Cinemorphosis

Blog

  • Siri, Am I Losing My Mind? Asking for Jia Tolentino

    Siri, Am I Losing My Mind? Asking for Jia Tolentino

    In her essay “My Brain Finally Broke,” New Yorker writer Jia Tolentino doesn’t so much confess a breakdown as she performs it—on the page, in real time, with all the elegance of a collapsing soufflé. She’s spiraling like a character in a Black Mirror episode who’s accidentally binge-watched the entire internet. Reality, for her, is now an unskippable TikTok ad mashed up with a conspiracy subreddit and narrated by a stoned Siri. She mistakes a marketing email from Hanna Andersson for “Hamas,” which is either a Freudian slip or a symptom of late-stage content poisoning.

    The essay is a dispatch from the front lines of postmodern psychosis. COVID brain fog, phone addiction, weed regret, and the unrelenting chaos of a “post-truth, post-shame” America have fused into one delicious cognitive stew. Her phone has become a weaponized hallucination device. Her mind, sloshing with influencer memes, QAnon-adjacent headlines, and DALL·E-generated nonsense, now processes information like a blender without a lid.

    She hasn’t even gotten to the fun part yet: the existential horror of not using ChatGPT. While others are letting this over-eager AI ghostwrite their résumés, soothe their insecurities, and pick their pad thai, Tolentino stares into the abyss, resisting. But she can’t help wondering—would she be more insane if she gave in and let a chatbot become her best friend, life coach, and menu whisperer? She cites Noor Al-Sibai’s unnerving article about heavy ChatGPT users developing dependency, loneliness, and depression, which sounds less like a tech trend and more like a new DSM entry.

    Her conclusion? Physical reality—the sweaty, glitchy, analog mess of it—isn’t just where we recover our sanity; it’s becoming a luxury few can afford. The digital realm, with its infinite scroll of half-baked horror and curated despair, is devouring us in real time. Tolentino isn’t predicting a Black Mirror future. She is the Black Mirror future, live and unfiltered, and her brain is the canary in the content mine.

  • Marriage as a Three-Headed Beast: A Review of The Four Seasons

    Marriage as a Three-Headed Beast: A Review of The Four Seasons

    I’ve worshipped at the altar of Tina Fey’s comedic brilliance for decades, so when The Four Seasons popped up on my Netflix feed, I was dismayed. This didn’t smell like Fey’s usual ambrosia of wit and subversion—it reeked of midlife schlock. I swatted it away like a pop-up ad and went back to Black Mirror Season 7, content to wallow in algorithmic despair. But then the critics on Larry Mantle’s AirTalk (KPCC 89.3, for the culturally literate) described the show as “a good hang.” That faint praise intrigued me. My wife and I hit play, expecting light entertainment. What we got was a surprise: not only was it watchable, it became quietly addictive—then, unsettlingly, admirable.

    In eight breezy half-hours, The Four Seasons somehow captures the slow psychic erosion of long-term marriage with unsettling accuracy. Tina Fey and Will Forte play Kate and Jack, a couple who seem… fine. Functional. Even affectionate. Until the cracks begin to spread like hairline fractures on a windshield. By episode three, they’re in the car, both shouting expletives at the realization they need couples therapy. Not because they’re broken, but because their marriage has mutated into an ungovernable third organism—a beast with its own moods, tantrums, and existential despair. Therapy is no longer optional. It’s marital chemo.

    And so they go. They learn the rules: de-escalation, boundary-setting, “I” statements. The fights stop, which sounds good—until they stop talking altogether. What remains is a dried-out husk of a relationship, padded with therapy-speak and mutual avoidance. Every conversation is a minefield of affirmations and self-soothing clichés. They’ve traded rage for beige. No more screaming matches, but no more real connection either. They look like two grad students in a toxic group project, just trying to pass the semester without killing each other.

    Yet somehow, this truce counts as a win. The marriage is stable. Homeostasis, if not happiness. It’s better than divorce, which they watch unfold in their friends’ lives with morbid fascination. Their pal Nick leaves his wife for a younger woman named Ginny, who speaks in TikTok euphemisms and bathes him in fresh-eyed adoration. Nick is euphoric, weeping with gratitude like a man who’s just discovered fire. But Kate and Jack look at him the way you’d watch someone dancing on the deck of the Titanic. They’ll take their muted misery over the exhausting ecstasy of dating a woman who thinks Kenny Loggins is a type of sourdough. And who can blame them?

  • How Fake Food Mirrors AI Writing

    How Fake Food Mirrors AI Writing

    Like most people, I have an unbreakable bond with food—a bond so primal that when the food industry dares to present me with a counterfeit, I might taste it out of politeness or morbid curiosity, but love it? Never. Inferior substitutes, especially those concoctions posing as “creative alternatives,” are my culinary kryptonite. My first encounter with such deceit came in 1970, courtesy of my stint in the YMCA’s Indian Guides (now rebranded as Adventure Guides). We were part of “tribes,” each made up of eight father-son pairs, with one dad dubbed “Chief” and the rest relegated to “Assistant Chiefs.” The real highlight, of course, was the weekly rotation to a different family’s home, where the moms—our unsung heroes—served dessert.

    But one evening, dessert took a turn for the worst. Our host mother, a vision of 70s flair with her blonde spun-sugar hair and white go-go boots, had stumbled upon what she must have thought was the recipe of the century. There it was, in plain sight on her kitchen counter: an open Ladies’ Home Journal or some equally menacing tome of domestic innovation. She cheerfully announced her culinary coup—a dessert she was calling “ice cream” but with no actual ice cream in it. Instead, the concoction was an unholy alliance of canned frosting and Cool Whip.

    She served it in cones with an enthusiasm that could have powered the disco lights at Studio 54. But when I took a bite, the illusion shattered. It wasn’t ice cream; it was a crime scene. The texture was gritty, like someone had blended sand with modeling clay. It was lukewarm—room temperature, for God’s sake—and tasted like the sugary sludge dentists use to polish your teeth before hitting you with the guilt trip about flossing. I glanced around and saw my fellow boys and their dads wearing identical expressions of barely-contained horror—the same grimace detectives on TV crime procedurals make when they have to pull out a hanky to block the stench of a decomposing corpse. One by one, we all quietly set our cones down as though handling evidence at a murder trial.

