watch YouTuber Like Myself Must Not Commit the Sin of Narrative Overstay

    Why a Watch YouTuber Like Myself Must Not Commit the Sin of Narrative Overstay

    For fifteen years you made YouTube videos, most of them about watches and the peculiar form of madness that convinces otherwise rational adults that the next dive watch will finally complete them. By now, you have mapped the terrain. You have dissected the psychology of acquisition, status, collector fever, diminishing returns, and the fantasy that fulfillment lies one purchase away. There is little left to excavate. Every new video feels suspiciously like an old one wearing a different thumbnail.

    Meanwhile, you have changed.

    You are sixty-four. Your curiosity has wandered far beyond bezels, lume, and power reserves. You want to make video essays about books, politics, religion, technology, aging, and the strange civilization we have built for ourselves. But YouTube has little interest in intellectual wanderers. It rewards specialists. The algorithm is less a patron of curiosity than a prison warden, forever reminding inmates to stay inside their assigned cell.

    You could obey. You could continue manufacturing watch videos until retirement.

    But doing so would require confronting a condition I call algorithmic senescence: the stage in a creator’s life when the platform’s demand for endless specialization collides with the creator’s natural intellectual evolution, making continued participation feel less like mastery than slow decay.

    The decay itself, however, is not the real tragedy.

    The greater loss is dignity.

    I have developed an almost visceral aversion to seeing myself on camera. It is tempting to blame vanity, age, or the unkindness of high-definition video, but none of those explanations reaches the heart of the matter.

    The face is not the problem.

    The performance is.

    I no longer look like a man animated by genuine fascination. I look like a man trying to resurrect yesterday’s enthusiasm because today’s algorithm still pays for it. There is a painful difference between devotion and obligation, and the camera captures that difference with forensic precision. The eyes know. The voice knows. The audience knows.

    What appears on the screen is not passion.

    It is lingering.

    It is the unmistakable look of someone who should have exited several scenes earlier but remains onstage because he cannot quite bring himself to leave. Every upload risks looking less like an act of creation than an appeal for relevance.

    This is another condition entirely.

    It is Narrative Overstay: the unsettling realization that one’s public story has reached its natural conclusion, yet one continues performing it out of habit, audience expectation, or financial inertia.

    The internet is crowded with practitioners of Narrative Overstay. Aging influencers desperately imitate the mannerisms of younger creators. Musicians spend decades touring on songs they no longer inhabit. Television series limp through unnecessary seasons because the ratings remain adequate. Politicians mistake longevity for indispensability. Everyone keeps performing after the story has quietly ended.

    The audience often cannot identify exactly what has changed.

    They simply sense that something essential has departed.

    The urgency is gone.

    The necessity is gone.

    Only the content remains.

    So, for now, I write.

    A blog imposes no algorithmic lane. It allows curiosity to roam wherever it pleases. One day I can write about Frederick Douglass, the next about ultra-processed foods, then TikTok, theology, watches, democracy, or the peculiar sadness of algorithmic civilization. The only governing principle is whether the subject deserves thought.

    Perhaps I will return to YouTube someday.

    But if I do, it cannot be because an algorithm has assigned me another shift inside the watch factory.

    It must be because I once again have something I cannot keep myself from saying.

    Until then, my dignity depends on remaining off camera.

  • When Reading Lost to the Dopamine Feed

    When Reading Lost to the Dopamine Feed

    Rose Horowitch’s essay “The End of Reading Is Here,” published in The Atlantic, chronicles more than the decline of reading. It examines the kind of mind that flourishes after reading has surrendered. Citing data from the National Endowment for the Arts, she notes that fewer than half of American adults read any kind of book in 2022. Only 38 percent read a novel or short story. By 2023, a mere 16 percent reported reading for pleasure.

    What filled the vacuum? Gambling.

    Nearly 60 percent of Americans now gamble. We have traded one form of anticipation for another. Instead of turning pages in search of revelation, we pull slot-machine levers and refresh sports-betting apps in pursuit of dopamine.

