Cinemorphosis

Blog

  • Comparing Resistance to the Sunken Place in the Movie Get Out and the Life of Frederick Douglass: 3 Essay Prompts

    Comparing Resistance to the Sunken Place in the Movie Get Out and the Life of Frederick Douglass: 3 Essay Prompts

    Here are three argumentative essay prompts suitable for a 9-paragraph essay that explore how Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass and Jordan Peele’s Get Out use the concept of the Sunken Place—whether literal or metaphorical—to reveal how racism dehumanizes, and how resistance can lead to liberation and agency.

    Prompt 1: The Fight to Reclaim the Self

    Essay Prompt:
    Both Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass and Get Out explore how slavery and racism rob people of their autonomy and identity, trapping them in a psychological “Sunken Place.” Write an argumentative essay analyzing how Douglass and Chris struggle to reclaim their personhood. Whose escape from the Sunken Place carries a more powerful message for modern audiences, and why?

    Key Themes to Consider:

    • Psychological captivity and dehumanization
    • Literacy and perception as tools of resistance
    • Voice vs. voicelessness
    • Breaking free—literal and symbolic escapes

    Prompt 2: Racism as Psychological Warfare

    Essay Prompt:
    Jordan Peele’s Get Out introduces the Sunken Place as a metaphor for the paralyzing effects of racism. Frederick Douglass’s memoir reveals how slavery functioned similarly—as a system designed to psychologically disarm and silence Black people. Write a 9-paragraph essay comparing how each text shows racism operating not just physically, but psychologically, and argue which representation is more effective in showing the true depth of racial oppression.

    Key Themes to Consider:

    • Mind control and learned helplessness
    • Surveillance, control, and social “hypnosis”
    • The role of silence and invisibility
    • Liberation through consciousness and rebellion

    Prompt 3: Resistance as a Path Out of the Sunken Place

    Essay Prompt:
    In both Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass and Get Out, the protagonists face overwhelming systems of control—but both find ways to resist. Write an argumentative essay analyzing how Douglass and Chris resist oppression and reclaim power. Which character’s resistance offers a more effective model for overcoming systemic injustice today?

    Key Themes to Consider:

    • Subversion, deception, and rebellion
    • Education vs. survival instinct
    • Heroism and moral courage
    • The journey from victimhood to agency

    Here are three argumentative essay prompts designed for a 9-paragraph essay that compares themes in Malcolm X (1992) and Black Panther (2018). Each prompt invites students to explore how the two films depict Black identity, resistance, and leadership while allowing room for critical thinking, comparison, and rebuttal:

    Prompt 1: Heroism and Resistance

    Essay Prompt:
    Both Malcolm X and Black Panther present Black protagonists who wrestle with systems of oppression and redefine what it means to be a hero. Write an argumentative essay comparing how Malcolm X and T’Challa evolve in their views on resistance and justice. Which film presents a more compelling vision of heroism in the face of racial oppression?

    Guiding Themes:

    • Radical vs. diplomatic resistance
    • Personal transformation as political awakening
    • The burden and responsibility of leadership
    • Sacrifice and moral complexity in defining heroism
  • Comparing Heroism and Resistance in the Movies Malcolm X and Black Panther: 3 Essay Prompts

    Comparing Heroism and Resistance in the Movies Malcolm X and Black Panther: 3 Essay Prompts

    Here are three argumentative essay prompts designed for a 9-paragraph essay that compares themes in Malcolm X (1992) and Black Panther (2018). Each prompt invites students to explore how the two films depict Black identity, resistance, and leadership while allowing room for critical thinking, comparison, and rebuttal:

    Prompt 1: Heroism and Resistance

    Essay Prompt:
    Both Malcolm X and Black Panther present Black protagonists who wrestle with systems of oppression and redefine what it means to be a hero. Write an argumentative essay comparing how Malcolm X and T’Challa evolve in their views on resistance and justice. Which film presents a more compelling vision of heroism in the face of racial oppression?

    Guiding Themes:

    • Radical vs. diplomatic resistance
    • Personal transformation as political awakening
    • The burden and responsibility of leadership
    • Sacrifice and moral complexity in defining heroism

    Prompt 2: Black Identity and Global Responsibility

    Essay Prompt:
    Malcolm X and Black Panther both challenge their audiences to rethink what it means to be Black in a global context. Using these two films, write an essay arguing whether the personal journey of Malcolm X or the political journey of Wakanda offers a more powerful vision for modern Black identity.

    Guiding Themes:

    • Pan-Africanism and global Black solidarity
    • The role of isolation vs. engagement with the world
    • Cultural pride, history, and reimagined futures
    • The tension between tradition and evolution

    Prompt 3: Rage, Revolution, and the Ethics of Power

    Essay Prompt:
    Both Malcolm X and Erik Killmonger are driven by rage born from historical injustice. Yet while one channels that rage into spiritual and political leadership, the other weaponizes it. Write an argumentative essay comparing how each film uses these characters to explore the ethics of power, revenge, and revolution.

    Guiding Themes:

    • Righteous anger vs. destructive rage
    • Violence as a political tool
    • Redemption, change, and moral ambiguity
    • Legacies of trauma and systemic injustice
  • The Football Team Will Write About the Morality of Football for Our Freshman Composition Class

    The Football Team Will Write About the Morality of Football for Our Freshman Composition Class

    Next fall, I’ll be teaching freshman composition to the college football team, so I’m looking at the topic of football for one of their essay units.

    Here are three argumentative essay prompts that compare the book Against Football by Steve Almond with the film Concussion (2015, dir. Peter Landesman), all designed to be suitable for a 9-paragraph college essay structure (intro, 3 body sections with 2 paragraphs each, counterargument and rebuttal, conclusion). 

    Each prompt pushes students to wrestle with ethical, cultural, or systemic questions in a way that connects to their personal investment as student-athletes, without being simplistic or moralizing.

    Prompt 1: “The Morality of the Game”

    To what extent does Against Football and Concussion suggest that supporting or playing football is morally indefensible in light of what we now know about brain trauma, exploitation, and the business of the sport? Should young people still pursue football as a career path, given the risks?

    • In your essay, compare how Almond and the film depict the ethical stakes of football: What arguments do they make about the price players pay—physically, emotionally, and socially?
    • Analyze how both texts address public complicity: fans, media, institutions.
    • Take a clear stance: Can football be reformed, or is it inherently harmful?
    • Address the counterargument that football builds character, community, and economic opportunity—especially for marginalized groups.

    Prompt 2: “Who Owns the Narrative?”