    The poor woman, sensing the full weight of her failure, blushed beet-red and stammered out a series of apologies, swearing on everything holy that she would never again darken a dessert table with this abomination. We forgave her, of course—some crimes are too absurd to punish. But to this day, whenever I see Cool Whip, I feel a pang of existential dread and hear the faint echo of tribal laughter masked by suppressed gagging.

    My second traumatic encounter with fake food came years later, sometime in the early 90s. I was living alone in the barren expanse of the California desert, surrounded by nothing but dust, lizards, and my questionable life choices. Thanksgiving rolled around, and rather than go full Norman Rockwell with a solo turkey feast, I decided to spare myself the hassle and opted for something “easy.” Enter the boxed abomination known as tofurkey—a vegetarian horror show complete with a pouch of dubious “gravy.”

    The first bite was a betrayal of taste and texture. My jaw slowed in protest, grinding against the dense, rubbery mass like I was chewing on a tire patch. The spongy gluten monstrosity refused to yield, as if daring my teeth to break first. The flavor? Imagine licking a salted yoga mat that’s been marinated in vague artificial regret. I eyed another slice, its pallid, lifeless complexion daring me to continue. With the enthusiasm of a condemned man, I stabbed the fork into it, hoping for some hidden culinary salvation. Nope. The taste was as bland and soul-crushing as the first bite—less “holiday cheer,” more “processed despair.”

    Finally, I’d had enough. With a sigh that could’ve put out a candle, I carried my plate to the trash and scraped the entire crime scene into the garbage, where it belonged. Dignity had to be reclaimed. I poured myself a bowl of Cheerios, sliced a banana over the top, and drizzled on some honey. As I savored each crunchy, sweet spoonful, I felt a small but vital spark of culinary joy return. It wasn’t just a meal—it was a rescue mission for my self-respect. And let me tell you, a bowl of cereal has never tasted so victorious.

    The self-abasement and insult to others from eating and serving fake food was captured brilliantly in the early 1980s when comedian Bob Sarlatte took aim at the pièce de résistance of culinary chicanery: the Ritz Crackers recipe for Mock Apple Pie. Sarlatte was on a mission to uncover the absurdity behind Ritz’s audacious claim of making apple pie with, wait for it, crackers instead of apples. He was incredulous, practically frothing at the mouth as he dissected this travesty. “Why on earth,” he demanded, “would Ritz, in all their cracker-clad glory, boast about a recipe that doesn’t even remotely involve apples?” According to Sarlatte, this so-called “apple pie” was like calling a desert a beach because it had sand—except the sand was made of crushed Ritz crackers, and the beach was a figment of your imagination. The comedian was in no mood for Ritz’s grandstanding. To him, this wasn’t a culinary innovation; it was a culinary catastrophe. He took Ritz to task for attempting to pass off a cracker conglomeration as apple pie, as if the lack of fruit was a feature, not a flaw. “Who,” Sarlatte railed, “are you going to serve this Mock Apple Pie to? Your mock friends? People who enjoy mockery served with a side of disappointment?” Sarlatte’s razor-sharp wit wasn’t just about lampooning a recipe—it was about exposing a greater travesty: the shameless elevation of a subpar substitute as a triumph of creativity. This wasn’t a clever culinary trick; it was an insult wrapped in a cracker crust. Bob Sarlatte laid bare the staggering lack of self-awareness and the brazen audacity required to serve such an ersatz “apple” pie with a smug smile. It was a masterclass in how to serve up an insult with a cherry on top, minus the apple, of course.

    Sarlatte’s takedown resonates because food is sacred territory. Our connection to it is primal. Unlike AI-generated text, fake food assaults the senses in ways you can’t ignore. And while AI hasn’t (yet) encroached on the culinary world with soulless meal simulations, the market’s rejection of fake meat shows just how little tolerance we have for edible counterfeits. Sales of plant-based protein substitutes have tanked, a clear signal that consumers aren’t ready to trade their ribeye for a rubbery simulacrum. Simply put, there’s only so much culinary mockery we’re willing to stomach—literally.

    Fake foods fail 90% of the time with 90% of the people, but in the realm of writing, AI-generated prose seems to enjoy the opposite fate: it’s “good enough” 90% of the time for 90% of situations. So perhaps fake food isn’t the right comparison. When it comes to our slow surrender to mediocrity in writing, convenience food may be a more apt metaphor. Sure, a Hot Pocket isn’t a Russian piroshki, but its ham and cheese filling is technically real. The danger isn’t the outright fakery of fake food—it’s the insidious appeal of convenience that gradually numbs our taste for anything better. The same flattening effect occurs in writing, where AI churns out serviceable but soulless content, lowering our appetite for higher-level craftsmanship.

    Let’s be real: when you bite into a Big Mac, you’re not searching for the subtle interplay of flavors or the delicate dance of textures. You’re there for the holy trinity of fat, protein, and salt—instant gratification, hold the sophistication. Likewise, when you fire up ChatGPT, you’re not chasing literary immortality. You’re after a fast, serviceable product so you can free up time to hit the drive-thru. Convenience becomes king, and both your palate and prose pay the price. Before you know it, you’ve traded filet mignon for fast food and Shakespeare for shallow clickbait. Standards? Those eroded long ago, somewhere between the special sauce and the soulless syntax.

    We’ve already seen this erosion over the last fifteen years. Smartphones have replaced thoughtful correspondence with texts full of abbreviations and emojis. My students now submit essays littered with “LOL” and lowercase “i” like punctuation’s gone on permanent strike. But maybe it doesn’t matter. Maybe this linguistic infantilization is the new standard, and business communication will one day be indistinguishable from TikTok captions. Still, I don’t entirely despair. Higher-level writing—like Joan Didion’s piercing cultural reportage—exists in a category of its own and doesn’t compete with the memos and press releases AI is destined to take over.

    What worries me more is that fewer people will seek out writers like Didion, Zadie Smith, or Hunter S. Thompson. Without readers, the appetite for great writing—and with it, deep thinking—shrinks. The flattening of taste becomes a flattening of consciousness, a slow bleed of our shared humanity. Look at our growing dependence on technology: GLP-1 drugs manage our weight, AI shapes our communication, streaming algorithms filter our music, and nutrition powders substitute for food. The result is a bland middle ground, a life devoid of both high peaks and deep valleys. We stop noticing the dehumanization because we’ve acclimated to it.

