Cinemorphosis

Tag: fiction

  • How 60s TV Gave Us Kibblelust

    How 60s TV Gave Us Kibblelust

    As a kid in the 1960s, I was utterly mesmerized by the tantalizing dog food commercials on TV. Gaines-Burgers, those succulent patties that looked like ground hamburger, and Gravy Train nuggets, which magically transformed into rich, brown gravy with just a splash of water, had my salivary glands working overtime. It was clear that the advertisers had one devious goal: to make dog food so visually appealing that even humans would crave it. And did they succeed.

    I marched up to my dad one day, eyes wide with canine envy, and declared that I wanted to be a dog just so I could savor these advertised delicacies. His face twisted in confusion, then horror, and then a resignation that only a parent can truly master. Determined to cure me of my bizarre wish, he whisked me off to a local bistro and ordered me a French Dip with au jus sauce.

    As the sandwich arrived, dripping with savory goodness, my dad leaned in and asked, “So, how do you like your French Dip?”

    I took a bite, my taste buds doing a happy jig, but instead of expressing my appreciation like a normal human child, I couldn’t resist. I let out a guttural growl, dropped to all fours, and began scratching an imaginary itch with my hind leg, much to the mortification of my father and the bewilderment of the bistro patrons.

    Dad’s face turned a shade of crimson that would have made a ripe tomato jealous. He sighed deeply, clearly questioning his life choices, while I continued my canine performance, convinced that I had discovered the next best thing to Gravy Train. It was then that I realized: the allure of dog food had turned me into a French Dip-devouring, itch-scratching spectacle of childhood absurdity.

     The irrational, often childhood-onset hunger triggered by the hyper-curated presentation of pet food in commercials—particularly dog food stylized to look more appetizing than anything in your pantry. Kibblelust is not mere curiosity; it’s a visceral craving born from the fantasy that somewhere, out there, dogs are eating better than you are.

    Sufferers of Kibblelust may experience symptoms such as food envy toward canines, a desire to bark in public, or in extreme cases, dropping to all fours in a bistro after biting into a French Dip, convinced it’s the closest a human will come to Gravy Train transcendence.

    This condition typically begins with 1960s-70s advertising campaigns involving burger-shaped meat slabs and gravy-generating pellets and is usually cured by a parent’s panicked intervention and a stern lesson in food hierarchy.

    Kibblelust represents the first great betrayal of consumer trust: when you realize advertisers are not above making animal food look better than human cuisine—and you fell for it.

  • The Cake and the Crumbs: A Toddler’s Origin Story of Maximalust

    The Cake and the Crumbs: A Toddler’s Origin Story of Maximalust

    I was a bright-eyed two-year-old growing up in the surreal surroundings of VA housing in Gainesville, Florida. My home, a repurposed army barracks known as Flavet Villages, was nestled near an alligator swamp where the air was thick with the smell of low-tide alligator dung, a stench so potent it could knock out a grown man. Yet, amidst this pungent atmosphere lay an enchanting routine: visiting a Mynah bird perched on the same tree branch in a nearby forest. This mystical bird, almost a local deity, engaged in nightly conversations with my father and me, its wisecracking voice echoing in the twilight. On my second birthday, my father, ever the hero, carried me on his shoulders for our evening visit to the Mynah bird. As we journeyed through the swampy landscape, the scent of celebration wafted from our small apartment, where my mother was busily preparing birthday decorations. In the distance, the melancholic tune of “Bali Ha’i” drifted from a neighbor’s radio, adding a cinematic touch to our adventure. We returned home, greeted by the excitement of neighbors and the promise of birthday cake. The neighbor’s child, a frail wisp of a boy who looked like he might be blown away by the next strong gust of wind, sat in his high chair, a throne of pity contrasting starkly with my robust presence. I, the towering giant of toddlers, was presented with a slice of cake so large it could double as a life raft. The cake, an Everest of chocolate decadence, was all mine to conquer. Then, I glanced at the poor child beside me. His mother, apparently convinced he was a baby bird rather than a human toddler, meticulously pinched off cake crumbs and fed them to him out of the palm of her hand. Each crumb, delivered with the precision of a jeweler setting a diamond, highlighted the stark disparity between my cake feast and his crumb diet. My eyes widened in disbelief. Was this real? Was I witnessing a Dickensian nightmare unfold at my birthday party? My horror magnified as I chewed through my colossal slice of cake, each bite a triumphant celebration of my toddlerhood. Meanwhile, the other child nibbled at his crumbs, a tragic figure resigned to his fate. In my young mind, the situation escalated to epic proportions. I envisioned myself as a benevolent king, feasting on a banquet, while the other boy was a destitute peasant, scrabbling for scraps in my opulent court. That moment, seared into my memory, became a symbol of the great injustices of the world. How could a child, on my birthday no less, be subjected to such cruel cake inequity? The image of his mother, delicately inserting crumbs into his mouth, haunted me like a ghost of birthdays past. It was as if I had witnessed the greatest travesty of my young life, a Shakespearean tragedy played out in frosting and crumbs. Years have passed, and many birthdays have came and went, but the memory remains vivid. I have tasted many cakes since then, each one a reminder of that fateful day when I first encountered true pity. In my exaggerated recollection, the event has grown more fantastical. The crumbs have became smaller, my cake slice grander, and the emotional weight of that moment ever heavier. So here I stand, a veteran of countless birthday celebrations, carrying with me the bittersweet lesson that not all cake experiences are created equal. And perhaps, in my heart of hearts, I’ve learned to savor every slice of cake with the gratitude of one who knows that somewhere, someone might be living on crumbs.

