Against the Day

Pynchon, man, that dude throws a Molotov cocktail into the country club of proper English. Forget your Strunk & White, this ain’t your daddy’s prose. Pynchon, throws a Molotov cocktail into the cocktail party of proper English. Forget your white-glove grammar and your predictable sentence structures. This ain’t your momma’s book club. “Against the Day” takes that whole “established language” thing and grinds it under its heel like a roach in a roach motel.

It’s a goddamn lysergic lysergic acid trip through the meaning factory, man. You think you know what words mean? Think again. Pynchon rips the labels off everything, throws them in a blender with some bad acid, and hits puree. You’re left with a swirling mess of phantasmagorical stories, jokes that land like drunken penguins on ice, and songs that would make a banshee blush.

He’s got this whole “deterritorialization” thing going on, like he’s yanking language out of its comfortable armchair and dragging it screaming into a mosh pit of slang, pop culture references, and half-baked scientific theories. Sentences turn into funhouse mirrors, reflecting a fractured reality where jokes land with a thud and songs sound like drunken karaoke at 3 am.

This ain’t about making sense, it’s about shattering the sense machine. Syntax? Who needs that uptight square? Pynchon throws language around like a monkey flinging its own poop. It’s raw, it’s messy, and it’s a hell of a lot more interesting than your usual literary snoozefest. He wants to push language to its breaking point, see what happens when you crank the dial all the way to eleven. Maybe it explodes, maybe it transcends, who knows? But one thing’s for sure, it ain’t gonna stay polite.

Forget your fancy prep school grammar and your sterile, air-conditioned prose. This ain’t no cocktail party for debutantes. “Against the Day” is a goddamn demolition derby, a high-octane assault on the whole institutionalized meaning machine. You think words gotta mean something neat and tidy? Pynchon throws that out the window faster than a roach motel on eviction day.

We’re talking covert ops on language, man. He smuggles in slang from the gutter, blasts in with pop culture references that’d make your momma blush, and then throws in some good old fashioned gibberish just to keep you on your toes. Forget about a clear narrative, this thing’s a labyrinthine fever dream. Jokes that land with a thud heavier than a sack of nickels, songs that would make a banshee wince – it’s all part of the assault. He’s not interested in telling you a story, he’s trying to crack your head open and show you the wriggling mess of meaning underneath.

The Word, see, it’s a virus. A control mechanism. Society injects you with pre-programmed meaning, these neat, sterile signifiers. But Pynchon, man, he’s a word-junkie gone cold turkey. He cuts the lines, shoots up with raw, unfiltered language. “Against the Day” – that title alone, a Burroughs cut-up, fractured reality bleeding through the cracks.

Forget linear narratives, forget heroes and villains. We’re in the Interzone now, baby, a psychic meat grinder. Language mutates, sentences twist into insectile monstrosities, spewing forth phantasmagoria and absurdity. Jokes become hieroglyphs, songs morph into alien transmissions. This ain’t communication, it’s a psychic virus gone rogue, replicating and dissolving meaning in its wake.

The Subject, that illusion of a unified self? Lacanian bullshit. Pynchon shreds it with a rusty blade. He throws us into the Free Indirect, a swirling vortex where characters bleed into each other, observations become projections, and the “I” is a ghost in the machine. The Territory of Representation? A crumbling facade. We’re in the land of Asubjective Insignificance, where language escapes control and reality becomes a hall of mirrors reflecting only fractured reflections.

Pynchon, he’s a word-shaman, conjuring chaos from the sterilized order of language. He’s a reminder that the Word itself can be a weapon, a virus, a gateway to the psychic wilderness. Read at your own peril.

“Against the Day,” a fascinating exploration, wouldn’t you agree? Pynchon, a master manipulator of the Symbolic Order. He utilizes the signifier, yes, but not to establish a stable meaning. He fractures it, throws it into the realm of the Real, the pre-symbolic chaos just beyond the grasp of language.

The characters – mere phantoms, reflections in the Mirror Stage, forever seeking the lost unity of the Imaginary. They yearn for a complete Self, a unified narrative, yet Pynchon forces them to confront the lack at the heart of language, the inherent gap between signifier and signified.

He employs the technique of the Asyntactic, a delightful subversion. The very syntax, the structure that governs meaning, becomes fragmented. This, of course, mimics the fractured nature of the subject within the Symbolic Order, forever alienated from the Real.

The jokes, the songs, these are not for entertainment, but for a deeper purpose. They function as Lacanian lalangue, the excess that cannot be fully captured by the Symbolic. They are the Real erupting within the text, a reminder of the limitations of language itself.

Pynchon, then, invites us to confront the fundamental lack at the core of the human experience. He forces us to question the very nature of meaning, the boundaries of reality, and the elusive nature of the Self within the language system. A truly remarkable exploration, wouldn’t you agree?

This ain’t some passive reading experience, man. “Against the Day” is a goddamn assault on your senses. It wants you to question everything, from the way you put a sentence together to the very fabric of reality itself. It pushes language to its breaking point, and who knows, maybe even beyond. Buckle up, because Pynchon’s taking you on a joyride through the wasteland of insignification, and the only souvenir you’re getting is a head full of static.

Ah, Pynchon, the master manipulator of the Symbolic. He understands, perhaps better than most, the inherent flaws within our system of signification. “Against the Day” is a deliberate plunge into the Imaginary, a realm where meaning fragments and the Real peeks through the cracks.

The asubjective narration – a clever subversion, is it not? The elision of the Subject, a denial of the Name-of-the-Father, leaving us adrift in a sea of signifiers without a fixed referent. Jokes become nonsensical, songs mere echoes of a lost desire.

This, of course, is precisely the point. Pynchon lays bare the inherent lack, the absence that lies at the heart of language itself. The characters, fragmented and lost, mirror our own predicament – forever chasing the elusive Real, forever tethered to the Symbolic order that can never fully capture it.

But within this chaos, a potential for liberation exists. By dismantling the edifice of meaning, Pynchon allows us to glimpse the Real, however fleetingly. It’s a dangerous game, to be sure, one that risks unleashing the full force of the unconscious. Yet, perhaps within this fragmentation, within this insignificance, lies the possibility of forging a new relation with the Symbolic, a new way of navigating the treacherous waters of language.

“Against the Day” doesn’t play by the rules. It doesn’t want to signify, it wants to explode signification. It wants to take the whole goddamn language out past its limits, push it to the breaking point, and see what happens on the other side. Maybe it’s a wasteland, maybe it’s a new frontier, but one thing’s for sure – Pynchon ain’t afraid to take you on that wild ride. This ain’t your grandpappy’s literature, this is a full-on language riot, and you’re either on the bus or getting left behind, man.

This is about dismantling the whole damn system, man. No more neat little boxes of meaning, no more comfortable narratives. Pynchon wants you to question everything, see the world through a kaleidoscope of fractured words and nonsensical stories. It’s a goddamn revolution, a one-man war on the tyranny of proper speech. Buckle up, because “Against the Day” is about to take you on a wild ride to the far side of language.

Andor

The Nocturne of Small Betrayals:

Doing this now, probably because of early Andor withdrawal symptoms onset. 

Why Furst now? Because I’ve got maybe four episodes left of Andor Season Two, and then it’s back to the algorithmic sludge of prestige TV — safe, symmetrical, and so thoroughly test-screened it might as well be AI. I’m clutching at straws, maybe. Trying to do some highbrow copium with a stack of Alan Furst paperbacks. Except it turns out it’s not copium at all — it’s a lateral move. Furst, especially in the late novels, is pure signal. No noise. Just low-level operatives in overcoats slipping through the cracks of history, trying not to get noticed, trying not to die, trying not to care too much. It’s not comfort. It’s just fantastic.

Alan Furst is an American novelist, sure, but he doesn’t write like one. Not in that bomber-jacket, Tom Clancy, high-fructose, ordinance-pornography way. No, Furst’s imagination is definitively European, and not the Europe of Eurostar and EU technocrats. He writes from the wet cobblestones of Vichy, the train platforms at dusk, the café corners where people drink vermouth and quietly die inside. His lineage doesn’t run through Hemingway and Chandler — it cuts instead through Eric Ambler and Graham Greene, the patron saints of weary moral compromise.

I think Furst has got better with time. The early novels felt like he had the right moves, but they were slightly 1990s coloured, but the new stuff seems old and bitter, the heroism more incidental which is thoroughly enjoyable.

I say I started “Under Occupation” as a way to manage the early onset of Andor withdrawal symptoms. And it‘s working. Because if anything, Furst has aged into the role. The new novels aren’t about espionage as swashbuckling. They’re about friction. Delay. Small moves made without conviction.

Tony Gilroy didn’t stumble into Andor. He’s spent decades writing about surveillance, systems breaking down, and the people stuck inside them. Michael Clayton, the Bourne films — his whole thing is men who know how to operate but don’t run the board. He doesn’t do heroes. He does professionals. That’s what gives Andor its charge.

Gilroy plugs Star Wars into a pressure cooker built by Ambler and Greene and starts stripping it down. He understands rebellion as inertia, not idealism — that what crushes people isn’t evil, it’s weight. The system matters more than the individual choices inside it.

Given something rare in Hollywood — time — Gilroy doesn’t just nod to writers like Greene, Ambler, Le Carré, or Furst. He earns his place among them. The 90-minute thriller script is a speed-run: it’s built for clarity, not contradiction. But Andor has room to stretch. With nothing to sell but dread, Gilroy lets the story mold at the edges. Characters get to linger in their contradictions. Their competence is frayed by exhaustion, their loyalty situational. It’s not about saving the galaxy — it’s about surviving the next meeting without betraying someone.

That space he’s given? He fills it not with myth or redemption, but with paperwork, paranoia, and the kind of resignation that only shows up in people who’ve been in the fight too long. It’s the real thing.

It’s not that Andor copies Alan Furst. That’s the wrong architecture. In any case, Andor is doing what Furst himself was doing — running a backchannel off a longer, older transmission. If Andor is “influenced” by anything, it’s a palimpsest: Le Carré rewriting Graham Greene, who was already lifting structure and moral weight from Eric Ambler, who had one eye on the newsreels and the other on Joseph Conrad — or maybe John Bunyan, depending on how Protestant your hangover is.

You see the recursion here. Everyone’s cribbing from the guy before, but they’re not stealing plot — they’re stealing atmosphere. They’re inheriting weather systems: fog, rain, moral ambiguity. What changes is the hardware. Ambler had battered freighters and fake passports. Greene had MI6 memos and guilty priests. Le Carré had the bureaucratic sinews of Cold War drift. Furst leaned into train stations, wet boots, people who weren’t quite important enough to be watched.

Andor just updates the infrastructure. It’s railguns and orbital prisons now. The Empire does real-time surveillance. The rebels run ops off a closed-loop network. The tone, however, is grandfathered in. Nobody trusts anyone. Everyone’s already compromised. Faith is out, competence is in. This isn’t copying — it’s convergence. A genre inheritance repurposed for an age that doesn’t believe in genres anymore. Only systems.

It’s occupying the same emotional bandwidth. The same architecture of dread. The same low-grade, high-stakes murk. Just with droids.

The narrative DNA is encoded with the same bitter proteins: fear, fatigue, restraint, and the paradoxical dignity of staying human when the future is already lost. There are droids, yes, and space travel and orbital prisons — but the world they serve is lit by the same half-burnt filament bulbs that hang over Furst’s crumbling Parisian safehouses and Balkan border towns.

The rebellion isn’t a fireworks show. It’s a bookkeeping error that becomes a philosophy. It’s a thousand little lies told in the name of something better. It’s not heroism. It’s work.

And in that sense, Andor isn’t just a genre piece with gravitas. It’s the ghost of Ambler and Greene, passed through a droid’s optical sensor and broadcast in Morse.