    But not all hope is lost. I remember hearing an interview on Fresh Air with Tiffany Haddish. Early in her career, Haddish struggled to find her comedic voice—until Eddie Murphy gave her a piece of advice that changed everything. He told her to have fun on stage, to genuinely enjoy herself. If she was having fun, the audience would feel it and respond. That human moment of mentorship transformed her career.

    This story reassured me for two reasons. First, Tiffany Haddish wasn’t mentored by ChatGPT—she was guided by Eddie Murphy, a living legend. Second, comedy itself is proof that people will always crave voices that cut through the emotional numbness of modern life. Great comedians, like great writers, are the axes that Kafka said could break the frozen sea within us. They shatter our tech-induced monotony and return us to the raw, messy experience of being human. As long as there are voices like Haddish and Murphy to remind us of that, there’s still hope that humanity won’t flatline into a dull, digital abyss.

    We may live in a world where powdered meal replacements pose as dinner and AI-generated text poses as thought, but the human appetite—whether for flavor or for meaning—can’t be faked for long. Just as we spit out Cool Whip cones and tofurkey slabs with a shudder, our souls eventually revolt against the flattening effects of machine-made language. We remember what real texture feels like, in food and in prose. We remember what it means to laugh at a story that stings because it’s true. And even if convenience wins most days, there will always be those who crave the messy, glorious excess of a banana split or the searing honesty of a well-told tale. As long as people continue to gag on mediocrity—be it edible or literary—there’s hope that the hunger for something real, soulful, and defiantly human will keep coming back.

  • The Haunted Mind vs. the Predictive Engine: Why AI Writing Rings Hollow

    The Haunted Mind vs. the Predictive Engine: Why AI Writing Rings Hollow

    In More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI, John Warner points out just how emotionally tone-deaf ChatGPT is when tasked with describing something as tantalizing as a cinnamon roll. At best, the AI produces a sterile list of adjectives like “delicious,” “fattening,” and “comforting.” For a human who has gluttonous memories, however, the scent of cinnamon rolls sets off a chain reaction of sensory and emotional triggers—suddenly, you’re transported into a heavenly world of warm, gooey indulgence. For Warner, the smell launches him straight into vivid memories of losing his willpower at a Cinnabon in O’Hare Airport. ChatGPT, by contrast, is utterly incapable of such sensory delirium. It has no desire, no memory, no inner turmoil. As Warner explains, “ChatGPT has no capacity for sense memory; it has no memory in the way human memory works, period.”

    Without memory, ChatGPT can’t make meaningful connections and associations. The cinnamon roll for John Warner is a marker for a very particular time and place in his life. He was in a state of mind then that made him a different person than he was twelve years later reminiscing about the days of caving in to the temptation to buy a Cinnabon. For him, the cinnamon roll has layers and layers of associations that inform his writing about the cinnamon roll that gives depth to his description of that dessert that ChatGPT cannot match.

    Imagine ChatGPT writing a vivid description of Farrell’s Ice Cream Parlour. It would perform a serviceable job describing the physical layout–the sweet aroma of fresh waffle cones, sizzling burgers, and syrupy fudge;  the red-and-white striped wallpaper stretched from corner to corner, the dark, polished wooden booths lining the walls; the waitstaff, dressed in candy-cane-striped vests and straw boater hats, and so on. However, there are vital components missing in the description–a kid’s imagination full of memories and references to their favorite movies, TV shows, and books. The ChatGPT version is also lacking in a kid’s perspective, which is full of grandiose aspirations to being like their heroes and mythical legends. 

    For someone who grow up believing that Farrell’s was the Holy Grail for birthday parties, my memory of the place adds multiple dimensions to the ice cream parlour that ChatGPT is incapable of rendering:

    When I was a kid growing up in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1970s, there was an ice creamery called Farrell’s. In a child’s imagination, Farrell’s was the equivalent of Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory. You didn’t go to Farrell’s often, maybe once every two years or so. Entering Farrell’s, you were greeted by the cacophony of laughter and the clinking of spoons against glass. Servers in candy-striped uniforms dashed around with the energy of marathon runners, bearing trays laden with gargantuan sundaes. You sat down, your eyes wide with awe, and the menu was presented to you like a sacred scroll. You don’t need to read it, though. Your quest was clear: the legendary banana split. When the dessert finally arrived, it was nothing short of a spectacle. The banana split was monumental, an ice cream behemoth. It was as if the dessert gods themselves had conspired to create this masterpiece. Three scoops of ice cream, draped in velvety hot fudge and caramel, crowned with mountains of whipped cream and adorned with maraschino cherries, all nestled between perfectly ripe bananas. Sprinkles and nuts cascaded down the sides like the treasures of a sugar-coated El Dorado. As you took your first bite, you embarked on a journey as grand and transformative as any hero’s quest. The flavors exploded in your mouth, each spoonful a step deeper into the enchanted forest of dessert ecstasy. You were not just eating ice cream; you were battling dragons of indulgence and conquering kingdoms of sweetness. The sheer magnitude of the banana split demanded your full attention and stamina. Your small arms wielded the spoon like a warrior’s sword, and with each bite, you felt a mixture of triumph and fatigue. By the time you reached the bottom of the bowl, you were exhausted. Your muscles ached as if you’d climbed a mountain, and you were certain that you’d expanded your stomach capacity to Herculean proportions. You briefly considered the possibility of needing an appendectomy. But oh, the glory of it all! Your Farrell’s sojourn was worth every ache and groan. You entered the ice creamery as an ordinary child and emerged as a hero. In this fairy-tale-like journey, you had undergone a metamorphosis. You were no longer just a scrawny kid from the Bay Area; you were now a muscle-bound strutting Viking of the dessert world, having mastered the art of indulgence and delight. As you returned home, the experience of Farrell’s left a lasting imprint on your soul. You regaled your friends with tales of your conquest, the banana split becoming a legendary feast in the annals of your childhood adventures. In your heart, you knew that this epic journey to Farrell’s, this magical pilgrimage, had elevated you to the ranks of dessert royalty, a memory that would forever glitter like a golden crown in the kingdom of your mind. As a child, even an innocent trip to an ice creamery was a transformational experience. You entered Farrell’s a helpless runt; you exited it a glorious Viking. 

