Cinemorphosis

Tag: creative-writing

  • Writing the Book That No One Can Ignore

    Writing the Book That No One Can Ignore

    You don’t sit down to write a book the world wants to read by accident. At least, it feels like an act of will. You force yourself into the chair. You produce sentences. You assemble a manuscript that lodges itself in people’s heads, agitates their assumptions, rearranges their furniture. The book exerts power—but not the vulgar kind. You’re not trying to dominate anyone. You’re simply telling the truth so cleanly, so directly, that looking away becomes impossible. Your ideas don’t shout. They persist. They refuse to be ignored.

    This kind of book is not a lecture, a scolding, or a manifesto. It doesn’t traffic in nihilism, misanthropy, or fashionable despair. It doesn’t prescribe easy solutions or luxuriate in outrage. Instead, it diagnoses. And a real diagnosis cuts both ways: it is unsparing about the human predicament while still pointing—quietly but unmistakably—toward an exit. Not optimism. Orientation.

    The book earns its authority by puncturing the clichés we treat as wisdom. It exposes the mass hallucinations surrounding happiness, success, fulfillment—all the shiny quests we pursue with religious devotion and predictable disappointment. But it does this without contempt. The tone isn’t superior; it’s exact. The pleasure of reading comes from recognition, not humiliation. You feel seen, not scolded.

    The sentences do the heavy lifting. They are short, fearless, and unembarrassed by clarity. There is no ornamental fog, no academic hedging, no decorative complexity masquerading as depth. Flowery prose and pretentious diction are weeds on a neglected lawn: they obscure what matters. This language is honed, not arid. It glints. Each sentence lands cleanly and moves on.

    If a curmudgeonly edge appears, it’s a seasoning, not the main course. A book powered by pure crankiness curdles into nihilism—and nihilism is dull. It flattens stakes, erases texture, and mistakes exhaustion for insight. This book avoids that trap. It remains alive to nuance, contradiction, and consequence.

    Because the book is so bracingly clear, other writers feel it immediately. Not admiration first—envy. The good kind. The Beatles hearing Pet Sounds and realizing the bar has been raised. The book doesn’t just succeed; it rearranges the landscape.

    What ultimately distinguishes it isn’t the subject matter but the voice. To understand that voice, Emmanuel Carrère’s Kingdom is instructive. Carrère contrasts the florid ambition of Luke—his PR-friendly, overworked prose—with the sayings of Jesus, which arrive stripped, terse, and destabilizing. Jesus’ words feel both utterly familiar and entirely unprecedented. Carrère calls this a linguistic hapax legomenon: a way of speaking so singular that it leaves no doubt a real person once spoke this way.

    That is the essence of a world-changing book. Its language has no template. It cannot be reverse-engineered or taught. It doesn’t sound like anything else. It lands in the reader’s mind with a depth that imitation can’t reach. At that point, the writer looks less like a craftsman and more like an oracle—someone through whom something passes.

    Which brings us back to will. Maybe writing such a book isn’t an act of will at all. Maybe the writer is chosen—by temperament, by obsession, by affliction—to speak this way. Either way, the true desire isn’t fame or money or validation. It’s to produce language with the force of a hapax legomenon: words that could only be said once, and yet echo forever.

    That, finally, is its own reward.

  • Why Sitting Still Is Killing Your Writing

    Why Sitting Still Is Killing Your Writing

    You can’t write all day and expect to produce anything alive. You can sit hunched in your creative cocoon for hours, but don’t be surprised when your prose comes out pale and airless. You’ve ignored your body, your need for oxygen and circulation, your need for what can only be called Otherness—a physical and spiritual encounter with the world that does not occur while you’re marinating in your own chair. I’ve always known this in my bones. Recently, Bonnie Tsui gave it language in her essay “The Writer’s Secret Weapon.” For Tsui, creativity peaks not at the desk but in the water. Swimming becomes a form of mobile meditation, a way of clearing internal static. A body in motion reroutes the brain. Kinetic energy pries open doors that inertia bolts shut. When she swims, she doesn’t skim her subjects; she descends into them.