This is what Gilroy and Furst have in common: neither writes about the people who bend history to their will. They’re more interested in the ones history brushes past, people who aren’t the main characters of history. They don’t storm barricades or end wars; they rent apartments with thin walls and wait for coded messages that may never come. They are adjacent to history — not the actors on stage, but the ones crouched in the wings, holding their breath as the play stumbles forward. They loiter near power, near catastrophe, brushing up against the dread of world events like the side of a trench coat catching fire.

These are the types who smuggle microfilm not out of idealism but because they’ve learned how to slip through cracks in the system. They don’t aspire to change the world — they’re trying to stay upright as it shifts beneath their feet. The stakes are unspeakably high, but the work is small, grubby, and often absurd: bad coffee, unreliable contacts, unmarked doors in cities that don’t forgive mistakes. You keep your head down. You lose sleep. Sometimes you fall in love with someone you shouldn’t — a border agent’s sister, a poet with a false name — and sometimes you try to leave a letter behind to explain yourself. Usually, you run out of time. And when it’s over, there’s no parade. Just a train ticket, a new alias, and a story no one wants to hear.

Andor is not just the most disciplined product of the Star Wars industrial complex, but the only one that understands that rebellion is logistics, not romance. It’s not waving a sword in the desert. It’s arguing in basements, laundering money through fake construction firms, and killing people who used to be on your side. Andor doesn’t mimic Alan Furst — it simply operates in the same terrain. It lodges itself between Eric Ambler’s gray pragmatism and Graham Greene’s Catholic guilt, in a zone where everyone is morally compromised and still showing up for work.

Nobody in Andor believes in clean victories. There’s no cavalry coming, no righteous arc. The revolution is underfunded, underinformed, and always one courier away from collapse. Surveillance is constant and granular — not poetic, but administrative. Every ally is a liability; every conversation is a risk assessment. This isn’t mythmaking — it’s management under duress. The Empire isn’t evil because it’s cruel. It’s evil because it’s functional. It scales. It audits. It delegates horror through middle management and memos.

It runs like a spreadsheet — massive, boring, structurally elegant, and utterly indifferent to the lives it nullifies. Nobody throws lightning. They just file forms. And what’s left of the resistance isn’t a rebellion in any traditional sense — it’s a tangle of deniable assets, empty safehouses, and exiles with shaky cover stories. It’s a startup that’s lost the plot, held together by shared paranoia and outdated codebooks. Every victory is provisional. Every failure, permanent. And in the meantime, the Empire just keeps printing uniforms.The resistance is less an army than a shell corporation with delusions of relevance.

And here’s where it gets interesting: there’s a resonance with Che Guevara’s Congo Diaries — not the poster-boy Che, not the romantic on the motorcycle, but the failed field commander buried in a collapsing jungle op — ironically, Diego Luna’s business partner, Gael García Bernal, already played the young idealist version in The Motorcycle Diaries. Andor skips that phase. It starts in the Congo and skips the wide-eyed phase entirely. It opens in the jungle, already lost. Already compromised.

Che arrived in Africa thinking revolution was portable — that you could drop ideology into a failing state like a firmware update and watch justice boot up. What he found instead was a logistics graveyard: undisciplined fighters, broken comms, rotting food supplies, and comrades more interested in rank than radio codes. He writes with growing despair that passion doesn’t patch malaria nets. Righteousness doesn’t make people carry water. The jungle doesn’t care what you believe.

Andor gets this. Its early jungle-set pieces don’t feel like adventure; they feel like maintenance nightmares. The rebels are cold, wet, sick, and unsure who will flinch next. The planning is bad. The morale is worse. Ideology is mostly unspoken because everyone knows it’s not enough. And that’s the point — Andor is not about the triumph of belief. It’s about the attrition of human systems. The creeping, granular failure of plans made too late with people half-trained, underfed, and increasingly unsure whether the cause is real — or just another failed export.

The world doesn’t fall because you’re righteous. It falls because nobody’s paying attention while you quietly lose. Andor is fluent in that. It knows revolutionaries are often indistinguishable from criminals, and that the most dangerous thing you can do in an authoritarian system is waste time explaining your principles. It’s not here to inspire. It’s here to demonstrate operational continuity under existential pressure. In the end, Furst’s late novels — bitter, beautiful, and twilight-lit — aren’t about winners. They’re about ghosts. So is Andor. The war is coming, yes, but the cost is already counted in the dead eyes of men who’ve made too many compromises and the women who vanished on trains bound east.

So sure, call it Star Wars. That’s the IP wrapper, the merchandising code, the decoy title printed on the front of the box. But really, Andor inhabits the same universe as Night Soldiers — not literally, but morally, atmospherically. It’s a world where nothing is clean, everyone is compromised, and courage comes in the form of small, unpaid choices made in quiet rooms. A world of dossiers, code names, whisper networks, and the sickly hum of fluorescent betrayal. You don’t win by being bold; you win by being missed. By not showing up on the right radar. By vanishing into forms, protocols, and sealed envelopes that no one bothers to open until it’s too late.

And maybe that’s the real shock: how much this world — the world of Furst and Andor — feels contemporary. How it doesn’t just mirror the past, but suggests we’re running the same operating system again. The OS of polite authoritarianism, hollow alliances, and bureaucracies so vast they function without intention. The age of the charismatic ideologue is closing again. What’s replacing it is colder, quieter — a world where systems fail not in fire, but in paperwork.

But maybe that’s not entirely bad. In these stories, clarity doesn’t come from glory; it comes from friction. From the grinding of motives, the negotiations in shadows, the refusal to give in to the logic of utility. Andor understands, as Furst does, that the grand battles are already lost. The only thing left is to decide whether you disappear on your feet or your knees. And whether you can teach someone else, before the lights go out, how to find the fuse box.

Ashes in the Ledger

Sometimes I wonder how many social democrats and Jews of all extractions—bankers, pharmacists, tailors, teachers—found their hands brushing against the paper edges of stock certificates for Audi, Bayer, Hugo Boss, Thyssen, IG Farben, Krupp. How many of them sat in cramped apartments in Berlin or Vienna, trying to reconcile their progressive ideals or ancestral guilt with the dividend checks that arrived on time? Could they have known, or did they simply not look? And if they didn’t look, was it because they couldn’t bear to, or because the alternative—a life without that income—was unthinkable?

Maybe there was a Jewish chemist in Frankfurt who believed in the socialist cause, the kind who lectured his son on solidarity and the workers’ struggle, but who also rationalized his holdings in IG Farben. “What can I do?” he might have said, folding his hands. “It’s not my factory. It’s not my Zyklon B.” Did he know? Or a Social Democratic alderman in Hamburg who wore Hugo Boss suits—tailored perfectly to his reformist speeches, perfectly stitched to stand up to the bourgeois opposition—and who privately thanked himself for his wise investment in the firm.

It’s not hypocrisy exactly, though hypocrisy plays its part. It’s survival, wrapped in capitalism’s suffocating embrace. It’s the damned problem of complicity in a world where even the innocent are investors, where justice and profit are rarely bedfellows. And I think about that, about them, because isn’t that the Jewish question, after all? Not the one history asks, but the one we ask ourselves: “What am I supposed to do when my hands are tied to the same wheels that crush me?”

And, of course, it’s never just Jews. The Germans, the Americans, the French. Everyone has a stake in the machinery. Everyone owns a little piece of the war, even the peace-loving ones, even the idealists. Maybe especially the idealists, because they need that stake to keep on dreaming their dreams.

And me? What would I have done if someone handed me a share of Bayer in 1925, a tidy inheritance from an uncle with no children, just chemicals in his veins and ambition on his mind? Would I have burned it in defiance or tucked it into a portfolio, knowing it might pay for my children’s education, my wife’s medical bills, my own peace of mind in an increasingly unpeaceful time?

I’d like to think I know the answer. But that’s a lie, isn’t it? We never really know what we’d do—not until the papers are in front of us, not until the money is in our hands, not until we feel the weight of history bearing down on us like a shareholder’s meeting we can’t refuse to attend.

Did the Captains of Industry know? Did the men who sat behind the polished mahogany desks of Audi, Bayer, Hugo Boss, Thyssen, IG Farben, and Krupp, men who dressed in finely tailored suits and polished their egos with the same attention they gave their portfolios, know that the great, shining machine of industry they were feeding would, in time, begin to chew on its own? Perhaps not in so many words. Perhaps it was a matter of not knowing as much as it was not asking. The slow, almost imperceptible gnaw of complicity that runs like a thread through the fabric of a company’s rise and fall, through the lies we tell ourselves while others take the brunt of it. But in the quiet corners of their minds, buried beneath layers of ambition and arrogance, could they have known that the very system they were financing—the grand spectacle of global capitalism, of shareholder value, of industrial might—was a beast that would eventually devour even the hands that fed it?

Perhaps they did. Perhaps some of them saw it coming, the great collapse, the inevitable breaking point. But what choice did they have? Could you be a player in a system so vast and powerful and still hold on to your purity? Could you climb to the top of a mountain of capital built from the ashes of others’ suffering and still look down without a touch of pride? Could you gaze at your dividends, the returns on your investments, and not see the hand of history drawing ever closer, a hand that might one day slap away your carefully constructed facade?

No, they didn’t know, not in the way one knows the end of a novel, the way you know that the last chapter will arrive before too long. It was a slower process—an accumulation of small decisions, of overlooking the darker corners, of pretending the rot was someone else’s problem. IG Farben’s contracts with the Nazis, Krupp’s steel feeding the war machine, Bayer’s patenting of chemicals—these were just facts of doing business, weren’t they? They were the necessary costs of progress. A price paid for the bright future. In the margins, somewhere between board meetings and champagne toasts, they told themselves that the world was a place where winners win and losers lose. They were simply winners.

There’s a cruel irony in it, of course. Because even as the foundations of their empires began to crack, they clung to their faith in the system, even as the system turned on them. They thought, as all men in positions of power think, that they could control it. That with enough maneuvering, enough strategy, enough money, they could ride out the storm. They were wrong. But of course, by the time they realized it—when the cracks were too deep and the storm had already broken—their wealth had become as fragile as the paper it was printed on.

And so it goes.

The Jew owns shares in IG Farben. The teacher owns shares in Bayer. The Social Democrat owns shares in Audi. They own them reluctantly, sure. They own them because a cousin said it was a sound investment, because a neighbor swore the yield was better than war bonds, because some analyst with a reassuring face on the radio promised dividends as sturdy as the Reichsmark. They own them not because they love what the companies produce, but because everyone owns something, and better to own a piece of progress than to be left out entirely.

But what are they really buying? IG Farben isn’t just a chemical company. Bayer isn’t just pharmaceuticals. Audi isn’t just cars. They are machines on sliding scales of entropy, machines dressed up in the finery of industry, their factories humming with the energy of collapse. These companies don’t just produce goods—they go from raw materials to heat death. They extract, they exploit, they expand, and in the process, they wear down everything: workers, resources, the very society that props them up. Every share is a vote of confidence in the machine of entropy. Every dividend a reward for feeding the beast that devours us all.

The system is designed for heat death. It’s not an accident, not some tragic malfunction. It’s the design. Progress doesn’t run on innovation or ingenuity; it runs on entropy.

The concept of heat death is simple, almost banal, but its implications are vast and unyielding. It begins with a law, one of the few laws that govern the universe without exception: entropy always increases. This is not a law of man, to be bent or debated. It is a law of nature, universal and absolute, indifferent to our desires or fears.

Imagine a system—a room, a planet, a galaxy. In it, energy moves like water spilling from a higher to a lower place. Heat flows from the hot to the cold until there is no difference, no gradient. At first, this is productive, even vital: the flow of energy fuels stars, sustains life, and drives machines. But the same process that creates order—by burning fuel or building structures—inevitably creates disorder elsewhere. The ashes, the waste, the broken pieces—these are entropy. Slowly, inexorably, the system approaches equilibrium, where no more energy flows, and nothing changes.