    Even the books that survive have changed. Sentences are shorter. Syntax is simpler. Apparently, asking readers to navigate a few dependent clauses before arriving at the independent clause is now considered an unreasonable burden. The modern sentence has become a microwave dinner: engineered for speed, stripped of complexity, and consumed with minimal effort.

    The same contraction has reshaped our news diet. Long-form reporting that patiently excavates facts has given way to sixty-second video clips engineered for maximum stimulation. The reward is immediate. The understanding is shallow. It requires no political science degree to imagine what happens to a democracy when its citizens lose both the patience and the habit of sustained attention.

    Horowitch argues that this decline in reading parallels a decline in critical thinking itself. Increasing numbers of adults struggle to comprehend what they read, distinguish evidence from assertion, or draw reasonable conclusions. If adulthood once implied literacy, then America is drifting toward a peculiar form of cultural infantilization—a nation increasingly vulnerable to demagogues, conspiracy peddlers, and professional grifters eager to convert intellectual laziness into political capital.

    The greatest irony is that Americans have never consumed more words.

    We read texts, emails, Slack messages, Instagram captions, TikTok comments, headlines, notifications, and endless streams of digital debris. Never has so much language been processed to produce so little contemplation. We are drowning in words while starving for thought.

    That is why Horowitch describes America as becoming postliterate—not because language has disappeared, but because sustained reading has. Literacy once demanded immersion. Postliteracy rewards interruption.

    Nor has this transformation stabilized. It is accelerating. Each generation spends less time reading books and more time marinating its attention inside algorithmically curated feeds. Television, for all its faults, never possessed this power. During the television era, people still disappeared into novels on weekends and carried paperbacks to the beach. TV occupied a room. Smartphones occupy consciousness itself. They transformed distraction from an activity into a permanent habitat.

    I have watched this transformation from a privileged vantage point. For nearly forty years, I have taught college writing.

    The curriculum my colleagues and I teach today would have been almost unrecognizable when I began. We rarely assign long books. Many instructors assign none at all. My freshman composition course still requires one short classic, Frederick Douglass’ Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. My critical thinking course assigns no books whatsoever. Instead, students read essays from The Atlantic, The New Yorker, and The New York Times. I upload the readings into Canvas, then spend class breaking them into digestible segments through Google Slides. Each slide contains roughly one hundred words followed by a discussion question that forces students to wrestle with the author’s reasoning one piece at a time.

    Some critics insist that professors should simply assign longer books and demand compliance. That fantasy evaporates the moment it encounters reality. Students vote with their enrollment. Assign too much reading, and many will either avoid the course altogether or quietly migrate to instructors who require less. Consumer demand has entered higher education whether professors approve or not. As students’ habits change, curriculum follows. The postliterate marketplace shapes the classroom long before faculty meetings do.

    Yet calling ours a “postliterate society” risks flattening important distinctions.

    My students are mostly between eighteen and twenty years old. Yes, they grew up on TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram. Yes, many arrive having read remarkably few books. But they are also intellectually curious. They enjoy argumentation. They respond viscerally to sharp prose, elegant rhetoric, and clever turns of phrase. They relish exposing logical fallacies and dismantling weak arguments. Once you capture their attention, they often surprise you with the sophistication of their thinking.

    They are not representative of America at large.

    A first-generation college student eager to transform his life occupies a different intellectual universe than an adult who never pursued higher education, works a dead-end job, and spends every evening numbing himself with algorithmic entertainment. Both may read fewer books than previous generations, but their relationship to knowledge is hardly the same. There is no single postliteracy. There are many varieties of it.

    Technology rewires us from the inside out. I can measure the changes in my own brain. At sixty-four, I find myself fighting distractions that barely existed thirty years ago. My attention requires more vigilance than it once did. The temptation to surrender to endless scrolling is no respecter of age, education, or profession. Digital gravity pulls on all of us.

    There is no reversing this transformation. The toothpaste is out of the tube. The smartphone is not going away. Artificial intelligence is not going away. Algorithmic media is not going away. We are not marching back to 1975 carrying hardcovers beneath our arms.

    That reality, however, should make us suspicious of sweeping declarations about postliteracy. Horowitch rightly identifies genuine losses: diminished attention spans, weaker reading comprehension, and shrinking tolerance for intellectual complexity. But we have also developed new literacies. We decode memes, navigate digital ecosystems, detect online irony, understand platform cultures, and learn new technologies with astonishing speed. Our cognitive landscape has not simply shrunk. It has been reorganized.