    Tsui also makes a bracing point writers love to resist: you can’t write about something while you’re still drenched in it. When she was working on a book about swimming, she couldn’t write fresh from the pool, water still in her ears. The experience had to ferment. The mind needs distance, a change of context, a step into Otherness to metabolize meaning. This is why even writers who log eight-hour days at their desks punctuate them with long walks. You must toggle between worlds. Living in only one—especially the interior one—is claustrophobic, coercive, and hostile to genuine creativity.

    When I think of a writer who never leaves the room, I think of Nikolai Gogol’s The Overcoat. Akaky Akakievich copies documents all day, takes his copying home at night, and copies some more. Eventually, copying is all he can do. He no longer registers the world: not mockery, not humiliation, not even a horse sneezing on him. He produces mountains of text and nothing of consequence. He has become a Non Player Character. Only when winter cold seeps into his bones does he wake from his stupor, lured by a demonic tailor into an overcoat that violently reconnects him to the world. The shock is too much. His mind, underdeveloped by isolation, cannot withstand reality’s ambitions and fever dreams. He breaks. Gogol understood something essential: the writer’s task is not to hide from the physical world but to be altered by it. That radical shift in perception—the moment when the world intrudes and rearranges you—is not a distraction from writing. It is the point.

  • Failure Is the Bedrock of Writing

    Failure Is the Bedrock of Writing

    Stephen Marche, veteran journalist and author, says the secret to becoming a writer isn’t inspiration or networking or the right MFA program. It’s endurance. Grim, stubborn, occasionally delusional endurance. His slim volume On Writing and Failure makes one argument with relentless clarity: if you want to write, prepare to suffer. Forget talk of “flourishing,” “mentorship,” and “encouragement.” Writing isn’t a wellness retreat. It’s a trench.

    Marche opens with the perennial questions writers whisper to each other after one rejection too many: Does this get easier? Do you grow thicker skin? The response he quotes from Philip Roth is a gut punch: “Your skin just grows thinner and thinner. In the end, they can hold you up to the light and see right through you.” In other words, the longer you write, the more naked you become. Vulnerability isn’t a side effect of the craft; it is the craft.

    Marche’s bleak comfort is that every writer feeds off failure. Success is accidental—a borrowed tuxedo, worn briefly. Failure is the body underneath. Even the authors smiling from dust jackets look like rescued hostages, blinking at daylight before returning to the bunker of their desks to keep going. They don’t do it because it’s glamorous. They do it because not writing would be worse.

    I understand the pathology. After decades of cranking out what I believed were novels, I finally admitted I couldn’t write one—not at the level I demanded, not at the level worth inflicting on readers. That revelation didn’t spare me failure; it merely revealed strata of it. There’s the failure of rejection, the failure of the work, and the quiet, private failure of recognizing your own limits. Perhaps I could’ve spared myself time and spared literary agents grief. But failure has its curriculum, and I attended every class.

    Marche’s book is a sober reminder that writing is less a triumphal march than a pilgrimage carried out on blistered feet. Failure isn’t a detour; it’s the terrain. Rock layers of it: topsoil doubt, subsoil rejection, shale humiliation, limestone stubbornness. Dig deeper and you hit coal—compressed ambition under impossible pressure, black and combustible.

    Failure isn’t fashionable grit or a TED Talk slogan. When executives brag about “learning from failure,” they’re dilettantes. Writers are the professionals of defeat. To be a poet today is to live like a post-apocalyptic monk, scribbling in candlelight, shadow thrown against the cave wall, not out of masochism but because there’s no other way to stay human. The world may not care, but the work insists.

  • Operation 2B: Writing at the Edge of Madness

    Operation 2B: Writing at the Edge of Madness

    Last night, I dreamed I was recruited into a top-secret engineering project. Why? I have no idea. I’m not an engineer. I don’t calculate. I conjugate. But apparently, someone in a conference room with clearance and questionable judgment decided that this classified operation needed… a writer.