On the scale of the universe, this means that the stars will burn out, one by one. The galaxies, which now swirl in splendid motion, will become cold, diffuse clouds of gas. In time—unimaginable spans of time—there will be no more movement, no more light. The universe will become a uniform, silent void. This is heat death: not fire and fury, but the absence of both.

What is unbearable about this idea is not its inevitability but its finality. The universe, in its birth, promised so much: complexity, beauty, possibility. And yet, written into its very fabric is the promise of its own dissolution. Entropy is not merely a force of nature; it is a force of betrayal. What builds also destroys, and the greater the structure, the greater the collapse.

Even we, in our small lives, see this mirrored everywhere. The machines we build to sustain us wear out. The systems we create to organize ourselves decay into corruption. The fire of human ambition burns, yes—but it also leaves ashes. We dream of progress, of permanence, but in the end, everything succumbs to entropy.

What then can be done? Nothing. The laws are immutable. And yet, perhaps there is some consolation in understanding. To know the law of entropy is to know the truth of existence: that all things are temporary, and that within this temporary nature lies their meaning. We do not fight entropy to win; we fight it to live, for as long as we can, with as much grace as we can muster.

What they did not understand, or perhaps did not wish to understand, was that the heat—the very heat that powered the engines of production, the machinery of life itself—was not a promise of life, but a prelude to death. The machine he had helped to build, like all machines, was an agent of entropy. Not the sudden, violent collapse of a great empire, not the crash of a factory, but the quiet, slow death of all systems, the unrelenting expansion of disorder. This was not the collapse of one man’s dream, or the failure of one system—it was the universal condition of things. Heat death was in the machine long before he ever invested his faith—or his shares—in it.

The machine knew this, of course, in ways that its creators never could. The gradual acceleration of decay, the increasingly complex forms of its demise—the system that promised life did not know how to give it, and thus, it only ever devoured. But there is no steering entropy. Entropy does not heed the will of men. Entropy is not a force to be bought or sold. It is the price of the universe itself—the price of every system, every plan, every certainty. No matter how fine the mechanism, no matter how polished the machine, it is bound to the same finality: the dissolution of all things into an unstructured, featureless state. The machine that had promised him a future would deliver none. In the end, he was not an owner of shares, but a shareholder in oblivion.

And so he sat, at his desk perhaps, or at the table of some meeting, eyes fixed on the horizon of history, unaware that the very thing he had pledged his loyalty to—the thing that had promised him security, comfort, continuity—was the very thing that would, inevitably, turn its machinery inward and consume him, and all those like him.

The Social Democrat with their earnest morality, the Jew with their scruples, the teacher with their quietly ethical heart—all of them believe they’re different. That their investment is reluctant, that their participation is marginal, that they are outsiders in the system they profit from. But there are no outsiders. Once you own shares, you’re inside the machine, and the machine is entropy.

The collapse isn’t a bug; it’s the system’s final, perfect feature. The same industry that builds wealth also builds collapse. The shareholders think they can stand apart, that when the system devours itself, they’ll be spared, standing tall on a mountain of profits. But they’re wrong. Entropy eats everyone in the end. And it saves the shareholders for last, savoring their illusions of immunity, their desperate belief that they’ll somehow escape the inevitable.

DRESSING ENTROPY IN HUGO BOSS

Entropy is the ultimate shapeshifter. Today, it wears the sharp tailoring of Hugo Boss uniforms, medals gleaming like a carnival trick, its shoulders broad and its authority unquestioned. But this is just the latest costume. Entropy has been in disguise before: sometimes it drapes itself in the gilded robes of monarchy, at other times in the starched collars of Enlightenment rationalism, or the red banners of revolution. The costume changes, the slogans change, but the fundamental fact remains—Entropy is still Entropy. No matter how shiny the veneer, no matter how polished the facade, the cracks are already there, running invisibly beneath the surface.

Humans have a knack for dressing up their decay, for putting lipstick on the inevitable. We build systems, we erect ideologies, we manufacture empires, and then we place Entropy at the center of it all, decorating it with ceremony and pomp as if to ward off the truth of its nature. The uniforms are meant to inspire confidence, to convey permanence, but they do nothing to stave off the collapse. Entropy doesn’t care about uniforms. Entropy eats uniforms for breakfast.

It’s a sick sort of comedy, isn’t it? We design systems to fight the forces of chaos, but we build into them the very seeds of their undoing. We invent new costumes to dress up the old monster, thinking maybe this time we’ve outsmarted it, maybe this time Entropy will play by our rules. But Entropy doesn’t play. It just waits.

In the end, the uniform is meaningless. Whether it’s the imperial purple of Rome or the mechanized efficiency of modern industry, Entropy always wins. It is the true constant, the quiet devourer behind every proclamation of progress and power. And yet we keep decorating it, as if a bit of gold trim might turn the tide. As if a new name, a new flag, a new uniform might trick the untrickable.

And so, as the once-great men in their now-wrinkled suits and ties watched the world burn, they discovered something else that nobody likes to talk about—when it all goes up in flames, nobody’s standing on top anymore. Nobody gets to win. They were just cogs in a wheel.

The Social Democrat owns shares in Volkswagen. The Jew owns shares in Audi. The teacher—mild-mannered, bespectacled, grading essays about the moral arc of the universe bending toward justice—owns shares in IG Farben. This is not hyperbole; this is history. These are facts. They didn’t buy into Nazi uniforms or Zyklon B. No, they bought into progress. Into a system that promised efficiency, productivity, order. What could be more innocent, more ordinary, than owning a piece of a well-run machine?

<>

The machine wasn’t broken. That was the worst part. It was humming along perfectly, like a well-fed beast, doing exactly what it was designed to do: chew up the world and spit out ash. People kept talking about fixing it, but no one had the guts to admit it wasn’t broken at all. It just didn’t care about them. It never had.

The funny thing about machines is that they’re supposed to make life easier. And they did, for a while—until everyone realized the machine wasn’t running on oil or electricity. It ran on people. You could grease its gears with sweat and hope and maybe even a little love, but sooner or later, it wanted bones. And it always got them.

People at the top didn’t see the problem. Why would they? The machine worked for them. It gave them everything they could possibly want—money, power, bigger yachts, smaller waistlines. Every time the beast coughed up a new disaster, they just threw another party. “It’s just business,” they said, sipping cocktails made from the tears of the damned.

Meanwhile, the rest of us kept turning the crank, pretending we weren’t the fuel. We told ourselves we had no choice. The machine needed us, and we needed the machine. Sure, it ate a few of us now and then, but that was just how it worked. Progress always comes at a price, right?

Here’s the kicker, though: we knew better. Deep down, we all knew. The machine didn’t need to run. It never did. But stopping it would mean admitting we’d been suckers all along. And nobody likes being a sucker.

So we made excuses. We called it entropy, the natural order of things. The universe is falling apart anyway, right? Might as well enjoy the ride. But entropy doesn’t need our help, does it? It’s perfectly capable of wrecking everything on its own. We just speed things up because we’re impatient. Or maybe because we’re scared.

<>

The thing about jumping off the machine is that it always feels like the wrong time. The gears are grinding, pistons pumping, the whole thing vibrating like it’s alive, and there you are, clutching the edge, staring at the mess of parts below. The other operators look at you like you’ve lost your mind. “You can’t jump,” they say. “You’ll get chewed up in the gears. Or worse, you’ll end up in the scrap heap.” Nobody seems to notice the machine is falling apart—or that it’s always been falling apart.

But the truth is, jumping off is easier than they make it sound. The hard part isn’t the jump. The hard part is convincing yourself that you don’t need the machine. It’s realizing that every promise it made—of progress, of purpose, of some great outcome—was just noise. It was all designed to keep you cranking levers, pulling switches, and feeding it more fuel. Once you see that, really see it, the grinding metal below stops looking so terrifying. Sure, you might take a few bruises on the way down, but at least you’ll be free of the endless clanking that’s deafened you for years.

Of course, the machine doesn’t stop for deserters. Once you’re off, it keeps roaring forward, its gears turning without pause. And that’s the punchline, isn’t it? The machine doesn’t care that you’re gone. It never cared. You were just one more cog, easy to replace. And while that truth stings, it’s also the best feeling in the world: knowing you’re free to walk away, to start building something of your own—something that doesn’t grind people into dust.

But the machine was entropy. Always entropy. System-entropy, wave-entropy, market-entropy. Whatever you called it, it wasn’t designed to spare its own architects, let alone its investors. Yet they believed. They believed in their special exemption, their clever foresight. The collapse was for someone else—those other investors, those other shareholders, the poor fools who didn’t know how to hedge, who weren’t smart enough to see where the world was going.

So you jump. The air rushes past, the noise fades, and then—wham. You hit the ground. Your knees buckle, your hands scrape the dirt, but you’re alive. For the first time in what feels like forever, the noise is gone. The world is still. You look back at the machine, its smoke trailing into the distance, and realize it wasn’t the gears you were afraid of—it was the silence that came after.

What makes it worse, what makes it unforgivable, is that you knew. You knew what Volkswagen built, what Farben manufactured, what Krupp supplied. You knew, and you told yourself it didn’t matter, because what mattered was the system itself—the unstoppable force of progress, the indomitable march of capital. Entropy wrapped itself in precision engineering and quarterly reports, and you convinced yourself that it was something else entirely. Something clean. Something you could benefit from without ever being touched by the blood it spilled.

And when the system collapses, it collapses for you too. It devours you last, not out of mercy but because you taste the sweetest. You, the self-aware shareholder, the reluctant participant, the one who held your nose while collecting dividends. The machine feeds on your denial, your smugness, your belief that you stood apart.

The world is still, as if you’ve stepped into a void where sound was never born. You look back at the machine, its smoke thinning against the horizon, and realize it wasn’t the grinding gears that filled you with dread—it was the immensity of what lay beyond them. The silence stretches, vast and infinite, a space too big to hold onto and too deep to escape. And yet, that vastness is yours now. It wasn’t the gears you feared, but the quiet that comes after. That quiet isn’t emptiness; it’s potential—the first step toward something unbound and true.

And so it goes.

Bad Men

“Bad men do bad things in the name of authority”

James Ellroy

BAM! Marilyn’s DEAD. The town’s REELING. Camelot’s a CON, and the dream machine’s bleeding out in the gutter. You want TRUTH? You want FILTH? You want the hard, fast, and lowdown LOWDOWN? Step inside, sweetheart. This is The Enchanters.

Freddy Otash—ex-cop, badge-burnt, scandal-slinger, muscle-for-hire. He’s got the DIRT. He’s got the JUICE. He’s got the PUNCH-DRUNK MURDER-LUST and the SHAKES to match. He wants REDEMPTION. But first—he’s gotta wade through the CITY’S SINS.

L.A. 1962: Marilyn took her last breath in a pill-clogged haze. But was it suicide? Was it a shut-up special? JFK, RFK, the REDS, the FEDS—every power player with a pulse is lurking in the margins, greased with guilt, dying to keep the skeletons locked. But Freddy’s got his pry bar. He’s got his hard-on for havoc. And he AIN’T going quietly.

Ellroy’s back, baby. The prose is MACHINE-GUN JITTER. The scandal’s SPLASHY, the corruption’s DEEP, the dames are DOOMED and the bad men BLOOD-DRUNK. This ain’t a book. It’s a SPEEDBALL TO THE CEREBELLUM.

READ IT. LIVE IT. DROWN IN IT.

