Cinemorphosis

Blog

  • Moral Absolutism vs. Moral Relativism in the Age of OnlyFans (college essay prompt)

    Moral Absolutism vs. Moral Relativism in the Age of OnlyFans (college essay prompt)

    The subscription platform OnlyFans has become one of the most controversial features of the digital economy. Supporters argue that it gives creators greater control over their labor, income, and personal brand while allowing consumers to purchase content from consenting adults. Critics argue that the platform commodifies intimacy, encourages emotional manipulation, weakens traditional moral norms, and profits from loneliness and social dysfunction.

    One way to understand this debate is through the conflict between moral absolutism and moral relativism. Moral absolutists argue that some actions are inherently right or wrong regardless of circumstances, consequences, or cultural changes. From this perspective, OnlyFans is morally problematic because it encourages the commercialization of sexuality, undermines values such as fidelity and honesty, and profits from emotional and relational vulnerabilities. Moral relativists, however, argue that moral judgments must be understood within specific social, economic, and cultural contexts. From this perspective, creators and subscribers are autonomous adults making voluntary choices in response to changing economic realities, technological developments, and evolving social norms.

    In a 1,200-word argumentative essay, develop a thesis that evaluates whether the moral absolutist or moral relativist perspective provides the more convincing interpretation of OnlyFans. You may defend one position, critique one position, or argue that the reality is more complex than either framework fully captures.

    As you develop your argument, consider questions such as: Is OnlyFans primarily a form of exploitation or a form of economic empowerment? Does the platform provide meaningful opportunities for autonomy and entrepreneurship, or does it encourage the commodification of intimacy and human relationships? To what extent are creators and subscribers exercising free choice, and to what extent are their decisions shaped by loneliness, economic pressures, social isolation, or broader cultural forces? Should morality be grounded in timeless principles, or should moral judgments adapt to changing social and economic conditions?

    Your essay should present a clear thesis, analyze the assumptions behind both moral absolutism and moral relativism, address at least one counterargument, and explain why your interpretation offers the most persuasive understanding of the ethical questions raised by OnlyFans and the modern digital economy.

  • The Wellness Club

    The Wellness Club

    Lost in the rhythms of suburban hibernation and nightly true-crime binges inside my bat cave, I had gradually drifted away from my college friends. Like me, they had married, raised children, worried about healthcare costs, and stared nervously at college tuition calculators. What I didn’t know was that they had been gathering every summer for years at a luxury wellness resort on Coronado Island.

    I learned of these reunions from my daughter Maggie, who monitored my friends’ social-media activity with the diligence of an intelligence analyst tracking foreign adversaries. She discovered photographs of them lounging poolside at the Wellness Island Resort and seemed genuinely saddened that I had been excluded.

    The drive from Torrance was only a couple of hours. Somehow Maggie contacted Bart, one of my old college friends, and persuaded him to invite us. My wife Lara and Maggie’s twin sister Alison couldn’t attend because they had dance rehearsals all weekend.

    I didn’t question Maggie’s intervention. Partly because I was touched by her concern for my introverted condition, and partly because Maggie had inherited a taste for luxury that far exceeded her budgetary circumstances. She approached five-star experiences the way medieval knights approached the Holy Grail.

    When I asked about the cost of the resort, she informed me that Bart was placing our expenses on the group’s Action Account, a fund they had apparently maintained for years to finance these annual gatherings.

    This struck me as suspiciously generous.

    I couldn’t shake the feeling that my old friends were attempting to relieve themselves of decades of guilt. Perhaps they had looked at the guest list, noticed my absence, and decided that paying for Maggie and me was cheaper than confronting their consciences.

    The Wellness Island Resort was impressive in the way wellness resorts are always impressive. Everything appeared optimized. The pool gleamed with the artificial perfection of a pharmaceutical advertisement. Guests reclined beneath canopies and gazebos while drinking green smoothies whose ingredients sounded less like food than graduate-level botany. Men and women with improbably low body-fat percentages sipped cucumber water and projected the serene confidence of people who had never eaten a gas-station burrito at midnight. Servers circulated with trays of artisanal sandwich bites containing salmon, tofu, sprouts, and microgreens so delicate they looked as though they might require emotional support animals.

    The entire place smelled faintly of citrus, sunscreen, and self-improvement.

    I assumed Maggie and I would spend the afternoon lounging by the pool.

    Instead, we met Chase Rangeman.

    He materialized beside us moments after we checked in. Tall, angular, and radiating managerial hostility, he wore the expression of a man who regarded joy as a policy violation. His smile looked professionally installed.

    “You two are members of the Wellness Club,” he said.

    “We are?”

    “Of course.”

    “What does that mean?”

    “It means everyone contributes.”

    He proceeded to explain that club members rotated through various duties including mopping floors, serving coffee, preparing food, and performing other tasks one generally does not associate with a ten-thousand-dollar wellness retreat.

    “Where are my friends?” I asked.

    “Out and about,” he replied. “You’ll see them eventually. Meanwhile, you’re on sandwich duty.”

    Maggie looked at me and shrugged.

    “Do you realize how expensive your stay is?” Chase asked as he marched us toward the kitchen.

    “Actually, we’re covered by the Action Account.”

    His eyes narrowed.

    “I’m very aware of the Action Account.”

    He said the phrase the way a district attorney might refer to a criminal syndicate.

    “That doesn’t exempt you from your responsibilities.”

    The kitchen resembled a laboratory dedicated to extending human life by thirty years. Salmon rested on beds of ice like museum pieces. Whole-grain loaves cooled on wooden racks. Homemade organic mayonnaise occupied crystal bowls. Every avocado appeared individually selected by a committee of experts. Microgreens stood at attention in refrigerated displays like tiny green soldiers awaiting inspection.

    Chase surveyed the room with paternal pride.

    “You and your daughter will make sandwiches for the guests.”