    The other failure of ChatGPT is that it cannot generate meaningful narratives. Without memory or point of view, ChatGPT has no stories to tell and no lessons to impart. Since the days of our Paleolithic ancestors, humans have shared emotionally charged stories around the campfire to ward off both external dangers—like saber-toothed tigers—and internal demons—obsessions, pride, and unbridled desires that can lead to madness. These tales resonate because they acknowledge a truth that thoughtful people, religious or not, can agree on: we are flawed and prone to self-destruction. It’s this precarious condition that makes storytelling essential. Stories filled with struggle, regret, and redemption offer us more than entertainment; they arm us with the tools to stay grounded and resist our darker impulses. ChatGPT, devoid of human frailty, cannot offer us such wisdom.

    Because ChatGPT has no memory, it cannot give us the stories and life lessons we crave and have craved for thousands of years in the form of folk tales, religious screeds, philosophical treatises, and personal manifestos. 

    That ChatGPT can only muster a Wikipedia-like description of a cinnamon roll hardly makes it competitive with humans when it comes to the kind of writing we crave with all of our heart, mind, and soul. 

    One of ChatGPT’s greatest disadvantages is that, unlike us, it is not a fallen creature slogging through the freak show that is this world, to use the language of George Carlin. Nor does ChatGPT understand how our fallen condition can put us at the mercy of our own internal demons and obsessions that cause us to warp reality that leads to dysfunction. In other words, ChatGPT does not have a haunted mind and without any oppressive memories, it cannot impart stories of value to us.

    When I think of being haunted, I think of one emotion above all others–regret. Regret doesn’t just trap people in the past—it embalms them in it, like a fly in amber, forever twitching with regret. Case in point: there are  three men I know who, decades later, are still gnashing their teeth over a squandered romantic encounter so catastrophic in their minds, it may as well be their personal Waterloo.

    It was the summer of their senior year, a time when testosterone and bad decisions flowed freely. Driving from Bakersfield to Los Angeles for a Dodgers game, they were winding through the Grapevine when fate, wearing a tie-dye bikini, waved them down. On the side of the road, an overheated vintage Volkswagen van—a sunbaked shade of decayed orange—coughed its last breath. Standing next to it? Four radiant, sun-kissed Grateful Dead followers, fresh from a concert and still floating on a psychedelic afterglow.

    These weren’t just women. These were ethereal, free-spirited nymphs, perfumed in the intoxicating mix of patchouli, wild musk, and possibility. Their laughter tinkled like wind chimes in an ocean breeze, their sun-bronzed shoulders glistening as they waved their bikinis and spaghetti-strap tops in the air like celestial signals guiding sailors to shore.

    My friends, handy with an engine but fatally clueless in the ways of the universe, leaped to action. With grease-stained heroism, they nursed the van back to health, coaxing it into a purring submission. Their reward? An invitation to abandon their pedestrian baseball game and join the Deadhead goddesses at the Santa Barbara Summer Solstice Festival—an offer so dripping with hedonistic promise that even a monk would’ve paused to consider.

    But my friends? Naïve. Stupid. Shackled to their Dodgers tickets as if they were golden keys to Valhalla. With profuse thanks (and, one imagines, the self-awareness of a plank of wood), they declined. They drove off, leaving behind the road-worn sirens who, even now, are probably still dancing barefoot somewhere, oblivious to the tragedy they unwittingly inflicted.

    Decades later, my friends can’t recall a single play from that Dodgers game, but they can describe—down to the last bead of sweat—the precise moment they drove away from paradise. Bring it up, and they revert into snarling, feral beasts, snapping at each other over whose fault it was that they abandoned the best opportunity of their pathetic young lives. Their girlfriends, beautiful and present, might as well be holograms. After all, these men are still spiritually chained to that sun-scorched highway, watching the tie-dye bikini tops flutter in the wind like banners of a lost kingdom.

    Insomnia haunts them. Their nights are riddled with fever dreams of sun-drenched bacchanals that never happened. They wake in cold sweats, whispering the names of women they never actually kissed. Their relationships suffer, their souls remain malnourished, and all because, on that fateful day, they chose baseball over Dionysian bliss.

    Regret couldn’t have orchestrated a better long-term psychological prison if it tried. It’s been forty years, but they still can’t forgive themselves. They never will. And in their minds, somewhere on that dusty stretch of highway, a rusted-out orange van still sits, idling in the sun, filled with the ghosts of what could have been.

    Humans have always craved stories of folly, and for good reason. First, there’s the guilty pleasure of witnessing someone else’s spectacular downfall—our inner schadenfreude finds comfort in knowing it wasn’t us who tumbled into the abyss of human madness. Second, these stories hold up a mirror to our own vulnerability, reminding us that we’re all just one bad decision away from disaster.

    As a teacher, I can tell you that if you don’t anchor your ideas to a compelling story, you might as well be lecturing to statues. Without a narrative hook, students’ eyes glaze over, their minds drift, and you’re left questioning every career choice that led you to this moment. But if you offer stories brimming with flawed characters—haunted by regrets so deep they’re like Lot’s wife, frozen and unmovable in their failure—students perk up. These narratives speak to something profoundly human: the agony of being broken and the relentless desire to become whole again. That’s precisely where AI like ChatGPT falls short. It may craft mechanically perfect prose, but it has never known the sting of regret or the crushing weight of shame. Without that depth, it can’t deliver the kind of storytelling that truly resonates.

  • The Last Writing Instructor: Holding the Line in a Post-Thinking World

    The Last Writing Instructor: Holding the Line in a Post-Thinking World

    Last night, I was trapped in a surreal nightmare—a bureaucratic limbo masquerading as a college elective. The course had no purpose other than to grant students enough credits to graduate. No curriculum, no topics, no teaching—just endless hours of supervised inertia. My role? Clock in, clock out, and do absolutely nothing.

    The students were oddly cheerful, like campers at some low-budget retreat. They brought packed lunches, sprawled across desks, and killed time with card games and checkers. They socialized, laughed, and blissfully ignored the fact that this whole charade was a colossal waste of time. Meanwhile, I sat there, twitching with existential dread. The urge to teach something—anything—gnawed at my gut. But that was forbidden. I was there to babysit, not educate.

    The shame hung on me like wet clothes. I felt obsolete, like a relic from the days when education had meaning. The minutes dragged by like a DMV line, each one stretching into a slow, agonizing eternity. I wondered if this Kafkaesque hell was a punishment for still believing that teaching is more than glorified daycare.