    Whether that reorganization represents progress remains an open question.

    I doubt we will someday revolt against TikTok and rediscover Tolstoy en masse. The fantasy of 90 percent of Americans reading one hundred books a year belongs somewhere between nostalgia and science fiction.

    Still, I hesitate to declare the reading life permanently dead.

    Human beings possess an appetite that algorithms cannot completely satisfy. Endless novelty eventually becomes monotonous. Constant stimulation eventually feels empty. Even the most dedicated scroller occasionally hungers for something with weight, texture, and permanence—an idea worth wrestling with rather than merely reacting to.

    Curiosity has survived every technological revolution humanity has endured. It survived radio. It survived television. It may yet survive TikTok.

    The reading brain has been wounded.

    I am not convinced it is beyond recovery.

  • The Unlived Life

    The Unlived Life

    In The War of Art, Steven Pressfield compresses an entire philosophy of life into a sentence worthy of Blaise Pascal: “Most of us have two lives. The life we live, and the unlived life within us. Between the two stands Resistance.” On its surface, the book is about writing—showing up every day, overcoming procrastination, and producing meaningful work. In reality, it is about something much larger. It is about the tragedy of the human condition. Every person carries within himself an unrealized version of who he might have become, yet too often that person dies unborn. Resistance is the invisible executioner. It persuades us that tomorrow is a better day to begin, that comfort is wiser than sacrifice, that another hour of distraction is harmless, and that our highest calling can safely wait until after one more episode, one more dessert, one more purchase, one more excuse. By the time we recognize the fraud, life has become a museum of abandoned intentions. We discover, to our horror, that our greatest betrayal was not committed against other people but against ourselves.

    Pressfield has no patience for sentimental psychology. He describes Resistance as “the most toxic force on the planet,” adding with characteristic mischief that it causes more misery than poverty, disease, and erectile dysfunction. Hyperbole, yes—but purposeful hyperbole. He wants to jolt the reader into recognizing that Resistance is not ordinary laziness. It is a corrosive force that slowly deforms the soul. It shrinks ambition into routine, courage into rationalization, and discipline into negotiation. Left unchecked, it transforms gifted people into spectators of their own lives. They spend decades curating plans they never execute, polishing dreams they never inhabit, and congratulating themselves for intentions that never survive contact with reality.

    What makes Pressfield so compelling is that he refuses both fashionable nihilism and fashionable indulgence. He rejects the existential shrug that declares life meaningless and equally rejects the consumerist gospel that happiness consists of maximizing pleasure. His ethic is austere. Work matters. Discipline matters. Routine matters. Character matters. Most of all, contribution matters. Your life is not private property to be squandered in self-absorption. It belongs, at least in part, to your family, your friends, your community, and the civilization that shaped you. The image that repeatedly comes to my mind is not one from Pressfield but from Superman. Before Kal-El leaves Krypton, his father, Jor-El, entrusts him with a mission: become a light to a world wandering in darkness. Pressfield issues a similar summons. Your vocation is not self-expression. It is illumination.

    This is why The War of Art feels less like a productivity manual than a spiritual manifesto. Pressfield believes we inhabit a battlefield. He calls the enemy Resistance. He calls our higher nature “genius,” borrowing the ancient Roman idea of an inner guiding spirit that is “holy and inviolable.” Whatever name one gives it, the struggle is unmistakable. There is a force drawing us upward toward courage, creativity, and service, and another dragging us downward toward vanity, distraction, and decay. Resistance rarely announces itself dramatically. It works with exquisite subtlety. It whispers rather than shouts. It convinces us that procrastination is prudence, that entertainment is recovery, and that comfort is wisdom. By the time we recognize the deception, entropy has already advanced. We find ourselves wandering in the woods, uncertain how we lost the path home.