    Both Against Football and Concussion challenge the dominant narrative that football is a patriotic, character-building institution. Who controls the narrative about football, and what do these two texts reveal about the gap between myth and reality?

    • Analyze how each text critiques the institutional power of the NFL and media: what’s hidden, denied, or spun?
    • Discuss how truth-tellers like Steve Almond and Dr. Bennet Omalu are treated when they challenge football’s mythology.
    • Evaluate the cultural need to preserve football’s heroic image. Who benefits?
    • Address the counterargument that critique undermines a beloved national tradition and can have unintended consequences for working-class athletes.

    Prompt 3: “Risk, Choice, and Exploitation”

    Do players—especially college athletes—truly understand and consent to the risks of playing football, or are they part of a system that exploits them for entertainment and profit? Use Against Football and Concussion to explore how knowledge, agency, and power intersect in the sport.

    • Analyze how the film and book portray informed consent—do players know what they’re signing up for?
    • Compare how the NCAA and NFL manage risk and liability, and who bears the consequences.
    • Examine the role of race, class, and opportunity: how does background shape one’s ability to walk away?
    • Address the counterargument that players have free will, financial incentives, and personal responsibility to weigh the risks.

    Here are five counterarguments that defend football against the criticisms raised by Steve Almond’s Against Football and the film Concussion—each paired with a rationale that students can expand into argumentative paragraphs or use in rebuttal sections:

    1. Football Builds Character, Discipline, and Resilience

    Defense:
    While Almond argues that football glorifies violence and toxic masculinity, defenders claim the sport instills discipline, work ethic, time management, and perseverance. Players must memorize complex plays, train year-round, and learn how to function under pressure—skills transferable to education, careers, and life.

    Example expansion:
    For many young athletes, football teaches more than just how to tackle. It’s a structured environment that requires commitment and accountability, often keeping students academically eligible and socially supported in school communities.

    2. Informed Consent and Autonomy

    Defense:
    Critics like Almond and Concussion raise serious concerns about brain injuries, but players—especially adults—now have increasing access to information about those risks. If someone chooses to play football despite those risks, it’s their right. To suggest otherwise is to infantilize athletes and undermine their agency.

    Example expansion:
    We allow adults to drive motorcycles, box, or climb Everest—why should football be different? Autonomy means respecting a person’s right to assess danger and still choose to participate.

    3. Football Creates Educational and Economic Opportunities

    Defense:
    For many students, especially from low-income communities, football offers a path to college, scholarships, and sometimes even professional careers. Removing or diminishing football could eliminate one of the few structured pipelines to higher education.

    Example expansion:
    Steve Almond critiques the exploitative nature of college football, but what alternatives exist that offer the same combination of structure, community, and opportunity? For some, football is the only shot at upward mobility.

    4. Reforms Are Happening—Football Isn’t Static

    Defense:
    Football has changed. Rules have evolved to protect quarterbacks and defenseless receivers, and protocols around concussions are stricter than ever. Critics assume the sport is frozen in time, but it’s adapting to new science and pressure from advocates.

    Example expansion:
    While Concussion dramatizes the NFL’s history of denial, today’s league invests in helmet technology, baseline testing, and return-to-play guidelines. Youth leagues are teaching safer tackling methods. Progress is slow, but it’s happening.

    5. Football Builds Community and Cultural Unity

    Defense:
    Football isn’t just a sport—it’s a shared cultural ritual. From Friday night lights to Super Bowl Sunday, it creates bonds between families, towns, and regions. For many Americans, football is one of the few communal experiences left.

    Example expansion:
    Almond sees fandom as complicit, but fans see themselves as part of something larger—cheering for their school, city, or nation. That sense of belonging can be powerful, especially in an increasingly fragmented society.

  • The Tie-Dye Bikini Apocalypse: A Story of Regret

    The Tie-Dye Bikini Apocalypse: A Story of Regret

    Regret is the cruelest kind of haunting. It doesn’t just linger in the shadows; it moves in, redecorates, and turns your soul into its permanent residence. Regret doesn’t just trap people in the past—it embalms them in it, like a fly in amber, forever twitching with regret. I remain haunted by the fate of 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.

    Finally, this tale of missed hedonism, of men forever ensnared in the amber of their own foolishness, is biblical writing in its purest form. Not because it involves scripture or saints, but because it operates on a grand, mythic scale. Here, regret isn’t just an emotion—it’s a cosmic punishment, an exile from paradise so severe it echoes through decades. Like Lot’s wife turning to salt, these men made the fatal error of looking back too late, realizing only in hindsight that they had forsaken a divine gift. Their sorrow is eternal, their torment unrelenting. Even now, they wander through the wasteland of their own remorse, spiritually marooned on that sun-scorched highway, the spectral van idling in their subconscious like a rusted-out relic of their squandered youth. 

  • The Boba-Loaded Lie: How Big Soda Got a Makeover

    The Boba-Loaded Lie: How Big Soda Got a Makeover

    Magical thinking is the bedazzled duct tape we slap onto reality to avoid facing the truth. It lets us take something objectively terrible—like a 20-ounce bottle of fizzy corn syrup—and slap on enough gloss, hashtags, and buzzwords to make it seem like an act of wellness. It’s how you turn poison into a product. And that, in essence, is what Ellen Cushing unpacks in her incisive Atlantic piece, “The Drink Americans Can’t Quit.”

    Once upon a time, Big Soda was king—until the internet’s favorite shirtless gym bros decided that guzzling sugar water was about as cool as smoking indoors. Sodas became the new Marlboros: once iconic, now socially repellent. But like any villain in a rebooted franchise, soda didn’t die. It got a makeover. Now it struts back into our lives wearing a new name tag: energy drink, boba tea, cold brew, mushroom latte, functional hydration. Same blood sugar spike, new marketing copy.

    Cushing doesn’t just document this cynical rebranding—she vivisects it. The modern “status beverage” has evolved into a Trojan horse of marketing genius: wrapped in virtue-signaling wellness language, dressed in neutral tones and matte cans, and fortified with meaningless additions like adaptogens, B vitamins, or vaguely defined “nootropics.” These drinks promise energy, clarity, even spiritual alignment—because what better way to mask liquid candy than by suggesting it unlocks your third eye?

    But the rot remains. These drinks are still what Cushing calls “a remarkably unhealthy, nutritionally inessential product that costs pennies to make”—only now, they’re draped in the aesthetic of self-care. We’ve replaced high-fructose corn syrup with high-gloss delusion. It’s not soda, you see—it’s a wellness ritual. A personality in a can. A lifestyle choice with a QR code.