    This dream echoes a fear many writing instructors share: irrelevance. Daniel Herman explores this anxiety in his essay, “The End of High-School English.” He laments how students have always found shortcuts to learning—CliffsNotes, YouTube summaries—but still had to confront the terror of a blank page. Now, with AI tools like ChatGPT, that gatekeeping moment is gone. Writing is no longer a “metric for intelligence” or a teachable skill, Herman claims.

    I agree to an extent. Yes, AI can generate competent writing faster than a student pulling an all-nighter. But let’s not pretend this is new. Even in pre-ChatGPT days, students outsourced essays to parents, tutors, and paid services. We were always grappling with academic honesty. What’s different now is the scale of disruption.

    Herman’s deeper question—just how necessary are writing instructors in the age of AI—is far more troubling. Can ChatGPT really replace us? Maybe it can teach grammar and structure well enough for mundane tasks. But writing instructors have a higher purpose: teaching students to recognize the difference between surface-level mediocrity and powerful, persuasive writing.

    Herman himself admits that ChatGPT produces essays that are “adequate” but superficial. Sure, it can churn out syntactically flawless drivel, but syntax isn’t everything. Writing that leaves a lasting impression—“Higher Writing”—is built on sharp thought, strong argumentation, and a dynamic authorial voice. Think Baldwin, Didion, or Nabokov. That’s the standard. I’d argue it’s our job to steer students away from lifeless, task-oriented prose and toward writing that resonates.

    Herman’s pessimism about students’ indifference to rhetorical nuance and literary flair is half-baked at best. Sure, dive too deep into the murky waters of Shakespearean arcana or Melville’s endless tangents, and you’ll bore them stiff—faster than an unpaid intern at a three-hour faculty meeting. But let’s get real. You didn’t go into teaching to serve as a human snooze button. You went into sales, whether you like it or not. And what are you selling? Persona, ideas, and the antidote to chaos.

    First up: persona. It’s not just about writing—it’s about becoming. How do you craft an identity, project it with swagger, and use it to navigate life’s messiness? When students read Oscar Wilde, Frederick Douglass, or Octavia Butler, they don’t just see words on a page—they see mastery. A fully-realized persona commands attention with wit, irony, and rhetorical flair. Wilde nailed it when he said, “The first task in life is to assume a pose.” He wasn’t joking. That pose—your persona—grows stronger through mastery of language and argumentation. Once students catch a glimpse of that, they want it. They crave the power to command a room, not just survive it. And let’s be clear—ChatGPT isn’t in the persona business. That’s your turf.

    Next: ideas. You became a teacher because you believe in the transformative power of ideas. Great ideas don’t just fill word counts; they ignite brains and reshape worldviews. Over the years, students have thanked me for introducing them to concepts that stuck with them like intellectual tattoos. Take Bread and Circus—the idea that a tiny elite has always controlled the masses through cheap food and mindless entertainment. Students eat that up (pun intended). Or nihilism—the grim doctrine that nothing matters and we’re all here just killing time before we die. They’ll argue over that for hours. And Rousseau’s “noble savage” versus the myth of human hubris? They’ll debate whether we’re pure souls corrupted by society or doomed from birth by faulty wiring like it’s the Super Bowl of philosophy.

    ChatGPT doesn’t sell ideas. It regurgitates language like a well-trained parrot, but without the fire of intellectual curiosity. You, on the other hand, are in the idea business. If you’re not selling your students on the thrill of big ideas, you’re failing at your job.

    Finally: chaos. Most people live in a swirling mess of dysfunction and anxiety. You sell your students the tools to push back: discipline, routine, and what Cal Newport calls “deep work.” Writers like Newport, Oliver Burkeman, Phil Stutz, and Angela Duckworth offer blueprints for repelling chaos and replacing it with order. ChatGPT can’t teach students to prioritize, strategize, or persevere. That’s your domain.

    So keep honing your pitch. You’re selling something AI can’t: a powerful persona, the transformative power of ideas, and the tools to carve order from the chaos. ChatGPT can crunch words all it wants, but when it comes to shaping human beings, it’s just another cog. You? You’re the architect.

    Right?

    Maybe.

    Let’s not get too comfortable in our intellectual trench coats. While we pride ourselves on persona, big ideas, and resisting chaos, we’re up against something far more insidious than plagiarism. AI isn’t just outsourcing thought—it’s rewiring brains. In the Black Mirror episode “Joan Is Awful,” we watch a woman’s life turned into a deepfake soap opera, customized for mass consumption, with every gesture, flaw, and confession algorithmically mined and exaggerated. What’s most horrifying isn’t the surveillance or the celebrity—it’s the flattening. Joan becomes a caricature of herself, optimized for engagement and stripped of depth. Sound familiar?

    This is what AI is doing to writing—and by extension, to thought. The more students rely on ChatGPT, the more their rhetorical instincts, their voice, their capacity for struggle and ambiguity atrophy. Like Joan, they become algorithmically curated versions of themselves. Not writers. Not thinkers. Just language puppets speaking in borrowed code. No matter how persuasive our arguments or electrifying our lectures, we’re still up against the law of digital gravity: if it’s easier, faster, and “good enough,” it wins.

    So what’s the best move? Don’t fight AI—outgrow it. If we’re serious about salvaging human expression, we must redesign how we teach writing. Center the work around experiences AI can’t mimic: in-class writing, collaborative thinking, embodied storytelling, rhetorical improvisation, intellectual risk. Create assignments that need a human brain and reward discomfort over convenience. The real enemy isn’t ChatGPT—it’s complacency. If we let the Joanification of our students continue, we’re not just losing the classroom—we’re surrendering the soul. It’s time to fight not just for writing, but for cognition itself.

  • How to Teach Writing When Nobody Cares About Writing Anymore

    How to Teach Writing When Nobody Cares About Writing Anymore

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The Honor Code and the Price Tag: AI, Class, and the Illusion of Academic Integrity

    The Honor Code and the Price Tag: AI, Class, and the Illusion of Academic Integrity

    Returning to the classroom post-pandemic and encountering ChatGPT, I’ve become fixated on what I now call “the battle for the human soul.” On one side, there’s Ozempification—that alluring shortcut. It’s the path where AI-induced mediocrity is the destination, and the journey there is paved with laziness. Like popping Ozempic for quick weight loss and calling it a day, the shortcut to academic success involves relying on AI to churn out lackluster work. Who cares about excellence when Netflix is calling your name, right?

