Blog

If Cormac McCarthy Wrote a Movie Treatment for the Bee Gees’ “Fanny (Be Tender With My Love)”

MOVIE TREATMENT: Fanny (Be Tender With My Love)

FADE IN:

Dust plains. Endless. Cattle skeletons sun-bleached and smiling in the dirt. A wind hisses through creosote like it knows a secret. A man rides into this ruin on a horse too tired to live and too dumb to die. His name is Merle. Once a singer. Once a lover. Now a shadow in spurs.

He carries a guitar with one string and a heart torn open like a blister.

He is looking for Fanny.

Fanny of the laugh that could undo a priest. Fanny of the hips that made men renounce geography. Fanny who told him to be strong and then walked out with a mule-skinner named Dutch who wore cologne and shot rattlesnakes for fun.

She left Merle in the middle of a love song.

Now Merle drags that song across the desert like a broken leg.

The locals say Fanny dances at The Rusted Mirage, a bar built on an old mine shaft. It sits at the edge of a dead lake where the water’s gone but the longing remains. Inside, broken men drink varnish and pray to forgotten gods. There’s a jukebox that plays nothing but Bee Gees covers sung by a toothless man in a gold suit. Fanny’s silhouette haunts the stage, flanked by two coyotes who think they’re her backup dancers.

Merle stumbles in like a man arriving at his own funeral. He sees her. She sees him. Silence falls like a noose.

He says

Fanny. Be tender.

She says

Boy you shoulda thought of that when you threw my birthday pie in the fire.

He says

That was an accident.

She says

So was my affection.

They duel. Not with pistols. With ballads. His sorrowful wail versus her falsetto fury. The bartender cries. A dog howls. Someone overdoses on sassafras in the corner.

By dawn, Merle lies collapsed. Empty. She kisses him once—on the temple, like a burial rite. Then disappears into the jukebox, leaving behind only a boa made of scorpion tails and crushed velvet.

FADE OUT.

A narrator, gravel-voiced and full of scorn, speaks:

Love’s a fever dream. Some wake up cured. Some never wake at all.

July 2, 2025
If Cormac McCarthy Wrote a Movie Treatment for Maria Muldaur’s “Midnight at the Oasis”

FADE IN:

A bone-white desert stretches out beneath a black vault of stars. The dunes are still as sacrificial altars. Somewhere out there, beneath the coyote moon and the ruined tower of Orion, rides a woman of indeterminate age and infinite mischief. She wears a sun hat like a halo. Her sandals leave no prints.

The camel she rides is named Jeremiah. He does not speak but regards the world with the mournful gaze of a beast who has seen empires fall and lovers lie. His saddle is adorned with silver conches, turquoise fringe, and a little brass bell that tolls only for the damned.

She comes upon a man.

He is shirtless, jawline like a blade. Smokes roll-your-owns and speaks in aphorisms. Former bluesman turned snake-oil preacher turned fugitive for a crime he may or may not have committed in Santa Fe, where the sheriff’s daughter still dreams of him and leaves milk out for the scorpions.

She says

Midnight at the oasis

He says

There’s no such thing as time in this country. Only heat and forgetting.

They drink wine from a dented canteen and roast cactus blossoms on a fire made of mesquite and ancient regret. The camel chews cud. The stars wheel. A frog laughs somewhere.

The woman suggests they slip off to a sand dune real soon. Her voice, soft as velvet, carries across the salt-swept wind like prophecy or seduction or both. The man, being a fool or a poet (but never both at once), accepts.

The desert is watching. It has watched worse.

They make love like two fugitives hiding from God, beneath constellations older than grammar. Their bodies steam in the moonlight. A lizard judges them and scuttles away.

At dawn, they are pursued. By whom? Perhaps the woman’s husband. Perhaps bounty hunters. Perhaps just Time, wearing spurs and humming a Carter Family tune. The chase is unspoken but certain.

The camel refuses to run.

The woman kisses the man once more and vanishes into a dust devil. Gone. Or maybe never there to begin with.

The man will ride Jeremiah to the nearest roadhouse and order three fingers of mezcal. He will never again look at the moon without suspicion.

FADE TO BLACK.

July 2, 2025
Love in the Time of ChatGPT: On Teaching Writing in the Age of Algorithm

In his New Yorker piece, “What Happens After A.I. Destroys College Writing?”, Hua Hsu mourns the slow-motion collapse of the take-home essay while grudgingly admitting there may be a chance—however slim—for higher education to reinvent itself before it becomes a museum.