    And it works because the industry knows exactly who we are: vanity-ridden optimists with just enough disposable income and just little enough critical thinking to fall for it again. We don’t want hydration; we want a vibe. Something that fits in our hand, photographs well on Instagram, and makes us feel like we’re doing something good for ourselves—while doing the exact opposite.

    Cushing’s essay left me seething, in the best way. Because once you see the scam, you can’t unsee it. I don’t care if your can is minimalist, if your label says “plant-based,” or if Gwyneth Paltrow herself handed it to me with a smug nod. If it’s just soda in yoga pants, I’m out.

    So no, I won’t be purchasing a $5 can of turmeric-infused, adaptogen-enhanced, crystal-charged carbonated nonsense. Because once I understand the con, drinking it would feel like punching my own dignity in the face. I’d rather hydrate the old-fashioned way—with water and a shred of self-respect.

  • The Book That Ruined My Life (and Made It Worth Living)

    The Book That Ruined My Life (and Made It Worth Living)

    Alice Flaherty opens The Midnight Disease: The Drive to Write, Writer’s Block, and the Creative Brain with a quote from Roland Barthes: “A creative writer is one for whom writing is a problem.”

    Problem? That word hardly does justice to the affliction. A problem is misplacing your car keys or forgetting to pay the water bill. What I have is more like a life swallowed whole, a case study in obsession so severe it borders on the pathological. Writing isn’t just a habit; it’s an all-consuming parasite, a compulsion that, in a just world, would require a 12-step program and a sponsor who confiscates my pens at night.

    But since no one is shipping me off to a remote cabin with nothing but an axe and a survival manual, I’ll have to settle for less extreme interventions—like seeking solace in Flaherty’s musings on the so-called writing “problem.”

    As it turns out, my affliction has a clinical name. Flaherty informs me that neurologists call this compulsion hypergraphia—the unrelenting urge to write. In their view, I suffer from an overactive communication drive, a neurochemical malfunction that ensures my brain is forever churning out words, whether the world wants them or not.

    Yet Flaherty, a physician and a neuroscientist, doesn’t merely dissect the neurology; she also acknowledges the rapture, the ecstasy, the fever dream of writing. She describes the transformative power of literature, how great writers fall under its spell, ascending from the mundane to the sacred, riding some metaphorical magic carpet into the great beyond.

    For me, that moment of possession came courtesy of A Confederacy of Dunces. It wasn’t enough to read the book. I had to write one like it. The indignation, the hilarity, the grotesque majesty of Ignatius J. Reilly burrowed into my psyche like a virus, convincing me I had both a moral duty and the necessary delusions of grandeur to bestow a similarly deranged masterpiece upon humanity.

    And I wasn’t alone. Working at Jackson’s Wine & Spirits in Berkeley, my coworkers and I read Dunces aloud between customers, our laughter turning the store into a kind of literary revival tent. Curious shoppers asked what was so funny, we evangelized, they bought copies, and they’d return, eyes gleaming with gratitude. Ignatius, with his unhinged pontifications, made the world seem momentarily less grim. He proved that literature wasn’t just entertainment—it was an antidote to the slow suffocation of daily life.

    Before Dunces, I thought books were just stories. I didn’t realize they could act as battering rams against Plato’s cave, blasting apart the shadows and flooding the place with light.

    During my time at the wine store, we read voraciously: The Ginger Man, One Hundred Years of Solitude, Moravia’s Contempt, Camus’ Notebooks, Borges’ labyrinthine tales. We never said it out loud, but we all understood—life was a dense fog of absurdity and despair, and books were our MREs, the intellectual rations that kept us alive for another day in the trenches.

    Books were our lifeline. They lifted our spirits, fortified our identities, and sharpened our minds like whetstones against the dull blade of existence. They turned us into a ragtag band of literary zealots, clutching our dog-eared pages like relics, singing the praises of Great Literature with the fervor of the Whos in Whoville—except instead of roasting beast, we feasted on Borges and Camus.

    Which brings us to Flaherty’s lament: the Internet is muscling books out of existence, and when books go, so does a vital piece of our humanity.

    What would my memories of Jackson’s be without the shared reverence for literature? It wasn’t just a passion; it was the glue that bound us to each other and to our customers. The conversations, the discoveries, the camaraderie—none of it could be replicated by an algorithm or a meme.

    How can I not think of this in the context of a country still staggering through its post-pandemic hangover of rage, paranoia, and despair? Where the love of books has been trampled beneath an endless scroll of digital sludge, and where human connection has been reduced to strangers launching spiteful grenades at each other across social media—those lawless arenas ruled by soulless tech lords, their pockets fat with the profits of our collective decline?

    Flaherty confesses that her need to dissect the spark of writing—the thing that makes it so irrepressibly human—was an uncontrollable urge, one that made her question whether she suffered from hypergraphia, postpartum mania, or some deeper compulsion to explore what she calls the “Kingdom of Sorrow” after the devastating loss of her prematurely born twin boys. Her search for the root of her writing obsession reminded me of Rainer Maria Rilke’s advice in Letters to a Young Poet: the only writing worth doing is that which one cannot not do.

    Beyond hypergraphia—an affliction rare enough to keep it from becoming a trendy self-diagnosis—Flaherty also tackles the more mundane but far more common malady of writer’s block. She attributes it to mood disorders, procrastination, repressed anxieties, and perhaps a sprinkle of nihilism. I used to wrestle with writer’s block myself, particularly between short stories, back when I entertained the delusion that I might carve out a name for myself in literary fiction. But whenever I think of writer’s block, I think of the one person I’d most like to share a meal with: Fran Lebowitz.

    Lebowitz’s writer’s block has lasted for decades, so long, in fact, that she’s upgraded it to a “writer’s blockade.” If Blaise Pascal was an acid-tongued intellectual defending faith, Lebowitz is the sharp-tongued patron saint of the New York literati, delivering high-caliber cultural commentary with the precision of a diamond-tipped drill. That she doesn’t write is a cosmic joke. That people care she doesn’t write is part of her legend. That her off-the-cuff witticisms are more electrifying than most books in print makes her, without question, my literary idol.

    And yet, my devotion to Lebowitz only reveals the terminal nature of my writing affliction. If a genie granted me the chance to swap lives with her—to tour the world, bask in standing ovations, and deliver effortless, unfiltered cultural critique to sold-out crowds—but on the condition that I could never write another book, I would turn it down without hesitation. This refusal confirms the depths of my sickness. In this hypothetical scenario, books themselves are mere shadows compared to the brilliance of Lebowitz’s conversation. And yet, here I am, clinging to the shadows, convinced that somewhere in those pages, I will find the thing that makes existence bearable.

