Cinemorphosis

Tag: reading

  • The Cruel Question Every Writer Must Answer

    The Cruel Question Every Writer Must Answer

    When you pitch a book, the publisher asks a question that feels less like business and more like interrogation: Why must this exist? Why this book, now, and not another? What justifies its presence in a world already swollen with print? The question has teeth. It strips away the soft fog of aspiration and leaves you standing with nothing but purpose—or the absence of it.

    A book is not a monument to your desire to “be published.” It is not your name in lights, your moment on the marquee. That impulse—vanity dressed as vocation—is the surest path to creative mediocrity. Purpose is the only defense. Without it, the work collapses under its own self-importance.

    The same cross-examination applies to everything else we produce. A blog post, a video, a channel—why does it exist? To collect attention? To be applauded by a tribe? To monetize a persona? To assemble the vague scaffolding of a “brand”? These are not answers; they are evasions.

    What, then, is my brand? Nothing coherent. I wander. I collect. I react. I move through the culture like a flâneur with a notebook, jotting down whatever strikes the nerves—ideas, trends, obsessions—and trying to distill some fragment of meaning from the debris. This is not a brand. It is a habit of attention. It resists consolidation. It refuses to become a product.

    I did write a book recently—a real one, nearly seventy thousand words. But even that resisted form. It wasn’t a narrative or an argument so much as a catalog of compulsions about watch enthusiasts: short, sharp definitions of obsessive behavior. A lexicon of affliction. Did it need to exist? I can argue that it did. The market delivered a quieter verdict. A few dozen copies moved. Meanwhile, a fifteen-minute video built from the same material drew thousands. The idea survived in video form. The book format did not.

    This is the final insult: even if you can construct an airtight case for a book’s existence, the audience may still decline to care. You can formulate the perfect product—nutrient-rich, elegantly packaged—but if no one consumes it, it sits on the shelf like expensive dog food no dog will eat. And its silence asks the only question that matters, the one you thought you had already answered:

    Why does this exist?

  • Life Inside the Chronophage

    Life Inside the Chronophage

    You can still read, technically. The eyes move. The words register. But something essential has thinned out. Years inside the chronophage—the great time-eating machine—have rewired the circuitry. You no longer take in ideas; you absorb fragments. You skim life the way you skim a feed. You prefer voices at 1.25 speed, ideas pre-chewed, narratives delivered in twelve-minute installments with thumbnails that promise revelation and deliver stimulation.

    You know what it is. The Internet is not a library—it’s a galactic food court, a neon sprawl of drive-through kiosks serving intellectual fast food. Ninety-nine percent of it is forgettable at best, corrosive at worst. You try to manage your intake. You play the piano. You lift weights. You show up for your family. You perform the rituals of a grounded life. But the residue remains. The machine has had its way with you.

    And then comes the quieter poison: self-pity. No one reads anymore, you tell yourself. Everyone is grazing from the same algorithmic trough. You feel stranded, a refugee from a literate past. You invoke the phrase “post-literate society” not as analysis but as lament. And yet, the only reason you can even diagnose the condition is because you remember something else—an earlier version of attention, slower, deeper, less contaminated. You carry that memory like a fading photograph and call it protection.

    You came across a word last week: chronophage—a system that feeds on your time while convincing you it is nourishing you. It fits too well. The system is not broken; it is functioning perfectly. Its purpose is to consume time, and it does so with industrial efficiency. In the attention economy, attention is not honored—it is harvested. Your mind is not engaged; it is extracted from. There is no mercy in this design. The only consolation is a thin, uneasy solidarity: your mind is not uniquely damaged. It is simply part of a mass casualty you are lucid enough to witness.

  • Collector’s Paradox

    Collector’s Paradox

    I sometimes imagine the perfect end state of my G-Shock hobby: four watches rotating peacefully through my week like planets in a stable orbit. The lineup is already clear in my mind. The Frogman GWF-1000. The Rescue GW-7900. The Three-Eyed Triple Graph GW-6900. And the Frogman GWF-D1000B. Four machines, each with a distinct personality, each capable of carrying the entire hobby on its shoulders without needing help from a dozen cousins.