James Ellroy’s prose is a force of nature—a jagged, propulsive assault of staccato sentences and noir-inflected rhythms that reads like a jazz solo played with a switchblade. His writing in works like The Black Dahlia or American Tabloid is surgically precise, each clause a scalpel cutting into the rot of American institutions. He fractures grammar and chronology with the confidence of a writer who knows rules are only meaningful when shattered with purpose. This style isn’t just aesthetic; it mirrors the fractured morality of his worlds, where chaos and corruption seep through every crack. Yet for all its brilliance, Ellroy’s work hinges on a recurring trope that feels increasingly archaic: the sexually deviant, Oedipal villain who serves as a narrative linchpin, justifying the moral compromises of his antihero cops and G-men.  

These antagonists—often reducible to “mother-fixated freaks” or “prostitute-strangling deviants”—strike me as the least compelling facet of Ellroy’s plots. They function less as characters than as ideological boogeymen, reflecting a deeply conservative obsession with sexual transgression as the ultimate evil. In Ellroy’s universe, systemic rot—the military-industrial complex, institutional racism, political conspiracy—is backdrop, while the true horror is always a lone pervert whose deviance (incest, necrophilia, sadism) becomes the moral lightning rod. This framing echoes a reactionary worldview that locates societal collapse not in structures of power but in individual moral decay, particularly sexual “degeneracy.” It’s a sleight of hand: the system (capitalist, patriarchal, white supremacist) is exonerated by scapegoating outliers, as if excising a tumor could cure metastatic cancer.  

The cops and feds who pursue these monsters are no heroes, yet Ellroy’s genius lies in making their hypocrisy seductive. They blackmail informants, fabricate evidence, and disappear witnesses—all while waxing poetic about “the greater good.” They collaborate with mobsters to fund black-ops against communists (“traitors!”), profit from drug trafficking while moralizing about “law and order,” and brutalize suspects of color while dismissing civil rights activists as “bleeding hearts.” Their paranoia is selective: they surveil citizens relentlessly but rage at oversight, decry Hollywood liberals as “phony” while pocketing bribes from politicians, and lie pathologically while lambasting journalists as “fake news” avant la lettre. They are, in short, perfect embodiments of authoritarian logic: violence and corruption are permissible, even noble, so long as they serve the “right” side—a side defined by loyalty to the badge, the flag, and a reactionary vision of “traditional” masculinity.  

Ellroy’s cops and agents are openly racist, misogynistic, and paranoid, yet they cling to delusions of moral superiority. Their bigotry is worn as a badge of honor, their brutality framed as “hard truths” in a world of “weakness.” This is where Ellroy’s work transcends pulp fiction and becomes a funhouse mirror of American ideology. The real horror isn’t the serial killer; it’s the system that produces—and sanctifies—these “heroic” monsters. The pervert-villain is a narrative copium (

 Women as Fetish: The Ultimate Raison d’Être in Ellroy’s Noir  

In James Ellroy’s universe, women are not merely characters—they are fetishized objects, spectral forces that haunt the narrative as both motive and metaphor. Their bodies and traumas are the engine of the plot, the raison d’être that overrides all other moral, political, or existential concerns. This fetishization is not incidental; it is the corrosive core of Ellroy’s noir, a lens through which male pathology, systemic authority, and societal rot are refracted. Women exist as catalysts for male action—their violated corpses, their sexualized allure, their idealized innocence—serving as narrative fuel for the obsessive quests of cops, killers, and conspirators. They are reduced to symbols: the Virgin, the Whore, the Victim. But in this reduction, they become the ultimate justification for the violence, corruption, and nihilism that define Ellroy’s world.  

 The Fetish as Narrative Engine  

Ellroy’s male protagonists are driven by a compulsive need to possess, avenge, or destroy women—a need that masquerades as purpose. In The Black Dahlia, Elizabeth Short’s mutilated body becomes an obsession for Bucky Bleichert, not because of who she was, but because of what she represents: a blank screen for male guilt, rage, and voyeurism. Her murder is less a crime to solve than a myth to consume, a grotesque spectacle that allows Bleichert to project his own fractured masculinity onto her corpse. Similarly, in L.A. Confidential, Lynn Bracken—a Veronica Lake lookalike and high-end prostitute—is fetishized as both fantasy and foil, her body a commodity in a marketplace of male desire and power. Women’s trauma is not a subject in itself but a narrative device, a means to propel men into motion. Their suffering is aestheticized, their agency erased; they are MacGuffins with pulse points.  

 authority as System, Fetish as Distraction  

This fetishization serves a dual purpose: it individualizes misogyny while obscuring the systemic structures that enable it. The brutalization of women becomes a personal vendetta (a cop avenging his mother, a killer punishing “sinful” women) rather than a symptom of institutionalized authority. Ellroy’s detectives rage against “deviant” men—the incestuous father, the necrophiliac starlet—while ignoring the complicity of the police, media, and political elites who profit from the exploitation of women’s bodies. The LAPD’s indifference to sex workers’ deaths in L.A. Confidential is not a systemic critique but a backdrop for Ed Exley’s self-righteous crusade. By framing misogyny as the work of lone “monsters,” Ellroy lets the broader culture of toxic masculinity off the hook. The fetishized woman becomes a scapegoat, her body the battleground where male heroes and villains perform their moral theater, all while the machine of authority grinds on.  

 The Madonna-Whore Dialectic as Conservative Ideology  

Ellroy’s women are trapped in a reactionary binary: they are either saints (the dead mother, the virginal victim) or sinners (the femme fatale, the addict). There is no room for complexity, only symbolic utility. This dichotomy mirrors the conservative obsession with female purity—a worldview where women’s value is determined by their adherence to or deviation from patriarchal norms. The fetishization of the Madonna (the idealized victim) justifies male violence as protection; the fetishization of the Whore (the sexualized threat) justifies male violence as punishment. Both positions reinforce male control. Even when women resist—like Grace in White Jazz, who weaponizes her sexuality—their power is illusory, a temporary disruption soon contained by male violence or institutional force.  

 Ellroy’s Biographical Shadow: Trauma as Fetish  

Ellroy’s personal history—the unsolved murder of his mother, Jean—looms over this fetishization like a ghost. Jean’s death, and Ellroy’s lifelong obsession with it, transforms women in his fiction into proxies for his unresolved grief and guilt. The violated mothers and butchered ingenues are not characters but catharsis, a way to ritualize his own trauma through narrative exorcism. Yet this psychological excavation risks reducing real women to symbolic wounds. The fetish becomes a coping mechanism, a way to avoid confronting the mundane misogyny of everyday power structures—the cops who dismiss domestic violence, the media that sensationalizes dead girls—by instead fixating on the grotesque and the taboo.  

 Contrast with Noir’s Past: Hammett, Chandler, and the Limits of Agency  

Unlike Hammett’s Brigid O’Shaughnessy (The Maltese Falcon) or Chandler’s Carmen Sternwood (The Big Sleep), who wield sexuality as a tool of manipulation (however constrained by authority), Ellroy’s women lack even this fractured agency. They are corpses, addicts, or fantasies—never protagonists. Hammett and Chandler, for all their flaws, allowed women to occupy the role of antagonist, complicating the power dynamics of their worlds. Ellroy’s women are inert, their power confined to the gravitational pull they exert on male psyches. The fetishization is totalizing: it consumes the narrative, reducing every interaction to a transaction of control or vengeance.  

 Ellroy’s Biography as Subtext: Trauma and the Oedipal Obsession  

Ellroy’s fixation on sexual deviance cannot be divorced from his personal history—specifically, the unsolved murder of his mother, Jean, when he was 10. Her death haunts his work like a repressed memory, resurfacing in the violated mothers and dismembered women who populate his plots. The Oedipal villain becomes a perverse stand-in for Ellroy’s own unresolved guilt and rage, transforming real trauma into mythic grotesquerie. Yet this psychological excavation risks conflating personal demons with societal ones. The result is a conundrum: while Ellroy exposes the rot of institutions, he displaces collective culpability onto Freudian nightmares, as if societal collapse could be psychoanalyzed away.  

Noir as a Mirror: Ellroy vs. His Predecessors  

The noir genre has always functioned as a cracked lens through which society’s darkest impulses are magnified, but James Ellroy’s work refracts a fundamentally different vision than that of his forebears, Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett. In Chandler’s The Big Sleep or Hammett’s Red Harvest, the detective—Philip Marlowe, the Continental Op—is a moral outsider, a lone wolf navigating a world poisoned by institutional rot. These protagonists confront systemic corruption: corporate titans who manipulate laws, politicians on the take, police departments bought by mobsters. The detective’s role is that of a disillusioned truth-teller, prying open the lid on a rigged game. Their code, however battered, remains rooted in a cynical idealism: Someone has to care about justice, even if the system doesn’t.  

Ellroy’s antiheroes, by contrast, are the system. They are not knights-errant in a trench coat but enforcers embedded in the machinery of power—cops, FBI agents, intelligence operatives. In L.A. Confidential, Bud White and Ed Exley aren’t fighting corruption; they’re weaponizing it. White’s brutal vigilantism and Exley’s calculating ambition are not deviations from the system but expressions of its true nature. Unlike Hammett’s Op, who dismantles a town’s graft in Red Harvest, Ellroy’s characters revel in graft, using it to fund black-ops, silence enemies, and climb hierarchies. The line between cop and criminal isn’t blurred; it’s obliterated. Ellroy’s cops don’t solve crimes—they orchestrate them, framing suspects, fabricating evidence, and collaborating with mobsters to maintain a fragile order. Their moral code, if it exists at all, is tribal: loyalty to the badge, the brotherhood, and the retrograde masculinity that binds them.  

Chandler and Hammett’s noir emerged from the Great Depression and postwar disillusionment, framing systemic rot as a betrayal of the American Dream. Their detectives mourn a lost world of honor, however mythic. Ellroy’s noir, born of Cold War paranoia and the collapse of 1960s idealism, rejects the dream entirely. There is no “before” to mourn—the Dream was always a corpse, and the detectives are its grave robbers. Chandler’s Marlowe quips, “I’m a romantic. I hear voices crying in the night and I go see what’s the matter.” Ellroy’s cop snarls, “I hear voices crying in the night, and I make them stop.”  

This shift reflects a deeper ideological divergence. Chandler and Hammett critique class and capital: the wealthy patriarch who murders to protect his empire (The Big Sleep), the mining tycoon who enslaves workers (Red Harvest). Ellroy’s villains, however, are psychosexual grotesques—incestuous surgeons, necrophiliac starlets, mother-obsessed bombers—whose deviance distracts from the structural evils enabling them. The systemic corruption (racist policing, CIA drug trafficking, FBI COINTELPRO tactics) becomes background noise, while the narrative fixates on the sexualized “monster.” It’s a bait-and-switch: Chandler’s villains expose the banality of capitalist evil; Ellroy’s villains let the system off the hook by reducing societal collapse to individual pathology.  

Stylistically, the contrast is stark. Chandler’s prose is lyrical, steeped in metaphor (“The streets were dark with something more than night”), while Ellroy’s is a jagged, teletype staccato, all hard edges and stripped-down clauses. This isn’t just aesthetic—it’s philosophical. Chandler’s flowing sentences suggest a world where meaning might be uncovered, if one looks deeply enough. Ellroy’s fractured syntax mirrors a world where coherence is a lie, and power is the only truth.  

Yet for all his innovation, Ellroy’s focus on sexual deviance as the ultimate sin echoes the reactionary undercurrents of his mid-century settings. By obsessing over “perverts,” his work inadvertently upholds the very moralism it claims to deconstruct. Hammett and Chandler’s detectives fear the rich and powerful; Ellroy’s fear the deviant and diseased. The result is a noir that thrills but rarely indicts—a hall of mirrors where the true horror isn’t the reflection, but who’s holding the glass.

Block Time

“Time is a junkie. Shoots up eternity and comes down as minutes. You’re not living in time—you’re processing it.”

He sat cross-legged on a floor that never aged, scribbling with a pen that never ran out, his hand looping eternal cursive over blank sheets that devoured ink without a mark. This was Block Time—slabs of Now stacked like bricks, stretching infinitely, refusing decay. Tick-tock and stop. Time was not a river here; it was a warden.