    Surely, no specialist can diagnose a disease like this, much less cure it.

    Reading Flaherty’s sharp and introspective book, I found myself circling a familiar question: is the urge to write both a pathology and a gift? This led me straight to The Savage God, A. Alvarez’s bleak yet compelling account of depression, suicide, and literature. Across history, writers afflicted by melancholy, madness, or sheer existential despair have been cast as tragic geniuses, indulgent sinners, or misunderstood romantics, depending on the prevailing religious and literary winds.

    Take Sylvia Plath, the confessional poet who sealed her fate at thirty, or John Kennedy Toole, the tortured author of A Confederacy of Dunces, who asphyxiated himself at thirty-one. Conventional wisdom holds that Toole’s despair stemmed from his inability to publish his novel, but Tom Bissell, in “The Uneasy Afterlife of A Confederacy of Dunces,” suggests a more tangled story—one of creeping paranoia and the pressures of academia, where Toole, at twenty-two, was the youngest professor in Hunter College’s history.

    Like his doomed creator, Ignatius J. Reilly is possessed by the need to write. His screeds, stitched together from the wisdom of Boethius, function less as arguments and more as the existential flailings of a man convinced that writing will bring him salvation. He writes because he must, the way a fish swims—to stay alive.

    Bissell’s most cutting insight isn’t about Toole’s life, but about his novel’s fundamental flaw: Dunces is riddled with indulgences—flabby with adverbs, allergic to narrative structure, and populated with characters so exaggerated they teeter on the edge of cartoonhood. He argues that Dunces is “a novel that might have been considerably more fun to write than it is to read.” This line stopped me cold.

    Why? Because Dunces was my Rosetta Stone, my gateway drug to the idea of becoming a comic novelist. And yet here was the brutal truth: the very book that set me on this path was a wreck of undisciplined excess. If Dunces ruined my life, it did so not because it failed, but because I absorbed its flaws as gospel. I inhaled its bloated exuberance, its unshackled absurdity, and made it my literary template.

    To undergo a religious experience from a flawed book is to risk a kind of artistic contamination—you don’t just inherit its brilliance, you inherit its sins. My writing compulsion is perhaps nothing more than Dunces’ worst tendencies metastasized in my brain.

    And so, as a recovering writing addict, I am forced to sit with this painful revelation and digest it like a bad meal—one that demands an industrial-strength antacid.

    At the beginning of this book, I claimed that A Confederacy of Dunces ruined my life. It was a ridiculous, melodramatic statement—fatuous, even. But after considering its messy influence over my work, I can’t help but think: there’s more truth in it than I’d like to admit.

  • Greatness Adjacent: My Life as a Literary Delusionist

    Greatness Adjacent: My Life as a Literary Delusionist

    After churning out one literary failure after another across five decades, I’m forced to ask myself: Is my perseverance a virtue, the kind of tenacity that gets celebrated in self-help books and motivational speeches? Or is it a pathological compulsion, a lifelong affliction keeping me from my real calling—whatever that may be? And if the notion of a “true calling” is just a fairy tale we tell ourselves to make existence more bearable, then perhaps I should at least free up some time to do the dishes.

    To grapple with these existential questions, I turned to Stephen Marche’s slim but merciless On Writing and Failure: Or, On the Peculiar Perseverance Required to Endure the Life of a Writer. His thesis? Failure isn’t an anomaly in the writing life—it’s the default setting. The occasional success, when it happens, is a fluke, an accident, a glitch in the system. Failure, on the other hand, is the well-worn coat writers wrap themselves in, the skin they inhabit. And mind you, he’s not even talking about unpublished failures like myself—he’s extending this bleak diagnosis to the published ones, the so-called “real writers.”

    Marche backs up his grim pronouncement with numbers: Three hundred thousand books are published every year in the United States, and only a microscopic fraction make a dent in public consciousness. It doesn’t matter how famous you are—your book is still more likely to sink into obscurity than to make any meaningful impact. If you’re not sufficiently depressed yet, Marche then drags in examples from literary history: beloved writers who, despite their modern-day veneration, spent their lives begging for money, wallowing in debtors’ prisons, or drinking themselves into oblivion.

    Marche’s goal with this book—barely longer than a grocery receipt—is to strip writing of its romantic pretensions. Forget divine inspiration, artistic calling, or the fantasy of making it; writing is just stubbornness on repeat. But here’s where he really twists the knife: That whole narrative about failure eventually leading to success? Utter nonsense. “The internet loves this arc,” he writes, “low then high; first perseverance, then making it all; all struggle redeemed; the more struggle the more redemption. It’s pure bullshit.” The truth? Most writers fail, period. And even the rare successes are plagued by existential misery—forever misunderstood, chronically isolated, and shackled to a relentless hunger for recognition that can never truly be satisfied.

    Worse still, even the successful ones live in constant anxiety over whether they’ll ever be successful again. Literary triumphs don’t lead to security; they lead to paranoia. Marche describes the “psychology of failure” as an inescapable affliction that forces writers to cling to the smallest scraps of validation, inflating minor achievements to salve their chronic inadequacy. His case study? A professor who once had a letter published in The Times Literary Supplement and framed it on his wall like a Nobel Prize, using it as a talisman against irrelevance.

    Reading On Writing and Failure is like stepping into a room full of my own ghosts—writers far more accomplished than I am, yet still plagued by the same desperate need for affirmation, the same self-inflicted torment, the same inability to simply be content. It’s almost comforting, in a bleak sort of way. All those books about “maximizing happiness,” “daily habits of highly effective people,” and “radical gratitude” are useless against the unyielding hunger of the literary ego. If failure is the writer’s natural habitat, then perhaps the real victory isn’t in succeeding but in learning to fail with style.

    What struck me most about Marche’s book is just how desperate writers are for validation—so desperate, in fact, that we cling to the tiniest scraps of approval like a Jedi clutching a lightsaber in a dark alley. As proof that I was destined for literary greatness, I have spent the last three decades obsessively revisiting a single one-hour phone conversation I had in 1992 with the retired literary agent Reid Boates. At the time, I was hawking The Man Who Stopped Dating, a novel the publishing industry (correctly) determined should never see the light of day. But Boates, to my eternal delight, told me my synopsis knocked his socks off. That one phrase sent me soaring. If a mere synopsis could strip a seasoned agent of his footwear, surely I was on the brink of glory.