    In theory, that sounds like serenity.

    But there’s a catch.

    A modest four-watch rotation brings peace, but it also brings something else: the end of discovery. And discovery is half the fun. The moment the collection becomes complete, the hunt quietly packs its bags and leaves town.

    This is where the trouble begins.

    Inside my head two different personalities are negotiating, and neither one intends to surrender easily. One personality wants order. The other wants novelty. One wants a finished system; the other wants an endless frontier.

    The first personality is the Curator. The Curator wants a tidy garage with four perfectly chosen machines parked inside. He wants familiarity. He wants mastery. He wants watches whose buttons, modules, and quirks are so well known they stop feeling like gadgets and start feeling like companions. In the Curator’s world, the hobby becomes calm. Predictable. Comfortable.

    But the Curator’s paradise has a downside: once the system is finished, the hunt is over.

    And the hunt is intoxicating.

    That’s where the Explorer enters the picture. The Explorer lives for discovery. He watches reviews. He compares modules. He learns about obscure models produced in tiny Japanese batches fifteen years ago. He imagines how each watch might fit into his life like a missing puzzle piece. The excitement is not really about owning the watch—it’s about the possibility of it.

    Discovery delivers a small dopamine rush.

    But discovery has a hidden clause buried in the contract: every discovery whispers the same seductive suggestion—You should own this.

    When that suggestion is obeyed too often, the collection begins to swell. And when the collection swells, the hobby begins to generate friction. Watches compete for wrist time. Drawers fill up. Decisions multiply. The collection slowly transforms from a playground into an inventory system.

    The very activity that made the hobby thrilling begins to make it stressful.

    This is the Collector’s Paradox.

    Discovery is the fuel that powers the hobby. But discovery also leads to accumulation. Accumulation eventually produces clutter, decision fatigue, and the creeping sense that the watches are managing the collector instead of the other way around.

    To escape that stress, the collector dreams of a small, perfectly balanced collection—four watches rotating peacefully like a well-tuned engine.

    But here’s the paradox: the moment the collection feels complete, the discovery that made the hobby exciting begins to disappear.

    Discovery creates excitement but leads to accumulation.
    Restraint creates peace but risks boredom.

    And the collector finds himself standing between two competing instincts: the Curator, who wants a finished system, and the Explorer, who wants endless possibility.

    One way out of this trap may be to admit that I’m actually practicing two different hobbies at the same time.

    One hobby is ownership—the watches I actually live with. The small rotation that occupies my wrist and my watch box.

    The other hobby is exploration—the endless universe of watches I can study, admire, and analyze without needing to buy them.

    Separating those two activities may be the key to keeping the hobby alive without letting it metastasize.

    This is not easy in the world of G-Shock. G-Shock culture is a discovery machine. Hundreds of models. Endless colorways. Limited editions popping up like mushrooms after rain. The watches are affordable enough that buying one rarely feels catastrophic, and the community itself celebrates acquisition like a team sport.

    The Explorer inside a collector can run wild in that environment.

    But the fact that I’m even imagining a four-watch rotation suggests something interesting about where I am psychologically. The Curator inside me is gaining strength. Many collectors never reach that stage. They remain permanently trapped in the thrill of acquisition.

    The anxiety I’m feeling may actually be a sign that I’m trying to bring the hobby under control rather than letting it control me.

    And that leads to a possible next stage of the hobby: Observational Collecting.

    In Observational Collecting, curiosity and acquisition finally separate. Watches are still studied. Still admired. Still discussed. But they are no longer automatic candidates for purchase.

    The central question of the hobby quietly changes.

    Instead of asking, “Should I buy this watch?” I begin asking, “Isn’t that an interesting watch?”

    The curiosity remains alive, but the compulsion to acquire loosens its grip.

    Discovery doesn’t disappear. It simply stops demanding ownership as the price of admission.