    “What kind?”

    “I’ll leave that up to you.”

    Then he glanced at his phone, announced he had an urgent matter requiring his attention, and vanished.

    The responsibility seemed straightforward enough.

    I selected salmon.

    After all, what could possibly go wrong with salmon?

    I mixed it with mayonnaise, celery, onions, shallots, paprika, salt, pepper, and chopped gherkins. I spread the mixture onto tiny squares of whole-grain bread and arranged the sandwiches on polished trays.

    The servers carried them away.

    My work was done.

    Or so I thought.

    An hour later Maggie and I had finally settled into our room overlooking the pool. I had just removed my shoes when the black telephone beside the bed rang.

    It was Chase.

    “You made salmon sandwiches with mayonnaise.”

    His voice sounded as though he were reporting a homicide.

    “Yes.”

    A long silence followed.

    “That’s the one sandwich you don’t make.”

    “You never told me that.”

    “It should have been obvious.”

    “How?”

    “The mayonnaise will curdle in the sun.”

    I considered pointing out that every ingredient at this resort appeared capable of surviving atmospheric reentry, but Chase continued.

    “You’ve exposed us to liability.”

    “What liability?”

    “You’ve committed a violation.”

    He sounded pleased.

    “That violation voids your discount. You now owe the resort nine thousand dollars.”

    Nine thousand dollars.

    For salmon sandwiches.

    I informed Maggie that we were facing financial ruin.

    Moments later there was a knock at the door.

    It was Bart.

    He looked sunburned, exhausted, and mildly irritated by my existence.

    “So,” he said, “you made salmon sandwiches.”

    I explained the situation.

    Bart listened without surprise.

    “Don’t pay anything,” he said. “We’ll cover it.”

    I felt relieved.

    Then he added:

    “But you and your daughter should leave immediately.”

    “Why?”

    “Within an hour Chase will forget you were ever here.”

    He delivered this statement with the calm certainty of a man explaining local weather patterns.

    Maggie and I were packed before Bart reached the elevator.

    As I said goodbye, he regarded me with an expression that suggested twenty years of unresolved grievances.

    Then he left.

    We raced to the parking lot, threw our luggage into the car, and drove back to Torrance.

    That evening I settled into my recliner and resumed watching a true-crime documentary.

    I was back in my bat cave.

    Safe.

    Yet as I thought about my old friends, the annual vacations, the Action Account, Bart’s contempt, and Chase Rangeman’s vendetta, I felt a familiar ache of exclusion.

    Clearly they had not wanted me there.

    Clearly they had spent years gathering without me for a reason.

    Clearly I had become an interloper in my own past.

    Strangely, as these thoughts swirled through my mind, I developed an overwhelming craving for salmon.

  • P-1426

    P-1426

    There are two people inside me. I have known this since childhood while sitting in dentists’ waiting rooms, flipping through dog-eared copies of Highlights for Children and encountering the two boys who seemed to possess custody of my soul: Goofus and Gallant.

    They appeared in countless moral tableaux. The boys faced identical chores, temptations, conflicts, and dilemmas. Goofus was the patron saint of poor decisions—a sniveling malcontent drawn instinctively toward selfishness, slovenliness, dishonesty, and shortcuts. He seemed to regard the human condition as a personal insult. Gallant, by contrast, beamed with the radiant confidence of a child who had never once disappointed a guidance counselor. He was truthful, virtuous, punctual, generous, and relentlessly wholesome. If Goofus represented original sin, Gallant represented a Hallmark card come to life.

    My parents never subscribed to the magazine. I encountered it only in medical waiting rooms during the early 1970s, so for years I assumed Goofus and Gallant belonged exclusively to my own childhood fever dream. Decades later, I discovered that much had been written about them. Julie Beck, writing in The Atlantic, described the comic strip as a kind of Calvinist morality play in which “their essential nature was preordained by a higher power long ago—Goofus forever doomed to be a screwup, Gallant to be a smug little do-gooder.”

    I’m glad I read Beck’s article because it rescued Goofus and Gallant from the fog of my childhood and confirmed that they were not merely figures from some private fever dream. For years they seemed less like characters from a magazine than recurring visitors from a half-remembered mythology that had taken up residence in my imagination.

    I need that kind of verification because I am one of those unfortunate people whose dreams refuse to remain confined to sleep. They leak into waking life. I rise carrying their residue like smoke trapped in my clothes. Long after the dream has ended, I can still sense its lingering odors, feel its unpleasant film coating the day, and endure the emotional aftershocks of its dark allegories. Some dreams fade by breakfast. Mine can haunt me for days, leaving behind a vague but persistent conviction that I have witnessed something both absurd and deeply accusatory.

    In my dreams, however, I am neither Goofus nor Gallant.

    I am Condemned.

    I am not the villain. I am not the hero. I am merely the witness forced to watch his own downfall unfold. My dreams place me on trial, convict me, and then require me to sit through the sentencing.

    Of all the symbolic collapses I could describe, one stands above the others. To understand my predicament, we must travel to the 2002 Los Angeles Tofu Festival.

    There, I encountered a portable toilet.

    The remarkable thing is that I spent no more than five seconds inside it. I never actually used it. Yet those five seconds altered the trajectory of my life.

    The structure stood alone at the edge of the festival grounds like a forgotten monument to human overconfidence. Its blue plastic walls had faded beneath years of relentless California sun into the color of a bruised sky. Scratches, stains, and scars suggested it had survived several natural disasters and perhaps a minor military campaign. The door sagged slightly on its hinges as though exhausted by the burden of existence.

    Near the top was a peeling service sticker bearing its identity:

    ManCo Portable Solutions

    P-1426

    The designation carried the cold authority of a prison number or military serial code. This was not merely a portable toilet.

    This was P-1426.

    The moment I opened the door and felt the blast of hot air strike my face like the breath of an infernal beast, it became clear that certain human experiences were never meant to be endured.