    Perhaps the memento I cherish even more is a letter I received from Samuel Wilson Fussell, author of Muscle: Confessions of an Unlikely Bodybuilder. After devouring his memoir, I wrote him a fan letter detailing my own bodybuilding misadventures and name-dropping a few of the lunatics I recognized from his book. Fussell responded enthusiastically, telling me that he and his friends had read my letter out loud and collapsed to the floor, clutching their bellies in laughter. Over the years, I’ve sometimes wondered: Were they laughing with me… or at me? But in the moment, it didn’t matter. In my mind, Fussell’s response confirmed what I already knew—I was a man of literary consequence, a peer among published authors and esteemed literary agents, a rising star on the precipice of greatness.

    And here’s the kicker: I can still remember the pure, uncut euphoria I felt after talking to Reid Boates and receiving Fussell’s letter, and I am convinced—convinced—that the high would have been no greater had I seen my best-selling novel displayed in the window of a Manhattan bookstore.

    Marche is right. My neediness was so profound that I mistook these small flashes of recognition as irrefutable proof of my imminent rise to literary celebrity. But unlike Marche, I find no solace in knowing that I am not alone in this affliction. I can only speak for myself: I am a writing addict. My compulsion produces nothing of value, it embarrasses me, and I am in desperate need of rehabilitation. And so, in a cruel twist of irony, I write about my recovery from writing—even though my so-called recovery demands that I stop writing altogether. My misery, therefore, is guaranteed.

  • Writing in the Time of Deepfakes: One Professor’s Attempt to Stay Human

    Writing in the Time of Deepfakes: One Professor’s Attempt to Stay Human

    My colleagues in the English Department were just as rattled as I was by the AI invasion creeping into student assignments. So, a meeting was called—one of those “brown bag” sessions, which, despite being optional, had the gravitational pull of a freeway pile-up. The crisis of the hour? AI.

    Would these generative writing tools, adopted by the masses at breakneck speed, render us as obsolete as VHS repairmen? The room was packed with jittery, over-caffeinated professors, myself included, all bracing for the educational apocalypse. One by one, they hurled doomsday scenarios into the mix, each more dire than the last, until the collective existential dread became thick enough to spread on toast.

    First up: What do you do when a foreign language student submits an essay written in their native tongue, then let’s play translator? Is it cheating? Does the term “English Department” even make sense anymore when our Los Angeles campus sounds like a United Nations general assembly? Are we teaching “English,” or are we, more accurately, teaching “the writing process” to people of many languages with AI now tagging along as a co-author?

    Next came the AI Tsunami, a term we all seemed to embrace with a mix of dread and resignation. What do we do when we’ve reached the point that 90% of the essays we receive are peppered with AI speak so robotic it sounds like Siri decided to write a term paper? We were all skeptical about AI detectors—about as reliable as a fortune teller reading tea leaves. I shared my go-to strategy: Instead of accusing a student of cheating (because who has time for that drama?), I simply leave a comment, dripping with professional distaste: “Your essay reeks of AI-generated nonsense. I’m giving it a D because I cannot, in good conscience, grade this higher. If you’d like to rewrite it with actual human effort, be my guest.” The room nodded in approval.

    But here’s the thing: The real existential crisis hit when we realized that the hardworking, honest students are busting their butts for B’s, while the tech-savvy slackers are gaming the system, walking away with A’s by running their bland prose through the AI carwash. The room buzzed with a strange mixture of outrage and surrender—because let’s be honest, at least the grammar and spelling errors are nearly extinct.

    As I walked out of that meeting, I had a new writing prompt simmering in my head for my students: “Write an argumentative essay exploring how AI platforms like ChatGPT will reshape education. Project how these technologies might be used in the future and consider the ethical lines that AI use blurs. Should we embrace AI as a tool, or do we need hard rules to curb its misuse? Address academic integrity, critical thinking, and whether AI widens or narrows the education gap.”

    When I got home that day, gripped by a rare and fleeting bout of efficiency, I crammed my car with a mountain of e-waste—prehistoric laptops, arthritic tablets, and cell phones so ancient they might as well have been carved from stone. Off to the City of Torrance E-Waste Drive I went, joining a procession of guilty consumers exorcising their technological demons, all of us making way for the next wave of AI-powered miracles. The line stretched endlessly, a funeral procession for our obsolescent gadgets, each of us unwitting foot soldiers in the ever-accelerating war of planned obsolescence.

    As I inched forward, I tuned into a podcast—Mark Cuban sparring with Bill Maher. Cuban, ever the capitalist prophet, was adamant: AI would never be regulated. It was America’s golden goose, the secret weapon for maintaining global dominance. And here I was, stuck in a serpentine line of believers, each of us dumping yesterday’s tech sins into a giant industrial dumpster, fueling the next cycle of the great AI arms race.

    I entertained the thought of tearing open my shirt to reveal a Captain America emblem, fully embracing the absurdity of it all. This wasn’t just teaching anymore—it was an uprising. If I was going to lead it, I’d need to be Moses descending from Mount Sinai, armed not with stone tablets but with AI Laws. Without them, I’d be no better than a fish flopping helplessly on the banks of a drying river. To enter this new era unprepared wasn’t just foolish—it was professional malpractice. My survival depended on understanding this beast before it devoured my profession.

    That’s when the writing demon slithered in, ever the opportunist.

    “These AI laws could be a book. Put you on the map, bro.”

    I rolled my eyes. “A book? Please. Ten thousand words isn’t a book. It’s a pamphlet.”

    “Loser,” the demon sneered.

    But I was older now, wiser. I had followed this demon down enough literary dead ends to know better. The premise was too flimsy. I wasn’t here to write another book—I was here to write a warning against writing books, especially in the AI age, where the pitfalls were deeper, crueler, and exponentially dumber.

    “I still won,” the demon cackled. “Because you’re writing a book about not writing a book. Which means… you’re writing a book.”

    I smirked. “It’s not a book. It’s The Confessions of a Recovering Writing Addict. So pack your bags and get the hell out.”

    ***

    My colleague on the technology and education committee asked me to give a presentation for FLEX day at the start of the Spring 2025 semester. Not because I was some revered elder statesman whose wisdom was indispensable in these chaotic times. No, the real reason was far less flattering: As an incurable Manuscriptus Rex, I had been flooding her inbox with my mini manifestos on teaching writing in the Age of AI, and saddling me with this Herculean task was her way of keeping me too busy to send any more. A strategic masterstroke, really.

    Knowing my audience would be my colleagues—seasoned professors, not wide-eyed students—cranked the pressure to unbearable levels. Teaching students is one thing. Professors? A whole different beast. They know every rhetorical trick in the book, can sniff out schtick from across campus, and have a near-religious disdain for self-evident pontification. If I was going to stand in front of them and talk about teaching writing in the AI Age, I had better bring something substantial—something useful—because the one thing worse than a bad presentation is a room full of academics who know it’s bad and won’t bother hiding their contempt.