    On the other side, we have Humanification. This is the grueling path that the great orator and abolitionist Frederick Douglass would champion. It’s the “deep work” author Cal Newport writes about in his best-selling books. Humanification happens when we turn away from comfort and instead plunge headfirst into the difficult, yet rewarding, process of literacy, self-improvement, and helping others rise from their own “Sunken Place”—borrowing from Jordan Peele’s chilling metaphor in Get Out. On this path, the pursuit isn’t comfort; it’s meaning. The goal isn’t a Netflix binge but a life with purpose and higher aspirations.

    Reading Tyler Austin Harper’s essay “ChatGPT Doesn’t Have to Ruin College,” I was struck by the same dichotomy of Ozempification on one side of academia and Humanification on the other. Harper, while wandering around Haverford’s idyllic campus, stumbles upon a group of English majors who proudly scoff at ChatGPT, choosing instead to be “real” writers. These students, in a world that has largely tossed the humanities aside as irrelevant, are disciples of Humanification. For them, rejecting ChatGPT isn’t just an academic decision; it’s a badge of honor, reminiscent of Bartleby the Scrivener’s iconic refusal: “I prefer not to.” Let that sink in. Give these students the opportunity to use ChatGPT to write their essays, and they recoil at the thought of such a flagrant self-betrayal. 

    After interviewing students, Harper concludes that using AI in higher education isn’t just a technological issue—it’s cultural and economic. The disdain these students have for ChatGPT stems from a belief that reading and writing transcend mere resume-building or career milestones. It’s about art for art’s sake. But Harper wisely points out that this intellectual snobbery is rooted in privilege: “Honor and curiosity can be nurtured, or crushed, by circumstance.” 

    I had to stop in my tracks. Was I so privileged and naive to think I could preach the gospel of Humanification while unaware that such a pursuit costs time, money, and the peace of mind that one has a luxurious safety net in the event the Humanification quest goes awry? 

    This question made me think of Frederick Douglass, a man who had every reason to have his intellectual curiosity “crushed by circumstance.” In fact, his pursuit of literacy, despite the threat of death, was driven by an unquenchable thirst for knowledge and self-transformation. But Douglass is a hero for the ages. Can we really expect most people, particularly those without resources, to follow that path? Harper’s argument carries weight. Without the financial and cultural infrastructure to support it, aspiring to Humanification isn’t always feasible.

    Consider the tech overlords—the very architects of our screen-addicted dystopia—who wouldn’t dream of letting their own kids near the digital devices they’ve unleashed upon the masses. Instead, they ship them off to posh Waldorf schools, where screens are treated like radioactive waste. There, children are shielded from the brain-rot of endless scrolling and instead are taught the arcane art of cursive handwriting, how to wield an abacus like a mathematician from 500 B.C., and the joys of harvesting kale and beets to brew some earthy, life-affirming root vegetable stew. These titans of tech, flush with billions, eagerly shell out small fortunes to safeguard their offspring’s minds from the very digital claws that are busy eviscerating ours.

    I often tell my students that being rich makes it easier to be an intellectual. Imagine the luxury: you could retreat to an off-grid cabin (complete with Wi-Fi, obviously), gorge on organic gourmet food prepped by your personal chef, and spend your days reading Dostoevsky in Russian and mastering Schubert’s sonatas while taking sunset jogs along the beach. When you emerge back into society, tanned and enlightened, you could boast of your intellectual achievements with ease.

    Harper’s point is that wealth facilitates Humanification. At a place like Haverford, with its “writing support, small classes, and unharried faculty,” it’s easier to uphold an honor code and aspire to intellectual purity. But for most students—especially those in public schools—this is a far cry from reality. My wife teaches sixth grade in the public school system, and she’s shared stories of schools that resemble post-apocalyptic wastelands more than educational institutions. We’re talking mold-infested buildings, chemical leaks, and underpaid teachers sleeping in their cars. Expecting students in these environments to uphold an “honor code” and strive for Humanification? It’s not just unrealistic—it’s insulting.

    This brings to mind Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Before we can expect students to self-actualize by reading Dostoevsky or rejecting ChatGPT, they need food, shelter, and basic safety. It’s hard to care about literary integrity when you’re navigating life’s survival mode.

    As I dive deeper into Harper’s thought-provoking essay on economic class and the honor code, I can’t help but notice the uncanny parallel to the essay about weight management and GLP-1 drugs my Critical Thinking students tackle in their first essay. Both seem to hinge not just on personal integrity or effort but on a cocktail of privilege and circumstance. Could it be that striving to be an “authentic writer,” untouched by the mediocrity of ChatGPT and backed by the luxury of free time, is eerily similar to the aspiration of achieving an Instagram-worthy body, possibly aided by expensive Ozempic injections?

    It raises the question: Is the difference between those who reject ChatGPT and those who embrace it simply a matter of character, or is it, at least in part, a product of class? After all, if you can afford the luxury of time—time to read Tolstoy and Dostoevsky in your rustic, tech-free cabin—you’re already in a different league. Similarly, if you have access to high-end weight management options like Ozempic, you’re not exactly running the same race as those pounding the pavement on their $20 sneakers. 

    Sure, both might involve personal effort—intellectual or physical—but they’re propped up by economic factors that can’t be ignored. Whether we’re talking about Ozempification or Humanification, it’s clear that while self-discipline and agency are part of the equation, they’re not the whole story. Class, as uncomfortable as it might be to admit, plays a significant role in determining who gets to choose their path—and who gets stuck navigating whatever options are left over.

    I’m sure the issue is more nuanced than that. These are, after all, complex topics that defy oversimplification. But both privilege and personal character need to be addressed if we’re going to have a real conversation about what it means to “aspire” in this day and age.

    Returning to Tyler Austin Harper’s essay, Harper provides a snapshot of the landscape when ChatGPT launched in late 2022. Many professors found themselves swamped with AI-generated essays, which, unsurprisingly, raised concerns about academic integrity. However, Harper, a professor at a liberal-arts college, remains optimistic, believing that students still have a genuine desire to learn and pursue authenticity. He views the potential for students to develop along the path of intellectual and personal growth, as very much alive—especially in environments like Haverford, where he went to test the waters of his optimism.