    And if that shift finally takes hold, the hobby may achieve something collectors rarely experience.

    Peace.

  • The Man Who Lost His Mind to Watches

    The Man Who Lost His Mind to Watches

    The Man Who Lost His Mind to Watches is not a book about watches. It is a book about obsession—the kind that begins with a single innocent purchase and metastasizes into spreadsheets, late-night forum debates, and existential dread over lume brightness. What starts as an appreciation for craftsmanship becomes a full-blown psychological expedition into masculinity, consumer desire, envy, tribal belonging, and the strange belief that the right object will fix what’s unsettled inside. If you have ever convinced yourself that one more acquisition would finally complete you, this book is already about you.

    The watch obsession is told in lexicon entries. Each term for some facet of the watch addiction exposes the watch enthusiast who descends into the glittering underworld of timepieces—divers, bracelets, straps, limited editions—only to discover that the chase for the “perfect watch” is really a chase for certainty in a world that offers none. The deeper he goes, the more absurd the quest becomes. He compares millimeters as if they were moral virtues. He debates dial legibility as if it were a constitutional right. He imagines that mastering reference numbers will somehow grant him mastery over time itself. Instead, he finds himself trapped in a hall of mirrors where identity is reflected in polished steel.

    And yet this is not merely satire. Beneath the laughter lies a serious question: why do intelligent, disciplined adults hand over their peace of mind to objects? The Man Who Lost His Mind to Watches is a confession, a cautionary tale, and a strangely hopeful map back to sanity. It exposes the machinery of obsession while refusing to sneer at it. Because in the end, the watches were never the enemy. The illusion that perfection could be purchased—that was the real complication.

    I have published this book on Amazon Kindle, but you do not need a Kindle device to read it. Once you purchase it, you can read the book directly on your computer screen using the Kindle app or the Kindle cloud reader. If the book gains meaningful traction and sells well, I will consider releasing a paperback edition as well.

  • The Sweet Tooth Age: How We Traded Depth for Dopamine

    The Sweet Tooth Age: How We Traded Depth for Dopamine

    In “The Orality Theory of Everything,” Derek Thompson makes a striking observation about human progress. One of civilization’s great turning points was the shift from orality to literacy. In oral cultures, knowledge traveled through speech, storytelling, and shared memory. Communication was social, flexible, and immediate. Literacy changed everything. Once ideas could be recorded, people could think alone, think slowly, and think deeply. Writing made possible the abstract systems—calculus, physics, modern biology, quantum mechanics—that underpin the technological world. The move from orality to literacy didn’t just change communication. It changed the human mind.

    Now the concern is that we may be drifting in the opposite direction.

    As social media expands, sustained reading declines. Attention fragments. Communication becomes faster, louder, and more performative. Thompson explored this shift in a conversation with Joe Weisenthal of the Odd Lots podcast, who draws heavily on the work of Walter Ong, the Jesuit scholar who wrote Orality and Literacy. Ong’s insight was simple but profound: when ideas are not recorded and preserved, people think differently. They rely on improvisation, memory shortcuts, and conversational instinct. But when ideas live in texts—books, essays, archives—people develop interiority: the capacity for reflection, precision, and layered analysis.

    It would be too simple to say we now live in a post-literate society. We still read. We still write. But the cognitive environment has changed. Our brains increasingly gravitate toward information that is fast, simplified, and emotionally stimulating. The habits required for what Cal Newport calls “deep work” now feel unnatural, even burdensome.

    A useful analogy is food. Literacy is like preparing a slow, nutritious meal. It requires time, effort, and attention, but the nourishment is real and lasting. The current media environment offers something else entirely: intellectual candy. Quick hits. Bright packaging. Strong flavor. Minimal substance. We have entered what might be called the Sweet Tooth Age—a culture that prefers pre-digested, entertaining fragments of ideas over sustained, solitary engagement. The concepts may sound serious, but they arrive in baby-food form: softened, sweetened, and stripped of complexity.