Hsu interviews two NYU undergrads, Alex and Eugene, who speak with the breezy candor of men who know they’ve already gotten away with it. Alex admits he uses A.I. to edit all his writing, from academic papers to flirty texts. Research? Reasoning? Explanation? No problem. Image generation? Naturally. He uses ChatGPT, Claude, DeepSeek, Gemini—the full polytheistic pantheon of large language models.

Eugene is no different, and neither are their classmates. A.I. is now the roommate who never pays rent but always does your homework. The justifications come standard: the assignments are boring, the students are overworked, and—let’s face it—they’re more confident with a chatbot whispering sweet logic into their ears.

Meanwhile, colleges are flailing. A.I. detection software is unreliable, grading is a time bomb, and most instructors don’t have the time, energy, or institutional backing to play academic detective. The truth is, universities were caught flat-footed. The essay, once a personal rite of passage, has become an A.I.-assisted production—sometimes stitched together with all the charm and coherence of a Frankenstein monster assembled in a dorm room at 2 a.m.

Hsu—who teaches at a small liberal arts college—confesses that he sees the disconnect firsthand. He listens to students in class and then reads essays that sound like they were ghostwritten by Siri with a mild Xanax addiction. And in a twist both sobering and dystopian, students don’t even see this as cheating. To them, using A.I. is simply modern efficiency. “Keeping up with the times.” Not deception—just delegation.

But A.I. doesn’t stop at homework. It’s styling outfits, dispensing therapy, recommending gadgets. It has insinuated itself into the bloodstream of daily life, quietly managing identity, desire, and emotion. The students aren’t cheating. They’re outsourcing. They’ve handed over the messy bits of being human to an algorithm that never sleeps.

And so, the question hangs in the air like cigar smoke: Are writing departments quaint relics? Are we the Latin teachers of the 21st century, noble but unnecessary?

Some professors are adapting. Blue books are making a comeback. Oral exams are back in vogue. Others lean into A.I., treating it like a co-writer instead of a threat. Still others swap out essays for short-form reflections and response journals. But nearly everyone agrees: the era of the generic prompt is over. If your essay question can be answered by ChatGPT, your students already know it—and so does the chatbot.

Hsu, for his part, doesn’t offer solutions. He leaves us with a shrug.

But I can’t shrug. I teach college writing. And for me, this isn’t just a job. It’s a love affair. A slow-burning obsession with language, thought, and the human condition. Either you fall in love with reading and writing—or you don’t. And if I can’t help students fall in love with this messy, incandescent process of making sense of the world through words, then maybe I should hang it up, binge-watch Love Is Blind, and polish my résumé.

Because this isn’t about grammar. This is about soul. And I’m in the love business.

July 1, 2025
The Phantom in the Mirror: On Becoming an NPC

The Non-Player Character—or NPC—was born in the pixelated void of video games. It is a placeholder. A background hum. A digital ghost whose job is to stand in a market, repeat a scripted line, or walk in endless circles without complaint. The NPC has no hunger for freedom, no dreams of becoming more. It exists in the half-life of interactivity—a cardboard cutout propped up by code. It’s “there,” but not there. You see it. Then you forget it. And that, in essence, is the horror.

Somewhere along the way, the term slipped out of the screen and into real life. “NPC” became shorthand for a human who seems hollowed out—emotionally neutralized, culturally sedated, and spiritually declawed. Not stupid. Not evil. Just disengaged. The light behind the eyes? Gone dim. What was once an ironic jab at background characters is now a chilling metaphor for people who’ve surrendered to the most generic, algorithm-approved version of themselves.

What’s grimly poetic is that NPCs in video games are often controlled by artificial intelligence. And so, too, are many modern humans—nudged by dopamine, entranced by endless scrolls, soothed by the hypnotic rhythms of consumption. The Roman formula of bread and circuses has merely been rebranded. Netflix. DoorDash. TikTok. It’s all the same anesthetic. As therapist Phil Stutz would say, we’re stuck in the “lower channel”—an emotional basement filled with numbing comforts and artificial highs.

And yet, here’s the twist: even the brilliant can become NPCs. The anxious. The depressed. The overworked. The soul-sick. Sometimes the smartest people are the most vulnerable to emotional collapse and digital retreat. They don’t become NPCs because they’re shallow. They become NPCs because they’re hurting.