    I will not describe what I saw. I have no wish to relive the trauma.

    Let us simply say that I appeared to witness a squadron of bat-demons conducting an emergency evacuation from the lower circles of hell. The atmosphere possessed the density of a hostile planet. Heat, stench, and oxygen deprivation united into a perfect storm of biological aggression.

    Then I heard it.

    A voice.

    A cry rising from somewhere deep within the abyss.

    “Help me.”

    The words were unmistakable.

    I staggered backward. I uttered a curse in a voice that did not sound like my own. Then I fled before my body could be officially declared a casualty.

    The experience injured me.

    I required convalescence.

    For nearly a year I lived like a Victorian invalid. I drank herbal tea with ceremonial solemnity. I listened to motivational speakers while lying motionless with my eyes closed and my lower lip trembling. Most of all, I read the Book of Psalms in search of reassurance that humanity had survived comparable ordeals.

    King David had his enemies.

    Job had his boils.

    Ahab had his white whale.

    I had P-1426.

    And the plea for help.

    That plea tormented me because Gallant would have answered it.

    Gallant would have descended into the darkness and rescued the lost soul.

    I did what Goofus would do.

    I fled.

    I abandoned the suffering stranger to whatever horrors lurked within the suffocating blue chamber. I crossed the Valley of the Shadow of Death and returned carrying not triumph but shame.

    I was forty years old at the time. I had endured heartbreak, financial anxiety, family crises, and professional disappointments. Yet standing now in my mid-sixties, I can say with complete confidence that the most transformative event of my life occurred inside a portable toilet during a five-second encounter at a tofu festival.

    I have given this trauma a name:

    The Latrine of No Return.

    A Latrine of No Return is a formative experience so grotesque and spiritually destabilizing that it divides existence into two eras: Before the Incident and After the Incident.

    Before the Incident, I possessed innocence. I trusted civilization. I believed progress was real. I assumed humanity had solved certain fundamental problems.

    After the Incident, those illusions were gone.

    The man who approached P-1426 still believed he might someday become Gallant.

    The man who emerged knew better.

    Being a college writing professor, I naturally attempted to intellectualize the matter. Goofus and Gallant sounded far too juvenile for a man of my sophistication. I therefore rebranded the struggle.

    Goofus became Egregious.

    Gallant became Unctuous.

    I hoped a little linguistic flourish might elevate me above my malaise.

    It did not.

    For twenty years I remained haunted by the cry for help.

    Far from fading, it grew louder.

    Year after year, dream after dream, the voice returned.

    Until one night I awoke with a horrifying realization.

    The soul was still there.

    And if redemption was possible, there was only one course of action left.

    I would have to return.

    I would have to locate P-1426, descend into whatever infernal dimension existed within its blue plastic walls, rescue the forgotten prisoner, and emerge from the depths not merely as a survivor, but as a redeemed man.

    At long last, I would have to become Gallant.

    Hidden in my bedroom one evening with a true crime show on in the background, I called the number for ManCo Portable Solutions while my family was watching TV in the living room. I talked to a man by the name of Manny about my desire to examine the inside of P-1426, but omitted the part where I’m trying to rescue a hostage or a survivor or something like that. Manny repeated P-1426 like it was a familiar utterance, a long-standing part of his world. He said I could come visit P-1426 the next morning, but I’d have to be there at seven. He had to go for a medical appointment at nine regarding kidney stones. 

    The next morning, I drove to an industrial district in Los Angeles. The warehouse stretched across the industrial lot like an aircraft hangar devoted to an unusually specific religion. Row after row of portable toilets stood at attention beneath fluorescent lights, their blue plastic walls reflecting a cold industrial glow. Hundreds of them filled the cavernous space in military formation, creating long corridors that disappeared into the distance. The faint scent of disinfectant hung in the air.  Forklifts sat idle in corners like mechanical beasts resting between campaigns.

    At the center of the warehouse, as if occupying the command post of a strange sanitation empire, sat Manny behind a battered metal desk. The desk looked absurdly small amid the vast kingdom of portable toilets surrounding him. On either side stood two of his newest models, gleaming under the overhead lights. Their plastic surfaces were immaculate, their doors perfectly aligned, their ventilation systems polished and modern. They looked less like portable toilets than luxury automobiles unveiled at a trade show. One could easily imagine Manny regarding them with paternal pride.

    Manny himself appeared less pristine than his products. He wore a blue jumpsuit with the company logo embroidered above the breast pocket. The fabric was clean but permanently wrinkled, as if no amount of laundering could erase decades spent in the sanitation business. His dark hair was combed straight back, and a thick, bushy mustache dominated the lower half of his face. Yet it was his eyes that commanded attention. They were sad eyes, ringed with dark bags and carrying the exhausted expression of a man who had spent a lifetime confronting aspects of human existence most people preferred not to acknowledge. Those eyes suggested that Manny knew things. He had witnessed things. Entire chapters of human history.

    He sat quietly behind his desk, surrounded by his gleaming fleet of state-of-the-art portable toilets, looking less like a businessman than the weary curator of one of civilization’s least celebrated institutions. The new models stood around him like luxury sedans at an auto show, their polished plastic surfaces glowing beneath the fluorescent lights. Manny studied me with a look that combined skepticism, friendliness, and the exhaustion of a man who had spent decades confronting aspects of humanity most people preferred not to think about.

    “What brings you to P-one-four-two-six?” he asked. “That’s an old model. I’ve got newer, much better ones.”

    “I had an encounter with P-one-four-two-six,” I said.

    Manny nodded with surprising seriousness.

    “That happens,” he said. “Some people go to Disneyland. Some people go inside a portable toilet and come out with a story they tell for the rest of their lives.”

    He squinted at me for a moment.

    “You have claustrophobia, don’t you?”