    After forty years of teaching college writing, I’ve watched this shift unfold in real time. In the past six years especially, many instructors have adjusted their expectations. Reading loads have shrunk. Full books are assigned less often. In an effort to get authentic, non-AI responses, more teachers rely on in-class writing. Some have abandoned homework entirely and grade only what students produce under supervision.

    This strategy has practical advantages. It guarantees original work. It keeps students accountable. But it also reflects a quiet surrender to the Sweet Tooth Age. The modern workplace—the environment our students are entering—runs on the same quick-cycle attention economy. Their exposure to slow thinking may be brief and largely confined to the classroom. When they transition to their careers, they may find that on-demand writing is no longer required or relevant. 

    Not just education but politics and culture are being swept by this new age of dopamine cravings. The Sweet Tooth Age carries a cost, and the bill will come due.

    The content that wins in the attention economy is not the most accurate or thoughtful. It is the most stimulating. It is colorful, simplified, emotionally charged, and designed to produce a quick surge of interest—what the brain experiences as a dopamine reward. But reacting to stimulation is not the same as thinking. Performance is not analysis.

    Performance, in fact, is the preferred tool of the demagogue.

    When audiences lose the habit of slow reading and critical evaluation, they become vulnerable to what might be called Kayfabe personalities—figures who are larger than life, theatrical, and emotionally compelling, but who operate more like entertainers than honest brokers. The message matters less than the performance. Complexity disappears. Nuance becomes weakness. Certainty, outrage, and spectacle take center stage.

    In such an environment, critical thinking doesn’t merely decline. It becomes a competitive disadvantage.

    This is why the Sweet Tooth Age is more than an educational concern. It is a political and cultural risk. A public trained to consume stimulation rather than evaluate evidence becomes easy to mobilize and difficult to inform. Emotion outruns judgment. Identity replaces analysis. The center—built on patience, evidence, and compromise—struggles to hold.

    When literacy weakens, the consequences do not remain confined to the classroom.

    They spread outward—into public discourse, institutional trust, and civic stability. The shift back toward orality is not simply a change in media habits. It is a shift toward immediacy over reflection, reaction over reasoning, spectacle over substance.

    And when a culture begins to prefer performance to thought, chaos is not an accident.

    It is the logical outcome.

  • The Greatest Book My Father Never Wrote

    The Greatest Book My Father Never Wrote

    Last night I dreamed I was summoned to a publisher’s office, the kind that smells faintly of dust, old paper, and deferred hope. I sat across from a man in his early sixties wearing a beige suit so aggressively neutral it seemed designed to disappear into the shelves behind him. Those shelves were packed tight with books—the visual shorthand for authority, legitimacy, and the life I was supposed to have lived.

    He told me, calmly, as if delivering weather updates, that my father had written a perennial classic. A bestseller. A semi-autobiographical novel about growing up poor, raising me with my teenage mother in the Gainesville projects. The book, he said, was written with mordant wit and bruised humor and was routinely compared to Huckleberry Finn.

    Then he handed me a copy.

    I opened it and recognized everything immediately: Flavet Villages, the roach-infested housing complex for veterans and struggling students, where poverty clung to the walls like nicotine. The prose was first-person present tense—close, intimate, relentless. I said this out loud, the way you do in dreams when you want credit for noticing things. The publisher nodded, pleased.

    “Have you ever thought about doing something like this?” he asked. “Following in your father’s footsteps?”

    I shook my head. Then I asked the only question that mattered: “How come I never heard about this book before?”

    “Oh, it doesn’t exist here,” he said, waving the concern away. “It exists in a parallel universe in a faraway galaxy.”

    Naturally.

    At this point, he reached into his desk and handed me a gray carbon radio shaped like a pyramid—part Cold War relic, part sci-fi prop. It had a special shortwave frequency that could lock onto that distant planet, where my father’s novel was being read aloud, endlessly, by a space alien. Anytime I wanted, I could tune in and listen. It would comfort me, he said, as if this explained everything.

