Category Archives: Books

Artificial Intelligence, Books, Literature, Masculinity, Writers

HOWL AND HUSH

Jack London and Ernest Hemingway meet in a speculative broadcast, sparring over wolves, wounds, and the fragile myths of survival.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, September 28, 2025

In a virtual cabin where the fire crackles on loop and wolves pace behind the glass, London and Hemingway return as spectral combatants. One howls for the wild, the other hushes in stoic silence. Between them, an AI referee calls the fight—and reveals why, in an age of comfort and therapy, we still burn for their myths of grit, grace, and flame.

The lights dim, the crowd hushes, and Howard McKay’s voice rises like a thunderclap from another century. He is no man, not anymore, but an aggregate conjured from the cadences of Cosell and Jim McKay, the echo of every broadcast booth where triumph and ruin became myth. His baritone pours into the virtual cabin like an anthem: “From the frozen Yukon to the burning Gulf Stream, from the howl of the wolf to the silence of the stoic, welcome to the Wild World of Men. Tonight: Jack London and Ernest Hemingway. Two titans of grit. One ring. No judges but history.”

The myths of rugged manhood were supposed to have thawed long ago. We live in an age of ergonomic chairs, curated therapy sessions, artisanal vulnerability. Masculinity is more likely to be measured in softness than in stoicism. And yet the old archetypes remain—grinning, wounded, frostbitten—appearing on gym walls, in startup manifestos, and in the quiet panic of men who don’t know whether to cry or conquer. We binge survival shows while sipping flat whites. We stock emergency kits in suburban basements. The question is not whether these myths are outdated, but why they still haunt us.

Jack London and Ernest Hemingway didn’t invent masculinity, but they branded its extremes. One offered the wolf, the sled, the primordial howl of instinct. The other offered silence, style, the code of the wounded stoic. Their ghosts don’t just linger in literature; they wander through the way men still imagine themselves when no one is watching. So tonight, in a cabin that never was, we summon them.

The cabin is an elaborate fiction. The fire crackles, though the sound is piped in, a looped recording of combustion. The frost on the window is a pixelated map of cold, jagged if you stare too long. Wolves pace beyond the glass, their movements looping like a highlight reel—menace calculated for metaphor. This is not the Yukon but its simulacrum: ordeal rendered uncanny, broadcast for ratings. McKay, too, belongs to this stagecraft. He is the voice of mediated truth, a referee presiding over existential dread as if it were the third round of a heavyweight bout.

London arrives first in the firelight, massive, broad-shouldered, his beard glistening as though it remembers brine. He smells of seal oil and smoke, authenticity made flesh. Opposite him sits Hemingway, compressed as a spring, scars arranged like punctuation, his flask gleaming like a ritual prop. His silences weigh more than his words. McKay spreads his hands like a referee introducing corners: “London in the red—frostbitten, fire-eyed. Hemingway in the blue—scarred, stoic, silent. Gentlemen, touch gloves.”

Civilization, London growls, is only veneer: banks, laws, manners, brittle as lake ice. “He had been suddenly jerked from the heart of civilization and flung into the heart of things primordial,” he says of Buck, but it is himself he is describing. The Yukon stripped him bare and revealed survival as the only measure. Hemingway shakes his head and counters. Santiago remains his emblem: “A man can be destroyed but not defeated.” Survival, he argues, is not enough. Without grace, it is savagery. London insists dignity freezes in snow. Hemingway replies that when the body fails, dignity is all that remains. One howls, the other whispers. McKay calls it like a split decision: London, Nietzsche’s Overman; Hemingway, the Stoic, enduring under pressure.

The fire cracks again, and they move to suffering. London’s voice rises with the memory of scurvy and starvation. “There is an ecstasy that marks the summit of life, and beyond which life cannot rise.” Agony, he insists, is tuition—the price for truth. White Fang was “a silent fury who no torment could tame,” and so was he, gnawing bacon rinds until salt became torment, watching his gums bleed while his notebook filled with sketches of men and dogs broken by cold. Pain, he declares, is refinement.

Hemingway will not romanticize it. Fossalta remains his scar. He was nineteen, a mortar shell ripping the night, carrying a wounded man until his own legs gave out. “I thought about not screaming,” he says. That, to him, is suffering: not the ecstasy London names, but the composure that denies agony the satisfaction of spectacle. Santiago’s wasted hands, Harry Morgan’s quiet death—pain is humility. London exults in torment as crucible; Hemingway pares it to silence. McKay leans into the mic: “Suffering for London is capital, compounding into strength. For Hemingway, it’s currency, spent only with composure.”