    I nodded.

    “I knew it.” He pointed toward one of the newer units. “Forget P-one-four-two-six. Go with the new Q Series. Far more spacious. Better ventilation. Interior comfort package. Practically a studio apartment compared to those old units. The luxury, my friend. Oh boy.”

    His enthusiasm failed to reassure me.

    “Is everything okay with P-one-four-two-six?” I asked. “Have you inspected it?”

    “Of course.” He nodded. “Clean as a whistle. As good as the day it rolled out of the factory.”

    Then, without warning, his face tightened. He grabbed his side and bent forward.

    “Kidney stones,” he muttered.

    The words came out like a confession.

    I asked him how he got them.

    Manny leaned back in his chair and stared toward the warehouse ceiling.

    “Spinach,” he said bitterly.

    “Spinach?”

    “Spinach. Kale. Spirulina. Green smoothies. The whole wellness cult.”

    He shook his head.

    “My wife got cancer. No insurance. One of the doctors who treated her wouldn’t accept payment plans. Sixty thousand dollars. Maybe more. I paid it. Every penny. I emptied accounts. Took loans. Did whatever I had to do.”

    His voice softened.

    “She got better.”

    He paused.

    “Then she left.”

    The fluorescent lights hummed above us.

    “After that, I figured maybe I should improve myself. Lose weight. Become one of those optimized people you read about. Every morning I drank a blender full of spinach, kale, and enough oxalates to pave a highway.”

    He laughed darkly.

    “Turns out I didn’t become healthy. I became geological.”

    At that moment another wave of pain hit him.

    He clutched his side and let out a cry.

    The sound froze my blood.

    I had heard that cry before.

    Not in this warehouse.

    Not in this city.

    Not even in this decade.

    I had heard it twenty years earlier.

    Inside P-one-four-two-six.

    The same desperate pitch. The same wounded note. The same plea rising from some place of suffering and abandonment.

    My pulse quickened.

    The years collapsed.

    The dream.

    The guilt.

    The voice begging for help.

    It had never come from the portable toilet.

    It had come from Manny.

    Manny was the lost soul.

    The realization struck with the force of divine revelation. For twenty years I had imagined descending into an infernal portable toilet to rescue a stranger trapped in darkness. The entire quest had been wrong. The soul I was searching for had been sitting in front of me all along, wearing a blue jumpsuit and suffering from kidney stones, heartbreak, and the accumulated disappointments of a hard life.

    At that moment I understood my purpose.

    I had not returned to find P-one-four-two-six.

    I had returned to find Manny.

    Manny and I became friends after that.

    At first we met for coffee. Then we played racquetball. Soon we were taking kettlebell classes and struggling through power yoga sessions together, two middle-aged men attempting to negotiate peace treaties with joints that had long ago declared independence. We launched a YouTube channel devoted to men over fifty dealing with loneliness, depression, regret, and the peculiar sensation of realizing that life had quietly become shorter than the road already traveled. We hosted livestreams for men who felt discarded by modern life. We exchanged our recurring nightmares like war veterans comparing old battle scars.

    Most of all, I listened.

    Manny possessed a gift.

    For thirty years he had delivered portable toilets to concerts, festivals, political rallies, county fairs, marathons, and public gatherings of every conceivable variety. In doing so, he had become an accidental anthropologist of human desperation. He had witnessed people lose their minds while waiting in restroom lines. He had watched drunken concertgoers engage in territorial disputes over portable toilets with the strategic intensity of military commanders defending a contested border. He had seen people vandalize his property, attempt athletic feats that defied both physics and common sense, and occasionally injure themselves in ways that seemed to require active imagination.

    Each story was more absurd than the last.

    A man who tried to crowd-surf into a portable toilet.

    A wedding guest who locked himself inside one to avoid dancing.

    A festival attendee who attempted to tip a unit over and succeeded only in tipping himself into a cactus.

    Manny told these stories with the solemn authority of a man delivering ancient wisdom.

    Before long, people couldn’t get enough of him.

    The channel grew.

    The livestream audience expanded.

    Viewers tuned in from around the country to hear Manny explain how portable toilets occupied a strange intersection between civilization and chaos. He could discuss sanitation logistics with the seriousness of a philosopher while describing a music festival toilet emergency with the pacing of a Hollywood action film. He somehow made human waste, loneliness, redemption, and rock concerts feel like chapters from the same grand narrative.

    People adored him.

    I watched as Manny became a minor celebrity.

    His stories were clipped and shared online. Viewers quoted him. Fans approached him after events. Some even asked for selfies with the man who had transformed portable sanitation into a lens for understanding the human condition.

    And I found that I didn’t mind.

    In fact, I was proud.

    For once, I did not feel the need to compete for attention, to claim authorship, or to stand at center stage. I stepped aside and watched Manny flourish. The spotlight suited him. The lonely man who had once sat in a warehouse surrounded by portable toilets now had an audience hanging on every word.

    My wife noticed the change.

    One evening she looked at me and smiled.

    “You know,” she said, “this might be the nicest thing you’ve ever done.”

    I knew what she meant.

    For decades I had worried about obscurity. I had measured myself against impossible standards and imagined success as some distant mountain peak crowned with applause, recognition, and glory. Yet here I was, helping another person find his voice and discovering that the experience brought a deeper satisfaction than any personal acclaim I had ever chased.

    Only then did I understand what had happened.

    I had spent twenty years searching for the lost soul trapped inside P-1426.

    I thought I was rescuing Manny.

    The truth was that Manny had rescued me.

    And in surrendering the spotlight, in helping another person become fully himself without demanding credit or recognition, I had finally achieved the impossible.

    After all these years, I had become Gallant.