    To make matters worse, this was FLEX day—the first day back from a long, blissful break. Professors don’t roll into FLEX day with enthusiasm. They arrive in one of two states: begrudging grumpiness or outright denial, as if by refusing to acknowledge the semester’s start, they could stave it off a little longer. The odds of winning over this audience were not just low; they were downright hostile.

    I felt wildly out of my depth. Who was I to deliver some grand pronouncement on “essential laws” for teaching in the AI Age when I was barely keeping my own head above water? I wasn’t some oracle of pedagogical wisdom—I was a mole burrowing blindly through the shifting academic terrain, hoping to sniff my way out of catastrophe.

    What saved me was my pride. I dove in, consumed every article, study, and think piece I could find, experimented with my own writing assignments, gathered feedback from students and colleagues, and rewrote my presentation so many times that it seeped into my subconscious. I’d wake up in the middle of the night, drool on my face, furious that I couldn’t remember the flawless elocution of my dream-state lecture.

    Google Slides became my operating table, and I was the desperate surgeon, deleting and rearranging slides with the urgency of someone trying to perform a last-minute heart transplant. To make things worse, unlike a stand-up comedian, I had no smaller venue to test my material before stepping onto what, in my fevered mind, felt like my Netflix Special: Teaching Writing in the AI Age—The Essential Guide.

    The stress was relentless. I woke up drenched in sweat, tormented by visions of failure—public humiliation so excruciating it belonged in a bad movie. But I kept going, revising, rewriting, refining.

    ***

    During the winter break as I prepared my AI presentation, I recall one 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 this brings us to the first principle of teaching in the AI Age: The Sales Principle. 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.

    Thinking about my sales pitch, I realize I  should be grateful—forty years of teaching college writing is no small privilege. After all, the very pillars that make the job meaningful—cultivating a strong persona, wrestling with enduring ideas, and imposing structure on chaos—are the same things I revere in great novels. The irony, of course, is that while I can teach these elements with ease, I’ve proven, time and again, to be utterly incapable of executing them in a novel of my own.

    Take persona: Nabokov’s Lolita is a master class in voice, its narrator so hypnotically deranged that we can’t look away. Enduring ideas? The Brothers Karamazov crams more existential dilemmas into its pages than both the Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia combined. And the highest function of the novel—to wrestle chaos into coherence? All great fiction does this. A well-shaped novel tames the disarray of human experience, elevating it into something that feels sacred, untouchable.

    I should be grateful that I’ve spent four decades dissecting these elements in the classroom. But the writing demon lurking inside me has other plans. It insists that no real fulfillment is possible unless I bottle these features into a novel of my own. I push back. I tell the demon that some of history’s greatest minds didn’t waste their time with novels—Pascal confined his genius to aphorisms, Dante to poetry, Sophocles to tragic plays. Why, then, am I so obsessed with writing a novel? Perhaps because it is such a human offering, something that defies the deepfakes that inundate us.

  • 3 Essay Prompts: Lost Boys: Masculinity and Disconnection in the Age of the Algorithm

    3 Essay Prompts: Lost Boys: Masculinity and Disconnection in the Age of the Algorithm

    Essay Prompt 1:

    Lost Boys: Masculinity and Disconnection in the Age of the Algorithm

    The Netflix series Adolescence portrays young men drifting into emotional isolation, digital fantasy, and performative aggression. Write a 1,700-word argumentative essay analyzing how the series presents the crisis of masculinity in the digital age. How does the show portray the failure of institutions—schools, families, mental health systems—to support young men? In what ways do online subcultures offer a dangerous substitute for real intimacy, guidance, and identity?

    Your essay should examine how internet platforms and influencer culture warp traditional male development and how Adolescence critiques or complicates the idea of a “lost generation” of young men.

    Essay Prompt 2:

    Digital Disintegration: How the Internet Erodes the Self in Adolescence*

    In Adolescence, young men vanish into screens—physically present but psychologically absent, caught in loops of gaming, porn, self-help gurus, and nihilistic memes. Write a 1,700-word analytical essay examining how the show depicts identity erosion, emotional numbness, and digital escapism. Consider how the show portrays online life not as connection, but as a kind of derealized limbo where development stalls and real-world stakes disappear.

    Your argument should explore the consequences of a generation shaped by dopamine loops, digital avatars, and constant surveillance. What does Adolescence suggest about what is being lost—and who benefits from that loss?

    Essay Prompt 3:

    From Memes to Militancy: Radicalization and the Internet’s Hold on Young Men

    The Netflix series Adolescence captures the quiet drift of boys into corners of the internet that begin as humor and end in extremism. In a 1,700-word argumentative essay, analyze how the series depicts the pipeline of online radicalization—from ironic memes and manosphere influencers to conspiracy theories and hate movements. What conditions—emotional, economic, social—make these boys susceptible? What does the series suggest about how the algorithm reinforces this spiral?

    Your essay should examine how humor, loneliness, and status anxiety are manipulated in online culture—and what Adolescence says about the consequences of letting these forces grow unchecked.

    10-Paragraph Essay Outline

    (This outline works across all three prompts with slight adjustments for emphasis.)

    Paragraph 1 – Introduction

    • Hook: Open with a striking scene or character arc from Adolescence that captures the crisis.
    • Define the core problem: the disappearance of young men into digital worlds that seem realer than reality.
    • Preview key themes: emotional alienation, digital addiction, toxic masculinity, radicalization, algorithmic control.
    • Thesis: Adolescence shows that the internet is not just stealing time or attention—it’s restructuring identity, disrupting development, and creating a generation of young men lost in curated illusions, commodified rage, and emotional isolation.

    Paragraph 2 – The Vanishing Boy: Emotional Disconnection

    • Explore how Adolescence shows young men struggling to express vulnerability or ask for help.
    • Analyze scenes of family miscommunication, school apathy, and emotional shutdown.
    • Argue that their online retreat is a symptom, not a cause—at least initially.

    Paragraph 3 – The Internet as Surrogate Father

    • Analyze how the show depicts YouTube mentors, TikTok alphas, or Discord tribes stepping in where real mentors are absent.
    • Show how authority figures online offer structure—but often twist it into aggression or control.
    • Connect to broader anxieties about masculinity and belonging.