    They dropped me into a government-issue apartment compound, a cheerless complex filled with bunking engineers and low-grade existential dread. I was assigned a shared unit with mismatched strangers. One of them, a single mother, had laid out a modest spread of peanut butter, celery, and crackers for her toddler—a rationed still life of parental competence. “Eat,” she told me. “You’ll need fuel for the project.” And so I did—voraciously, like a man preparing to write the Constitution on deadline.

    One by one, my roommates peeled off to private rooms. There was a charming British expat with a silver beard and a childhood photo of himself in a Bentley—Old Money in exile. Despite his aristocratic roots, he was delightfully upbeat, the kind of man who would whistle while burying landmines. But soon, he too was reassigned. It became clear that my “team” had evaporated, and I had been left behind. Not fired. Not forgotten. Just… chosen. To work alone. On a project I didn’t understand. Surrounded by a sea of mechanical pencils. Hundreds of them, like offerings at the altar of Bureaucratic Futility.

    Feeling the weight of vague responsibility, I walked to the project site—a sprawl of white dust and scattered canopies that looked more like a failed music festival than a classified facility. Under one tent, I found two twenty-somethings playing at adulthood. I asked the woman which pencil I should use. She shrugged but confessed the 2B graphite was easiest on her eyes. A clue. A preference. A hierarchy of legibility. I realized she would be my proofreader, my silent companion in this ridiculous odyssey.

    Then came the sign. A man appeared—former military, highly decorated, looking like a character drafted from a Tom Clancy novel. Without a word, he walked up to my apartment door and placed a sign the size of a license plate in the window frame: BE COURAGEOUS. The kind of sign you see right before a high-stakes mission or a TED Talk.

    And that was it. My mission was mine alone. A 500-page manuscript I had to read to prepare myself for the project. No advisor, no support, no backup—just me, a pile of pencils, and a shadowy proofreader who preferred 2B. I awoke shortly after, microwaved some buckwheat groats, brewed a pot of dark roast coffee, and stared into my kitchen tiles wondering if this was a dream about writing… or about surviving it.

  • Meet the Timepiece Whisperer

    Meet the Timepiece Whisperer

    Chapter 6 of The Timepiece Whisperer

    At 6 a.m., I rose like a guilty priest on purge day and loaded my Honda Accord with a museum of failure. Each item whispered its own shame: busted radios that once sang, fans that blew nothing but despair, fossilized laptops gasping through Windows XP, iPads ghosted by iOS updates, a humidifier that wheezed its final death rattle in 2018, and a landmine of corroded batteries that could’ve earned me a write-up from the EPA.

    By 8:00, I was cruising down the 110 South, my car bloated with the technological detritus of a man who once believed that stuff—stuff!—might soothe an inner void. I exited Pacific Avenue and found myself crawling through a wasteland of rebar, chain-link fences, and brush thick enough to hide a body or two. It was less Los Angeles and more post-apocalyptic novella. A landscape haunted by discarded dreams and the occasional tented soul whose only offense was being born poor.

    After a slow-motion bounce over some railroad tracks, I veered down a bleak gravel path until I arrived at 8:50 to find a tarp flapping over what I assume someone dared to call a facility. It looked like a wedding tent designed by Satan’s party planner, squatting in front of a cinder-block warehouse that smelled like ozone and bureaucratic indifference.

    Ahead of me, a small line of sedans idled like supplicants outside a radiation baptism. Signs warned against bringing poisons, rotting food, firearms, explosives, and—oddly—crop waste. Another sign warned me not to exit my vehicle, eat, or drink, presumably because the combination of trail mix and lithium-ion residue could create a chemical lovechild that incinerated San Pedro.

    A silver SUV from Washington State attempted to cut the line, realized it had wandered into the wrong apocalypse, and peeled out in a plume of toxic dust that settled on our windshields like the aftermath of a low-budget nuke.

    By 9:00, the caravan had doubled. My rearview mirror showed a parade of shame stretching down the gravel like a funeral procession for the Age of Gadgets. Then she arrived—a smiling woman in an orange vest and clip-on radio. Clipboard in hand, she went car-to-car like a cheerful customs agent at the border of human depravity. When she got to me, I rattled off my cargo. Her nod was practiced. I suspect her real job was twofold: assess whether I was harboring illegal pesticides, and determine if I looked like the kind of man who’d stuff a body under an old humidifier.