There are, perhaps, two species of NPCs. One is blissfully unaware—sleepwalking through life without a second thought. The other is terrifying: self-aware, but immobilized. The mind remains active, but the body slouches in the chair, feeding on stale memories and reruns of past selves. Think of Lot’s Wife, gazing back at a past she couldn’t let go. She wasn’t punished arbitrarily; she was frozen in time—literally—a statue of salt and sorrow. The original NPC.

Middle age is particularly fertile ground for NPC-ism. Nostalgia becomes narcotic. We mythologize our former selves—thinner, bolder, brighter—and shrink in the shadow of our own legend. Why live in the present, when the past is easier to romanticize and the future is too much work? Just ask Neddy Merrill from John Cheever’s “The Swimmer,” paddling from pool to pool in a daze, believing in a youth long gone, burning every real connection he had on the altar of delusion. An NPC in swim trunks.

Today, we’re incentivized to become NPCs. Social media trains us like lab rats, handing out dopamine pellets in the form of likes, follows, and artificial intimacy. The real world—messy, unfiltered, full of awkward silences and genuine risk—is rejected for the smoother contours of algorithmic approval. Our souls are curated, our emotions trimmed to fit the timeline.

The NPC, then, is not a throwaway gag. It’s a portrait of the modern condition. A spirit trapped in a basement, scrolling for meaning, addicted to memory, afraid of action. A being slowly turning into vapor, still breathing but no longer alive.

And the true terror? Sometimes I feel it in myself. That quiet moment when I trade meaning for ease, purpose for distraction, vitality for sedation. That’s when I hear the whisper: You’re becoming one of them. That’s when I feel the NPC, not on my screen, but inside my skin.

July 1, 2025
The Comedians of Cell Block B

Last night I dreamed I was in a bustling, overlit restaurant packed with the usual suspects—people chewing too loudly, waitstaff dodging elbows, silverware clinking like wind chimes in a windstorm. I was halfway through what I assumed was risotto when I realized two of my teeth had come loose, flapping in my gums like faulty hinges.

Panicked, I waved down a waiter. He listened gravely, nodded with theatrical sympathy, then pointed toward a man in a white coat weaving through the crowd like a prophet leaving a revival. “That’s Dr. Beltrán,” he said. “Fixes teeth. Fixes lives. If you move now, you might catch him before he ascends to the exit sign.”

So I followed. Fast forward to the next day: I’m in a waiting room that looked more like a casting call for eccentric sitcom roles. Among the crowd sat a married couple, both comedians. Raffi, a Canadian import with the weary charisma of someone who’s done too many festivals, and Tina, his statuesque, golden-haired wife, radiantly pregnant and visibly amused by the absurdity of her own life.

Turns out Raffi and I had gone to college together, which gave our small talk the sheen of nostalgia. Tina, meanwhile, was the sort of woman you describe as a “former beauty queen” only because it sounds more manageable than “mythical being with a driver’s license.”

Then the tone shifted. They told me they were serving life sentences. Yes—life sentences—for misreading pesticide instructions. About five years ago, they’d tried to fumigate their house for fleas and spiders but sprayed an industrial outdoor poison all over their bedroom carpet. Their organs liquefied. They almost died. When they recovered, they were arrested. The terms of their punishment? Eternal residence in a dungeon—an actual pitch-black basement beneath a towering apartment block. They were allowed out only for comedy gigs. Art, apparently, still mattered to the state.

Dental work complete, Raffi left for Canada to perform at a club. Tina, contractions ticking in her belly like a countdown timer, insisted on showing me the dungeon. The space was a horror. Not just black-as-night oppressive, but physically punishing—an absurdly low ceiling crisscrossed by thick beams of lumbar that made it feel like you were crawling through a collapsed IKEA warehouse.

So I did what any good houseguest-slash-dream hero would do: I went to the nearest hardware store, returned with a comically oversized saw, and spent the afternoon hacking through beams like a man possessed. Tina cheered me on from a folding chair, one hand on her belly, the other clutching her flip phone, waiting for Raffi’s call.

When I finished, the dungeon felt ever so slightly less apocalyptic. She looked at me and said, “I think the baby’s coming.” I nodded like I’d just finished installing a light fixture. My work here was done.

July 1, 2025
FOMO and the Mirage of Desire (a college writing prompt)

Begin your essay by clearly defining FOMO—the fear of missing out—as both a cultural phenomenon and a psychological force. Then, in roughly 300 words, write a personal narrative that illustrates a time when FOMO led you into a situation filled with traps, illusions, or regrets. If you’d prefer not to write about your own experience, you may interview a friend or family member and recount their story instead.