    It is here that Pressfield’s vision begins to overlap strikingly with Christianity. His ideas emerge from a broad stream of Western thought that includes Christianity, Plato, the Stoicism, Romantic notions of genius, Jungian psychology, and the mythic Hero’s Journey. Like Christianity, he believes human beings possess a higher vocation continually frustrated by an internal adversary. Like Christianity, he portrays life as a form of spiritual warfare in which unseen forces contend for the human soul. Like Christianity, he rejects radical individualism, insisting that our gifts exist not merely for self-fulfillment but for service.

    Yet Pressfield ultimately parts company with Christian theology in significant ways. Christianity locates humanity’s highest calling in communion with God, and its deepest tragedy in alienation from Him. Transformation comes through grace as well as discipline. Pressfield, by contrast, places his faith in professionalism, habit, and relentless labor. His highest authority is not God but genius—the inner creative spirit that summons each person toward his vocation. Accordingly, his greatest catastrophe is not separation from God but dying with one’s best work still trapped inside. His universe is fundamentally vocational; Christianity’s is fundamentally theocentric.

    That distinction leaves me with a question I cannot confidently answer. Can the devout Christian and the devoted disciple of Pressfield ultimately arrive at the same destination? Can both escape the wide road of self-indulgence and find the narrow road that leads to genuine human flourishing? I honestly do not know.

    I often think of religions and philosophies as insurance companies. Thousands of offices line the boulevard, each promising protection against humanity’s oldest anxieties. Every one claims to offer security for the soul. Every one publishes its own policy, exclusions, deductibles, and fine print. Christianity itself contains competing agencies. Universalists, Catholics, Calvinists, Orthodox Christians, and countless Protestant traditions disagree about the terms of coverage while affirming they represent the same Provider. In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis argues that there is, ultimately, one true household of faith beneath those denominational rooms. I continue to wrestle with whether reality resembles Lewis’s vision of one enduring house or whether human beings, in good faith, may arrive at the same destination by different roads. It is one of the questions that has haunted me for decades, and I suspect it will continue to do so long after I have finished reading Steven Pressfield.

  • Beyond the Platitude “Believe in Yourself”

    Beyond the Platitude “Believe in Yourself”

    In the documentary Queen of Chess, Judit Polgár recounts how she became a grandmaster at the age of fifteen, shattering one of the oldest gender barriers in competitive chess. She entered a world where many male players regarded women not merely as underdogs but as biological impossibilities. Looking back on her extraordinary rise, she credits her parents with many gifts, but one towers above the rest: they taught her always to believe in herself.

    I have heard those words my entire life. Believe in yourself. They are stitched onto graduation speeches, embroidered across motivational posters, and recited by well-meaning adults with the mechanical confidence of people reading assembly instructions. The phrase has always struck me as strangely hollow, a verbal vitamin whose label promises transformation while omitting the active ingredient. Yet when Judit Polgár uttered those same words, they landed differently. Here was someone who had walked into hostile rooms, defeated the world’s strongest players, and emerged victorious. Her confidence had survived contact with reality. That gave the cliché a gravity it had never possessed before.

    Over the months since watching the documentary, I have tried to understand what believing in yourself actually means. It is not wishful thinking, nor is it chanting affirmations in the bathroom mirror before work. It is trust. It is the confidence that your conscious intentions and your unconscious habits are allies rather than enemies. It is the quiet expectation that when difficulty arrives, you will respond with discipline instead of sabotage. Believing in yourself also means possessing the assurance that you belong in rooms where others doubt your right to enter. It is the conviction that closed doors are obstacles to overcome rather than verdicts to accept.

    The difficulty, at least in my case, is that I have accumulated decades of evidence against myself. My adversary has never been an unsympathetic chess establishment. It has been the unruly republic inside my own skull. I resolve to become more patient, then lose my temper over some trivial irritation before lunchtime. I promise to eat sensibly, only to find myself negotiating peace treaties with pizza and signing unconditional surrender documents to apple pie crowned with vanilla ice cream. I announce noble intentions with presidential confidence, while my appetites quietly stage a coup before dinner. After enough of these episodes, self-doubt ceases to be a philosophical problem and becomes a statistical conclusion.