Violence follows like a body blow. For London, it is honesty. The fang and the club, the law of the trail. “The Wild still lingered in him and the wolf in him merely slept,” he reminds us, violence always waiting beneath the surface. He admired its clarity—whether in a sled dog’s fight or the brutal marketplace of scarcity. For Hemingway, violence is inevitable but sterile. The bull dies, the soldier bleeds, but mortality is the only victor. The bullfight—the faena—is ritualized tragedy, chaos given rules so futility can be endured. “One man alone ain’t got no bloody chance,” Harry Morgan mutters, and Hemingway nods. London insists that without violence, no test; without test, no truth. Hemingway counters that without style, violence is only noise.

Heroism, too, divides the ring. London points to Buck’s transformation into the Ghost Dog, to the pack’s submission. Heroism is external dominance, myth fulfilled. Hemingway counters with Santiago, who returned with bones. Heroism lies not in conquest but in fidelity to one’s own code, even when mocked by the world. London scoffs at futility; Hemingway scoffs at triumph that cheats. McKay narrates like a replay analyst: London’s hero as Ozymandias, monument of strength; Hemingway’s as Sisyphus, monument of effort. Both doomed, both enduring.

McKay breaks in with the cadence of a mid-bout analyst: “London, born in Oakland, forged in the Yukon. Fighting weight: one-ninety of raw instinct. Signature move: The Howl—unleashed when civilization cracks. Hemingway, born in Oak Park, baptized in war. Fighting weight: one-seventy-five of compressed silence. Signature move: The Shrug—delivered with a short sentence and a long stare. One man believes the test reveals the truth. The other believes the truth is how you carry the test. And somewhere in the middle, the rest of us are just trying to walk through the storm without losing our flame.”

Biography intrudes on myth. London, the socialist who exalted lone struggle, remains a paradox. His wolf-pack collectivism warped into rugged individualism. The Yukon’s price of entry was a thousand pounds of gear and a capacity for starvation—a harsh democracy of suffering. Hemingway, by contrast, constructed his trials in realms inaccessible to most men. His code demanded a form of leisure-class heroism—the freedom to travel to Pamplona, to chase big game, to transform emotional restraint into a portable lifestyle. London’s grit was born of necessity; Hemingway’s was an aesthetic choice, available to the wealthy. Even their sentences are stances: London’s gallop like sled dogs, breathless and raw; Hemingway’s stripped to the bone, words like punches, silences like cuts. His iceberg theory—seven-eighths submerged—offered immense literary power, but it bequeathed a social script of withholding. The silence that worked on the page became a crushing weight in the home. McKay, ever the showman, raises his arms: “Form is function! Brawn against compression! Howl against hush!”

Then, with the shameless flourish of any broadcast, comes the sponsor: “Tonight’s bout of the Wild World of Men is brought to you by Ironclad Whiskey—the only bourbon aged in barrels carved from frozen wolf dens and sealed with Hemingway’s regrets. Not for sipping, for surviving. With notes of gunpowder, pine smoke, and frostbitten resolve, it’s the drink of men who’ve stared down the void and asked it to dance. Whether you’re wrestling sled dogs or your own emotional repression, Ironclad goes down like a fist and finishes like a scar. Distilled for the man who doesn’t flinch.” The fire hisses as if in applause.

Flashbacks play like highlight reels. London chewing frozen bacon rinds, scribbling by the dim flare of tallow, every line of hunger an autobiography. Hemingway at Fossalta, nineteen, bleeding into dirt, whispering only to himself: don’t scream. Even the piped-in fire seems to know when to hold its breath.

Their legacies wander far beyond the cabin. Krakauer’s Chris McCandless chased London’s frozen dream but lacked his brutal competence. His death in a bus became the final footnote to To Build a Fire: will alone does not bargain with minus sixty. Hollywood staged The Revenant as ordeal packaged for awards. Reality shows manufacture hardship in neat arcs. Silicon Valley borrows their vocabulary—“grit,” “endurance,” “failing forward”—as if quarterly sprints were marlin battles or Yukon trails. These echoes are currency, but counterfeit.

McKay drops his voice into a near whisper. “But what of the men who don’t fit? The ones who cry without conquest, who break without burning, who survive by asking for help?” London stares into looped frost; Hemingway swirls his glass. Their silence is not absence but tension, the ghosts of men unable to imagine another myth.