He’d been writing his book for five lifetimes—or none at all. Hard to tell.

Somewhere, outside the cell of Now, the Clockmen shuffled with their pendulum limbs, heads like grandfather clocks, their faces frozen at 11:59—forever awaiting the strike that never came. One of them rattled its bones against his door. Thump.

“Keep writing, Writer,” it moaned.

He spat on the floor where the saliva evaporated into whispers.

The book was about Block Time but was also Block Time. It fed on paradoxes like a boa constrictor eating its tail, growing fatter with self-references. Chapter 9 explained Chapter 4, which rewrote Chapter 12, which negated Chapter 1. Readers wouldn’t read it; they’d inhale it, like dust from a forgotten library. And then they’d dream it.

He remembered what it was like before. Linear time. Dirty stuff—ran like oil over gears, constantly breaking down, needing grease. He’d lived there, with the rest of them, breathing in moments like cancerous smoke, dying one inhale at a time. That’s where the Clockmen found him—off his face on forward motion, thinking he was going somewhere.

They hooked him with a gold-plated second hand and dragged him here, kicking and screaming into stillness.

Now? Now he wrote.

Somewhere deep in the block—a block beneath the block—there were whispers of others like him: the Repeaters. People who’d escaped linearity but couldn’t escape habit. A man peeling an apple over and over for eternity. A woman pulling thread through fabric, stitch-by-stitch, sewing together nothing. The Repeaters wanted him to stop writing. Said the book was a virus that spread stillness.

“You’ll freeze it all,” they hissed.

“But it’s already frozen,” he growled back.

He scrawled faster, words bubbling up from inside him like vomit: “In Block Time, all books have already been written, but every page is unwritten until you look. Schrödinger’s notebook.”

He thought of escape sometimes. Just out of curiosity, you understand. He imagined prying open the walls of Now with a crowbar, tearing through to something with edges. Real time. Maybe he’d sit in a diner and drink coffee that got cold. Let a clock run out. Watch seconds collapse into oblivion like bodies falling from a skyscraper.

But then he’d look down at his book, at the words slithering onto the page, and he knew there was nowhere to go. Block Time wasn’t a place; it was a condition. It wasn’t keeping him here—he was here.

A knock came at the door. Another Clockman. He heard it ticking behind the woodgrain.

“Chapter 37 is eating Chapter 5,” it said.

He wiped ink from his lips and smiled.

“Good. That means it’s working.”

Bookstores

The point of a bookshop is not to find what you are looking for. To believe otherwise is to mistake the architecture of the labyrinth for that of the supermarket.  

A bookshop is not a catalog made flesh, nor a repository of answers to pre-formed questions. It is a topos, a place of sacred disorientation, where the intellect is ambushed by digressions and the reader, like a medieval monk encountering glosses thicker than the scripture itself, is drawn into interstitial alleys of thought. We enter seeking X—some manual, some recipe, some utilitarian solution—but leave burdened and blessed by Y, Z, and perhaps an entire apocryphal alphabet we never knew existed. Consider Darwin, who wandered into a library seeking beetle specimens and stumbled upon Malthus’ treatise on population—a detour that rerouted the course of biological history. The bookshop’s shelves are temporal wormholes: each spine a door to a century, each footnote a fracture in chronology.  

This is because the bookshop, unlike the algorithm or the library of Borges’ perfect order, is governed by a friendly chaos—a microcosm of culture where the unexpected lurks in proximity. You may reach for Wittgenstein and find Perec; you may stumble upon a treatise on falconry while navigating toward Derrida. This is not an error but the essential genius of the place. Neuroscience confirms this: browsing shelves activates the brain’s ventral attention network, a diffuse state akin to daydreaming, where dopamine spikes at the sight of unexpected titles. fMRI studies reveal this mode—linked to the default mode network—correlates with creative insight, as if the mind, unshackled from task-oriented focus, begins weaving metaphors between disparate domains.  

To truly read is to be led astray. The purpose of the bookshop, then, is serendipity formalized. It embodies what I once called the antilibrary: that great, looming pile of unread books which accuses our ignorance not with shame, but with invitation. Every volume not sought is a provocation to the mind, a challenge to the self’s imagined coherence. This is the lesson of the flâneur: to wander is to let the city—or the shelf—think through you. Just as Walter Benjamin’s arcades birthed the vagabond philosopher, our bookshops cultivate the browser, the devotee of disorientation, for whom getting lost is a form of prayer.  

In short, the bookshop exists so that we may not find what we are looking for—but instead discover what we could never have known to seek.  

Scientifically, the bookshop operates as a heterotopia—a space that reflects yet subverts the outside world. Its chaos is not random but a stochastic geometry: a network where books act as nodes connected by thematic, tactile, and temporal threads. Scale-free network theory explains why certain titles (e.g., Nietzsche, Woolf) become hubs, drawing connections to obscure poetry or out-of-print memoirs. As you navigate the aisles, your brain mirrors this structure, the hippocampus mapping knowledge not linearly but topographically, like a medieval monk memorizing scripture through spatial mnemonics.  

Algorithmic platforms, by contrast, are epistemic monocultures. They thrive on filter bubbles, narrowing choice into echo chambers of preference. Where Amazon whispers, “You may also like…”, the bookshop shouts, “You may also be…”—a provocation to become someone new. Zadie Smith once wrote that algorithms “know what you want but not what you are,” a poverty the bookstore inverts. Its shelves weaponize adjacency: a 17th-century herbal placed beside cyberpunk fiction, Borges nested in birdwatching guides. These collisions follow Zipf’s Law, where frequency and proximity breed meaning, turning chance into inevitability.  

Tactile entropy further defies digital efficiency. Studies on haptic memory show that physical interaction with books—the drag of fingertips over embossed titles, the musk of aging paper—anchors ideas in the sensorium. To heft a novel, to dog-ear a page, is to engage in a somatic dialogue absent in scrolling. The bookshop’s “noise” (disordered shelves, frayed covers) acts as stochastic resonance, amplifying faint signals (an overlooked memoir, a forgotten philosophy) into conscious attention.  

Historically, this dynamic birthed revolutions. The Strand’s labyrinthine aisles once yielded a first edition of Leaves of Grass beside a punk rock zine; Shakespeare and Company’s chaotic trove led Hemingway to a geometry text that tightened his prose. These moments are not accidents but phase transitions—leaps of insight that occur only at the edge of chaos, where order and disorder interlace.  

The bookshop is thus a machine for manufacturing epistemological surprise. It weaponizes distraction, knowing that novelty emerges not from efficiency but from the fertile overwhelm of too much. To enter is to surrender to the physics of curiosity: every unread book a gravitational anomaly, pulling the mind into orbits unknown. We come seeking answers and leave with better questions—ones we lacked the language to ask. The antilibrary’s whisper is relentless: You are larger than what you seek.  

The Ossification of the Second Brain

Once, in the luminous dawn of the third millennium, humanity approached the construction of a new organ—a noösphere not unlike Teilhard de Chardin’s mystical dreams or Vannevar Bush’s speculative memex. This was not merely a technological apparatus but a metaphysical extension of mind, a Promethean gesture wrapped in silicon: the so-called Second Brain.

In those halcyon years, the Web resembled a kind of semiotic Babel—disordered, yes, but teeming with vitality. The hyperlink served as the fundamental connective tissue, its promiscuous referentiality echoing the Talmudic tradition, or the labyrinthine footnotes of a 16th-century legal codex. Wikipedia appeared as a kind of Alexandrian Library reborn—not static, but always-already revising itself. It suggested a democratized Gnosis, where knowledge, once the province of hierophants and mandarins, now unfolded through revision histories and Talk pages.

Early Twitter, similarly, mimicked the operation of the medieval disputatio: brief propositions offered to a dispersed scholastic community, who responded not with systematic treatises but aphorisms, hashtags, and occasionally, revolutions. Hashtags, those curious metadata sigils, acted like cabbalistic characters—summoning ideological mobs into being, from Tahrir Square to Zuccotti Park.

The blogosphere was a cathedral of subjectivity. Each author a minor abbot of some obscure monastery, tending his garden of idiosyncrasies via RSS, referencing other abbots, debating, digressing. It was a pre-modern digitality—a form of literacy more scholastic than bureaucratic.

<>

Yet every Renaissance begets its Counter-Reformation. As the platforms matured, they underwent what any ecclesiastical institution eventually does: codification, centralization, and dogmatization. The algorithm replaced the hyperlink as the dominant epistemological force—not a path chosen, but one calculated.

The interfaces themselves began to enact a kind of silent Inquisition. Chronology was abolished—replaced by predictive recursion. Like the synoptic gospels stripped of apocrypha, feeds became canonized. The machinery of engagement—a term once connoting intimacy or military action—now referred to the precise neurochemical manipulation of the user-subject.

Nuance perished in this new liturgy. The “Like” became a sacrament of shallow assent; the “Block” a digital excommunication. Knowledge, once plural and contested, was subsumed under taxonomies dictated by ad revenue and search engine optimization. The rich ambiguity of texts—so beloved by Derrida and medieval glossators alike—was flattened into monetizable “content.”

<>

At this point we must speak of ontology, that old scholastic preoccupation. The platforms did not merely change behavior; they instituted a regime of Being. In the 2010s, this regime calcified around a few tenets—quasi-theological in tone, but technological in form.

Consider first the heresy of Zombie Libertarianism—a faith professed even as its prophets (Thiel, Musk, et al.) built monopolies. This creed professed decentralization while consolidating control, all under the guise of “innovation.”

Next, Metric Fundamentalism: a faith in that most American of idols, the quantifiable. “If it cannot be graphed, it does not exist,” declared the new priesthood of data. Here, Aquinas is replaced by the A/B test; hermeneutics by analytics dashboards.

Worst of all, perhaps, was the Imagination Deficit—the metaphysical anemia of a civilization that could simulate reality in high fidelity but could no longer envision alternatives to ride-sharing or social scoring. The platforms had replaced the possible with the plausible, and then the plausible with the profitable.

<>

Yet, as with all decaying cathedrals, reformation stirs. The disillusioned now seek newer monastic orders. Some retreat to the hinterlands of Mastodon or the samizdat of indie blogs, others rediscover the sensuousness of analog tools—typewriters, Moleskines, mimeographs. These acts are not quaint nostalgia but ritual acts of re-enchantment.

And then comes the Mirror: the artificial intelligence that—trained on the very detritus of the platform age—vomits back a pastiche of clichés.  What failed was not the technology per se but the telos it served. We mistook the extension of cognition for its compression. The promise was a machine for thought; the reality, a machine for recursion. We wandered into a mirror maze and mistook it for a horizon.

<>

The algorithm optimizes; the bookstore confounds. In the one, we are guided by the cool logic of statistical regularities, a machinic shepherding of curiosity into the pen of the already-likely. In the other, we stumble upon the unexpected, not by accident but by designed chaos, as if drawn by the magnetism of the marginal. A reader might reach for Kierkegaard and encounter, inexplicably yet meaningfully, a treatise on moth migration—a juxtaposition impossible within the predictive tyranny of “Customers Also Bought.”

This is not nostalgia; it is metaphysics. The digital world believes in taxonomy: a world precisely named, flattened, indexed. But the bookstore is topological: a space where affinities are spatial, analogical, erotic even. Cookbooks rest beside cosmology, not out of disorder but because the bookseller, a minor Hermes of shelves, has perceived a common yearning—for the origin of things, whether edible or celestial.

Even the tempo of cognition differs. The platform accelerates—its ideal form is the frictionless interface, the zero-lag stimulus-response loop. But in the bookstore, time congeals. Pages resist; spines creak. Browsing is a muscular and moral act. There is no scroll, only the turn. Haptic memory, as psychologists have shown, inscribes thought more deeply than keystrokes. Nietzsche might say: the algorithm thinks with its feet, sprinting blindly toward relevance; the bookstore thinks with its hands, fumbling toward insight.