    When Harper interviews Haverford professors about ChatGPT violating the honor code, their collective shrug is surprising. They’re seemingly unbothered by the idea of policing students for cheating, as if grades and academic dishonesty are beneath them. The culture at Haverford, Harper implies, is one of intellectual immersion—where students and professors marinate in ideas, ethics, and the contemplation of higher ideals. The honor code, in this rarified academic air, is almost sacred, as though the mere existence of such a code ensures its observance. It’s a place where academic integrity and learning are intertwined, fueled by the aristocratic mind.

    Harper’s point is clear: The further you rise into the elite echelons of boutique colleges like Haverford, the less you have to worry about ChatGPT or cheating. But when you descend into the more grounded, practical world of community colleges, where students juggle multiple jobs, family obligations, and financial constraints, ChatGPT poses a greater threat to education. This divide, Harper suggests, is not just academic; it’s economic and cultural. The humanities may be thriving in the lofty spaces of elite institutions, but they’re rapidly withering in the trenches where students are simply trying to survive.

    As someone teaching at a community college, I can attest to this shift. My classrooms are filled with students who are not majoring in writing or education. Most of them are focused on nursing, engineering, and business. In this hypercompetitive job market, they simply don’t have the luxury to spend time reading novels, becoming musicologists or contemplating philosophical debates. They’re too busy hustling to get by. Humanification, as an idea, gets a nod in my class discussions, but in the “real world,” where six hours of sleep is a luxury, it often feels out of reach.

    Harper points out that in institutions like Haverford, not cheating has become a badge of honor, a marker of upper-class superiority. It’s akin to the social cachet of being skinny, thanks to access to expensive weight-loss drugs like Ozempic. There’s a smugness that comes with the privilege of maintaining integrity—an implication that those who cheat (or can’t afford Ozempic) are somehow morally inferior. This raises an uncomfortable question: Is the aspiration to Humanification really about moral growth, or is it just another way to signal wealth and privilege?

    However, Harper complicates this argument when he brings Stanford into the conversation. Unlike Haverford, Stanford has been forced to take the “nuclear option” of proctoring exams, convinced that cheating is rampant. In this larger, more impersonal environment, the honor code has failed to maintain academic integrity. It appears that Haverford’s secret sauce is its small, close-knit atmosphere—something that can’t be replicated at a sprawling institution like Stanford. Harper even wonders whether Haverford is more museum than university—a relic from an Edenic past when people pursued knowledge for its own sake, untainted by the drive for profit or prestige. Striving for Humanification at a place like Haverford may be an anachronism, a beautiful but lost world that most of us can only dream of.

    Harper’s essay forces me to consider the role of economic class in choosing a life of “authenticity” or Humanification. With this in mind, I give my Critical Thinking students the following writing prompt for their second essay:

    In his essay, “ChatGPT Doesn’t Have to Ruin College,” Tyler Austin Harper paints an idyllic portrait of students at Haverford College—a small, intimate campus where intellectual curiosity blooms without the weight of financial or vocational pressures. These students enjoy the luxury of time to nurture their education with a calm, casual confidence, pursuing a life of authenticity and personal growth that feels out of reach for many who are caught in the relentless grind of economic survival.

    College instructors at larger institutions might dream of their own students sharing this love for learning as a transformative journey, but the reality is often harsher. Many students, juggling jobs, family responsibilities, and financial stress, see education not as a space for leisurely exploration but as a means to a practical end. For them, college is a path to better job opportunities, and AI tools like ChatGPT become crucial allies in managing their workload, not threats to their intellectual integrity.

    Critics of ChatGPT may find themselves facing backlash from those who argue that such skepticism reeks of classism and elitism. It’s easy, the rebuttal goes, for the privileged few—with time, resources, and elite educations—to romanticize writing “off the grid” without AI assistance. But for the vast majority of working people, integrating AI into daily life isn’t a luxury—it’s a necessity, on par with reliable transportation, a smartphone, and a clean outfit for the job. Praising analog purity from ivory towers—especially those inaccessible to 99% of Americans—is hardly a serious response to the rise of a transformative technology like AI.

    In the end, we can’t preach Humanification without reckoning with the price tag it carries. The romantic ideal of the “authentic writer”—scribbling away in candlelit solitude, untouched by AI—has become yet another luxury brand, as unattainable for many as a Peloton in a studio apartment. The real battle isn’t simply about moral fiber or intellectual purity; it’s about time, access, and the brutal arithmetic of modern life. To dismiss AI as a lazy shortcut is to ignore the reality that for many students, it’s not indulgence—it’s triage. If the aristocracy of learning survives in places like Haverford, it does so behind a velvet rope. Meanwhile, the rest are left in the algorithmic trenches, cobbling together futures with whatever tools they can afford. The challenge ahead isn’t to shame the Ozempified or canonize the Humanified, but to build an educational culture where everyone—not just the privileged—can afford to aspire.

  • Uncanny Valley Prose: Why Everything You Read Now Sounds Slightly Dead

    Uncanny Valley Prose: Why Everything You Read Now Sounds Slightly Dead

    Yesterday, I asked my students how AI is shaping their lives. The answer? They’re not just using it—they’re mainlining it. One student, a full-time accountant, told me she relies on ChatGPT Plus not only to crank out vendor emails and fine-tune her accounting homework but also to soothe her existential dread. She even introduced me to her AI therapist, a calm, reassuring voice named Charles. Right there in class, she pulled out her phone and said, “Charles, I’m nervous about McMahon’s writing class. What do I do?” Charles—an oracle in a smartphone—whispered affirmations back at her like a velvet-voiced life coach. She smiled. I shuddered. The age of emotional outsourcing is here, and Charles is just the beginning.

    Victoria Turk’s “The Great Language Flattening” captures this moment with unnerving clarity: AI has seized the global keyboard. It’s not just drafting high school essays or greasing the wheels of college plagiarism—it’s composing résumés, memos, love letters, apology emails, vision statements, divorce petitions, and maybe the occasional haiku. Thanks to AI’s knack for generating prose in bulk, the world is now awash in what I call The Bloated Effect: overcooked, overwritten, and dripping with unnecessary flair. If verbosity were currency, we’d all be trillionaires of fluff.