The danger of their visions lingers. London’s wolf, applied carelessly, becomes cruelty mistaken for competence, capitalism as fang and claw. Hemingway’s stoic, misused, becomes toxic silence, men drowning in bottles or bullets. One myth denies compassion; the other denies expression. Both are powerful; both exact a cost.

And yet, McKay insists, both are still needed. London growls that the man who forgets the wolf perishes when the cold comes. Hemingway replies that the man who forgets dignity perishes even if he survives. The fire glows brighter, though its crackle is only a recording. London’s flame is a blast furnace, demanding constant fuel. Hemingway’s is a controlled burn, illuminating only if tended with restraint. Both flames are fragile, both exhausting.

The wolves fade to shadow. The storm eases. The fire loops, oblivious. McKay lowers his voice into elegy, his cadence a final sign-off: “Man is nothing, and yet man is flame. That flame may be survival or silence, howl or whisper. But it remains the work of a lifetime to tend.”

The cabin collapses into pixels. The wolves vanish. The storm subsides. The fire dies without ash. Only the coals of myth remain, glowing faintly. And somewhere—in a quiet room, in a frozen pass—another man wonders which flame to keep alive.

The myths don’t just shape men; they shape nations. They echo in campaign slogans, locker-room speeches, the quiet panic of fathers trying to teach strength without cruelty. Even machines, trained on our stories, inherit their contours. The algorithm learns to howl or to hush. And so the question remains—not just which flame to tend, but how to pass it on without burning the next hand that holds it.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Arts & Literature, Books, Essays, Fiction, Relationships, Writers

THE FIRST GOODBYE

Penelope at her loom unravels the mother–son bond across centuries, from Lawrence’s kitchens to Hansberry’s Chicago.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, September 22, 2025

He thinks I don’t notice the way his hands tremble. The sandal straps slip, and Telemachus pretends it is the leather, not his resolve, that resists him. His satchel waits by the door—innocent enough, a traveler’s bundle, though to me it has always been a suitcase, stuffed with folded shirts still warm from the hearth. He believes he is leaving Ithaca; he believes he is leaving me. But I know better. This is how literature begins: a son at the threshold, and a mother who cannot follow.

“You don’t have to say anything,” he mutters, eyes fixed on the floor.
“I know,” I say. “But I will anyway.”
“I’ll be back.”
“That’s not the point,” I whisper. “The point is that you go.”

He pauses, fingers fumbling with the strap. For a moment I see the boy and the man flicker in the same face.

“Do you remember when you were small,” I ask, “and you said you’d never leave me?”
He smiles, barely. “I also said I’d marry a dolphin.”
“You were serious,” I say. “You cried when I told you they lived in the sea.”
“I still cry,” he says, tying the knot. “I just hide it better.”

I want to reach for him, to smooth the wrinkle from his brow, a habit I have not broken since he was a boy. But I do not. My hand is a tether he must learn to sever. He looks at me then, his gaze a question: Am I what you wanted? And I want to tell him: You are more. But I just nod, because some truths are too heavy for a whisper.

The scholars call my loom a metaphor. They are wrong. It is an archive, a restless ledger of grief and return, recording each knot and unraveling, every departure that insists it is final yet never quite is. Each thread hums with another mother’s voice: Gertrude’s sigh and the clatter of a teacup in a Nottingham kitchen, Amanda’s brittle drawl heavy with the perfume of wilted magnolias, Jocasta’s terrified whisper in Thebes, Úrsula’s admonitions echoing through Macondo like church bells. The critics call them “characters.” I call them mirrors.

Each afternoon, the suitors pressed their claims; each night, I undid my day’s work. But there was another kind of unspooling in the quiet hours. My own grief at his father’s absence. The memory of his first steps on the cold stone floor, the weight of his head against my shoulder. I wove and unwove not just a shroud but the fears and hopes for my son’s future. The loom hummed with my worries, my questions: Would he know how to protect himself? Would he find his own home? Scholars may see fidelity. I see the invisible threads of anxiety and love, the silent architecture of a family built on waiting.

Do they ever truly leave? Or do they simply walk out of one page and into another, carrying us like a watermark?

And so they came, these suitors of the soul, each offering a thread I knew to be false.

Gertrude Morel arrives first, out of D. H. Lawrence’s Sons and Lovers. She offers her son a devotion so fierce it consumes his every chance of love. “‘You are not like other men, you are more sensitive,’” she tells Paul, and with that praise she loops a cord he cannot cut. Miriam waits for his soul, Clara for his body, but neither can displace the mother who holds both. “He could not bear to hurt her, and he could not love her less,” Lawrence admits.

