Cinemorphosis

Tag: writing

  • When “Your Truth” Stops Being Believable

    When “Your Truth” Stops Being Believable

    Helen Lewis’ Atlantic essay “The Death of Millennial Feminism” observes that Lindy West “is the most successful feminist writer of her (and my) generation,” propelled by raw, often self-deprecating confessionals and “viral takedowns.” She had the ears of women everywhere. She became the loudest evangelist for feminism and a tireless promoter of “fat positivity.” Then she wrote a memoir that brought it all to a halt. Adult Braces reverses many of the feminine ideals she once championed.

    Much in the book makes Lewis cringe, but one detail stands out: West allows her partner to enter a throuple with another woman—someone significantly thinner than West. She concedes that her once-admired feminist life was, in Lewis’s words, “a buffed-up version of the truth.” She describes feeling alienated from like-minded writers in editorial spaces. The online scorn she endured was more debilitating than she had admitted. And her body-positivity project falters under the weight of her own confession: “I am at my biggest when I am at my saddest.”

    West’s self-mythologizing of her past undermines the credibility of her present claims. Lewis is therefore skeptical of West’s assertion that she finds fulfillment in a polyamorous relationship in which her partner pursues other women, while West herself undergoes cosmetic dentistry—perhaps to remain competitive in these newly charged dynamics. 

    Equally dubious is West’s claim that she is rejecting monogamy, framed as “a system of ownership,” partly to please her mixed-race partner. The reliance on progressive clichés to justify what appears to be a self-abasing arrangement lends her argument an air of strained rationalization. It also reflects the same intellectual evasiveness that helped fuel her rise in the 2010s, when social media rewarded this kind of performative certainty.

    If Lewis finds any consolation in her irritation, it is that “basically no one else believes” West’s claims of polyamorous happiness. The book has not landed as intended.

    Lewis is at her sharpest when she expresses a dry, almost surgical pity for West’s disbelief that readers are unconvinced. She writes: “Nonetheless, I do feel great sympathy for West. How was she to know that the great omerta of Millennial Feminism—that we had to take whatever people said about their life stories at face value—had broken?”

    As Lewis pulls back the curtain on West’s method, she arrives at a harsher conclusion: feminism was never the central principle. The organizing force was a highly curated self, elevated by moral certainty and insulated from critique. West’s work encouraged others—teenagers included—to treat intense emotion as authoritative truth, to equate feeling with reality.

    Lewis argues that this elevation of emotion was not liberating but coercive. “Perhaps the greatest hallmark of Millennial Feminism was how harshly it treated women,” she writes. “We were the ones who were supposed to give up our boundaries, rewrite our sexualities, and defenestrate our heroines.” Doubt became a liability. Fallibility, a form of shame. In reality, both are conditions of sanity.

    For that reason, many women—including Lewis—walked away. To remain required submission to groupthink and to a mythology that, as she puts it, “required submitting ourselves to a voluntary lobotomy.”

    Meanwhile, as this strain of feminism frayed, countervailing forces emerged on the right—forces often just as reductive, just as intellectually numbing. The result is not correction but polarization: competing orthodoxies shouting past one another, while common sense and moral clarity struggle to regain a foothold.

  • 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?

  • When Writing Stops You From Lying to Yourself

    When Writing Stops You From Lying to Yourself

    Kafka called writing a form of prayer. Not as piety, but as precision. Prayer, properly understood, is the act of stepping out of ordinary time—the noisy, transactional churn—and entering a space where attention is no longer scattered but gathered. Writing does the same. It refuses the chaos of profane time and insists, however briefly, on the discipline of the sacred.

    The sacred is not mystical fog. It is clarity stripped of dopamine. It is the quiet room where you examine the state of your own soul without distraction or performance. It is where you test whether your words can survive contact with your actions. It demands humility because it exposes how often they don’t. And it offers a kind of nourishment the chronophage—the great time-eating machine—cannot provide, because it cannot be consumed passively. It must be earned.

    To live thoughtfully is to move between two worlds: the sacred and the profane. You cannot remain in either one. You must descend into the ordinary—work, errands, obligations—but carry with you the standards forged in that quieter space. Otherwise, the sacred becomes theater, and the profane becomes drift.

    So the question arrives, unwelcome but necessary: Do my actions align with my ideals? No. Not yet.

    If they did, my life would contract, not expand. I would eat with intention—three meals, no grazing—and call the absence of snacks what it is: a fast, not a deprivation. I would step away from the digital carnival that thrives on FOMO, because I know its rewards are counterfeit—brief spikes followed by longer, duller lows.

    I would stop buying watches. I already own more than I can meaningfully wear. Two G-Shocks tell perfect time. The rest sit like artifacts of former appetites. Rotation is not variety; it is indecision dressed as sophistication.