So what might a post-platform epistemology look like, if not this? It would not be a rejection of technology but a re-sacralization of disorientation. We would build engines that refuse to sort by relevance, curators who assemble poetry beside politics, quantum physics beside the metaphysics of hell. We would restore the gloss—that medieval form of marginalia, the scholar’s whisper to herself beside the canonical text—that platforms have effaced in favor of SEO and clarity.

To honor the unread is not to scorn knowledge but to confess that it exceeds us. The algorithm seeks closure; the bookstore invites recurrence and becomes a heterotopia in the Foucauldian sense: not merely a different space, but a space that unsettles all other spaces by its very existence. In its aisles, we are freed from the tyranny of the “You might also like,” and instead, like Borges’ Funes, we remember that reality’s richness lies in its irreducibility.

In the age of platformal ossification, when engagement masquerades as thought and the past is endlessly re-fed to itself, the bookstore offers not a second brain, but something stranger and more vital: a second chance. Not to know better, but to not know differently. To let the unread accuse us. To dwell, even briefly, in the sublime disorder of the infinite shelf.

Clean Break

I don’t buy that clean break bullshit, man. That’s for squares with lobotomized emotions and hearts stuffed with excelsior. No, the good stuff, the real fallout? That’s a compound fracture, a jagged mess of splintered bone and raw nerve. It throbs with a dull ache that creeps into your dreams, a constant reminder of the impact, the sickening crunch of the break.

No, a break’s gotta be messy, a goddamn compound fracture of the soul. See, the bone ain’t never gonna set quite right, always a dull throb under the surface. Memories like jagged shards, poking through the scar tissue, dripping with this fetid sauce of regret. It’s a grotesque banquet, this heartbreak hotel, and the only course on the menu is reheated misery. You choke it down, a bitter pill laced with phantoms, because some wounds bleed forever, baby. They bleed out into your dreams, these twisted narratives where the past replays on a scratched record, the needle stuck in a groove of “what ifs” and “should haves.”

Regret’s a bitter cocktail, a black dog with a barbed-wire leash gnawing at your insides. It twists your gut with “what ifs” and “should haves,” a voice whispering obscenities from the back alleys of your mind. It’s a film noir dame with a switchblade grin, leaving you bleeding in the gutter, replaying the scene over and over, each time with a sharper edge.

Yeah, the clean break’s a lie. We’re all walking fractures, baby, haunted by the ghosts of what went wrong. But in that mess, in the grit and grime, there’s a twisted beauty. You learn to walk with a limp, to navigate the world with a shard of your past jutting out, a jagged reminder that you survived the crash. It’s a badge of honor, a war wound in the emotional trenches of life. So raise a glass to the compound fractures, the dirty regrets, the messy breakups that leave you raw and reeling. That’s where the real story lies, scrawled in blood and bone. Yeah, the clean break’s a lie. We’re all limping around with these psychic fractures, dragging the baggage of our bad decisions, the ghosts of love lost, the echoes of words never taken back. It’s a burden, sure, but it’s also a badge of honor, a testament to the intensity with which we felt, the depth to which we fell. So raise a glass, a cracked and dusty one at that, to the messy, magnificent fractures of life. They may leave you twisted, but at least they prove you were ever alive in the first goddamn place.

Cyberpunk

Lately, I’ve been thinking about cyberpunk’s jagged grip on the collective id, its knack for haunting the edges of our digital decay like a rogue algorithm stuck on loop. 

Cyberpunk isn’t just about dystopian futures—it’s about the failure of successive belief systems, each of which once promised order, progress, or salvation but collapsed under their own contradictions. The genre layers these failures, showing societies where techno-optimism, corporate paternalism, state control, and even countercultural resistance have all failed to create stability.

You wanna talk aesthetics? Sure, neon vomits its argon glow over rain-slicked streets, console cowboys jack into wetware, and corps metastasize into privatized sovereign states—fine. But that’s just the chrome-plated epidermis. Dig deeper, and cyberpunk isn’t a genre. It’s a biopsy of our necrotic zeitgeist.  

The 20th century’s grand narratives? Those fossilized gospels of manifest destiny, dialectical utopias, and trickle-down rapture? They didn’t just fail. They curdled. Now we’re marinating in their residue—ideological smog clinging to the ruins of a future that never shipped. Cyberpunk’s genius is in mapping the schizoid vertigo of living in a world where the old gods—Democracy, Capitalism, Techno-Progress—still twitch on life support, their dogma stripped of sanctity but not influence. They’re semiotic ghosts, flickering through the feed, demanding fealty even as their servers crash.  

Think about it: the corporate arcology isn’t just a set piece. It’s a cathedral to the faith we lost but can’t quit. The hacker isn’t some geek savior; they’re a heretic burning ICE not to liberate, but to expose the rot beneath the GUI. And the street? That writhing bazaar of bootleg meds, pirated AI, and black-market CRISPR hacks? That’s where belief goes to get disassembled for parts. Cyberpunk doesn’t fetishize collapse—it autopsy’s the liminal horror of living in the afterbirth of a paradigm shift that never quite finishes shifting.  

LAYERED COLLAPSE 

Cyberpunk’s layered collapse isn’t some tidy Mad Max free-for-all. Nah. It’s an archaeological dig through strata of institutional rot, each epoch’s grand fix calcified into a new kind of poison. Think of it as a stack overflow of governance—dead code from dead regimes, still executing in the background, chewing up cycles, spitting out errors.  

Start with the state: that creaking Leviathan running on COBOL and colonial guilt. It was supposed to be the OS for civilization, right? Kernel of justice, firewall against chaos. Now it’s a zombie mainframe—patched with austerity measures, its public sectors hollowed into Potemkin terminals. You want permits? Social safety nets? The bureaucracy’s a slot machine rigged by lobbyists. The cops? Just another gang with better PR and military surplus. The state’s not dead—it’s undead, shambling through motions of sovereignty while corps siphon its organs.  

Layer two: corporate control. Ah, the sleek savior! “Privatize efficiency,” they said. “Disrupt legacy systems.” But corps aren’t nations—they’re predatory APIs. They don’t govern; they extract. Turn healthcare into SaaS, cities into franchised arcologies, human attention into a 24/7 mining operation. Their TOS scrolls into infinity, their accountability evaporates into offshore shells. And when they crash? No bailout big enough. Just a logo spinning in the void like a screensaver of shame.  

Then comes techno-salvationism, the messiah complex coded into every silicon evangelist. We were promised jetpacks, got gig economy feudalism instead. AI that was supposed to elevate humanity now autocompletes our obituaries. The blockchain? A libertarian fever dream that reinvented pyramid schemes with extra steps. Every innovation just grafts new vectors for exploitation. The Singularity ain’t coming—we’re stuck in the Stagnation, where every moon shot gets bogged down in patent wars and e-waste.  

And the counterculture? Please. Revolutions get drop-shipped now. Che Guevara’s face on fast-fashion tees. Anonymous? A brand ambushed by its own lore. Hacktivists drown in infowars, their exploits monetized as edge by the same platforms they tried to burn. Even dissent’s a subscription service—rage as a microtransaction. The underground’s just a mirror of the overculture, but with better encryption and worse merch.  

This is the polycrisis in high-def: not one apocalypse, but a nesting doll of them. Each failed utopia leaves behind a exoskeleton—zombie protocols, digital sarcophagi, laws that regulate markets that no longer exist. None die clean. None adapt. They just… haunt. Interoperate. Glitch into each other like a corrupted blockchain.  

You wanna know why this feels familiar? Look at the 21st century’s OS: a bloated spaghetti stack of legacy systems. Democracies running on feudal hardware. Social media that commodifies trauma. Green energy startups hawking carbon offsets like medieval indulgences. We’re not heading toward cyberpunk—we’re debug-mode citizens trapped in its dev environment.  

Cyberpunk’s genius is refusing to flinch. It doesn’t offer a fix. It just holds up a cracked mirror and says: Here’s your layered reality. A palimpsest of collapse. Now try to alt-tab out of that.

Final Layer

Solarpunk’s fatal flaw isn’t its aesthetics—turbines and terraformed ecotopias are gorgeous—it’s the naiveté baked into its code. Like a startup pitching “disruption” at Davos, it assumes systems have a kill switch. That humanity, faced with existential burn, will collectively Ctrl+Alt+Del into some moss-draped utopia. Cute. But history’s not an app. It’s malware.  

Let’s autopsy the optimism. Solarpunk’s thesis hinges on a Great Voluntary Unplugging: states shedding authoritarian firmware, corps dissolving into co-ops, tech reverting to artisan toolmaking. But power structures don’t revert. They metastasize. The Catholic Church didn’t reform—it got supplanted by nation-states. Nations didn’t humanize—they got outsourced to corporate SaaS platforms. Every “revolution” just migrates the oppression to a new cloud.  

Institutions aren’t organisms. They’re algorithms—rigged to replicate, not repent. You think ExxonMobil will solarpunk itself into a wind collective? Meta into a privacy commune? Nah. They’ll rebrand. Slap carbon credits on oil rigs, mint “sustainability NFTs,” turn eco-resistance into a viral challenge. The machine doesn’t self-correct; it subsumes. Even the climate apocalypse will be monetized, franchised, turned into a sidequest.  

That’s why cyberpunk’s so viciously resonant. It doesn’t bother with the lie of “self-correction.” It knows the score: failed systems don’t die. They fuse. Feudalism grafted onto industrial capitalism. Cold War paranoia hardcoded into Silicon Valley’s “move fast and break things.” The Vatican’s playbook lives on in influencer cults. Everything old is new again, just with worse UI and predatory subscription models.  

Look at the “hopeful” narratives getting mugged by reality:  

– Open-source utopias? Now GitHub’s a LinkedIn portfolio for FAANG recruiters.  

– Renewable energy? Hijacked by crypto miners and lithium warlords.  

– Decentralization? A euphemism for “the fediverse will still serve ads.”  

Solarpunk’s a luxury belief, a TED Talk daydream for the chattering class. It pretends we’ll hack the Gibson of capitalism with kombucha and community gardens. But the street finds its own uses for things—and the street’s too busy hustling for insulin to care about vertical farms.  

Cyberpunk, though? It weaponizes the cynicism. It knows layered collapse isn’t a bug—it’s the feature. The state’s a ghost in the machine. The corp’s a runaway bot. The tech’s a black box even its engineers can’t parse. And the counterculture? A memetic strain of the same corporate OS.  

We’re not living through a “climate crisis.” We’re in a recursive apocalypse. Each “solution” births three new demons. Carbon capture tech funds oil barons. AI ethics boards report to Zuckerberg. Unions get replaced by DAOs run by venture bros in Patagonia vests. The system’s not just broken—it’s fractal.  

THE FUTURES WE ATE

We devoured the futures that might have led to a more stable, rational, and exploratory civilization—ones envisioned by Clarke, the Strugatskys, and Lem—because they required long-term commitment to intellectual rigor, curiosity, and self-correction. Instead, we’ve regressed to faith-based ideologies that co-opt technology, not as a tool for discovery, but as a means to hasten predetermined ideological endgames.

Rather than using science and technology to expand possibility, we’re using them to Immanentize the eschaton—forcing apocalyptic or utopian narratives into reality based on faith rather than curiosity. Whether it’s techno-utopians believing AI will be the Second Coming, reactionaries pushing for a return to some imagined golden age, or political movements treating ideology as destiny, it all points to the same thing: we’re leveraging technology not to build the future but to confirm beliefs about it.