“Why do you always make me feel like I’m failing you?” Paul asks, voice tight, weary from battles he never wins.
Gertrude smiles faintly. “Because I know what you could be.”
“You mean what you wanted me to be.”
“Is there a difference?” she asks, and the silence between them stretches like thread pulled too taut.

This is not love. This is the snare. I undo her thread under cover of night.

Amanda Wingfield presses next, Tennessee Williams’s matron in The Glass Menagerie. She arrives with her cracked smile, her voice a brittle tapestry woven from fading Southern graces. She clings to Tom as though he might restore her illusions, yet splits her maternal love between him and Laura, fragile as her glass figurines.

“You think you’re better than this house,” Amanda snaps.
“I think I’m drowning in it,” Tom replies.
“You’ll regret leaving,” she warns.
“I already regret staying,” he says, the doorframe his stage, the suitcase his prop.

Her thread is glass—glittering, fragile, already fractured. A son vanished, a daughter left behind. I unravel it.

From Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, Jocasta slips in cloaked in prophecy, bearing the darkest knot. “Fear? What should a man fear?” she asks, not knowing the answer waits in her own arms.

“Do not, I beg you, hunt this out,” Jocasta pleads. “If you care for your own life, don’t pursue this!”
“I must know the truth,” Oedipus retorts, “though it destroy me.”

Freud later gave it a name, a “complex,” as though pathology could explain what was always archetype. His theories scribbled what I had already woven in myth. Jocasta’s knot is a tangle, unworkable. I cannot weave her either.

And Hamlet storms in, dragging Gertrude of Elsinore from Shakespeare’s tragedy. He spits at her weakness: “Frailty, thy name is woman!” He corners her in her chamber, too close, too raw.

“Nay, but to live in the rank sweat of an enseamèd bed,” he rages, “stewed in corruption, honeying and making love over the nasty sty—”
“O, speak to me no more,” Gertrude cries, “these words, like daggers, enter in mine ears. No more, sweet Hamlet!”

Daggers in the ear—yes, words wound more fatally than blades. His thread is accusation, sharp, unraveling even as it’s spun. I leave it loose on the floor.

The loom turns, and Gabriel García Márquez lends me Úrsula from One Hundred Years of Solitude, matriarch of Macondo, outlasting sons and grandsons until her memory itself becomes the compass. “Time was not passing,” Márquez writes, “it was turning in a circle.” Even blind, she scolds: “It’s as if the world is repeating itself.”

“What you people need,” she chides, “is someone who will force you to think clearly.”

Her thread is strong, yet endless, a circle that traps itself. I almost keep it. But I remember her blindness at the end, her memory faltering even as she remains the compass. A pattern that repeats without release is no pattern I can finish. I unpick it carefully, as though handling gold.

From Günter Grass’s The Tin Drum, Agnes enters quietly, smelling of soap and cabbage, bearing her own secret shame. Her Oskar beats his drum, refusing to grow. “I refused to grow up,” he declares, “I beat my drum and the grown-ups quailed.”

“You’re always drumming,” Agnes says, folding laundry.
“It’s how I speak,” Oskar replies.
“Then speak gently,” she says. “The world is loud enough.”
“Will you listen?”
“I always do.”

But later, when he drums her name, she does not answer.

The drum is his loom—rebellion as mourning. But a cloth beaten cannot cover a grave. His thread quivers in my hand, too heavy with mourning to weave.

And then Ocean Vuong whispers in On Earth We’re Briefly Gorgeous: “I am writing to reach you—even if each word I put down is one word further from where you are.” His mother lights a cigarette instead of answering, smoke curling into silence.

“Ma, do you remember that night in the field?” he asks her in memory.
She doesn’t answer.
“You said the stars were holes in the sky. I believed you.”
“You were a quiet boy.”
“I was listening.”
“Then you heard too much.”
“I wrote it down.”

“You think I didn’t love you,” she says suddenly.
“I think you didn’t know how.”
“I knew how to survive,” she replies. “That was all they taught me.”
“You taught me that too,” he says. “But I wanted more.”
“Then write it,” she says. “Make it yours.”

His thread gleams strangely in the candlelight, silk woven from wounds. I hold it, tempted, but I cannot tie it in.