    Paragraph 4 – The Addictive Loop

    • Detail how characters in the series are shown compulsively scrolling, gaming, watching, or optimizing themselves.
    • Introduce the concept of dopamine loops and algorithmic reinforcement.
    • Show how pleasure becomes numbness, and time becomes meaningless.

    Paragraph 5 – The Meme Path to Extremism (for Prompt 3 or with minor tweaks)

    • Trace how irony, meme culture, and dark humor act as gateways to more dangerous content.
    • Analyze how Adolescence shows the blurring line between trolling and belief.
    • Suggest that humor is weaponized to disarm skepticism and accelerate radicalization.

    Paragraph 6 – The Crisis of Identity and Selfhood

    • Argue that the series portrays the internet as a space where boys create avatars, not selves.
    • Highlight characters who lose track of real-world relationships, ambitions, or even their physical bodies.
    • Introduce the concept of identity disintegration as a psychological cost of digital immersion.

    Paragraph 7 – The Algorithm as a Character

    • Examine how Adolescence treats the algorithm almost like a silent antagonist—shaping behavior invisibly.
    • Show how it feeds what boys already fear or desire: status, control, escape, attention.
    • Reference scenes where characters are shown spiraling deeper without ever intending to.

    Paragraph 8 – Counterargument: Isn’t the Internet Also a Lifeline?

    • Acknowledge that some online spaces provide connection, community, or creative expression.
    • Rebut: Adolescence doesn’t demonize the internet—but shows what happens when it becomes a substitute for real-life development rather than a supplement.
    • Argue that the problem is the absence of balance, mentorship, and media literacy.

    Paragraph 9 – Who Benefits from the Lost Boy Crisis?

    • Examine the political and economic systems that profit from male alienation: influencers, ad platforms, radical networks.
    • Argue that male loneliness has been commodified, gamified, and monetized.
    • Suggest that the real villains aren’t boys—but the systems that prey on them.

    Paragraph 10 – Conclusion

    • Return to your original image or character.
    • Reaffirm thesis: Adolescence is a warning—not about tech itself, but about what happens when society abandons boys to find meaning, manhood, and identity from the algorithm.
    • End with a call: rescuing the “lost boys” means reconnecting them to something more real than a screen.

    Three Sample Thesis Statements

    Thesis 1 – Psychological Focus (Prompt 2):

    In Adolescence, the disappearance of young men into screens isn’t just a behavioral issue—it’s a crisis of selfhood, where boys no longer develop real identities but become trapped in algorithmically reinforced loops of fantasy, shame, and emotional numbness.

    Thesis 2 – Masculinity Focus (Prompt 1):

    Adolescence portrays the internet as a dangerous surrogate father to young men—offering distorted versions of masculinity that promise power and belonging while deepening their emotional alienation and social disconnection.

    Thesis 3 – Radicalization Focus (Prompt 3):

    Through its depiction of ironic memes, online influencers, and algorithmic descent, Adolescence reveals how internet culture radicalizes young men—not through direct coercion, but by turning humor, loneliness, and masculinity into tools of manipulation.

    Would you like scaffolded source materials, suggested secondary readings, or possible titles for these essays?

  • 3 College Writing Prompts: Willpower Is Not a Weight-Loss Strategy: Rewriting the Narrative of Obesity in an Age of Ozempic

    3 College Writing Prompts: Willpower Is Not a Weight-Loss Strategy: Rewriting the Narrative of Obesity in an Age of Ozempic

    Essay Prompt:

    In contemporary culture, weight loss is often framed as a matter of individual discipline: eat less, move more, stay motivated. This narrative, reinforced by diet culture, media messaging, and public health campaigns, reduces a complex biopsychosocial phenomenon into a moral test of willpower. But what if this view is not only incomplete, but damaging?

    This essay invites you to critically analyze the myth of weight loss as a simple formula of personal responsibility, using the following readings:

    • Rebecca Johns, “A Diet Writer’s Regrets”
    • Johann Hari, “A Year on Ozempic Taught Me We’re Thinking About Obesity All Wrong”
    • Harriet Brown, “The Weight of the Evidence”
    • Sandra Aamodt, “Why You Can’t Lose Weight on a Diet”

    Drawing on these texts, write a 1,700-word argumentative essay that explores the deeper systemic, biological, and psychological forces that influence body weight. In your analysis, define what is meant by diet culture, obesity stigma, metabolic adaptation, and the illusion of control. Consider how economic privilege, the Industrial Food Complex, and the Diabetes-Management Complex affect who gets access to treatment and who gets blamed for their bodies.

    Reflect on the question: Is obesity the result of failed individual discipline—or a condition shaped by biology, capitalism, and inequality? And what are the ethical and political consequences of continuing to frame weight as a personal failing?

    Key Themes and Concepts to Define in Essay:

    • Diet culture: The belief system that prioritizes thinness as a moral virtue and equates weight loss with health and worth.
    • Obesity stigma: The systemic dehumanization, bias, and blame placed on people in larger bodies.
    • Metabolic adaptation: The body’s physiological resistance to weight loss, often leading to weight regain.
    • Ozempic and GLP-1 drugs: Medications that challenge traditional weight-loss advice by offering pharmacological interventions, often accessible only to the wealthy.
    • Industrial Food Complex: The economic system that prioritizes hyper-palatable, processed foods for profit.
    • Diabetes-Management Complex: The medical-industrial apparatus that profits from managing obesity-related conditions without addressing root causes.

    10-Paragraph Essay Outline

    Paragraph 1 – Introduction

    • Begin with a personal or cultural anecdote about dieting, body shame, or the weight-loss industry.
    • State the prevailing myth: that weight loss is just about willpower, calories, and exercise.
    • Introduce the core idea: this myth obscures structural, biological, and psychological realities.
    • End with a strong thesis: The cultural obsession with personal discipline in weight loss not only ignores science but perpetuates economic injustice, medical misinformation, and moral shame.

    Paragraph 2 – The Myth of Personal Responsibility

    • Explore how diet culture frames obesity as a personal failure.
    • Use Johns and Brown to show how this narrative is reinforced by health media and public policy.
    • Define diet culture and obesity stigma as forms of social control.

    Paragraph 3 – The Science of Weight and Metabolism

    • Explain Aamodt’s key argument: the body defends a weight range through metabolic adaptation.
    • Introduce the concept of the set point and how dieting can backfire physiologically.
    • Emphasize the biological limits of “discipline” in long-term weight maintenance.

    Paragraph 4 – Ozempic and the Medical Disruption of Diet Culture

    • Analyze Hari’s experience with Ozempic as a reframing of what obesity is and isn’t.
    • Explain how drugs like Ozempic challenge the calorie-math logic of diet culture.
    • Raise the question: if a drug changes appetite, was willpower ever the issue?