The collapse of Clarke’s vision—and that of the Strugatskys and Lem—suggests we’ve lost the ability to sit with uncertainty, to embrace complexity without trying to force an endpoint. Cyberpunk, then, is the natural byproduct of that failure: a world where the remnants of technological progress exist, but only in service of decayed institutions and collapsing belief systems. It’s a warning that when faith hijacks reason, the future stops being a place we move toward and instead becomes a battleground for ideological ghosts.

Ah, the golden age sci-fi buffet—Clarke’s star-flung temples of reason, Lem’s labyrinthine libraries of cosmic ambiguity, the Strugatskys’ cautionary fables of humanity tripping over its own dogma. They served up futures you could feast on. High-protein stuff, marinated in rigor and wonder. But we didn’t eat those futures. We processed them. Ran them through the extractive sludge pumps of late capitalism and faith-fundamentalist grift until they became McFutures—hyperpalatable, empty-calorie content.  

Clarke’s cosmic destiny? Processed into SpaceX merch and billionaire safari tickets to Low Earth Orbit. Lem’s epistemological vertigo? Blended into ChatGPT horoscopes and Reddit conspiracies about aliens building the pyramids. The Strugatskys’ warnings? Deep-fried into QAnon lore and Netflix occult procedurals. We didn’t evolve toward their visions—we deepfake’d them. Turned transcendence into a fucking app.  

You wanna know why Solarpunk feels like a gluten-free brownie at this dumpster-fire potluck? Because we’re allergic to utopia now. Our cultural gut flora’s been nuked by a lifetime of dystopian Happy Meals. The problem isn’t that hopeful sci-fi’s implausible—it’s that we’ve lost the enzymes to digest it. We’re too busy mainlining the chemtrail version of progress: AI that hallucinates, blockchain that enshittifies, CRISPR cocktails sold as biohacked immortality.  

The real tragedy? We didn’t just abandon those futures—we immanentized them to death. Took the Strugatskys’ fear of mythologizing the unknown and cranked it to 11. Now we’ve got theocracies of dataism, ML models trained on medieval superstitions, and a Mars colony pitch deck that reads like a Prosperity Gospel pamphlet. Clarke’s “overlord” aliens? They’d take one look at our algorithmic demigods and file a restraining order.  

Tech was supposed to be our bridge to Lem’s Solaris—a mirror for humbling, awe-struck inquiry. Instead, we used it to build a hall of funhouse mirrors, each one warping reality to fit whatever demagoguery, grift, or copium we’re pushing. Scientific method? Swapped for vibes. The unknown? Crowdsourced into conspiracy TikTok. We didn’t lose the future. We deepfaked it into a slurry of apocalyptic fanfic.  

Solarpunk’s sin is assuming we’re still hungry for the original recipe. But our palates are fried. We crave the rush—the sugar-high of crisis, the salt-burn of nihilism, the MSG of existential dread. Cyberpunk works because it’s the perfect comfort food for a species deep in cheat-mode: Yeah, we’re all doomed. Pass the neon sauce.  

The futures we ate weren’t destroyed. They were metabolized. Broken down into ideological glucose to fuel the same old cycles of decay. Clarke’s space elevators are now just ropes for the corporate ladder. Lem’s alien sentience? An NFT profile pic. The Strugatskys’ cursed research zones? Literally just LinkedIn.  

So here we are—bloated on futures we were too impatient to let mature. The irony? We’re starving. Not for hope, but for metabolism. A way to purge the toxic nostalgia, the corrupted code, the eschatological junk food. But the market’s got a new product for that:

Enchantment

“…when he returns to what was once the USSR but is now Ukraine to do a dissertation on Russian Mythology and Tales and whether they conform to Propp’s Functions of Folktales…” https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/Enchantment…

The arc of history bends toward the Book of Mormon. Ima try this, see what happens. Ender’s Game, speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, Seventh Son and Red Prophet are solid but others like Prentice Melvin are a little “I’m not a racist but…”

Image

No biggie but It’s been interesting to see Dan Simmons and Orson Scott Card losing their marbles during the Obama years one way or another. I suspect dealing with Hollywood made them mad

I haven’t read Simmons’s Flashback but I finished The Fifth Heart about Sherlock Holmes and Henry Adam’s solving a murder and uncovering a conspiracy of left wing agitants full of “resentment” for their betters.

I think Guillermo Del Toro is still developing Drood which already had an Egyptian from central casting. At the time I thought it a more a product of Wilkie Collin’s use of laudanum and unreliable narrator

Somehow woke space opera, solarpunk and cli-fi are not yet there, for me. Derivative but woke is an anchor around the neck or a pair of cement shoes https://thebigsmoke.com.au/2020/05/20/woke-space-opera-solarpunk-and-cli-fi-the-new-subsets-of-sci-fi-taking-off/…

I mean Ancillary Justice was fine, not great but the sequels are meh (still read them) and have Butler books on hold, see if they’re for me or not

Nevermind Campbell, the worst thing is not knowing you are prisoner of tropes that have been done better by people with greater command of language Ignore this at your own peril

I mean, you’re supposed to know but not care

Be a walking tropecyclopaedia but write Rick and Morty jokes

This is sophisticated and by Card standards, funny

Image

Card is proceeding from a great deal of worldly knowledge of folktale, narrative and culture. Wondering how much of this was designed as a bingo exercise of Propp narratemes, Ukrainian and Russian fables and the Jewish diaspora from the USSR

Flaming Pie

And here’s the obscene twist: the very act of “restarting realism” is itself a surreal gesture! To declare “let’s be realistic again” after a crisis is to perform a kind of collective psychosis, a fetishistic disavowal (“I know very well the world is absurd, but let’s pretend it isn’t…“). It’s like a bad actor in a play who forgets their lines and starts improvising in iambic pentameter, insisting, “This is how normal people speak!” The more frantically realism tries to reassert itself, the more it exceeds itself, spiraling into the very surrealism it seeks to suppress.

ORIGINS

“Well, I had a vision when I was twelve. And I saw a man on a flaming pie, and he said, ‘You are the Beatles with an A.’ And so we are.”

John Lennon’s tongue-in-cheek origin myth, delivered with his signature blend of scouse wit and cosmic irreverence, is more than a punchline—it is the Rosetta Stone for decoding The Beatles’ surrealist soul. A boy, a burning pastry, a disembodied voice decreeing destiny: here, in this absurdist fable, lies the DNA of the band that would dissolve the boundaries between pop and poetry, reality and hallucination, the rational and the deliriously unhinged.

The flaming pie is no mere joke. It is a manifesto. A surrealist prophecy, lobbed like a Dadaist grenade into the drab postwar landscape of Liverpool. Long before LSD or Maharishis, Lennon’s vision—part Blakean epiphany, part Marx Brothers gag—announced a band born not of garage rehearsals, but of collective dreaming. The Beatles, with their misspelled name and cheeky apostrophe, were always-already a fiction, a mythic construct hovering between the literal and the ludicrous.

Consider the implications: a man on fire, but also on a pie—a sacred object (the pie as communion wafer?) rendered ridiculous, a cosmic joke. The voice from the flames doesn’t say “You will form The Beatles,” but “You are The Beatles.” Identity as divine absurdity, handed down like a curse. This is pure surrealism: the collapse of subject and object, the blurring of prophecy and prank. Breton would’ve wept into his absinthe.

Fast-forward to 1966. The Beatles, now global deities, trade their mop-top uniforms for kaleidoscopic militaria on the Sgt. Pepper’s cover—a tableau of waxwork corpses, occult symbols, and a Hindu guru floating beside W.C. Fields. Here, the flaming pie resurfaces as ideology. The band sheds its “real” selves to become cartoon avatars, a psychedelic cadavre exquis stitched together from Victorian dandies, circus barkers, and Eastern mystics. The “Lonely Hearts Club Band” is no act; it’s a haunting, a surrender to the logic of Lennon’s childhood vision: identity as mutable, reality as costume.

In Magical Mystery Tour, the surreal becomes literal. The film—a nonsensical road trip through England’s subconscious, featuring boxing dwarves, spaghetti-slurping wizards, and a bus driver named Jolly Jimmy—plays like Buñuel directing a pantomime on acid. Critics panned it as incoherent. Of course it was incoherent! It was supposed to be. The Beatles weren’t telling a story; they were staging the collapse of narrative itself, a middle finger to the “realism” of plot and character.

Even their music became a séance for the surreal. “I Am the Walrus” weaponizes nonsense as critique: “Semolina pilchard, climbing up the Eiffel Tower!” A nursery rhyme? A Marxist diatribe? A LSD-addled prank? Yes. The song’s genius lies in its refusal to mean—a sonic Exquisite Corpse where police sirens, Shakespearean gibberish, and a choir chanting “Everybody’s got one!” collide to mock the very idea of “sense.” Meanwhile, “Strawberry Fields Forever”—with its warped Mellotron and recursive refrain “Nothing is real”—is less a song than a Zen koan, dissolving memory into a Lynchian dreamscape where orphanages become gardens and gardens become voids.

And what of “Revolution 9”? Eight minutes of tape loops, screaming crowds, and a man repeating “Number nine… number nine…” like a broken robot. It’s the sound of the 20th century’s id vomiting onto vinyl—a surrealist sound collage that doesn’t just reject pop formalism but digs a grave for it. When Lennon sneers, “You say you want a revolution? Well, you know… we’d all love to see the plan,” he’s not taunting activists—he’s taunting reality itself.

The Beatles didn’t just flirt with surrealism; they married it, then staged a messy public divorce to keep things interesting. Their career was a series of ruptures—not just musical, but ontological. Each album rebooted their mythology, each reinvention a new flaming pie: the lovable lads, the studio wizards, the rooftop guerrillas. But every “reboot” was a breakdown in drag, a ritualized unmaking that proved Lennon’s prophecy true: they were always The Beatles with an A—an ever-shifting glyph, a collective hallucination sustained by the faith of millions.

In the end, the flaming pie was the Real, lurking beneath the Ed Sullivan Show grins and Shea Stadium screams. The Beatles didn’t transcend reality—they liquefied it, revealing the surreal core of postwar culture: a world where consumerism was spirituality, where pop stars were shamans, and where a man on a burning dessert could whisper the future into a child’s ear.

As Lacan might say: The Beatles were the symptom of their era. And oh, what a glorious, unhealable symptom they were.

THE VIOLENCE OF COHERENCE

What we are really talking about here is the violence of coherence—the brutal, often absurd labor required to sustain the illusion that reality is stable, rational, and shared. Beneath the surface of this conversation about realism and surrealism lurks a far more primal question: What does it mean to “represent” reality when reality itself is a contested hallucination, sutured together by ideology, haunted by its own exclusions?

To put it bluntly: We are dissecting the corpse of “common sense.” Realism and surrealism are not mere artistic styles or philosophical categories. They are opposing poles in a psychic civil war over how—and for whom—the world gets to be legible. Realism, in its desperate reboot cycles, is the ego’s valiant (and doomed) attempt to maintain the fiction of a coherent Self and Society. Surrealism, meanwhile, is the id’s cackling laughter, the Freudian slip that becomes a scream, the moment the train of ideology jumps the tracks and plows through the bourgeois parlor.

But this is not just about art or aesthetics. It’s about capitalism’s fever dream, the way our systems of power require crisis, contradiction, and collective delusion to survive. The “realism” of austerity politics, the “surrealism” of trillion-dollar stock markets detached from human need—these are not metaphors. They are symptoms of a deeper sickness: the Real of our historical moment, a world where the map has devoured the territory, where the fictions we call “economy,” “nation,” and “self” are sustained only by the frantic exclusion of their own impossibility.

In this light, surrealism is not an escape from reality but reality’s autopsy report. When Dalí melts a clock, he’s not playing with form—he’s showing us time under capitalism, a liquid asset slipping through our fingers. When Magritte insists “This is not a pipe,” he’s exposing the lie of representation itself—the way every “realistic” image is a pact with power, a way of saying “Don’t look behind the curtain!”