  • The Death of the Sacred Bond Between Writer and Reader

    The Death of the Sacred Bond Between Writer and Reader

    Fiction instructor Walt Hunt’s essay “The Death of the Reader” begins with a development that would have sounded absurd only a few years ago: an AI-assisted short story winning a major literary prize. The winning story, Jamir Nazir’s “The Serpent in the Grove,” took home the Granta Commonwealth Short Story Prize, prompting the now-familiar debate about authenticity. Was the story really written by a human? How much AI was involved? Can anyone tell the difference anymore? Hunt acknowledges that AI-generated prose often leaves fingerprints—certain stylistic tics, tonal smoothness, and suspiciously frictionless sentences that alert attentive readers. But he argues that critics are fixated on the wrong problem. The true casualty of AI fiction is not the writer. It is the reader.

    Before the arrival of AI-generated literature, reading rested on a fragile but meaningful act of trust. A reader entered a private room where another consciousness was waiting. Across centuries, continents, and cultures, readers formed intimate relationships with authors they would never meet. The writer offered a distinctive voice, a recognizable sensibility, a particular way of seeing the world. Sometimes the writer was a provocateur. Sometimes a companion. Sometimes a guide carrying a lantern through the darker corridors of human experience. Whatever form the relationship took, readers believed there was another person on the other side of the page.

    Now there is Claude.

    Claude is not a novelist struggling with heartbreak, obsession, grief, jealousy, or longing. Claude has never stared at a hospital ceiling at three in the morning. Claude has never fallen in love, buried a parent, betrayed a friend, or sat alone with regret. Claude is not a presence. It is a process. And because readers know this, a corrosive uncertainty enters the reading experience.

    What am I reading?

    Who wrote this?

    Did anyone write this?

    Does it matter?

    The machine turns every page into a cross-examination.

    Hunt argues that this uncertainty damages the reader more profoundly than it damages the author. The old covenant between writer and reader begins to dissolve. In its place emerges suspicion. Instead of surrendering to a voice, readers interrogate it. Instead of entering solitude, they become detectives hunting for evidence of fraud. Every elegant sentence becomes a potential counterfeit. Every emotional insight becomes grounds for skepticism.

    As Hunt observes, readers increasingly adopt a style of reading that is “self-conscious, hyperaware, restless, and anxiety-driven.” The reading experience becomes less like entering a cathedral and more like passing through airport security. We no longer relax into the rhythm of a trusted voice. We remain on guard, scanning for contraband signs of machine authorship.

    This defensive posture may prove fatal to the deepest pleasures of literature. Great reading requires vulnerability. It requires a willingness to let another mind rearrange your own. It requires trust. If every text becomes a potential deception, then reading loses its sense of encounter and becomes an exercise in verification. The reader ceases to ask, “What is this work trying to tell me?” and begins asking, “Who—or what—wrote this?”

    That shift may be the most consequential literary event of the AI age. The danger is not merely that machines will write books. The danger is that they will transform readers into skeptics incapable of the very surrender that literature requires. Long after the arguments about authorship fade, the deeper loss may remain: the disappearance of the sacred bond between a solitary reader and a solitary voice.

  • Who Controls the Story Controls the People (college essay prompt)

    Who Controls the Story Controls the People (college essay prompt)

    The documentary We Beat the Dream Team suggests that history is not merely a collection of facts but a contest over narrative power. The film explores how individuals and groups compete to shape public memory, define legitimacy, claim symbolic victory, and control the stories that future generations will remember. Although the documentary focuses on sports, it demonstrates that struggles over narrative ownership extend far beyond athletics into race, education, art, film, and cultural identity.

    Using this idea as your conceptual framework, write a 1,200-word argumentative essay comparing two of the following works:

    • Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass
    • “Learning in the Shadow of Race and Class” by bell hooks
    • Summer of Soul directed by Ahmir “Questlove” Thompson
    • Is That Black Enough for You?!? directed by Elvis Mitchell

    In your essay, analyze the claim that controlling narrative, memory, and representation is one of the most powerful ways dominant groups maintain authority and one of the most important ways marginalized groups resist erasure.

    As you develop your argument, examine how the works portray struggles over literacy, education, historical memory, cultural visibility, artistic representation, and identity. How do powerful institutions shape public understanding of reality? How do marginalized individuals and communities reclaim the right to tell their own stories? To what extent do autobiography, education, music, film, and art function as tools of resistance against cultural invisibility?

    You should also analyze the rhetorical and artistic methods used by the creators. Consider how autobiography, storytelling, archival footage, music, imagery, editing, voice, and narrative structure influence audience perception and challenge dominant narratives.

    As part of your essay, address at least one counterargument. For example, some critics may argue that representation and cultural visibility are insufficient forms of resistance because they do not necessarily produce economic equality, political power, or institutional change. Others may argue that dominant cultures eventually absorb and commodify resistance movements, transforming them into marketable products. Evaluate these criticisms and explain the strengths and limitations of cultural expression as a form of resistance.

    As you conclude, consider the broader implications of narrative control. Why do individuals, institutions, and societies fight so fiercely over memory, legitimacy, and representation? What happens when people lose the ability to preserve and narrate their own histories? Finally, consider how social media, AI, and algorithm-driven platforms continue to shape who gets to tell the story and whose stories are forgotten.

    Requirements:

    • 1,200 words minimum
    • MLA format
    • Compare two of the four works
    • Include a clear thesis with mapping components
    • Include at least one counterargument and rebuttal
    • Analyze specific scenes, passages, or examples rather than merely summarizing
    • Develop a focused argument about narrative ownership, cultural memory, identity, and power
  • Can Philosophers Keep Their Souls in Silicon Valley?

    Can Philosophers Keep Their Souls in Silicon Valley?