    Eventually, I popped my trunk. Men in uniforms descended with the solemnity of pallbearers. They removed the items with clinical grace, not a single eyebrow raised at my hoarder shame. I thanked them. They nodded like undertakers who’d buried a thousand dreams before mine.

    Lighter by fifty pounds and several psychic burdens, I pulled away, my soul humming with moral superiority and the faint possibility of radiation poisoning. For a brief moment, I felt whole.

    Then came the craving.

    The Seiko Astron.

    The Watch Master had warned me. Had pleaded for restraint. But there it was again, the whisper in my mind, the itch in my wrist. By the time I got home, I was already spiraling. So I returned to the Watch Master’s house for counsel, but his front door was answered by a red-bearded mountain of a man who looked like he’d just wandered out of a Nordic crime novel.

    “Josh,” he said, extending a paw. “I’m the Timepiece Whisperer.”

    “What happened to the Watch Master?”

    “Dead. Stomachache. Went to bed and never woke up.”

    “And you’re… what, the sequel?”

    “That’s for you to decide.”

    Josh made me an iced coffee, honey and cinnamon. It tasted like guilt sweetened with denial.

    We sat at the kitchen table, a graveyard of coffee rings and philosophical despair.

    “So what’s troubling you, my friend?”

    “I’m almost sixty-four. I own seven watches. I want an eighth. Am I doomed?”

    He slurped his drink, crunched an ice cube, and nodded solemnly.

    “That depends. Are we talking about eight timepieces? Or eight identities, eight moods, eight regrets?”

    I blinked.

    He leaned forward. “If you’re still hunting, still haunted, then yes—eight is too many. You don’t have a collection. You have a symptom. But if you’ve made peace—if each watch has its rightful place in your little opera of masculinity—then eight is a symphony. A curated exhibit. A spiritual wardrobe.”

    Then he tilted his head. “The real question is: Are you wearing the watches, or are they wearing you?”

    I wilted. I wanted to shrink into the upholstery.

    “I want the Astron to be the closer. I want to stop at eight. But history tells me I won’t. I go through the honeymoon, get bored, scratch the itch with another watch, and end up miserable. My collection isn’t a triumph. It’s a cry for help.”

    Josh chuckled, then howled, then nearly fell off his chair.

    “Now we’re getting somewhere. You think this is about timepieces? No, my friend. This is about you.”

    Then he called for backup.

    First came John, a zombie in slippers with bags under his eyes deep enough to hold grief. “Sell everything,” he said, “and get a Tudor Pelagos. End of story.” Then he stared at his slipper hole like it owed him money and shuffled off.

    Then came Gary, a cheerful human protein shake in a Lycra tracksuit.

    “Let the man buy the Astron,” he chirped. “Make it eight. Just get him a sponsor, a support group, maybe a hotline. The poor bastard needs this.”

    Then John stormed back, furious. “I said one watch!”

    Words escalated. Soon they were locked in a full-blown wrestling match, crashing into the walls like toddlers in a padded room. Josh laughed like a man watching Fight Club on loop and eventually threw both of them into the basement.

    He stood at the door, listening to the thumps and groans like it was jazz.

    “That,” he said, his eyes shining, “is the debate. One watch or many. Order or chaos. Simplicity or delirium.”

    I got up to leave.

    “What’s the rush?” he asked.

    “I’ve seen enough.”

    “You’ll be back.”

    “What makes you so sure?”

    Josh smiled. “Because you’re desperate.”

  • Writing Your Origin Story: A College Essay Prompt

    Writing Your Origin Story: A College Essay Prompt

    Writing Your Origin Story

    An origin story is a personal narrative that explains how someone became who they are—it connects formative experiences, struggles, and turning points to a clear sense of identity and purpose. It’s not just a chronology of events, but a curated account that gives meaning to the chaos, shaping pain, failure, or rebellion into insight and direction. Like a myth with teeth, a well-crafted origin story turns vulnerability into vision, showing not just where someone came from, but how that journey forged their voice, values, and ambitions.