    I thanked him, left the office, and met my wife and twin daughters at the San Francisco Zoo. While they stared at zebras with the earnest fascination of people grounded in reality, I extended the antenna and tuned the dial. The alien’s voice crackled through—steady, patient, reverent—reading my father’s great novel for the thousandth time.

    My family looked at me like I’d finally tipped over into madness. I didn’t care.

    I was listening to the greatest book my father never wrote, being read forever in a universe where it mattered. And for once, that was enough.

  • Maudlin Grail Syndrome

    Maudlin Grail Syndrome

    As I consider Cicero’s call for self-restraint in Tusculan Disputations, my thoughts return to a story that’s haunted me for over twenty years—Anton Chekhov’s “Gooseberries.” It is, in essence, the tragic fable of a Maudlin Man, told with surgical clarity and Chekhovian cruelty.

    His name is Nicholai Ivanich, and he’s not merely pathetic—he’s morally revolting. He marries an aging, unattractive woman for her wealth and waits with predator patience for her to die. Once she obliges, he buys himself a country farmhouse ringed with gooseberry bushes, retreats from the world, and crowns himself a minor deity among the local peasants by handing out cheap liquor like some portly, provincial Dionysus.

    Chekhov doesn’t give us Nicholai’s voice. He gives us Ivan, the disgusted brother, who sees this man for what he is: a swollen, self-satisfied corpse in waiting. Ivan calls Nicholai’s farmhouse dream a “definite disorder”—not a goal, but a fixation, a fever dream dressed up as a life plan. For Ivan, his brother’s pastoral retreat is less Arcadia and more open-casket viewing. “He looked old, stout, flabby,” Ivan observes. “His cheeks, nose, and lips were pendulous. I half expected him to grunt like a pig.”

    That image sticks: Nicholai, the human piglet, grinning over his plate of gooseberries, believing he’s achieved bliss when in truth he’s just decaying in comfort.

    And then comes the moment that seals it—Nicholai’s nightly ritual: he’s brought a plate of gooseberries from his estate, and upon seeing them, he literally weeps with joy. “He looked at them in silence, laughed with joy, and could not speak for excitement.” He is consumed by the performance of happiness. It’s not the berries he loves—it’s what they symbolize. In his mind, they are proof that his life is complete.

    But it’s all delusion. Nicholai isn’t fulfilled—he’s embalmed in maudlin sentimentality, drunk on nostalgia for something that never really existed. His joy is cosmetic. He’s not flourishing. He’s fermenting.

    And this, I confess, reminds me of myself—and my fellow watch addicts.

    We, too, have our gooseberries. Ours just happen to tick.

    We post videos of our “grail watches” and glow with reverence as we hold them up to the camera like relics from a sacred shrine. We give breathless soliloquies about our “perfect” collections, our “ultimate” configurations. We praise bezels and dial textures the way Nicholai praises his berries—with trembling hands and watery eyes. And like Nicholai, we’re not convincing anyone but ourselves.

    Because deep down, we know: the drama is maudlin. We have arrived at Maudlin Grail Syndrome–a condition in which the collector performs reverence rather than experiencing peace. Tears may form, voices may soften, thumbnails may glow—but the joy is theatrical, not restorative. The grail embalms rather than liberates. The joy is hollow. The entire pageantry is just a way to distract from the torment our hobby brings us. We spend hours obsessing, comparing, flipping, tweaking, always convinced that this next watch will bring balance and peace, only to find ourselves more anxious than before.

    We are men who weep over gooseberries. And worse—we make YouTube thumbnails about them.

    If we were honest, we’d admit that one decent, mid-priced watch would offer more peace than any “holy grail” ever could. But that would mean giving up the theater. The drama. The illusion that our fixations have meaning. And that, for the Maudlin Man, is the hardest loss of all.