    The deeply embedded, early-life memory resulted in the belief that more food is always better—more validating, more righteous, more deserved. Born in toddlerhood and fed by birthday cakes the size of rafts, Maximalust is not just a craving—it’s a worldview. It equates abundance with virtue and scarcity with shame. It’s the toddler id that sees a normal portion and thinks, “Who hurt you?” It’s the pathology that makes buffets feel like moral high ground and crumbs like moral failure. Maximalust is the primal belief that to be loved is to be laden with frosting.

    In addition to Maximalust, I discovered the notion of Crumbpassion–the emotional dissonance that arises when your plate is Mount Olympus and theirs is a cautionary tale. It is not kindness—it’s existential discomfort wrapped in frosting empathy. The crumb-fed child becomes a Dickensian ghost, a living allegory of restraint, and you, the overfed protagonist, must reckon with the unfairness of cake distribution and your own frosting-fueled privilege.

    Together, Maximalust and Crumbpassion form a tragicomic framework of early appetite mythology—a toddler’s origin story of food, power, and pity that lives rent-free in your adult relationship with dessert.

  • If Blaise Pascal Had Listened to “Deacon Blues”

    If Blaise Pascal Had Listened to “Deacon Blues”

    If Blaise Pascal had listened to “Deacon Blues” by Steely Dan—a song about the seductive dignity of failure, self-invention, and the strange glory of obscurity—he might have jotted down a set of Pensées to dissect the Deacon Blues persona.

    1.
     Man prefers to be a broken genius than an obedient saint. The dream of ruin, if it is romantic enough, intoxicates him more than the dull clarity of success. He calls this rebellion, but it is merely another form of vanity—failure dressed in excessive self-regard.

    2.
     He who calls himself “Deacon Blues” chooses a name of ironic grandeur. He does not wish to be great, but to appear profound in his brokenness. This too is a form of ambition—narcissism inverted and dipped in bourbon.

    3.
     The world offers two false promises: the applause of others and the nobility of being misunderstood. Deacon Blues seeks the latter, not because it is better, but because it hurts less to fail on one’s own terms than to succeed on another’s.

    4.
     To live in the margins and call it freedom—this is man’s trick. He flees from the burden of excellence and cloaks his retreat in poetry. But exile, chosen for aesthetic reasons, is still a form of cowardice.

    5.
     He dreams of learning to work the saxophone, not to make music, but to be seen as one who has suffered for his art. In this, he is like those who wish to be martyrs, not for truth, but for drama.

    6.
     “Drink Scotch whisky all night long and die behind the wheel.” Thus he crowns his life not with virtue, but with stylized destruction. He does not want to be saved—only to be mourned beautifully.

    7.
     Deacon Blues wants a name, not a self. He believes identity is a lyric he can write into being. But names do not change the soul, only the soundtrack to its delusions.

  • Field-Testing FOMO: A Preteen Cautionary Tale

    Field-Testing FOMO: A Preteen Cautionary Tale

    One warm California afternoon in the spring of 1973, after sixth-grade classes had spit us out like a bad punchline and the school bus rumbled off down Crow Canyon Road, my friends and I embarked on our sacred post-school ritual: a pilgrimage to 7-Eleven to score a Slurpee before the long, punishing hike up Greenridge Road. Inside that fluorescent-lit temple of artificial flavors, “Brandy (You’re a Fine Girl)” crackled from the tinny store radio, bouncing off racks of bubble gum, jerky, and preteen dreams.

    That’s when the Horsefault sisters burst through the door like a blonde tornado.