    Paragraph 5 – Economic Access and the Ozempic Divide

    • Examine the cost of GLP-1 drugs and the class-based disparity in access.
    • Discuss how the rich can “solve” obesity pharmacologically while others are blamed.
    • Introduce the concept of the Diabetes-Management Complex and its profit motives.

    Paragraph 6 – The Industrial Food Complex and Engineered Cravings

    • Analyze the food industry’s role in promoting addictive, ultra-processed foods.
    • Use Brown and outside data (optional) to show how working-class communities are targeted by fast food and soda industries.
    • Connect this to systemic inequality: people are set up to fail and then blamed for it.

    Paragraph 7 – Psychological Toll and the Shame Cycle

    • Highlight the emotional and mental health damage caused by diet failure and stigma.
    • Reference Johns and Aamodt: shame is not a motivator—it’s a trap.
    • Argue that repeated dieting often leads to worse health outcomes, not better ones.

    Paragraph 8 – Counterargument: Isn’t Some Responsibility Necessary?

    • Acknowledge the argument that individuals do make choices about food and movement.
    • Rebut by showing how choice is constrained by biology, environment, and marketing.
    • Emphasize that awareness and access—not shame—should guide public health.

    Paragraph 9 – Reframing Obesity: Toward Compassionate Policy and Practice

    • Suggest new narratives: body neutrality, medical compassion, anti-poverty approaches.
    • Point to Hari’s conclusion: we must rethink how we talk about food, body, and health.
    • Argue for policies that regulate Big Food and expand access to affordable treatment—not just lectures on willpower.

    Paragraph 10 – Conclusion

    • Reaffirm thesis: The weight-loss myth isn’t just scientifically flawed—it’s morally dangerous.
    • Remind the reader that bodies are not math problems to be solved.
    • End with a call to change the story: from blame to understanding, from shame to structural justice.

    Three Sample Thesis Statements

    Thesis 1:
    Despite decades of public health messaging urging personal responsibility, evidence from metabolic science and socioeconomic analysis shows that weight loss is rarely a matter of willpower; rather, it is shaped by systemic inequalities, industrial food marketing, and biological resistance that diet culture refuses to acknowledge.

    Thesis 2:
    Ozempic has exposed the hollowness of traditional dieting advice by proving that appetite, metabolism, and weight are governed by mechanisms beyond discipline—forcing us to rethink obesity not as moral failure, but as a condition entangled in capitalism, privilege, and biology.

    Thesis 3:
    While self-discipline plays a role in shaping health behaviors, framing obesity as a personal choice erases the complex realities faced by those in larger bodies—and perpetuates a culture that profits from their shame while denying them access to real solutions.

    Prompt Variation #1:

    Title:

    Ozempic Nation: Rethinking Health, Shame, and the New Politics of Body Control

    Prompt:

    In recent years, the rise of weight-loss drugs like Ozempic has disrupted the cultural script about how people should lose weight. For decades, Americans were taught that health was a product of self-control, calorie-counting, and personal virtue. Now, pharmaceutical interventions are reframing obesity not as a failure of discipline, but as a medical condition treatable through science—at least, for those who can afford it.

    In a 1,700-word argumentative essay, use the following sources to explore the tension between medical innovation and cultural shame in the weight-loss conversation:

    • Rebecca Johns, “A Diet Writer’s Regrets”
    • Johann Hari, “A Year on Ozempic Taught Me We’re Thinking About Obesity All Wrong”
    • Harriet Brown, “The Weight of the Evidence”
    • Sandra Aamodt, “Why You Can’t Lose Weight on a Diet”

    Your essay should analyze the shifting meanings of health, body control, and legitimacy in the age of Ozempic. What happens when pharmaceutical shortcuts challenge decades of moral messaging around food and fitness? Who benefits from this shift—and who is still left behind?

    Define and explore key concepts such as obesity stigma, the illusion of dietary control, medical privilege, and the cultural performance of health. Consider how these sources challenge or reinforce the idea that technology can “fix” what social systems continue to break.

    Sample Thesis Statements:

    Thesis 1:
    Ozempic reveals the deep contradictions at the heart of American health culture: while it promises to liberate people from shame and failed diets, it reinforces an unequal system in which the wealthy gain slimness without stigma while the poor remain trapped in cycles of blame and exclusion.

    Thesis 2:
    The pharmaceutical rebranding of obesity as a treatable disease may signal progress, but it risks medicalizing a problem rooted in inequality and cultural cruelty—shifting the solution from public reform to private access.

    Thesis 3:
    Even as Ozempic offers a scientific disruption of diet culture, the surrounding narrative still clings to old myths of self-control, body optimization, and moral value, showing that shame is more durable than even the most effective drug.

    Prompt Variation #2:

    Title:

    The Hunger Trap: How Diet Culture Profits from Our Failure

    Prompt:

    For decades, diet culture has promised transformation through willpower: thinner bodies, better health, and a more valuable self. Yet mounting evidence suggests that these promises are not only false but economically and biologically rigged to ensure failure.

    Using the following texts, write a 1,700-word argumentative essay examining how diet culture operates as an economic and psychological trap:

    • Rebecca Johns, “A Diet Writer’s Regrets”
    • Johann Hari, “A Year on Ozempic Taught Me We’re Thinking About Obesity All Wrong”
    • Harriet Brown, “The Weight of the Evidence”
    • Sandra Aamodt, “Why You Can’t Lose Weight on a Diet”

    Your task is to explore how the weight-loss industry—and the broader systems of food production, health marketing, and cultural control—profits from the manufactured failure of diets. Analyze how this industry shapes individual psychology while diverting attention from systemic issues such as poverty, food engineering, and medical access.

    Define key terms such as the weight-loss industrial complex, metabolic resistance, social shame as behavioral control, and the commodification of insecurity. Ask: who profits when we hate our bodies, and what changes when we stop believing weight loss is the solution?

    Sample Thesis Statements:

    Thesis 1:
    Diet culture functions less as a roadmap to health than as a profit engine fueled by failure, shame, and false hope—ensuring that the more we try to lose weight, the more the system wins.

    Thesis 2:
    The illusion of dietary control is not a harmless myth but a profitable one, carefully engineered by the Industrial Food Complex and the diet industry to keep consumers trapped in a cycle of craving, guilt, and spending.

    Thesis 3:
    By exposing how diets are designed to fail and shame is weaponized for profit, these texts argue that weight loss is not a health goal—it is an industry built on emotional extraction and economic exploitation.