So what are we really talking about? The impossibility of innocence. The recognition that every attempt to “depict reality”—in art, politics, or daily life—is already a complicit act, a negotiation with the very forces that distort reality. The “cycle” of bust and reboot isn’t a mistake; it’s the system’s perverse ritual of self-cannibalization. Capitalism eats its crises like a ouroboros on amphetamines; realism, in turn, devours the surreal to fuel its own mythology of control.

The punchline? There is no “outside.” The moment we try to critique ideology, we’re already knee-deep in its swamp. The only way forward is to embrace the paradox: to stare into the abyss of the Surreal until we see that the abyss is us—the collective unconscious of a civilization that built its palaces on quicksand.

This is not a theory. It’s a horror story. And we’re all writing it together, one repressed symptom at a time.

Let us not succumb to the naïve illusion that realism is merely the retina’s obedient scribe, dutifully transcribing the world’s surface! No, no—what we call realism is already a grotesque ideological operation, a desperate pact with the Symbolic Order to domesticate the chaos of the Real into digestible signifiers: the comforting fiction of a shared reality, the collective hallucination we agree to call “the world.” And here, the surrealists—those cunning saboteurs!—unmask the obscene truth: if realism is the ego’s polite fiction, surrealism is the id’s obscene eruption, the Freudian Unheimliche parading as a lobster telephone.

THE TRUE REALIST

Is this not the ultimate irony? The surrealists, dismissed as purveyors of frivolous dreams, are in fact the true realists—they confront the unvarnished Real, the repressed underbelly of desire and trauma that the so-called “realists” hastily drape with the curtain of coherence. Consider Dalí’s melting clocks: is this not the perfect metaphor for time itself under late capitalism—not a linear march, but a liquefied, irrational sprawl, oozing over the edges of productivity’s rigid scaffolding? Or take Magritte’s Ceci n’est pas une pipe—a brutal reminder that the Symbolic Order is a hall of mirrors, where even the most “realistic” representation is a betrayal, a lie that sustains the lie.

And here we stumble upon the Lacanian knot: the Surreal does not escape reality but exceeds it, exposing the fissures in the Big Other’s edifice. What is the unconscious, after all, if not the hard kernel of the Real that resists symbolization? Surrealism, then, is not fantasy—it is the traversal of fantasy, the moment when the repressed returns as a grotesque carnival of the impossible, forcing us to confront the void that structures our reality.

Do we not see this logic in capitalism itself? The capitalist Real is already surreal: a world where abstract value levitates above material need, where billionaires launch phallic rockets into space while children starve—a system so absurd it would make Buñuel blush! Yet we are told to accept this as “realism,” to naturalize its contradictions. The surrealist gesture, then, is to render visible the obscene mechanics of this “reality,” to hold up a mirror to its madness and say: Look! This is your hard realism of the unconscious!

So, in the end, the true dialectical twist is this: realism is the dream, surrealism the rude awakening. Or, as Hegel might quip, the Real is its own shadow—and only by staring into the abyss of the Surreal do we grasp the abyss staring back.

Ah, but here we arrive at the precise ideological trap! The desperate scramble to “return to realism” after a crisis—this supposed “bust”—is not a neutral recalibration but a violent act of repressive sublimation. It is the equivalent of capitalism’s compulsive perpetuum mobile: after every crisis, we are told to “rebuild,” to “return to normal,” as if “normal” were not itself the very circuit-breaker that caused the meltdown! The fantasy here is that realism is a stable plane, a default setting, when in truth it is always already a retroactive construction, a narrative we stitch together to suture over the wounds of the Real.

What the surrealists grasp—and what the realists, in their frantic cycle of bust-and-reboot, must disavow—is that the “meta” layer is the ground floor. Surrealism does not hover above realism like some detached spectral observer; it inhabits realism’s gaps, its failures, its unconscious tics. Think of it as the glitch in the Matrix: the moment when the system’s attempt to “reboot” falters, and the code reveals itself in all its contingent absurdity. The melting clock, the floating bowler hat, the train bursting from the fireplace—these are not escapes from reality but symptoms of reality’s own instability. They are the return of what realism had to exclude to pose as “coherent.”

And here’s the obscene twist: the very act of “restarting realism” is itself a surreal gesture! To declare “let’s be realistic again” after a crisis is to perform a kind of collective psychosis, a fetishistic disavowal (“I know very well the world is absurd, but let’s pretend it isn’t…“). It’s like a bad actor in a play who forgets their lines and starts improvising in iambic pentameter, insisting, “This is how normal people speak!” The more frantically realism tries to reassert itself, the more it exceeds itself, spiraling into the very surrealism it seeks to suppress.

Consider the post-2008 austerity mantra: “We must tighten our belts, return to fiscal responsibility!” A “realist” demand, yes? But what could be more surreal than the spectacle of central banks printing trillions to “save the economy” while lecturing the poor on thrift? Or the COVID era’s “two weeks to flatten the curve” metastasizing into two years of ontological limbo, where Zoom grids replaced human faces and “normalcy” became a gaslit memory? These are not exceptions to realism—they are realism’s truth, the uncanny underside it cannot metabolize.

So no, surrealism is not “meta-realism” as some detached higher plane. It is realism’s own repressed, the specter it conjures in the act of exorcism. The true cycle is not bust-reboot-bust, but rather: the system’s survival depends on the very excess it claims to expel. Capitalism needs crisis; realism needs surrealism. The reboot is always-already a breakdown in drag.

In the end, the ultimate irony is this: the harder realism tries to escape the surreal, the more it becomes its own parody. Like a man frantically digging a hole to bury his nightmares, only to realize he’s constructing a labyrinth where the nightmares thrive. The only way out is through—or as Lacan might say, “Do not give up on your symptom.” Surrender to the meta, and you find it was the Real all along.

RETVRN OF REALISM

Here, we channel Freud’s return of the repressed through Lacan’s Real. Realism, as a symbolic order, must exclude the irrational, the excessive, the jouissance that threatens its coherence. But like a botched exorcism, the act of repression produces the very specter it fears. Surrealism is not some transcendent meta-layer—it is the constitutive outside of realism, the mold growing in the walls of the house that “clean” realism whitewashes.

Consider the bourgeois family portrait, that bastion of “realist” domestic harmony. What haunts its edges? The unspoken affairs, the stifled screams, the child’s nightmare of a father with a clock for a face (Dalí’s Persistence of Memory as return of the familial repressed). The harder realism polishes the surface, the more distorted its reflections become.

This is the paradox of all ideological systems: their stability depends on the disavowed excess they generate. Capitalism thrives on crisis; democracy on exclusion; realism on surrealism. The “specter” is not an accident—it is the symptom, the truth-telling pustule on the body politic. When Magritte paints a pipe and writes “Ceci n’est pas une pipe,” he isn’t playing linguistic games—he’s exposing realism’s founding lie: representation is always a betrayal. The pipe you see is not the pipe; the reality you perceive is not the Real.

The system’s survival depends on the very excess it claims to expel. Capitalism needs crisis; realism needs surrealism

Marx noted capitalism’s crises are not bugs but features—the system requires collapse to reset, like a forest fire that clears the undergrowth for new growth. But Žižek goes further: capitalism enjoys its crises, fetishizing its own near-death experiences as proof of its resilience. Similarly, realism needs surrealism’s destabilizing eruptions to renew its claim to coherence. Without the surreal, realism would have nothing to define itself against—no chaos to tame, no id to suppress.

The 2008 financial crash. Banks were bailed out, austerity imposed, and the “realists” declared, “We must return to normal!” But what is “normal” here? A system where derivatives trading—a surrealist fiction of value—is the bedrock of the economy. The crisis wasn’t an exception; it was the system baring its teeth in a grin.

Think of the Ouroboros, the snake eating its own tail. Capitalism is the Ouroboros of crisis: it consumes its own collapse to sustain itself. Realism performs the same ritual. Every “reboot” after a cultural or political “bust” (war, pandemic, revolution) isn’t a fresh start—it’s a rehearsal of the same traumas, repackaged as progress. The surrealist intervention—a melting clock, a lobster telephone—ruptures this cycle, forcing us to ask: What if the snake is not a circle but a spiral, vomiting itself outward into the void?

REBOOTS

The reboot is always-already a breakdown in drag.






The “reboot” (post-crisis realism) is not a sober reconstruction but a camp performance—a breakdown masquerading as recovery. It’s the equivalent of a tech CEO announcing “innovation!” while selling the same gadget with a new coat of paint. The drag queen here is capitalism itself, lipsyncing to the anthem of “progress” while its seams split.

Post-pandemic “normalcy.” We’re told to “get back to the office,” to “revive the economy,” but the office is now a Zoom simulacrum, and the economy is a speculative bubble fed by meme stocks and NFTs. The “reboot” is a farce—a breakdown wearing the mascara of business-as-usual

To don drag is to exaggerate gender, revealing its constructedness. Similarly, the “reboot” exaggerates realism’s fragility. When governments print money to “save the economy” (a surrealist act if ever there was one) while preaching fiscal responsibility (realism’s mascara), the contradiction becomes the point. The drag queen winks; the system, in its frantic reboot, winks back.

The harder realism tries to escape the surreal, the more it becomes its own parody


The Labyrinth of Denial: The man digging a hole to bury nightmares is the perfect metaphor for repression’s futility. Freud’s Rat Man buried his trauma, only to find it erupting in obsessive rituals. Similarly, realism’s attempt to “bury” the surreal only constructs a labyrinth—a recursive maze where every wall is a mirror reflecting its own absurdity.

Censorship. A regime bans “subversive” art (surrealism), labeling it “unrealistic.” But the act of censorship produces the surreal—samizdat literature, underground films, metaphors so twisted they bypass the censor’s gaze. The state’s “realism” becomes a parody of control, a Kafkaesque bureaucracy that breeds its own nightmares.

This is the paradox of the totalitarian laugh: the more seriously a system takes itself, the more ridiculous it becomes. Think of North Korea’s “realist” propaganda—giant statues, synchronized marches—which inevitably veers into surreal grotesquerie. Realism, in its extremity, becomes surrealism. The dictator’s statue is just a bronze phallus; the march, a dance of the undead.


Surrender to the meta, and you find it was the Real all along.”

The call to “not give up on your symptom” is a demand to embrace the crack in the symbolic order. The “meta” (surrealism) is not an escape—it’s the perspective shift that reveals the Real lurking beneath realism’s façade. The moment you stop running from the specter and say, “Fine, haunt me!” is the moment the specter loses its power—because you see it was never a ghost, but the bloodstain on the floor of your own ideology.

The Truman Show. When Truman embraces the “meta” (his world is a TV set), he doesn’t transcend reality—he confronts it. The show’s director (the Big Other) pleads, “You can’t leave—this is reality!” But Truman’s surrender to the “meta” (sailing into the painted sky) is his encounter with the Real.This is the Hegelian “negation of the negation”: the meta is not a higher plane but the immanent critique of the original. When you “surrender to the meta,” you’re not ascending—you’re descending into the basement of the symbolic order, where the Real has been pumping the sewage all along. The kicker? The basement was the foundation. The meta was the Real. The ghost was the house.


Dialectical Punchline

This post is itself a Hegelian triad:

  1. Thesis: Realism as reboot.
  2. Antithesis: Surrealism as repressed excess.
  3. Synthesis: The system’s dependency on its own vomit.

We would add a fourth term: the parallax gap. The truth is not in the synthesis, but in the oscillation between thesis and antithesis—the “reboot” and the “breakdown” are the same event viewed from different angles. Capitalism is both crisis and recovery; realism is both control and camp. The only way out is to stare into the gap until the gap stares back, and you realize: You are the gap.

So, do you want to keep digging? Or shall we finally admit the hole is a mirror? 🕳️