    They were tall, freckled, sunburned Valkyries from the far reaches of suburban myth—bohemian chaos in halter tops. One was an eighth grader; the other, a high school sophomore with the kind of don’t-care confidence that could collapse a twelve-year-old boy’s worldview with a single sideways glance. They lived in a crumbling farmhouse behind the store, surrounded by the ghosts of chickens and a rumored pony.

    “Wanna see a rabbit in a cage?” the younger one asked, her grin full of bad intentions and orthodontic defiance.

    I didn’t care about rabbits. I cared about girls who looked like they had stepped out of a beer commercial set in a wheat field. And so I followed, fully aware I was marching into a trap and fully unable to care.

    The promised rabbit, of course, was a fiction. There was only a rusted cage yawning open like a rural Venus flytrap and the pungent perfume of hay, alfalfa, and whatever was left of last week’s poultry. The ambush was swift. The sisters descended with whoops and laughter, a feral tag team of dusty mischief trying to stuff me into the iron cage like I was tomorrow’s 4-H exhibit.

    I fought back. I was stocky, wired with sixth-grade testosterone and Charles Atlas dreams. We tumbled in the grass in a chaotic montage of limbs, dust, and feathers—a scene less like a flirtation and more like a deleted sequence from Deliverance if Deliverance had a laugh track.

    Eventually they gave up, giggling, breathless, their cheeks streaked with dirt and conquest. I bolted through the field, leaving behind my Slurpee and what might’ve been the preamble to an adolescence worth bragging about.

    But here’s the thing: they never kissed me.
    They never flirted. Never winked or smirked in that conspiratorial way older girls sometimes do when they’re letting you in on a secret you can’t yet handle. They tried to lock me in a cage and laughed when they couldn’t. That was it.

    And that—not the dirt, not the missing rabbit, not the poultry apocalypse—is what still lingers decades later: the almost. The sense that something wild and electric passed me by, and I walked away not transformed but merely dirty.

    That was my first real encounter with FOMO—before the word existed, before social media turned it into a lifestyle disorder. The regret wasn’t that I was almost caged. It was that I didn’t emerge with a story soaked in danger and romance. I didn’t get the wink. I didn’t get the kiss. I didn’t get them.

    I went home and turned on the TV to find Barbara Eden cooing in her harem pants, still radiant, still unattainable, still safely contained in her bottle. And I realized that day: I didn’t want to summon Jeannie. I wanted to be summoned—chosen, winked at, whispered to. But the Horsefault sisters were not granting wishes. They were disrupting ecosystems and giving boys premature nostalgia.

    And I, poor idiot, had missed my moment.

  • Floating on FOMO: My Personal Waterbed Fiasco

    Floating on FOMO: My Personal Waterbed Fiasco

    I spent my early childhood in VA housing—decommissioned army barracks optimistically rebadged “Flavet Villages”—in Gainesville, Florida. These were no-frills dwellings nestled near an alligator swamp and a patch of forest where a Mynah bird with the patience of a Zen master perched on the same branch every evening like it was punching a time clock. It became a ritual: before bed, my father and I would wander out to talk with the bird, who responded with eerie, robotic mimicry, as if channeling some extraterrestrial intelligence trapped in a tropical feather suit.

    At dusk, the low tide would pull back just enough to let the aroma of fermented alligator dung waft through the air—a stench so strong it could thin paint. Most people would gag. I inhaled deeply. Something about that swampy, putrid tang made me feel alive, elemental, cosmically tethered. It wasn’t beautiful, but it was real. And standing beside my father, breathing in swamp funk and chatting with a talking bird, I felt no lack. No longing. No itch. I was in paradise, the kind not found in brochures or Instagram feeds—though we didn’t yet have the latter to weaponize our dissatisfaction.

    Then came I Dream of Jeannie in 1965, and with it, the slow-burn tragedy of FOMO. Barbara Eden lived inside a jewel-toned genie bottle—a plush, circular sanctum upholstered in royal purples and pinks, encrusted with glass baubles and satin pillows. It was luxury wrapped in fantasy, and I wanted in. Badly. Suddenly, my swamp lost its sparkle. I began to ache—not for something real, but for something better. Something else.

    The cruelest part? Jeannie’s bottle was a repainted Jim Beam whiskey decanter. A piece of throwaway Americana converted into a portal of impossible longing. That detail says everything: desire is often just repackaged delusion. And once I tasted that kind of fantasy, the swamp and the Mynah bird—once holy—became mere prelude.