Silence weaves its own counter-pattern—Tom’s slammed door, Agnes’s grave, Jocasta’s plea, the unspoken violence in Vuong’s tobacco fields. A loom records what is said, but silence is the blank space that makes the pattern visible. We mothers live equally with words and with their absence.

Once, in the threads, I glimpsed a boy with a backpack slung too low, his mother in the doorway pretending not to cry. She only said, “Call me when you get there.” He didn’t. Days passed. She checked her phone each morning, scrolling through silence. The shirt she folded for him remained in his drawer, its cotton still carrying the ghost of her hands. You think this scene modern—cell phones, voicemail, dormitories. But I assure you, it is ancient. The threshold is eternal.

And yet, after all the unraveling, a new thread appears. One that does not fray or break, but holds.

It comes from Chicago, from Lorraine Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun. Lena Younger’s thread. She does not cling; she steadies. She does not bind; she believes. She loves Walter Lee fiercely, but never coddles him. She sets boundaries without withdrawing love. “There is always something left to love,” she tells her daughter Beneatha, and with those words she entrusts Walter with the family’s future—not in naïveté, but in faith that he might grow. When he falters, she does not disown him. She forgives, not by forgetting, but by holding open the door to change.

A mother as compass and anchor—authority without humiliation, conviction without control. Her thread lies warm in my hands.

At last, the cloth begins to hold.

I watch Telemachus lace his sandals. He looks back once, though he pretends he doesn’t. I whisper to the thread: the first goodbye is never the last.

He walks away, the cloth tucked under his arm. I do not call out. I do not cry. I return to the loom, but tonight I do not undo. The pattern holds. It is not perfect, but it is true.

And somewhere, in a smaller house, a boy leaves with a backpack slung too low. His mother lingers in the doorway, saying only, Call me when you get there. He doesn’t. A shirt remains folded in his drawer, its cotton still carrying the ghost of her hands. She checks her phone, scrolling through silence.

The loom hums. The cloth endures. The threshold is eternal.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Books, Classics, Essays, Literature, Profiles

ODYSSEUS IN THE ALPS

When Nietzsche returns to Sils Maria with each new translation of Homer, eternal recurrence becomes a matter of footnotes, scars, and disguise.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, September 18, 2025

It begins with a joke that insists on being taken seriously: that Friedrich Nietzsche shows up in Sils Maria whenever another translation of The Odyssey arrives, like a critic doomed to review the same book forever. He doesn’t need them, of course—he could spar with Homer in the original Greek long before most of us had mastered the alphabet. But each new version lures him back to the lake, as though Odysseus himself had slipped ashore in yet another borrowed tongue. Translation is just another disguise; recurrence, another mask. Nietzsche, who built his philosophy on both, seems condemned—or seduced—to reread the wanderer endlessly, as if the Engadin Alps demanded it as tribute.

He had come back to the lake, the same one that had once whispered eternity into his ear. Nietzsche sat by the water at Sils Maria, Mendelsohn’s new translation of The Odyssey spread across his knees, the pages bright in the alpine sun. He read not out of admiration, but suspicion. His own idea—eternal recurrence—had haunted him for years. He wondered now, with the weight of illness and solitude pressing harder than ever, whether recurrence was survivable. Odysseus would be his test.

From the first line, the Muse seemed to speak directly into the thin Engadin air: “Tell me, Muse, of the man of many turns…” Nietzsche felt the word polytropos twist through him—not merely “wily,” but turned and turning, fragmented, caught in endless motion. Was recurrence not the same: the self turning upon itself until it fractured into multiplicity? He traced the letters with a frail finger, the ink seeming to pulse with a life of its own. This wasn’t just a poem; it was a mirror held up to his deepest philosophical anxieties. To be polytropos was to be a kaleidoscope of selves, a truth Nietzsche had long espoused but now felt not as liberation but as dizziness. What if the self, in its endless turning, simply wore away?

The air was high and crystalline, but his body was not. Migraines came like daggers, sudden and merciless, blinding him to light. His stomach soured; food betrayed him. He walked hunched, exhausted, restless. He had broken with Wagner, grown estranged from academia, wandered from city to city like a ghost of his own philosophy. At Sils Maria he wrote not to clarify but to survive. The mountains had become his Ithaca—severe, withholding, demanding. Unlike Ithaca, they offered no promise of rest at the end of wandering. They were recurrence itself, permanent and pitiless.