    We have powerful examples of origin stories In the Amazon Prime documentary Group Therapy, in which Neil Patrick Harris plays a surprisingly restrained version of himself as moderator while six comedians—Tig Notaro, Nicole Byer, Mike Birbiglia, London Hughes, Atsuko Okatsuka, and Gary Gulman—dissect the raw material of their lives. The big reveal? That material doesn’t go from trauma to stage in one dramatic leap. No, it must be fermented, filtered, and fashioned into something more useful than pain: a persona built on an origin story.

    Mike Birbiglia delivers the central thesis of the show, and I’ll paraphrase with a bit more bite: You can’t stagger onto stage mid-breakdown and expect catharsis to double as comedy. That’s not a gift—it’s a demand. You’re taking from the audience, not offering them anything. The real craft lies in the slow, deliberate process of transforming suffering into something elegant, pointed, and—yes—entertaining. That means the comic must achieve emotional distance from the wreckage, construct a precise point of view, and build a persona strong enough to carry the weight without buckling. In other words, the chaos must be curated. Unlike therapy, where you’re still bleeding onto the couch, stand-up demands a version of you that knows how to make the bloodstains rhyme.

    This process is a perfect metaphor for what college students must do, whether they realize it or not. They’re not just acquiring credentials—they’re building selves by having a clear grasp of their origin story. And that takes more than GPAs and LinkedIn bios. An origin story requires language, history, personal narrative, and a working origin myth that turns their emotional baggage into emotional architecture. And yes, it sounds crass, but the result is a kind of “self-brand”—an identity with coherence, voice, and purpose, forged from pain but presented with polish.

    Because your success, as a human being and someone who is creative and productive in the workforce, requires an origin story, you will write your first essay about the origin story–what it is, how it develops in others, and how it develops inside of you. 

    To explore the origin story in detail, you will write an essay in 3 parts. Part 1 will analyze the importance of an origin story in the Amazon Prime documentary Group Therapy. Your job in Part 1 is to write a two-page extended definition of the origin story based on the hard-fought wisdom of the comedians who pour out their souls and explain how through their suffering, they discovered who they are, what makes them tick, and how their origin story informs their comedy. 

    In Part 2, you will write a two-page analysis of the origin story by choosing one of four media sources: 

    1. The Amazon Prime 3-part series Evolution of the Black Quarterback, a meditation on the courage of black quarterbacks who broke racial barriers and built a legacy of social justice for those quarterbacks who came after them. 
    2. Chef’s Table, Pizza, Season 1, Episode 3, Ann Kim, the origin story of a Korean-American whose origin story led her to become an award-winning chef. 
    3. Chef’s Table, Noodles, Season 1, Episode 1, Evan Funke, an American who goes to Italy where kind Italian women share their cooking so he can preserve traditional Italian noodles and become a true chef.
    4. Chef’s Table, Noodles, Season 1, Episode 2, Guirong Wei, a young woman leaves China to work in London to support her family and emerges as a noodle star. 

    In Part 3, you will write your two-page origin story. Taking the lessons from Group Therapy and the other media sources from the choices above, you will have the context to write about how you conceive yourself, your interests, your unique challenges, your unique doubts, your career goals, and your aspirations as part of your origin story. 

    Your essay should be written in MLA format and have a Works Cited page with a minimum of the 2 assigned media sources.  

    The 10 Characteristics of Your Origin Story

    1. You recognize your challenge to belong and understand why you don’t fit in with conventional notions of success, friendship, family, and belonging.
    2. You recognize your quirks, fears, and traits that make it a challenge for you to belong.
    3. You recognize the barriers between you and what you want. 
    4. You recognize what you want instead of chasing what you think others would have you want.
    5. You recognize being lost in a fog and having a moment or a series of moments in which you achieved clarity regarding what you wanted as a career, for your relationships, and for your passions. 
    6. You find a North Star, a higher goal, that pulls you from a life of lethargy and malaise to one of discipline and purpose. 
    7. You recognize the demons that you have to contend with if you are to rise above your worst tendencies and achieve happiness and success.
    8. You recognize the talents, inclinations, preferences, style, and biases that make you the person that you are, and you learn to embrace these things and allow them to inform and give expression to the kind of work that you do.
    9. You prove to your doubters that the path you have taken is the assertion of your true self and is the most likely path to happiness and success.
    10. You recognize mentors and role models who blaze a path that makes you see yourself more clearly and live in accordance with your aspirational self. 
  • 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.