    In “Someone Finally Wants to Hire Philosophers,” Lila Shroff reports what would have sounded like a punchline only a decade ago: philosophy majors may finally be getting the last laugh. For years, philosophy occupied an awkward place in the public imagination—a discipline associated with coffee-shop debates, existential handwringing, and the noble art of explaining to relatives why you were unemployed. At best, the philosopher was a thoughtful gadfly. At worst, a professional overthinker. But the rise of artificial intelligence has suddenly transformed philosophy from an intellectual curiosity into a marketable skill. Major technology companies are hiring philosophers. Universities are recruiting scholars who specialize in both AI and philosophy. The old joke about philosophy leading nowhere is beginning to age badly.

    As Shroff notes, this development should not surprise us. Philosophers have been wrestling with questions about intelligence, consciousness, morality, and the possibility of artificial minds for centuries. Long before Silicon Valley executives promised to change the world, philosophers were already asking whether a machine could think, reason, or possess something resembling a mind. Today, thinkers such as Nick Bostrom have become influential voices in the AI conversation. His book Superintelligence warned more than a decade ago that humanity might create machines whose capabilities outstrip our ability to control them. What once sounded like speculative science fiction now reads more like a boardroom agenda.

    The marriage between AI and philosophy arises from a practical concern. Technology companies want their products to appear ethical, trustworthy, and safe. A machine that accidentally promotes fraud, discrimination, or social chaos is difficult to market. Consumers are more likely to embrace AI systems that project wisdom, fairness, and restraint. In the increasingly crowded AI marketplace, virtue has become a product feature. Safety, ethics, and responsibility are not merely moral concerns; they are branding opportunities.

    Yet Shroff’s essay leaves several uncomfortable questions lingering in the air.

    First, philosophers disagree about nearly everything. That is practically the job description. If ethical questions routinely produce competing schools of thought, which philosophers do AI companies choose to hire? A utilitarian, a virtue ethicist, a libertarian, and a nihilist might evaluate the same problem and arrive at wildly different conclusions. When an AI company claims to be guided by philosophy, whose philosophy is it talking about?

    Second, corporations do not operate in a vacuum. They pursue growth, market share, influence, and profit. Given those incentives, it seems unlikely that technology companies will eagerly recruit philosophers whose views fundamentally conflict with corporate objectives. The philosopher who questions the legitimacy of the enterprise may not receive the same warm welcome as the philosopher who helps polish its public image.

    Third, what happens to philosophy itself when it becomes a lucrative career path? If technology firms reward certain ethical frameworks and ignore others, philosophers may gradually adapt their views to become more employable. Intellectual independence has always been easier to defend when no one is writing the check. Once prestige, influence, and six-figure salaries enter the picture, even the most principled thinkers may find themselves sanding off inconvenient beliefs.

    This is why I remain skeptical of any celebration of philosophy’s new status in the AI economy. There is no such thing as pure philosophy floating above human ambition. There are only human beings, complete with incentives, blind spots, loyalties, and self-interest. The partnership between AI and philosophy may produce genuinely useful ethical guidance. Or it may become an elaborate exercise in corporate virtue theater—a dazzling display of moral concern performed beneath bright lights while the machinery of profit hums steadily backstage. Whether philosophers become the conscience of artificial intelligence or merely its public relations department remains an open question.

  • The Savior Complex: Visionaries, Frauds, and the Danger of Absolute Certainty (college essay prompt)

    The Savior Complex: Visionaries, Frauds, and the Danger of Absolute Certainty (college essay prompt)

    Read critic Shirley Li’s “An Intimate Portrait of Humanity at Its Worst” and watch both Bugonia and the HBO documentary The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley.

    In her discussion of Bugonia, Shirley Li describes the film as “an intimate portrait of humanity at its worst.” She argues that the film’s two central characters, Teddy and Michelle, each view themselves as heroic figures attempting to save the world. Yet their heroism exists largely inside self-constructed narratives that distort reality and justify cruelty. Li observes that both characters are “so self-important and solipsistic that they’re oblivious to how heartless they’ve become.” Their conversations rarely resemble genuine dialogue because neither person truly listens, compromises, or questions their own certainty. Instead, they become trapped inside competing realities fueled by obsession, fear, and self-righteousness.

    This idea of the self-appointed savior connects powerfully to Elizabeth Holmes in The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley. Holmes presented herself as a visionary entrepreneur determined to revolutionize medicine and help humanity through technology. Yet her company, Theranos, eventually collapsed amid accusations of deception, manipulation, and fraud. Like the characters in Bugonia, Holmes constructed a heroic self-image so powerful that it appeared to override ethical limits, objective reality, and the perspectives of others.

    Write a 1,200-word argumentative essay analyzing the theme of the “delusional hero” as it appears in Bugonia and The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley. In your essay, develop an argument about why modern individuals become so attracted to seeing themselves as heroes, visionaries, victims, saviors, or misunderstood geniuses even when their behavior becomes destructive, manipulative, or detached from reality.

    As you develop your argument, consider questions such as:

    • What motivates these figures to see themselves as heroic?
    • Are they driven by sincere belief, calculated manipulation, narcissism, status anxiety, or some unstable mixture of all four?
    • Do they possess fragments of truth that they mistakenly elevate into absolute truth?
    • At what point does confidence transform into delusion?
    • How does moral certainty affect the way these figures treat other people?
    • Why do self-appointed heroes often become incapable of genuine dialogue, self-criticism, or empathy?

    You should also consider the larger cultural forces shaping these characters. To what extent does modern society reward self-mythologizing, personal branding, performative authenticity, and grand narratives of individual greatness? Does contemporary culture pressure people to transform themselves into heroic protagonists at all costs? How do social media, startup culture, influencer culture, therapeutic language, and status competition encourage people to construct idealized narratives about themselves?

    At the same time, you should complicate the idea of the “delusional hero.” You may consider whether unconventional, obsessive, or visionary individuals are sometimes unfairly dismissed as irrational simply because they challenge consensus thinking. Is society too quick to label difficult or eccentric people as delusional? How can we distinguish between genuine visionaries and narcissistic fantasists?