Your narrative should focus on how FOMO clouded your judgment. Describe how it made you ignore red flags, suspend critical thinking, or believe in something too good to be true. Whether it was a product, an experience, a relationship, or a trend, reflect on how the desire to be part of something—or to not be left out—overpowered your better instincts. Show how FOMO doesn’t just spark curiosity or envy; it distorts decision-making and often leads to costly or embarrassing consequences.

Use vivid details, clear storytelling, and reflective insight. The goal is not just to entertain but to unpack how FOMO can seduce intelligent people into chasing mirages—shiny promises that evaporate upon closer inspection.

June 30, 2025
My Philosophy of Grading in the Age of ChatGPT and Other Open-AI Writing Platforms (a mini manifesto for my syllabus)

Let’s start with this uncomfortable truth: you’re living through a civilization-level rebrand.

Your world is being reshaped—not gradually, but violently, by algorithms and digital prosthetics designed to make your life easier, faster, smoother… and emptier. The disruption didn’t knock politely. It kicked the damn door in. And now, whether you realize it or not, you’re standing in the debris, trying to figure out what part of your life still belongs to you.

Take your education. Once upon a time, college was where minds were forged—through long nights, terrible drafts, humiliating feedback, and the occasional breakthrough that made it all worth it. Today? Let’s be honest. Higher ed is starting to look like an AI-driven Mad Libs exercise.

Some of you are already doing it: you plug in a prompt, paste the results, and hit submit. What you turn in is technically fine—spelled correctly, structurally intact, coherent enough to pass. And your professors? We’re grading these Franken-essays on caffeine and resignation, knowing full well that originality has been replaced by passable mimicry.

And it’s not just school. Out in the so-called “real world,” companies are churning out bloated, tone-deaf AI memos—soulless prose that reads like it was written by a robot with performance anxiety. Streaming services are pumping out shows written by predictive text. Whole industries are feeding you content that’s technically correct but spiritually dead.

You are surrounded by polished mediocrity.

But wait, we’re not just outsourcing our minds—we’re outsourcing our bodies, too. GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic are reshaping what it means to be “disciplined.” No more calorie counting. No more gym humiliation. You don’t change your habits. You inject your progress.

So what does that make you? You’re becoming someone new: someone we might call Ozempified. A user, not a builder. A reactor, not a responder. A person who runs on borrowed intelligence and pharmaceutical willpower. And it works. You’ll be thinner. You’ll be productive. You’ll even succeed—on paper.

But not as a human being.

If you over rely on AI, you risk becoming what the gaming world calls a Non-Player Character (NPC)—a background figure, a functionary, a placeholder in your own life. You’ll do your job. You’ll attend your Zoom meetings. You’ll fill out your forms and tap your apps and check your likes. But you won’t have agency. You won’t have fingerprints on anything real.

You’ll be living on autopilot, inside someone else’s system.

So here’s the choice—and yes, it is a choice: You can be an NPC. Or you can be an Architect.

The Architect doesn’t react. The Architect designs. They choose discomfort over sedation. They delay gratification. They don’t look for applause—they build systems that outlast feelings, trends, and cheap dopamine tricks.

Where others scroll, the Architect shapes.
Where others echo, they invent.
Where others obey prompts, they write the code.

Their values aren’t crowdsourced. Their discipline isn’t random. It’s engineered. They are not ruled by algorithm or panic. Their satisfaction comes not from feedback loops, but from the knowledge that they are building something only they could build.

So yes, this class will ask more of you than typing a prompt and letting the machine do the rest. It will demand thought, effort, revision, frustration, clarity, and eventually—agency.

If your writing smacks of AI–the kind of polished mediocrity that will lead you down a road of being a functionary or a Non-Player Character, the grade you receive will reflect that sad fact. On the other hand, if your writing is animated by a strong authorial presence, evidence of an Architect, a person who strives for a life of excellence, self-agency, and pride, your grade will reflect that fact as well.

June 29, 2025
North Star or Snake Oil? The Search for Purpose in the Age of Bro Influencers (college writing assignment)

Many young men today face a crisis of direction. Without clear boundaries, a sense of purpose, or structured models of discipline and development, they are left to navigate a world that often feels chaotic and hollow. Scholars and cultural critics such as Richard Reeves and Scott Galloway have explored this issue, arguing that the absence of a guiding purpose—or “North Star”—leaves many young men drifting in an existential vacuum. In your first paragraph, summarize the key points made by Reeves, Galloway (find essays or videos of your choosing online), or both about this phenomenon and how it reflects a broader social and psychological struggle.