  • The Salma Hayek-ification of Writing: A Love Letter to Our Slow-Motion Doom

    The Salma Hayek-ification of Writing: A Love Letter to Our Slow-Motion Doom

    I’ve done what the pedagogical experts say to do with ChatGPT: assume my students are using it and adjust accordingly. I’ve stopped trying to catch them red-handed and started handing them a red carpet. This isn’t about cracking down—it’s about leaning in. I’ve become the guy in 1975 who handed out TI calculators in Algebra II and said, “Go wild, kids.” And you know what? They did. Math got sexier, grades went up, and nobody looked back.

    Likewise, my students are now cranking out essays with the polish of junior copywriters at The Atlantic. I assign them harder prompts than I ever dared in the pre-AI era—ethical quandaries, media critiques, rhetorical dissections of war propaganda—and they deliver. Fast. Smooth. Professional. Too professional.

    You’d think I’d be ecstatic. The gap between my writing and theirs has narrowed to a hair’s width. But instead of feeling triumphant, I feel…weirdly hollow. Something’s off.

    Reading these AI-enhanced essays is like watching Mr. Olympia contestants on stage—hyper-muscular, surgically vascular, preposterously sculpted. At first, it’s impressive. Then it’s monotonous. Then it’s grotesque. The very thing that was once jaw-dropping becomes oddly numbing.

    That’s where we are with writing. With art. With beauty.

    There’s a creeping sameness to the brilliance, a too-perfect sheen that repels the eye the way flawless skin in a poorly-lit Instagram filter repels real emotion. Everyone’s beautiful now. Everyone’s eloquent. And like the cruelest of paradoxes, if everyone looks like Salma Hayek, then no one really does.

    AI content has the razzle-dazzle of a Vegas revue. It’s slick, it’s dazzling, and it empties your soul faster than a bottomless mimosa brunch. The quirk, the voice, the twitchy little neurosis that makes human writing feel alive? That’s been sanded down into a high-gloss IKEA finish.

    What we’re living through is the Salma Hayek-ification of modern life: a technologically induced flattening of difference, surprise, and delight.

    We are being beautified into oblivion.

    And deep inside, where the soul used to spark when a student wrote a weird, lumpy, incandescent sentence—one they bled for, sweated over—I feel the faint echo of that spark flicker.

    I’m not ready to say the machines have killed art. But they’ve definitely made it harder to tell the difference between greatness and a decent algorithm with good taste.

  • The Gospel of Manuscriptus Rex: Confessions of a Failed Novelist and Reluctant Exorcist

    The Gospel of Manuscriptus Rex: Confessions of a Failed Novelist and Reluctant Exorcist

    In my quest to diagnose the writing demon that refuses to release me from its grip, I turned to Why We Write: 20 Acclaimed Authors on How and Why They Do What They Do, edited by Meredith Maran. In her introduction, Maran paints a bleak portrait of the literary life: writers waking before dawn, shackling themselves to their craft with grim determination, all while the odds of success hover somewhere between laughable and nonexistent.

    She lays out the statistics like a funeral director preparing the bereaved: out of a million manuscripts, only 1% will find a home. And if that doesn’t crush your soul, she follows up with another gut punch: only 30% of published books turn a profit. Clearly, materialism isn’t the primary motivator here. Perhaps masochism plays a role—some deep-seated desire for rejection that outstrips the mere thrill of self-rejection. Or maybe it’s just pathology, an exorcism waiting to happen.

    For those unwilling to embrace despair, Maran brings in George Orwell’s “four great motives for writing”: egotism, the pleasures of good prose, the need for historical clarity, and the urge to make a political argument. Sensible enough. No surprises.