  • Doing Everything, Feeling Nothing: The Age of Engagement Dilution

    Doing Everything, Feeling Nothing: The Age of Engagement Dilution

    In “Ebooks Are an Abomination,” Ian Bogost delivers a needed slap across the face of our collective reading habits. His charge is simple and devastating: ebooks haven’t expanded reading—they’ve hollowed it out. People believe they’re reading because their eyes are sliding across a screen, but most of what’s happening is closer to grazing. The scandal isn’t that we skim; it’s that we’ve started calling skimming “reading” and don’t even blush. Bogost nails the fraud when he points out that the word reading has become a linguistic junk drawer—used to describe everything from doomscrolling Instagram captions to actually wrestling with dense prose. If the same word covers both scanning memes and grappling with Dostoevsky, then the word has lost its spine.

    It reminds me of people who announce they’re going to the gym to “work out.” That phrase now covers a heroic range of activity—from Arnold-style flirtations with death to leaning on a treadmill while watching Jeopardy! and gossiping about coworkers. Same building, radically different realities. One is training. The other is loitering with athletic accessories.

    Reading and working out have this in common: they are not activities so much as states of engagement. And the more soaked we become in technology, the more that engagement drains away. Technology sells convenience and dependency—the kind where you feel faintly panicked if you’re five feet from a device and not being optimized by something. But being a reader is the opposite of that nervous dependence. It’s happy solitude. It’s the stubborn pleasure of being absorbed by a book, of sinking into hard ideas—the epistemic crisis, substitutionary atonement, moral ambiguity—without needing an app to pat you on the head and tell you how you’re doing. Real readers don’t need dashboards. Real lifters don’t need Fitbits. If you’re truly engaged, you feel the work in your bones.

    And yet technology keeps whispering the same seduction: optimization. Track it. Measure it. Quantify it. But what this gospel of efficiency often delivers is something uglier—disengagement dressed up as progress, laziness rebranded as smart living. The name for this decay is Engagement Dilution: the slow thinning of practices that once demanded effort—reading, training, thinking—into low-grade approximations that still wear the old labels. What once meant immersion now means mere exposure. We haven’t stopped doing these things. We’ve just stopped doing them seriously, and we’re calling that evolution.

    To help you interrogate the effects of Engagement Dilution, you will do the following writing prompt.

    600-Word Personal Narrative That Addresses Engagement Dilution

    We live in an age where everything looks like participation—but very little feels like engagement. We “read” by skimming. We “work out” by standing near machines. We “study” by copying and pasting. We “connect” by reacting with emojis. The actions remain, but the depth is gone. This condition has a name: Engagement Dilution—the process by which practices that once demanded sustained attention, effort, and presence are thinned into low-effort versions that keep the same labels but lose the same meaning.

    For this essay, you will write a 600-word personal narrative about a time when you realized you were going through the motions without being truly engaged. Your story should focus on a specific experience in which you believed you were participating in something meaningful—school, work, fitness, relationships, creativity, reading, faith, activism, or personal growth—only to later recognize that what you were doing was a diluted version of the real thing.

    Begin with a concrete scene. Put the reader inside a moment: a classroom where you nodded but didn’t think, a gym session where you scrolled more than you lifted, a relationship where you listened with your phone in your hand, a book you “read” but can’t remember, a goal you claimed to care about but never truly invested in. Use sensory detail—what you saw, heard, felt, avoided—to make the dilution visible. Don’t explain the idea yet. Show it happening.

    Next, introduce the realization. When did it dawn on you that something essential was missing? Was it boredom? Frustration? Guilt? Emptiness? Did someone confront you? Did you fail at something you thought you had prepared for? Did you suddenly notice how different real engagement feels—how tiring, how uncomfortable, how demanding it is compared to the easy version you had settled for?

    Then widen the lens. Reflect on why engagement diluted in the first place. Was it technology? Fear of failure? Desire for comfort? Pressure to appear productive? Lack of confidence? The culture of optimization? Be honest here. Avoid blaming abstract forces alone. This essay is not about what society did to you; it is about the choices you made within that environment.