In your second paragraph, reflect on someone you know—perhaps even yourself—who has experienced the effects of growing up without a clear sense of purpose. Describe how this lack of direction may create a deep hunger for structure, meaning, or identity. Then explain how this hunger can make young men especially susceptible to so-called “Bro Programs” like those promoted by the Liver King or the creators of The Game Changers. Consider how the promise of transformation, strength, and belonging offered by these influencers might seem like solutions, even as they often exploit vulnerability and suspend critical thinking.

June 29, 2025
Toothpaste, Technology, and the Death of the Luddite Dream

A Luddite, in modern dress, is a self-declared purist who swats at technology like it’s a mosquito threatening their sense of self-agency, quality, and craft. They fear contamination—that somehow the glow of a screen dulls the soul, or that a machine’s hand on the process strips the art from the outcome. It’s a noble impulse, maybe even romantic. But let’s be honest: it’s also doomed.

Technology isn’t an intruder anymore—it’s the furniture. It’s the toothpaste out of the tube, the guest who showed up uninvited and then installed a smart thermostat. You can’t un-invent it. You can’t unplug the century.

And I, for one, am a fatalist about it. Not the trembling, dystopian kind. Just… resigned. Technology comes in waves—fire, the wheel, the iPhone, and now OpenAI. Each time, we claim it’s the end of humanity, and each time we wake up, still human, just a bit more confused. You can’t fight the tide with a paper umbrella.

But here’s where things get tricky: we’re not adapting well. Right now, with AI, we’re in the maladaptive toddler stage—poking it, misusing it, letting it do our thinking while we lie to ourselves about “optimization.” We are staring down a communications tool so powerful it could either elevate our cognitive evolution… or turn us all into well-spoken mannequins.

We are not guaranteed to adapt well. But we have no choice but to try.

That struggle—to engage with technology without becoming technology, to harness its speed without losing our depth—is now one of the defining human questions. And the truth is: we haven’t even mapped the battlefield yet.

There will be factions. Teams. Dogmas. Some will preach integration, others withdrawal. Some will demand toolkits and protocols; others will romanticize silence and slowness. We are on the brink of ideological trench warfare—without even knowing what colors the flags are yet.

What matters now is not just what we use, but how we use it—and who we become in the process.

Because whether you’re a fatalist, a Luddite, or a dopamine-chasing cyborg, one thing is clear: this isn’t going away.

So sharpen your tools—or at least your attitude. You’re already in the arena.

June 28, 2025
Why Reading Is the Last Romantic Act

If you take my Critical Thinking class, let me set expectations up front: I will not stand at the front of the room and lecture you into becoming an intellectual. That’s not how it works. I can’t command you to read. I can’t install curiosity like a software update.

What I can tell you is this: the default setting is mediocrity. It’s smooth, seductive, and socially acceptable. The world—especially its algorithmic avatars—is built to exploit that setting. Platforms like OpenAI don’t just offer tools; they offer excuses. They whisper: You don’t have to think. Just prompt.

You’ll get by on it. You’ll write tolerable essays. You might even land a job—something stable and fluorescent-lit with a breakroom fridge. But if you keep outsourcing your critical thinking to machines and your inner life to streaming platforms, you may slowly congeal into a Non-Player Character: a functionally adequate adult with no self-agency, just dopamine hits from cheap tech and cheaper opinions.

The world needs thinkers, not task-completers.

And that’s why I push reading—not as an obligation, but as a doorway to a higher mode of existence. Reading changes the texture of your thoughts. It exposes you to complexity you didn’t ask for and patterns of mind you didn’t inherit. But here’s the inconvenient truth: no one can make you read.

Reading isn’t a commandment. It’s a love affair—and like any love worth having, it’s irrational, wild, and self-chosen. You don’t read because it’s good for you. You read because at some point a book wrecked you—in the best way possible. It made your brain itch, or your chest tighten, or your worldview crack open like an old floorboard.

And that’s what I want for you. Not because it makes me feel like a good professor, but because if you don’t fall in love with ideas—on the page, in the margins, in someone else’s wild, flawed sentences—you’ll live a life someone else designed for you.

And you’ll call it freedom.

June 28, 2025