    In addition to analyzing the ideas presented in both works, examine the rhetorical and cinematic methods used to shape audience perception. Consider how tone, editing, characterization, interviews, symbolism, irony, suspense, and narrative structure influence our understanding of Teddy, Michelle, and Elizabeth Holmes. How do these works encourage viewers to both criticize and partially empathize with their subjects?

    You must include at least one counterargument and rebuttal. For example, some critics may argue that all ambitious leaders require a degree of self-delusion in order to challenge existing systems, inspire others, and pursue innovation. Others may argue that modern society punishes confidence and ambition whenever they appear outside socially approved norms. Respond to these objections by evaluating the difference between conviction and destructive self-mythology.

    As you conclude your essay, consider the broader implications of the “delusional hero” in modern society. What do these works reveal about narcissism, loneliness, status anxiety, ideological certainty, and the modern pressure to transform oneself into the hero, victim, visionary, or savior of one’s personal narrative? Why are audiences simultaneously fascinated and repelled by people who become trapped inside their own heroic self-image?

    Requirements:

    • 1,200 words minimum
    • MLA format
    • Use evidence from both works
    • Include a clear thesis with mapping components
    • Include at least one counterargument and rebuttal
    • Analyze specific scenes, quotations, and examples rather than merely summarizing
    • Develop a focused argument about self-mythology, narcissism, certainty, and modern identity

  • Voyeurs of Violence: Media Spectacle and the Commodification of Crime

    Voyeurs of Violence: Media Spectacle and the Commodification of Crime

    Few crimes provoke stronger public outrage than the exploitation of children. In the digital age, however, the pursuit of justice has increasingly merged with the logic of entertainment, viral media, and online spectacle. Social media platforms, livestreams, YouTube channels, and reality-style investigations now allow audiences to consume criminal exposure as a form of emotional entertainment. While many of these productions claim to protect vulnerable victims and raise public awareness, they also raise troubling ethical questions about voyeurism, vigilantism, humiliation, and the commodification of suffering.

    The 2025 documentary Predators and the film Nightcrawler both explore societies increasingly addicted to turning pain, fear, scandal, and criminality into spectacle. Predators examines the culture surrounding online predator stings, public exposure, and internet vigilantism, asking whether these efforts genuinely serve justice or merely transform human tragedy into viral entertainment. Nightcrawler similarly critiques a media culture in which violence and suffering become profitable content consumed by emotionally detached audiences. Together, these works suggest that modern media systems often blur the line between public service and exploitation.

    Write a 1,200-word argumentative essay responding to the following claim:

    The transformation of crime, suffering, and public humiliation into entertainment ultimately corrupts justice by encouraging voyeurism, emotional exploitation, and spectacle-driven morality.

    In your essay, you may defend, challenge, or complicate this claim. As you develop your argument, consider questions such as: Does public exposure deter criminal behavior and raise legitimate awareness, or does it encourage reckless vigilantism and mob psychology? At what point does crime reporting become entertainment? Can media exposure serve justice responsibly, or does the pursuit of ratings, clicks, and viral attention inevitably distort moral judgment? Why are audiences drawn to spectacles involving humiliation, revenge, fear, and public punishment?

    You should also analyze how both works critique audience complicity. To what extent are viewers themselves participating in the commodification of suffering? How do modern media systems reward emotional extremity, outrage, and voyeuristic curiosity? Does the public consume these stories out of genuine concern for justice, or because tragedy and scandal have become emotionally addictive forms of entertainment?

    In addition to analyzing the themes of both works, examine the rhetorical and cinematic methods used by the filmmakers. Consider how tone, imagery, editing, suspense, emotional manipulation, interviews, satire, and spectacle shape the audience’s reaction. How does Nightcrawler especially critique the relationship between media consumers and those who profit from violence and tragedy?

    You must also include at least one counterargument and rebuttal. For example, some critics may argue that aggressive public exposure is necessary because traditional institutions and law enforcement often fail to protect vulnerable victims. Others may argue that disturbing media coverage serves an important social function by forcing society to confront uncomfortable realities. Respond to these objections by evaluating the ethical responsibilities of media creators and audiences alike.

    As you conclude your essay, consider the larger cultural implications of these works. What do Predators and Nightcrawler suggest about modern society’s relationship with violence, humiliation, revenge, and spectacle? What happens to a culture when entertainment and morality become increasingly inseparable?

    Requirements:

    • 1,200 words minimum
    • MLA format
    • Use evidence from both works
    • Include a clear thesis with mapping components
    • Include at least one counterargument and rebuttal
    • Analyze specific scenes, quotations, or examples rather than merely summarizing
    • Develop a focused argument about media spectacle, voyeurism, justice, and audience complicity

  • The Loneliness Crisis: Social Isolation and the Rise of American Hostility (college essay prompt)

    The Loneliness Crisis: Social Isolation and the Rise of American Hostility (college essay prompt)

    Read David Brooks’ essay “How America Got Mean” and Derek Thompson’ essay “The Anti-Social Century.” Then watch Roy Wood Jr.’s comedy special Lonely Flowers.

    In the comedy performance Lonely Flowers, Roy Wood Jr. argues that increasing loneliness and social disconnection are contributing to rising anger, hostility, tribalism, and violence in American culture. Brooks and Thompson similarly describe a society that is becoming more fragmented, isolated, distrustful, and emotionally brittle. Together, these works raise an important question: What happens to individuals and societies when meaningful human connection begins to collapse?

    Write a 1,200-word argumentative essay analyzing the claim that social isolation is a major cause of America’s rising hostility, cruelty, and social dysfunction. Your essay may support, challenge, or complicate Roy Wood Jr.’s argument, but you must engage deeply with the ideas presented by Brooks and Thompson as you develop your position.