    Then there is vanity, perhaps the most elegant form of self-deception ever invented. Blaise Pascal observed that we expend more effort creating the appearance of virtue than acquiring virtue itself. I have often found that observation painfully accurate. It is easier to curate the image of a disciplined life than to endure the discipline required to build one. Vanity offers applause without achievement, while laziness quietly pockets the bill. Together they form a conspiracy against genuine confidence. You cannot consistently admire a person who repeatedly breaks promises to himself, even when that person happens to be you.

    Of course, recognizing these flaws carries its own danger. Honest self-examination can quickly mutate into sophisticated excuse-making. One can become so fascinated by one’s defects that they begin functioning as permanent alibis. “This is simply who I am,” the inner defense attorney argues, as though diagnosis absolves responsibility. It does not. Accurate self-knowledge should produce accountability, not acquittal.

    That is why I admire Judit Polgár. Her confidence does not appear theatrical or narcissistic. It rests upon competence, discipline, and years of keeping promises to herself. I suspect her parents did more than encourage her to believe in herself. They taught her to become the sort of person who deserved her own trust.

    For those of us who did not inherit that gift so naturally, there is another path. We cannot manufacture self-belief through slogans. We must earn it the old-fashioned way, by repeatedly choosing character over compulsion, humility over vanity, discipline over appetite, and substance over performance. Confidence is not bestowed by motivational speeches. It is accumulated, one kept promise at a time.

  • Steak, Asparagus, and Existential Despair

    Steak, Asparagus, and Existential Despair

    In 1994, my friend S—a remarkably successful athletic coach—and his girlfriend L invited my girlfriend M and me over for dinner. The evening began with all the reassuring signs of suburban domesticity: thick steaks, asparagus, baked potatoes, and the pleasant illusion that four adults were about to enjoy an uneventful meal. The illusion lasted roughly as long as it took to butter the potatoes. A minor disagreement flared between S and L. Hoping to extinguish it, S tossed out one of those breezy, dismissive remarks men often mistake for conflict resolution. It had precisely the opposite effect. L’s irritation hardened into outrage. She stood up, marched to the bathroom, and slammed the door with enough force to suggest that diplomacy had officially left the premises. S responded with equal maturity. He retreated to his bedroom, collapsed onto the bed, and stared at the ceiling fan as though it alone understood the tragedy of his existence.

    After checking on S and confirming that he had transformed himself into a martyr for the cause of romantic suffering, I returned to the dining room. M looked at me expectantly.

    “What should we do?” she asked.

    I looked at the steak cooling on my plate.

    “I don’t know,” I said. “I’m hungry.”

    “You can’t eat now.”

    “Why not? They’re the ones having the fight.”

    With that, I carved off a generous piece of steak and continued dinner as if emotional meltdowns were merely another side dish. M looked at me with the sort of disbelief usually reserved for people who clap when airplanes land. She wanted intervention, mediation, perhaps a heartfelt conversation. I wanted medium-rare.

    Fifteen minutes later, having completed my meal with admirable focus, I decided to make one last reconnaissance mission. I peered into S’s bedroom. There he remained, stretched flat on his back, one hand resting dramatically on his stomach, the other draped across his forehead like a silent-film actor portraying terminal consumption. He looked less like a man recovering from an argument than a casualty awaiting the arrival of battlefield medics.

    “I think M and I are going to head out,” I said. “See you later.”

    What emerged from him in response was not a word but a sound—a long, mournful groan so desolate that it resembled the final squeak of a woodland creature meeting an unfortunate end beneath a boot. It was a noise of pure existential surrender, as though every disappointment he had ever experienced had converged into one exhausted exhalation.

    A week later, the four of us met again at a bowling alley. S and L laughed, joked, and behaved as though the disastrous dinner had never occurred. The previous week’s emotional apocalypse had apparently been filed away with the leftovers. A year later they married. Two years after that, following the birth of their daughter, they divorced. S never remarried, though he went on to enjoy a distinguished coaching career and touched countless young lives. Time has blurred many details of those years, but one remains astonishingly vivid. I can no longer remember exactly what started the argument. I can barely remember what we talked about before it began. But I remember that groan. Some sounds become permanent residents of memory because they reveal, in a single involuntary moment, more truth about a person’s inner life than a thousand carefully chosen words ever could.