    And I would reconsider what I make. If my videos exist to chase attention, to measure my worth in clicks and spikes of approval, then they are extensions of the same problem. The medium is different; the mechanism is identical. But if a video can carry an idea forward—if it can clarify rather than agitate—then it earns its place.

    Writing, then, is not an escape. It is a reckoning. It is the act of bringing the sacred into contact with the profane and asking, without flinching, whether they agree. Most days, they don’t. The work is to narrow that distance.

  • 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.

  • Chosen by the Frogman

    Chosen by the Frogman

    More than a decade ago, a seasoned watch obsessive told me something I dismissed at the time: you don’t hunt a Holy Grail—you stumble into it. It doesn’t arrive with fireworks or a four-figure invoice. It slips onto your wrist quietly, and then, without asking permission, it takes over. Everything else starts to feel like a costume. You try to rotate, you try to be fair, you give the others their appointed wrist time—but you feel a faint resentment, like you’re cheating on something that actually fits. Eventually the charade collapses. You stop negotiating. You wear the same watch because it works, and because you no longer have the patience for anything that doesn’t.

    When that happens, the chronophage loses its grip. The endless scroll of “must-haves,” the dopamine carnival of releases and reviews, the debates over marginal gains—all of it begins to look like noise generated by people who haven’t found their watch yet. You close the tabs. You ignore the hype. You retire from the rotation economy. Let the others keep spinning the wheel. You’re done. You’ve chosen, or more accurately, you’ve been chosen.

    If you had told me a year ago that a black resin digital watch would be the one to do this, I would have laughed you out of the room. My tastes, I thought, were too refined, too anchored in steel and mechanical romance to be hijacked by a plastic instrument. And yet, a month ago, the G-Shock Frogman GWF-1000 landed on my wrist and quietly began rewriting my habits. It doesn’t leave. The only thing that occasionally displaces it is another G-Shock—the GW-7900—which, if I didn’t have the Frogman, would be my undisputed daily driver. 

    Of course, I know the trap. The honeymoon phase has seduced better men than me. Give it six months, I tell myself. Let time do its work. If the Frogman is still there—if the others still feel like substitutes—then this isn’t infatuation. It’s alignment.

    The grail, it turns out, is not the watch you chase. It’s the one that makes you stop.

  • When the Hobby Becomes a Spectacle of Torment

    When the Hobby Becomes a Spectacle of Torment

    A man in the watch community watched my Frogman video, declared it had caused him “emotional damage,” and proceeded to prove his point by buying Frogman after Frogman in a spree of excess that seemed to be driven more by torment than joy. 

    The watch hobby already carries enough built-in torment. It doesn’t need to be escalated into a public ritual of compulsion. When I share a video about a watch I enjoy, the aim is simple: appreciation, not contagion. Yet in the attention economy, moderation is invisible. What gets rewarded is escalation—bigger reactions, louder confessions, more dramatic spirals. Attention, after all, is a scarce resource, and the surest way to capture it is to weaponize feeling.

    But there is a cost to that performance. When a hobby becomes tethered to the language of “emotional damage,” something has gone wrong. The line between enjoyment and dependency blurs, and what should be a small, contained pleasure metastasizes into something heavier—something that follows you around, nags at you, drains you.

    The only countermeasure is deliberate restraint. We have to regulate our intake of the digital world the way we regulate food—set limits, step away, return to the analog. Read a book. Play the piano. Lift something heavy. Walk outside without a device narrating your existence. Relearn what it feels like to occupy your own life without commentary.

    If someone discovers the Frogman and it brings them genuine satisfaction, that’s a good outcome. But if it becomes another entry point into a cycle of restless acquisition and theatrical distress, then the watch is no longer the problem—it’s the system surrounding it.

    I can’t control what anyone does after watching a video. No one can. The only thing I can do is speak plainly about the effect this environment has on me, and about the boundaries I’ve had to build to keep a hobby from turning into something corrosive. That’s not a solution. It’s a discipline. And it’s ongoing.

  • Seven Watches Have Made Me Contemplate the Tyranny of Want

    Seven Watches Have Made Me Contemplate the Tyranny of Want

    I was raised to believe that wanting something was reason enough to have it.

    Not a suggestion. Not a temptation. A principle.

    In the 60s and 70s, appetite was rebranded as intelligence. If you knew how to indulge—food, gadgets, experiences—you weren’t weak. You were evolved. The man who said no looked like a malfunction: tight-lipped, joyless, possibly afraid of his own shadow.

    The rest of us were out there chasing pleasure like it was a civic duty.

    And I didn’t just participate—I specialized.

    I built a life around calibrated indulgence. Watches, food, stimulation. I didn’t impulse-buy; I strategized. I had rotations, hierarchies, justification frameworks. I could explain any purchase with the calm authority of a man who had already made the purchase.