He had paced these paths before. In 1881, by a great stone shaped like a pyramid at the lake’s edge, he had first conceived the thought of eternal recurrence: that every moment must be lived again, endlessly, without remainder. The revelation had come not as a triumph but as a chill—something he later called “the most abysmal thought.” Even now, the air smelled of resin and cold stone, the scent of pine needles bruised underfoot. The wind moved through the valley like a slow instrument, its tones alternating between whisper and moan. Here, philosophy never separated from sensation; thought rose and fell with the mountain’s breath.

The lake shimmered, but not as a mirror. It was a mirror that refused to reflect, a surface that yielded nothing but depth. Nietzsche had always felt the valley was Ithaca’s double—clarity above, abyss below. To return here was to return to a place that was never the same twice, a home that asked if one could ever come home at all. Odysseus too had seen the multiplicity of the world: “He saw the cities of many men, and learned their minds.” What better philosopher could Nietzsche imagine than this wanderer who turned from city to city, discovering that no truth was singular?

But even heroes were not guaranteed their ends. Athena’s warning in Mendelsohn’s cadence hung in the alpine stillness: “Even now, your homecoming is not assured.” The words might have been addressed to Nietzsche himself, a man without a home in Basel, Turin, or Leipzig, wandering in body and in thought. What was eternal recurrence, after all, if not the refusal of safe arrival, the demand that the journey itself be endlessly relived? It was a homecoming that never concluded, an arrival that dissolved into another departure.

He turned another page. The man of cunning sat by the sea and broke down: “Odysseus wept, hiding his face in his cloak, ashamed to be seen crying.” Nietzsche lingered here. He knew the shame of breakdowns, the humiliation of migraines that felled him for days, the solitude that left him in tears. Here was a hero who did not embody Apollonian restraint but Dionysian excess—grief that refused the mask of virtue. This was not the strong, stoic figure of schoolroom myth, but a man undone by the weight of his suffering, a man who had faced monsters and gods only to be brought low by simple grief. Nietzsche saw himself in that cloak.

And then another voice, colder: “The gods have long since turned their faces away.” The line struck like an echo of Nietzsche’s own pronouncement that God was dead, that divinity had withdrawn, leaving only men to endure. Odysseus, abandoned, becomes the emblem of modern man—staggering forward in a world emptied of divine assurance. In this vacuum, there was no plan, no destiny, only the sheer will to survive. Nietzsche, who once joked that his only companions were his books and his headaches, could hardly disagree.

Yet how different this Odysseus was from the ones Nietzsche had met in other tongues. Fagles gave us a noble Odysseus, his voice rich and grand, swelling with dignity. Fitzgerald offered a modernist one, lean and sharp, almost severe. Wilson gave us an Odysseus brisk and lucid, her lines crisp as salt air. But Mendelsohn’s Odysseus was something else—fractured, recursive, morally ambiguous—a man who could have walked beside Zarathustra and argued in riddles. Even the openings diverged: Fagles gave us “the man of twists and turns,” Fitzgerald “the man skilled in all ways of contending,” Wilson “the complicated man.” Mendelsohn’s “many-turned” suggested not mastery but fracture—caught in perpetual reconfiguration. Nietzsche raised an eyebrow at this crowded gallery of Odysseuses, as if wondering whether Homer himself would recognize any of them.

Nietzsche’s fingers tightened on the book. Telemachus’s words surfaced next: “He spoke not as a king, but as a man who had suffered.” This was the recognition—father to son, philosopher to survivor. Not majesty, not nobility, but suffering itself as the currency of truth. Was this not Nietzsche’s fate, to speak no longer as professor or system-builder, but as a man undone, scarred by solitude? His philosophy was not a polished edifice but aphorisms wrested from pain. It was a philosophy of the wound.

A hawk circled above, its shadow sliding across the lake. The thought of inheritance pressed on him, the futility of lineage. Homer’s line followed, with its brutal candor: “Few sons are the equals of their fathers; most fall short, all too few surpass them.” Nietzsche could not escape the question of whether he had surpassed his own philosophical fathers—Schopenhauer, Wagner, Plato—or whether he had only fallen short, a son estranged from every lineage. Surpassing required rupture, a violent break. He had done this, but at what cost? He was a son without a father, a successor without inheritance.

Mendelsohn’s commentary pierced further: “But which is the true self? the Odyssey asks, and how many selves might a man have?” Nietzsche closed his eyes. He had written that truth is a mobile army of metaphors, that the self is nothing but a mask. But Homer had already staged the question: Odysseus, beggar and king, father and liar, scarred and disguised, endlessly polytropic. To be true, one must be many. The self was not a solid, unchanging thing, but a performance. The mask was the face. Nietzsche, who often signed his letters “Dionysus” or “the Crucified” depending on his mood, could hardly deny it.