    As you develop your argument, consider how these writers and performers describe the psychological and cultural effects of loneliness, alienation, and declining social trust. How do social isolation, digital life, political tribalism, economic pressure, social media, declining community institutions, and weakened friendships contribute to anger and resentment? To what extent do modern Americans increasingly experience one another not as neighbors or fellow citizens but as abstractions, enemies, audiences, or online avatars?

    You should also consider competing explanations for cultural hostility. Is loneliness truly the central problem, or are broader forces—economic inequality, political polarization, consumer culture, technological addiction, family breakdown, declining religion, or social media algorithms—more responsible for rising social tension? Does loneliness cause hostility, or does hostility itself drive people further into isolation?

    In addition to analyzing the ideas presented in these works, examine how each creator communicates their message. Consider the differences between Brooks’ social criticism, Thompson’s cultural analysis, and Roy Wood Jr.’s use of comedy, storytelling, exaggeration, and observational humor. Why might comedy be an especially effective way to address painful subjects such as loneliness, disconnection, and social fragmentation?

    You must include at least one counterargument and rebuttal. For example, some critics may argue that modern technology and online culture have actually expanded social connection rather than weakened it. Others may argue that Americans are not truly isolated but are instead forming new kinds of communities online. Respond to these objections by evaluating the quality and depth of modern social relationships.

    As you conclude your essay, consider the larger implications of these works. What do they suggest about the future of friendship, community, empathy, and civic life in America? If loneliness and social fragmentation continue to grow, what might happen to the culture, politics, and mental health of the nation?

    Requirements:

    • 1,200 words minimum
    • MLA format
    • Use evidence from all three works
    • Include a clear thesis with mapping components
    • Include at least one counterargument and rebuttal
    • Analyze specific examples, scenes, or passages rather than merely summarizing
    • Develop a focused argument about loneliness, social fragmentation, and cultural hostility
  • Who Controls the Story Controls the People (college essay prompt)

    Who Controls the Story Controls the People (college essay prompt)

    Using Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass, bell hooks’ essay “Learning in the Shadow of Race and Class,” Ahmir ‘Questlove’ Thompson’s documentary Summer of Soul, and Elvis Mitchell’s documentary Is That Black Enough for You?!? as your central texts, write a 1,200-word argumentative essay analyzing the claim that art, music, film, education, and literacy function as weapons against cultural erasure and oppression.

    As you develop your argument, examine how dominant cultures maintain power not only through physical oppression and economic inequality but also through controlling memory, representation, literacy, visibility, and storytelling itself. Consider how marginalized groups are often denied the power to narrate their own existence and how reclaiming narrative ownership becomes an act of resistance, survival, and humanization.

    In Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, analyze how slavery denied enslaved people literacy, birthdates, ancestry, and historical identity in order to reduce them to property rather than persons. Consider how Douglass presents reading and writing as revolutionary acts that allow him to reclaim his humanity and resist a system designed to silence him. How does his memoir itself function as an act of historical recovery and resistance against cultural erasure?

    In “Learning in the Shadow of Race and Class,” analyze how bell hooks describes education as both a pathway toward empowerment and a site of alienation, performance, and cultural conflict. How does hooks show that race and class shape access to power, belonging, and self-definition? Why do marginalized students often feel pressure to erase or reinvent parts of themselves in elite educational spaces? To what extent does education demand assimilation into dominant cultural codes?

    In Summer of Soul, analyze how the Harlem Cultural Festival celebrated Black artistry, spirituality, joy, and political consciousness during a period of racial upheaval. Why was this massive cultural event largely erased from mainstream historical memory while Woodstock became mythologized as the defining music festival of the era? How does Questlove use archival footage, music, interviews, and storytelling to recover a forgotten history and challenge the marginalization of Black cultural memory?

    In Is That Black Enough for You?!?, analyze how Elvis Mitchell critiques Hollywood’s long history of reducing Black identity to stereotypes while marginalizing Black filmmakers, actors, and stories. How did Black cinema in the 1960s and 1970s challenge Hollywood’s control over representation? How does Mitchell argue that recovering overlooked Black films and artists becomes an act of cultural restoration and resistance against historical erasure?

    As part of your argument, analyze not only the ideas presented in these works but also the rhetorical and artistic methods used by the creators themselves. Consider how autobiography, music, archival footage, imagery, storytelling, editing, voice, and film structure shape audience perception and resist cultural invisibility.

    You must also address at least one counterargument. For example, some critics may argue that art, music, and representation alone are insufficient forms of resistance because symbolic visibility does not necessarily produce economic equality, political power, or institutional change. Others may argue that mainstream culture eventually commodifies resistance movements and transforms them into profitable entertainment. Respond to these objections by evaluating the actual power and limitations of cultural expression.

    As you conclude your essay, consider the larger implications of narrative control. Why do oppressive systems repeatedly attempt to regulate literacy, storytelling, education, historical memory, and representation? What happens to individuals and societies when marginalized groups lose the power to preserve and narrate their own histories? Finally, consider how modern digital culture, social media, AI, and algorithm-driven entertainment continue to shape which voices are amplified, marginalized, archived, or forgotten.

    For your introductory paragraph, explain how the struggle for the dominant narrative is presented in the documentary We Beat the Dream Team and how the film shows that battles over narrative power extend far beyond race into many areas of culture. Analyze how individuals and groups compete to control public memory, define legitimacy, shape historical perception, and claim symbolic victory. Show how the documentary demonstrates that the fight for the dominant narrative is ultimately a struggle over identity, status, recognition, and cultural power.

    Requirements:

    • 1,200 words minimum
    • MLA format
    • MLA Works Cited page with 5 sources
    • Use evidence from all five texts
    • Include a clear thesis with mapping components
    • Include at least one counterargument and rebuttal
    • Analyze specific scenes, passages, quotations, or examples rather than merely summarizing
    • Develop a focused argument about the relationship between narrative ownership, cultural memory, identity, and power