    By 1974, I was barely thirteen and neck-deep in my search for substitutes. The object of obsession that year? Waterbeds. Several friends and neighbors had them, and after a few demo flops onto their undulating surfaces, I became convinced that waterbeds were the gateway to pleasure, sophistication, and sensual repose. Surely, I reasoned, the waterbed was Jeannie’s bottle in disguise—fluid, decadent, vaguely erotic.

    I lobbied my parents hard. They relented. Victory tasted like vinyl and faint mildew.

    What followed was not paradise but an ongoing science experiment in disappointment. The temperature was always wrong—Sahara one night, Arctic the next. It leaked with the consistency of a bad marriage. The smell? Somewhere between wet dog and pond scum. And then there was the sensation: if I moved, the bed retaliated. A slow-motion punch of resistance, as if Poseidon himself were shoving back. I wasn’t cradled—I was stalked by unseen waves. One night it leaked so catastrophically that my bedroom floor bowed like a sinking schooner. I woke up in what felt like Act II of Hurricane Katrina: The Bedroom Years.

    This, I realized, was the fool’s errand of FOMO: chasing after glossy substitutes for longing we barely understand. Jeannie’s bottle wasn’t just a dream—it became the prototype for every ill-fated quest for magic in mundane form. Every waterbed, every gadget, every trend promising comfort, coolness, or connection is just another glittering bottle with no genie inside.

    The Mynah bird never promised me anything. It never asked me to chase or wish or want. It just sat, unbothered, mimicking the world as it was. And perhaps that’s what I miss most: the pre-FOMO clarity of being content beside a swamp, before marketing told me I was supposed to want more.

  • 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.

  • The Guru in the Mini-Fridge: A Miami Manifesto

    The Guru in the Mini-Fridge: A Miami Manifesto

    I’m standing barefoot in the dim kitchenette of our Miami hotel room, illuminated by the dull glow of a microwave clock and the soft snoring of my family behind a paper-thin wall. I am overweight, overserved by anxiety, and currently marinating in a mix of guilt and existential fatigue. I miss Southern California, where I can at least pretend the ocean breeze is part of some reinvention montage.

    Then, out of nowhere—perhaps summoned by my elevated cortisol levels—my invisible guru appears. You know the type: part stoic monk, part irritated life coach, part inner drill sergeant with a taste for poetic slogans.

    He looks at me with eyes that have seen too many late-night snacks and says:


    “Repeat after me—less coffee, less food means more dignity. More focus, more humility, more gratitude, more work means less regret and despair. Are we clear?”

    It’s a slogan so clean and self-righteous it should be stenciled on a CrossFit wall. But fine, I play along. I nod. I even feel a flicker of hope—that slightly delusional warmth that hits right before you decide you’ll never eat bread again.

    But I level with him. “Look,” I say, “I love the aphorism. Truly. But here’s the problem. I forget everything the moment a cookie enters the room. My brain turns into a Vegas slot machine when I’m tired. There’s this compulsive, despairing little imp inside me who waits for just the tiniest whiff of sugar, sloth, or social media to hijack the controls and turn me into a ruinous parody of myself. What do I do with that guy?”

    My guru, undisturbed and frankly unimpressed, delivers the gospel:


    “As you live in accordance with the plan, you will grow stronger. The old ways will become repulsive. The deeper you root yourself in the good, the weaker the bad becomes. Got it?”

    I nod again. Less certain this time, but willing to try. Maybe it’s the humidity. Maybe it’s the quiet. Or maybe, just maybe, it’s the faint hope that I can still wrestle my wreckage into something resembling a life worth living.

    At the very least, I’ll try it out—until breakfast.

  • When Books Were Gods: Nostalgia for a Lost Era

    When Books Were Gods: Nostalgia for a Lost Era

    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.

  • The Night Irony Beat the Monkees

    The Night Irony Beat the Monkees

    On the night of October 16, 1967—just twelve days shy of my sixth birthday—the universe shoved my head in the toilet and flushed. I could hear the sound of childhood innocence circling the drain. Up to that moment, I was a full-time subscriber to the gospel of positive thinking. Life was fair. Good guys won. If you tried hard and smiled big, the world smiled back. Norman Vincent Peale had basically written the owner’s manual for my inner world.

    That illusion shattered during an episode of The Monkees.

    The episode was called “I Was a 99-lb. Weakling,” and I had parked myself cross-legged in front of the TV, popcorn in lap, expecting hijinks and musical numbers. Instead, I got a masterclass in betrayal and the savage laws of ironic detachment. My hero, Micky Dolenz—the clumsy, lovable soul who made failure seem like a jazz solo—was brutally outmuscled by Bulk, a flexing monolith of a man played by real-life Mr. Universe, Dave Draper. Bulk didn’t walk—he heaved himself through scenes, a sculpted rebuke to every noodle-armed dreamer in America.