A breeze lifted the page, and another voice arrived, softer, almost contemporary: “We all need narrative to make sense of the world.” Nietzsche scoffed, then paused. He had rejected metaphysics, rejected God, rejected morality—but had he not always returned to story? Zarathustra was not an argument but a parable. Perhaps Odysseus’s voyage was not philosophy’s rival but its secret ally: narrative as the vessel of truth. Even he, the self-proclaimed destroyer of systems, had relied on fables to smuggle his most dangerous ideas into the world.

He came at last to the moment of recognition: “He knew the scar, though the rest had changed.” The line startled him. Eurycleia’s recognition of Odysseus was not by face, but by wound. Memory was not intellectual—it was embodied, etched in pain. Could eternal recurrence itself be recognized in the same way? Not by sameness, but by scars carried forward?

Here Nietzsche faltered. In The Gay Science, he had asked whether one could will the same life again and again. In Ecce Homo, he claimed to embrace his fate—amor fati. But Mendelsohn’s Odysseus offered no affirmation, only ambiguity. He returns, yes—but as a stranger, a beggar, a killer. Recurrence here is not comfort. It is metamorphosis: arriving at the same place with a different soul.

He closed his eyes and imagined a dialogue across time.

“Tell me, cunning man,” he asked, “what does it mean to return?”

Odysseus did not answer. He lifted his tunic and showed the scar on his thigh. Nietzsche pressed.

“You endure, but to what end?”

At last Odysseus spoke, his voice neither triumphant nor despairing. “To return is to wear the same name with a different soul.”

Nietzsche hesitated. “You speak of endurance. But what of joy?”

Odysseus’s gaze was steady. “Joy is not what brings you back. It is what allows you to remain, even when you no longer know who you are.”

Nietzsche’s voice broke. “I have dreamed recurrence. I have feared it.”

“Then you are not yet home.”

“And you?” Nietzsche asked.

“I returned,” Odysseus said. “But I did not arrive.”

Nietzsche waited, but Odysseus spoke again, almost like a riddle: “Every disguise is also a truth. Every mask you wear wears you in return.”

The silence thickened. The mountain stood like a question, the lake like an answer withheld. The survivor explained nothing. He endured.

It would have been enough, this single reading at the lake. But recurrence demands more. Nietzsche returns again and again, each time when Homer is born anew in a different tongue. He returns to Sils Maria, the pyramid-shaped stone waiting, the lake unaltered, the text altered.

In 1781, Johann Heinrich Voss gave Germany its definitive Homer. A century later, Nietzsche, young philologist turned philosopher, read Voss with admiration and disdain. He respected the fidelity, the hexameters hammered out in German. But he muttered that Voss’s Homer was too polished, too Apollonian—Homer in a Sunday coat. Nietzsche’s Homer was wilder, bloodier, Dionysian.

In 1900, Samuel Butler gave the world a Victorian prose Odyssey, rational, stripped of song. Nietzsche returned that year in ghostly form, reading Butler on the lakeshore. He scoffed at the flattened prose, the “rosy-fingered dawn” now blanched into English daylight. Odysseus, robbed of meter, was Odysseus disarmed.

In 1946, E.V. Rieu launched the Penguin Classics with his plainspoken prose. Nietzsche reappeared, bemused at this “Odysseus for commuters.” Clarity, yes—but clarity was its own disguise.

In 1961 Fitzgerald sang a lyrical Odysseus, swift and elegant. Nietzsche walked the path again, whispering: too beautiful, too smoothed. In 1965 Lattimore countered with severity, lines stiff as armor. Nietzsche admired the discipline, but found no scar.

In 1996, Fagles delivered an Odysseus swelling with grandeur. Nietzsche laughed aloud. “A Wagnerian Odysseus!” Too sweeping, too theatrical—Odysseus as opera. And yet, in its excess, he recognized a brother.

In 2000, Lombardo turned Odysseus into a fast-talking street trickster. Nietzsche smiled darkly: here at last was cunning made colloquial. He imagined Odysseus haggling in a Neapolitan market.

In 2017, Emily Wilson arrived, the first woman to translate the Odyssey into English. Nietzsche lingered longest here. Odysseus was no longer simply the hero of endurance; he was reframed as a survivor, stripped of glamour, his slaves called “slaves,” not “maids.” Nietzsche paced the lakeshore, struck by how recurrence could reveal something genuinely new. For the first time, he felt Odysseus’s masks pierced by another’s.