    Which is why it’s unsettling—borderline alarming—that I now feel relief that my watch collection is down to seven.

    Seven.

    At one point, seven watches would have been the warm-up act. Now it feels like silence after a fire alarm. Manageable. Contained. Almost peaceful.

    Out of curiosity, I tried to imagine adding just one more watch.

    Not buying it—just imagining it.

    Within seconds, I felt the familiar anxiety spool up: Where does it fit? When do I wear it? What does it replace? What problem is it solving that doesn’t exist?

    That’s when the illusion cracked.

    What I used to call “expanding the collection” was actually expanding the burden.

    Which led to a thought I’ve spent most of my life avoiding:

    What if self-denial isn’t deprivation?
    What if it’s relief?

    This idea runs against decades of conditioning. My instincts are trained like a high-performance lab animal: stimulus, response, reward. See it. Want it. Acquire it. Repeat until the dopamine system starts filing complaints.

    And yet the results are undeniable.

    The next watch doesn’t calm me—it destabilizes me.
    The next meal doesn’t satisfy me—it expands me.
    The next YouTube video doesn’t enlighten me—it hooks me into a slot machine where the jackpot is always one more spin away.

    Different behaviors. Same engine.

    I’ve spent years obeying impulses that don’t know how to stop—and calling that freedom.

    Now I’m starting to see it for what it is: a feedback loop that promises satisfaction and delivers agitation.

    So I’m experimenting with a radical intervention.

    Not buying the watch.
    Not eating the extra food.
    Not clicking the next video.

    It sounds trivial. It feels trivial. But it isn’t.

    Because when you interrupt the impulse—even once—you discover something unexpected: nothing collapses. The urgency fades. The world keeps spinning. You’re still here.

    And in that small gap between wanting and doing, something rare appears.

    Control.

    Self-denial, it turns out, is not a punishment. It’s leverage.

    It’s the ability to step between impulse and action and say, “Not this time.” It’s the quiet refusal that breaks the loop. It doesn’t feel dramatic. It feels almost boring. But it works.

    Which raises a question I can’t quite shake:

    Why did no one make this case to me when I was younger?

    Or did they—and I dismissed it because it sounded like the philosophy of people who weren’t having any fun?

    Would I have listened? Or would I have reacted the way anyone reacts when you threaten their favorite addiction—with polite skepticism covering a deeper hostility?

    Tonight, the old circuitry is still humming.

    There’s hunger—not real hunger, but the kind that shows up after dinner with a marketing pitch.
    There’s restlessness—the urge to check something, watch something, consume something.
    There’s the gravitational pull toward the kitchen and the screen.

    I know how this ends.

    Stay up late, and discipline dissolves. You eat something unnecessary while watching something forgettable and go to bed slightly disappointed in both.

    So I try something different.

    Go to sleep.

    End the day before the impulses take over.

    It’s not heroic. It won’t trend. No one is going to applaud the man who defeated temptation by becoming unconscious.

    But it might be the smartest move I make all day.

    And still—because habits don’t die quietly—the voice is there, smooth as ever:

    I’ll deny myself.

    Just not yet.

  • Abducted by My Hygienist, Grounded by Reality

    Abducted by My Hygienist, Grounded by Reality

    My dentist—one year younger than I am, which in our age bracket feels less like a difference and more like a rounding error—peered into my mouth and delivered his verdict with clinical calm: two abrasions, self-inflicted, the result of brushing with the zeal of a man trying to erase his past. They would need fillings. Then, without missing a beat, he pivoted from my dental erosion to his own existential one. At sixty-three, he said, fatigue had begun to collect in the corners of his life. Travel, once a pleasure, had become an ordeal. He had lost interest in vacations altogether.

    He offered evidence. His sister-in-law had been stranded in Dubai while missiles stitched the sky over Iran. When she finally escaped, her flight climbed higher than usual to avoid the problem of being blown out of the sky—a detail that tends to sour the in-flight experience. Twenty hours later she landed in Dallas, dazed and displaced, only to discover she still needed to purchase a separate ticket to get home to Los Angeles. The modern vacation: a geopolitical obstacle course with snacks.

    I told him I understood completely. I, too, have entered the era of strategic energy management. I work out five days a week, yes—but I also schedule two naps a day with the seriousness of board meetings. Europe, at this point, feels less like a destination and more like a test of endurance. Cabo I can handle—two hours, a controlled burst. Miami, perhaps, if I marshal my resources. But a transatlantic flight? The return on investment collapses. The juice is no longer worth the squeeze.