    And right on cue, Brenda—the beachside Aphrodite with hair that shimmered like optimism—dropped Micky like a sack of kittens for Bulk, never once looking back.

    This wasn’t just sitcom plot; this was emotional sabotage. I watched, frozen, as Micky enrolled in “Weaklings Anonymous,” embarking on a training montage so grotesquely absurd it veered into tragedy. He lifted dumbbells the size of moon rocks. He drank something called fermented goat milk curd, a substance that looked like it had been skimmed off a medieval wound. He even sold his drum set—his very soul—to chase the delusion that muscles would win her back.

    And then came the twist.

    Just as Micky completed his protein-fueled crucible, Brenda changed her mind. She didn’t want Bulk anymore. She wanted a skinny guy reading Remembrance of Things Past. A man whose pecs had clearly never met resistance training, but whose inner life pulsed with French ennui. The entire narrative pirouetted into absurdity, and I watched my belief system crack like a snow globe under a tire.

    That’s when I first met irony.

    Not the schoolyard kind where someone says “nice shirt” and means the opposite—but the bone-deep realization that the universe isn’t fair, that effort doesn’t guarantee reward, and that life doesn’t play by the moral arithmetic taught in Saturday morning cartoons.

    It was that night I realized muscles weren’t the secret to power—language was. Not curls, not crunches, but craft. Syntax. Prose so sharp it could reroute the affections of beach goddesses and turn the tide of stories. That was the moment my childish faith in “try hard and you’ll win” collapsed, and in its place rose a darker, more potent creed: the pen is mightier not just than the sword, but than the bench press.

    That night, my writing life began—not with celebration, but with betrayal. A glittering lesson delivered in the cruel, mocking tone only irony can wield. And though it hurt, I never forgot it. Because the truth is: irony teaches faster than optimism. And it remembers longer, too.

  • Johnny Carson Was Prozac Before Big Pharma Perfected the Formula

    Johnny Carson Was Prozac Before Big Pharma Perfected the Formula

    I’m listening to Carson the Magnificent on Audible, Bill Zehme’s lush tribute to the King of Late Night. Zehme is a skilled writer, no doubt—but he suffers from an affliction familiar to many stylists: chronic purple prose. His descriptions don’t sparkle; they sprawl. Reading him is like eating an entire wedding cake when a slice would have sufficed. He’s so enamored with his own flourishes that Johnny Carson occasionally vanishes behind the velvet curtain of Zehme’s adjectives.

    Still, what he lacks in restraint, he makes up for in ardor. Zehme clearly loves his subject, and his affection pulses through the pages. Carson emerges as a sort of secular priest of television, delivering nightly benedictions of laughter for thirty years. He wasn’t edgy or groundbreaking—he was dependable, a soothing presence at 11:30 PM, like a warm bath or a glass of room-temperature white wine. He was comfort food for the collective American psyche, Prozac before Big Pharma perfected the formula. A totem from a time when a single man in a suit could stand at the crossroads of politics, culture, and showbiz and crack wise to a nation that hadn’t yet shattered into a million niche audiences.

    I was never much of a Carson acolyte myself. Dick Cavett had the brain. Letterman had the bite. Carson? He had commercials. What I remember most is that the show seemed designed to lull you into a trance of polite chuckles and bland banter. It wasn’t bad, exactly—it was just relentlessly there. Watching The Tonight Show felt less like a choice and more like a ritual, a nightly genuflection before the glow of the TV set. People tuned in not out of excitement, but out of habit. He was the head caveman, murmuring jokes by firelight, while the rest of us nodded and laughed, grateful to not be alone in the dark.

    To skip Carson was to risk social exile. You didn’t want to be the one who missed what the country’s collective subconscious had passively absorbed.

    As I listen to Carson the Magnificent, I find myself pining—not for Carson, but for the era he ruled. A time when a singular voice could still cut through the noise and hold the country’s wandering attention. That cultural unity is gone now, and maybe for the best, but I can’t help mourning it a little.

    Zehme will, I’m sure, delve into the darker recesses of Carson’s psyche—and I’m ready for it. I’ve already mainlined The Larry Sanders Show three times, with a fourth round likely on the way. That show remains the gold standard for peeling back the sequined curtain to reveal the neurotic, solipsistic soul of late-night television. If Zehme gets even halfway there, I’ll consider the audiobook time well spent—even if I have to wade through another paragraph that reads like a thesaurus suffered a head injury.