    Where things get interesting is Joan Didion’s take. Didion, never one for sentimentality, strips the writer’s motives bare: “In many ways writing is the act of saying I, of imposing oneself upon other people, of saying listen to me, see it my way, change your mind. It’s an aggressive, even hostile act.”

    Reading that, my eyes lit up with recognition. Didion had just sketched Manuscriptus Rex in perfect detail—the secret bully, the compulsive brain-hijacker who isn’t content to write in solitude but needs to occupy the minds of others, to install his worldview in their most private spaces.

    Terry Tempest Williams, on the other hand, writes to confront her ghosts, a sentiment that deeply appeals to me. The idea of the writer as a haunted creature, forever pursued by stories that demand exorcism, feels not only true but inescapable.

    But here’s the kicker—Maran makes it clear that the twenty writers in her book aren’t failures like me. They’re not Manuscriptus Rexes, howling into the void. No, they are the anointed ones, welcomed by publishers with open arms, bathed in the golden light of editorial gratitude.

    And yet, they didn’t land on Mount Olympus by accident. They fought. They clawed their way up, word by painful word, which means they have something to teach—not just to their fans but to me, a self-aware Manuscriptus Rex still trying to understand what, exactly, makes him tick.

    There is no shortage of delicious tidbits in Why We Write. Isabel Allende talks about the necessity of writing like a growing tumor that has to be dealt with or will simply grow out of control. She adds that even if she begins with a germ of an idea, the book has a life of its own. It grows from her unconscious obsessions and preoccupations, so that in the beginning she has not yet discovered what story she is going to tell. Also, she is a writer of ritual and routine. Every January seventh is the day before she starts writing a new book. She gathers all her materials in her “little pool house,” which she uses as her office. It is her sacred space to work, just “seventeen steps” from her home. 

    The idea of having two separate spaces—one for writing, one for everything else—fascinates me. It reminds me of something Martin Amis once told Charlie Rose: he needed to be a writer because toggling between the world of the novel and the earthly world created a kind of necessary duality, a parallel existence where imagination could thrive. For someone wired for storytelling, living between those two realities wasn’t just a luxury—it was a survival mechanism.

    At home, Isabel Allende straddles two universes, one sacred, the other profane. And it calls to mind the lesson my college fiction professor, N.V.M. Gonzalez, drilled into us: a fiction writer must know the difference between sacred and profane time.

    A great writer conducts these two temporal forces like an orchestra. Sacred time—mythic, timeless, symbolic—stretches beyond the clock, charging pivotal moments with fate, destiny, and the weight of history. It’s the crossroads where a single decision echoes through eternity. Profane time, by contrast, is the ticking metronome of daily existence—the coffee that goes cold, the unpaid bills, the search for a parking spot.

    A great novel moves between the two—one moment steeped in cosmic significance, the next trapped in the drudgery of real life. A character might wrestle with divine purpose—but that won’t stop their Wi-Fi from cutting out mid-revelation.

    Allende enters her writing enclave in a state of terror and exhilaration, grappling with ideas—some brilliant, some best left in the trash bin—while navigating stress, disappointment, and suspense. Her process feels high-stakes, and really, what is life without high stakes? A slow, numbing descent into low expectations, inertia, and existential boredom—a fate worse than failure.

    Maybe writing addiction is just the relentless drive to keep the stakes high. Without it, life shrinks into a provisional existence, where survival boils down to the next meal, the next fleeting pleasure, the next song that momentarily sends a tingle up your spine—a desperate Morse code from the universe to confirm you’re still alive.

    The writers in this book all share the same unshakable compulsion to write. For them, writing isn’t just a craft; it’s therapy, oxygen, a way to make sense of chaos. They write because they can’t not write—because failure to do so would send them spiraling into an existential crisis too dark to contemplate. Writing gives them self-worth, wards off insanity, and serves as the only acceptable coping mechanism for their undying curiosities. It isn’t a choice—it’s a chronic condition.