    Finally, confront the cost. What did engagement dilution take from you? Skill? Confidence? Meaning? Relationships? Momentum? And what did it teach you about the difference between looking active and actually being alive inside your actions? End not with a motivational slogan but with clarity—what you now recognize about effort, attention, and the price of avoiding difficulty.

    Guidelines

    • This is a narrative, not a sermon. Let the story do the thinking.
    • Avoid clichés about “finding balance” or “doing better next time.”
    • Do not turn this into a tech rant or a productivity essay. Keep it human.
    • Use humor if it fits—but don’t hide behind it.
    • Your goal is not self-improvement branding. Your goal is insight.

    What this Essay Is Really About

    Engagement Dilution is not laziness. It is the quiet substitution of comfort for commitment, convenience for courage, motion for meaning. Your task is to show how that substitution happened in your own life—and what it revealed about what real engagement actually costs.

    Write the essay only you could write. The more specific you are, the more universal the insight becomes.

  • Stop Selling Books Like Vitamins: Reading as Pleasure, Not Duty

    Stop Selling Books Like Vitamins: Reading as Pleasure, Not Duty

    Literary Vice names the framing of reading as a private, absorbing, and mildly antisocial pleasure rather than a civic duty or self-improvement exercise. It treats books the way earlier cultures treated forbidden novels or disreputable entertainments: as experiences that tempt, distract, and pull the reader out of alignment with respectable schedules, market rhythms, and digital expectations. Literary vice rejects the language of virtue—empathy-building, résumé enhancement, democratic hygiene—and instead emphasizes immersion, obsession, and pleasure for its own sake. As a countervailing force against technology-induced anhedonia, reading works precisely because it is slow, effortful, and resistant to optimization: it restores depth of attention, reawakens desire through sustained engagement, and reintroduces emotional risk in a landscape flattened by frictionless dopamine delivery. Where screens numb by over-stimulation, literary vice revives feeling by demanding patience, solitude, and surrender to a single, uncompromising narrative consciousness.

    ***

    Adam Kirsch’s essay “Reading Is a Vice” makes a claim that sounds perverse until you realize it is completely sane: readers are misaligned with the world. They miss its rhythms, ignore its incentives, fall out of step with its market logic—and that is precisely the point. To be poorly adapted to a cultural hellscape is not a bug; it is the feature. Reading makes you antisocial in the healthiest way possible. It pulls you off screens, out of optimization mode, and away from the endless hum of performance and productivity that passes for modern life. In a culture engineered to keep us efficient, stimulated, and vaguely numb, misalignment is a form of resistance.

    Kirsch notes, of course, that reading builds critical thinking, individual flourishing, and democratic capacity. All true. All useless as marketing slogans. Those are not selling points in a dopamine economy. No one scrolls TikTok thinking, “I wish I were more civically responsible.” If you want young people to read, Kirsch argues, stop pitching books as moral medicine and start advertising them as pleasure—private, absorbing, and maybe a little disreputable. Call reading what it once was: a vice. When literature was dangerous, people couldn’t stop reading it. Now that books have been domesticated into virtue objects—edifying, wholesome, improving—no one can be persuaded to pick one up.

    You don’t eat baklava because it’s good for you. You eat it because it is an indecent miracle of sugar, butter, and culture that makes the rest of the day briefly irrelevant. Books work the same way. There are baklava books. Yours might be Danielle Steel. Mine isn’t. Mine lives closer to Cormac McCarthy. When I was in sixth grade, my literary baklava was Herman Raucher’s Summer of ’42. That book short-circuited my brain. I was so consumed by the protagonist’s doomed crush on an older woman that I refused to leave my tent for two full days during a perfect Yosemite summer. While everyone else hiked through actual paradise, I lay immobilized by narrative obsession. I regret nothing. My body was in Yosemite; my mind was somewhere far more dangerous.