    While we were discussing the slow recalibration of ambition, his technician went to work on my teeth with a collection of instruments that sounded like extraterrestrial diplomats arguing through a metal wall. Half sedated by the hum and whine, I drifted into the plausible conclusion that I had been abducted. Not metaphorically—literally. I was on a ship, somewhere above the atmosphere, being examined by beings who had mastered interstellar travel but still hadn’t figured out how to make dental procedures pleasant.

    Eventually, they released me—back into the chair, back into my life—with instructions to gargle fluoride and abstain from food and water for thirty minutes. The kind of post-op protocol that suggests the aliens, for all their advancements, remain deeply committed to inconvenience.

  • My 57-Minute Relationship with the G-Shock GW-6900

    My 57-Minute Relationship with the G-Shock GW-6900

    I got home at 5:00 p.m. to find my Amazon package waiting for me like a promise I didn’t remember making. Inside: the G-Shock GW-6900, the much-celebrated Three-Eyed Monster. I unboxed it, performed the usual initiation rituals—set it to LAX, marched through the modes, customized everything like a man preparing a command center—and then attempted the simplest task imaginable: return to Timekeeping.

    Impossible.

    No matter what I pressed, held, or pleaded with, the watch snapped back to UTC like a bureaucrat rejecting incomplete paperwork. I consulted the manual. I consulted YouTube. I even consulted AI, that modern oracle of last resort. Nothing. The watch refused to cooperate, as if it had been programmed with a small but firm sense of contempt.

    Meanwhile, the physical object itself began to lose its charm under scrutiny. Next to the Frogman and the 7900, the 6900 felt… cheap and underfed. Lighter, cheaper, less resolved. The strap clung to my wrist like it had second thoughts about the relationship—barely long enough, noticeably less comfortable. This wasn’t a heroic tool watch. This was a compromise wearing a reputation.

    The decision arrived with unusual clarity: return it.

    By 5:57 p.m., I had already processed its return on Amazon, dropped it off at the nearby UPS, and said good riddance. It is now on its way back to wherever failed expectations are processed. I had made the round trip—anticipation, confusion, disappointment, rejection—in under an hour. A full consumer arc compressed into a sitcom episode.

    Now the house is quiet again. Seven watches remain. The cognitive clutter has thinned. No more scrolling through modes like a man trapped in a digital maze. No more negotiating with a watch that refuses to tell time on command.

    The 6900 is gone.

    And for the first time today, everything is exactly where it should be, and I can now move forward with my life. 

    Update:

    Two friends messaged me to explain that with the 6900 you don’t press the upper left button to exit UTC and get into Timekeeping. You press the upper right button, so the watch was probably not defective. But it was so inferior to the 7900 in terms of build quality and strap length that I’m glad I returned it.

  • Lecture Drift Syndrome and the Vanishing Classroom

    Lecture Drift Syndrome and the Vanishing Classroom

    My students have been reporting a peculiar academic phenomenon: the two-hour class that contains no discernible lesson. In its place stands a performer—a professor intoxicated by the belief that a self-indulgent monologue is effective teaching. Convinced they possess the sacred “gift of gab,” they proceed to use it like a leaf blower in a library.

    And gab they do.

    They narrate their dreams with the seriousness of a Jungian symposium, decoding every symbol as if the subconscious were filing quarterly reports. They recount contractor disputes with the dramatic tension of courtroom testimony. They offer serialized updates on family feuds, restaurant conquests, tropical vacations, and medical procedures so vivid they border on malpractice to describe. They even resurrect their collegiate glory days, in which they allegedly outwitted professors and classmates alike—a mythos delivered with the confidence of a man who has never been fact-checked.

    Meanwhile, the classroom undergoes a quiet evacuation.

    Not physically—students remain seated, dutiful, nodding at appropriate intervals—but cognitively, the room is abandoned. One student is deep into a novel. Another is solving calculus proofs. Several are toggling between sports highlights and sports betting apps, hedging their attention the way day traders hedge risk. Text messages fly. Homework from other classes gets completed. What was scheduled as instruction has been repurposed into a supervised study hall with a live podcast no one asked to attend.

    The professor, of course, notices none of this.

    This is the defining pathology: two monumental blind spots. First, the inability to recognize that the monologue is not merely irrelevant but actively draining—an intellectual sedative administered over two uninterrupted hours. Second, the delusion that presence equals engagement, that a room full of bodies must also be a room full of minds.

    It is neither.

    What we are witnessing is an academic epidemic: Lecture Drift Syndrome. A condition in which a class session slowly detaches from its stated purpose and floats into the open sea of anecdote, confession, and self-display. The syllabus becomes a relic. Time warps—two hours pass, yet nothing has been learned. Themes dissolve. Structure collapses. The lecture doesn’t end so much as it dissipates.

    In the end, the classroom is no longer a site of instruction.

    It is a stage occupied by one man talking—and thirty students elsewhere.