    These successful authors write relentlessly, enduring the agony of writer’s block, self-loathing, and the horror of their own bad prose, all while clawing their way toward something better. And while I share their compulsions, I lack their stamina and focus. Reading about Isabel Allende’s fourteen-hour writing binges was my moment of clarity: I am not a literary gladiator. These novelists can paint vast landscapes of story without crapping out halfway. I, on the other hand, am a wind-sprinter—a lunatic exploding off the starting block, only to collapse in a gasping heap a hundred yards later, curl into the fetal position, and slip into a creative coma.

    And this, I suspect, is the great torment of Manuscriptus Rex—an insatiable hunger to write the big book, clashing violently with a temperament built for sprints, not marathons. This misalignment fuels much of my artistic misery, my chronic dissatisfaction, and my ever-expanding graveyard of unfinished masterpieces.

    Still, whatever envy and despair I felt reading about these elite warriors of the written word, this book offered a cure—I will never again attempt a novel unless divine intervention forces my hand. I’ve seen too many of my failed attempts, the work of a man pretending to be a novelist rather than one willing to endure the necessary rigor. But I do have another calling: identifying unhinged, demonic states in others.

    Like a literary taxidermist, I want to capture these wild, self-destructive compulsions, mount them for display, and present them with maximum drama—not for amusement, but as cautionary tales. This is my work, my rehabilitation, the writing I was meant to do. And unlike novel-writing, it actually feels like a necessity, not a delusion.

  • “I am not a novelist. I am a caveman.”

    “I am not a novelist. I am a caveman.”

    I am not a novelist. I am a caveman, a storyteller hunched by the fire, gesturing wildly, my face contorting into grotesque expressions as I spin cautionary tales. My stories warn the tribe of those who lost themselves—souls swallowed by obsessions, passions twisted beyond recognition. I feed off their reaction, stretching the truth, inflating reality with hyperbole to keep their eyes locked on me.

    This caveman energy has defined my forty years of teaching college writing. The classroom’s laughter and gasps convinced me I had the chops to be a comic novelist, but I failed to see the obvious: a twenty-minute monologue is not War and Peace. And yet, I clung to the fantasy of being a novelist-in-waiting, a delusion that only crumbled when I finally took stock of my work.

    What did I find? No One Hundred Years of Solitude, no grand literary masterpiece. Instead, I had a collection of vignettes, sharp, compact, brimming with cautionary tales of the fallen, the delusional, the broken—people lost in fever dreams from which they could not escape. I obsessed over them because they were me—walking, talking omens of my own unraveling, flashing neon signs warning me to correct course before it was too late.

    For years, I mistook my ability to capture madness with clarity and drama as proof I was meant to write novels. But the truth? I was never built for the big circus tent of the novel. My writing came in violent bursts—a torrential downpour of inspiration followed by silence. A flash flood, wreaking havoc for one glorious moment before I moved on to another city, another storm.

    As part of my rehabilitation, I had to accept my nature, not fight it. I had to catalog my flash floods, embrace the writing I was actually designed for, and banish the novelist delusion once and for all. I needed a name that reflected my true form—something fitting for a writer who thrives in short, explosive bursts.

    I had to become Maxwell Shortform, a proud subspecies of Manuscriptus Rex.

    As Maxwell Shortform, I am capable of presenting a ghost story masquerading as regret. Not the cheap, chain-rattling kind of ghost story, but the deeper, more insidious variety—the kind where the specters aren’t dead, just eternally trapped in the past, doomed to replay their moment of ruin over and over like a broken film reel. Regret, after all, 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. As Maxwell Shortform, I have been able to capture 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. 

    There is no novel here, no book deal, no confetti raining down in celebration. No literary parade in my honor, no breathless NPR interview, not even a sad little short story to be mumbled at a hipster café over oat-milk lattes.

    As Maxwell Shortform, I drift above the world like storm clouds, unleash a torrential downpour of words, and then vanish before anyone can open an umbrella. That is my fate. And accepting my fate is a vital stage of my rehabilitation—learning to embrace the flash flood over the slow, steady river, the brilliant spark over the eternal flame.