    This is why you don’t tell students to read the way you tell people to take cod liver oil or hit their protein macros. That pitch fails because it is joyless and dishonest. You tell students to read because finding the right book feels like dessert—baklava, banana splits, whatever ruins your self-control. And yes, you can also tell them what Kafka knew: that great writing is an ax that breaks the frozen sea inside us. Stay frozen long enough—numb, optimized, frictionless—and you don’t just stagnate. You risk not coming back at all.

  • Zosia Mamet and My Personal Reading Revival

    Zosia Mamet and My Personal Reading Revival

    It’s rare that I fall in love with books these days, but when it happens, I’m grateful because reading reminds me of my glory days, the early 80s when I consumed books with ferocity, imaginative pleasure, and obligation like a bodybuilder taking protein powder and creatine. Three major factors have curtailed my reading of books: One, I’ve grown so cynical over the years that I’ve come to the belief that 99% of books are in actuality just a short story or essay with padding. An author has an intriguing idea, and they sit down with their agent and cook up a book that is mostly chicanery with a dash of substance. 

    Then three days ago, I heard actor Zosia Mamet talking about her memoir Does This Make Me Funny?, a collection of essays, with KCRW host Sam Sanders, and I was so struck by her depth of wit, intelligence, and moral perspective that I immediately bought her book, or I should say the Kindle eBook version of it. Even more rare than buying books as intellectual property, it is even rarer that I buy a hard copy of something, unless it is a kettlebell training book or a cookbook like Miyoko Schimmer’s The Vegan Creamery. 

    Getting most of my books on Kindle speaks to the second reason my reading has diminished. The physical act of reading is unpleasant. Holding the book, turning the pages, getting into a comfortable position, attenuating my eyes to the various font sizes. I find the whole thing disconcerting and unpleasant, like trying to figure out the seat positions, buttons, and levers of an unfamiliar car. The most comfortable forms of reading are either sitting at my desktop and reading the Kindle on a 27-inch screen or reading while sitting in bed with a 16-inch laptop.

    The third reason I don’t read as much is that the Internet and its attention economy have fried my brain over the decades. The attention muscles inside my cortex have atrophied to a woeful state. 

    But occasionally a rose grows out of the cracks in the cement sidewalk, and such is the case with Zosia Mamet’s memoir, as witty, deep, self-deprecating, and salient as the author speaking to Sam Sanders three days ago. Reading the memoir is to connect with someone for whom her writing voice and the core of her being are the same. The result is something distinctive and salient, something that recoils and then snaps forward to leave its literary fangs inside you. Isn’t that what writing is supposed to be about? Nabokov was like that. So was Kafka. And so is Zosia Mamet.

    I detest some confectionary celebrity memoir reeking of privilege, superfluousness, and mediocrity. None of that is in Zosia’s collection of essays. 

    As we read in Jancee Dunn’s New York Times article “At Least Zosia Mamet Can Laugh About It,” the core of her book is about her mental, physical, and spiritual health. Coming from a family that is deeply entrenched in literature and the arts is a double-edged sword with excruciating pressure to live up to superhuman expectations causing Zosia’s thorn in her side to be the constant sense that she is falling abysmally short. 

    Like the best comedia, she opts out of self-pity for humor as she does a deep dive into her anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, anorexia, and anhedonia, and all the self-destructive behaviors she succumbed to in order to overcome these afflictions. Because she knows that body dysmorphia is a delusion that hijacks her brain, she says about herself: “I am often an unreliable narrator of my own reality.” 

    Which in a nutshell is the human condition: Can we trust ourselves or are we getting duped by our own fake narrative? 

    What tools from our emotional toolbox can we use to be more reliable? Perhaps comedy is one of them. Think of our irrational states: overcome by maudlin self-pity, vanity, and grandiosity, we spin grotesque narratives about ourselves that compel us to behave in ways that are ridiculous and often result in self-sabotage. Perhaps comedy is the antidote. Perhaps comedy distances us from our preposterous self-mythology and helps us in the arduous process of self-reinvention. That’s the sense I’m getting from Zosia Mamet’s very necessary book, a book that has no padding at all but has been made from a brilliant mind with blood, sweat, and tears.