    But bloat is just the appetizer. The main course is The Homogenization Effect—our collective descent into stylistic conformity. AI-generated writing has a tone, and it’s everywhere: politely upbeat, noncommittally wise, and as flavorful as a rice cake dipped in lukewarm chamomile. Linguist Philip Seargeant calls it the Uncanny Valley of Prose—writing that looks human until you actually read it. It’s not offensive, it’s just eerily bloodless. You can feel the algorithm trying to sound like someone who’s read too many airport self-help books and never had a real conversation.

    Naturally, there will be a backlash. A rebellion of ink-stained fingers and dog-eared yellow legal pads. Safety away from computers, we’ll smuggle our prose past the algorithmic overlords, draft manifestos in cafés, and post screenshots of AI-free writing like badges of authenticity. Maybe we’ll become cult heroes for writing with our own brains. I admit, I fantasize about this. Because when I think of the flattening of language, I think of “Joan Is Awful”—that Black Mirror gem where Salma Hayek licenses her face to a streaming platform that deepfakes her into oblivion. If everyone looks like Salma, then no one is beautiful. AI is the Salma Clone Generator of language: it replicates what once had soul, until all that’s left is polished sameness. Welcome to the hellscape of Uncanny Valley—brought to you by WordCount™, optimized for mass consumption.

  • Kettlebells, Groats, and the Ghost of Cardiac Doom

    Kettlebells, Groats, and the Ghost of Cardiac Doom

    I’m 63, and my body is a museum of movement trends. I’ve done Olympic weightlifting, bodybuilding, power yoga, and for the last 12 years, kettlebells—because nothing says “midlife stability” like swinging a cannonball on a handle five days a week while trying not to herniate a disk. I eat well—if by “well” you mean “like a disciplined wolf at a cheat-day buffet.” Animal products still feature in my diet, usually in portions that would make a cardiologist raise one eyebrow and reach for their prescription pad. I’m a good 30 pounds overweight and have cut back recently but perhaps not enough. 

    Lately, I’ve started worrying about the future: namely, a heart stent. The idea of threading a balloon through my groin to unclog a bacon-clogged artery isn’t my preferred retirement plan. So I’m contemplating a semi-vegan diet—not for virtue-signaling, but for vascular survival. Greek yogurt and whey powder will stay, though. I refuse to shrivel into a human twig for the sake of purity. Sarcopenia can go pound tempeh.

    My dream breakfast resembles a Pinterest board curated by a monk with delusions of grandeur: steel-cut oats, yogurt, whey, berries, walnuts, and dark roast coffee. Lunch is the same symphony with the oatmeal swapped for buckwheat groats, in honor of my Polish great-great grandmother who, I’m certain, could crush a man’s spirit with one glance and a bowl of groats. Dinner? A nutritional yeast-drenched, spice-blasted tempeh tableau, with beans, roasted vegetables, and maybe a solemn scoop of cottage cheese followed by an apple—the dessert equivalent of a tax deduction.

    Snacks? Don’t speak to me of snacks. They are the sneaky saboteurs of caloric creep, the grinning goblins that ruin otherwise virtuous intentions. Between meals, I’ll drink water, and maybe a diet soda or two to convince myself I’m still living on the edge.

    Of course, this plan risks collapsing under the crushing weight of its own monotony. Worse, I dread becoming that guy at family events—the joyless dietary specter haunting the buffet table with his lentil sermon. I don’t want pity, nor do I want to be admired for abstaining from Costco sheet cake while others live in reckless, frosted bliss.

    To preserve my sanity and prevent my relatives from staging a flavor intervention, I may allow one restaurant meal a week—a carefully sanctioned culinary parole. A sanity-saving bite of indulgence before I return to the tofu mines.

  • If we’re looking for a role model in the art of the blog, look no further than Blaise Pascal

    If we’re looking for a role model in the art of the blog, look no further than Blaise Pascal

    Walter Mosley, like many literary heavyweights, delivers the old warhorse of writing advice: write every damn day. Rain or shine, joy or existential despair, sit down and put words on the page. It’s less about inspiration than it is about keeping the creative battery from corroding in the garage while your ambitions collect dust. Steven Pressfield echoed this doctrine in The War of Art, a self-help sermon for writers who need a firm kick in the discipline.

    But daily writing in the digital age isn’t what it used to be. Now it comes with a side of existential nausea. The modern writer doesn’t just write—they publish. Immediately. Publicly. Desperately. A blog here, a TikTok monologue there, and boom—you’re not creating, you’re performing. You’re not nurturing your authentic voice; you’re pumping caffeine into your avatar and hoping the algorithm throws you a bone. And let’s be clear: the algorithm rewards extremity, outrage, and theater. The bigger the spectacle, the better the reach. Welcome to the Faustian Bargain of digital authorship.

    In this deal with the devil, we don’t trade our souls for knowledge—we trade nuance for engagement. We sculpt our “brand” to fit the machine. Our subject matter isn’t what haunts us—it’s what trends. Our tone isn’t our voice—it’s caffeinated shouting with a faux-therapist smile. We might monetize. We might even go viral. But then what? We’ve spent our creative life howling into a dopamine feedback loop. Is this writing? Or is it a slow, glittery death of the self?

    To be clear, branding isn’t inherently evil. Mark Leyner is a brand. So is Annie Dillard, Toni Morrison, and T.C. Boyle. Their work pulses with personality—yes—but also rigor, substance, and voice. They didn’t let style drown out content. They didn’t slap their face on a thumbnail and shout into the void about “7 Ways to Hack Your Purpose.” Influencers, on the other hand, are often pure surface: style with no skeleton, affect with no architecture.

    So what happens if you’re writing online without chasing likes, shares, or ad revenue? Are you just journaling in public? Writing as catharsis masquerading as productivity? Possibly. But that’s not inherently shameful. Writing as therapy is fine—as long as it’s therapy with syntax. Catharsis isn’t the enemy; incoherence is. Even in the trenches of personal expression, we owe our readers (and ourselves) clarity, pace, and craft.

    If we’re looking for a role model in the art of the blog, look no further than Blaise Pascal. His Pensées—a blog centuries ahead of its time—is a fragmented, pithy, and piercing meditation on the human condition. Each entry was brisk, barbed, and brimming with insight. He didn’t need an algorithm. He had a point of view.

    In this sense, blogging today can be a return to Pascal, not a descent into performance art. A blog can be a sketchbook of thought, a lab for style, a home for unfinished beauty. But only if we resist the pull of artificial relevance and write for something—anything—more enduring than a trending sound clip.