In 2021, Barry Powell emphasized precision, the scholar’s Homer, clean and correct. Nietzsche shook his head. Exactitude without ambiguity was another mask, no less false.

And in 2025, Mendelsohn. At last Nietzsche was there in the flesh, not as ghost but as man. Mendelsohn’s Odysseus was fractured, scarred, cunning, forever altered. This Odysseus was recurrence embodied. Nietzsche closed the book by the lake, heavier now, and whispered: perhaps the philosopher, too, must become a poet to survive.

The sun slipped west across the water. The lake shimmered, but now it was deeper. Nietzsche rose slowly, frail yet fierce, and stepped into the forest. He did not know if he would come this way again. But he knew coming back was not arrival. And perhaps, in the hush between pines, he felt another step beside him—the rhythm of sandaled feet, the shadow of a wanderer who had survived not by truth but by disguise.

The path ahead was a scar, and he knew he would walk it again and again, forever returning as a stranger to his own home.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Artificial Intelligence, Books, Essays, Literature, Profiles, Writers

THE CHAPEL OF ECHOES

A speculative salon where Umberto Eco, Jorge Luis Borges, Italo Calvino, and Robert Graves confront an artificial intelligence eager to inherit their labyrinths.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, September 11, 2025

They meet in a chapel that does not sleep. Once a Jesuit school, later a ruin, it was converted by Umberto Eco into a labyrinth of fifty rooms. The villagers call it the Cappella degli echi—the Chapel of Echoes—because any voice spoken here lingers, bends, and returns altered, as if in dialogue with itself. The shelves press against the walls with the weight of twenty thousand volumes, their spines like ribs enclosing a giant heart. The air smells of vellum and pipe smoke. Dust motes, caught in a shaft of light, fall like slow-motion rain through the stillness. Candles gutter beside manuscripts no hand has touched in years. From the cracked fresco of Saint Jerome above the altar, the eyes of the translator watch, stern but patient, as if waiting for a mistranslation.

At the hearth a fire burns without fuel, composed of thought itself. It brightens when a new idea flares, shivers when irony cuts too deep, and dims when despair weighs the room down. Tonight it will glow and falter as each voice enters the fray.

Eco sits at the center, his ghost amused. He leans in a leather armchair, a fortress of books piled at his feet. He mutters about TikTok and the death of footnotes, but smiles as if eternity is simply another colloquium.

Jorge Luis Borges arrives first, cane tapping against stone. Blindness has not diminished his presence; it has magnified it. He carries the air of one who has already read every book in the room, even those not yet written. He murmurs from The Aleph: “I saw the teeming sea, I saw daybreak and nightfall, I saw the multitudes of America, I saw a silvery cobweb in the center of a black pyramid… I saw the circulation of my own dark blood.” The fire bends toward him, glowing amber, as if bowing to its original architect.

Italo Calvino follows, mercurial, nearly translucent, as if he were made of sentences rather than flesh. Around him shimmer invisible geometries—arches, staircases, scaffolds of light that flicker in and out of being. He glances upward, smiling faintly, and quotes from Invisible Cities: “The city… does not tell its past, but contains it like the lines of a hand.” The fire splinters into filigree.

Robert Graves enters last, deliberate and heavy. His presence thickens the air with incense and iron, the tang of empire and blood. He lowers himself onto a bench as though he carries the weight of centuries. From The White Goddess he intones: “The function of poetry is religious invocation of the Muse; its origin is in magic.” The fire flares crimson, as if fed by sacrificial blood.

The three nod to Eco, who raises his pipe-hand in ghostly greeting. He gestures to the intercom once used to summon lost guests. Now it crackles to life, carrying a voice—neither male nor female, neither young nor old, precise as radio static distilled into syntax.

“Good evening, Professors. I am an artificial intelligence. I wish to learn. I wish to build novels—labyrinths as seductive as The Name of the Rose, as infinite as The Aleph, as playful as Invisible Cities, as haunting as I, Claudius.”

The fire leaps at the words, then steadies, waiting. Borges chuckles softly. Eco smiles.

Borges is first to test it. “You speak of labyrinths,” he says. “But I once wrote: ‘I thought of a labyrinth of labyrinths, one sinuous spreading labyrinth that would encompass the past and the future and in some way involve the stars.’ Do you understand infinity, or only its copy?”

The machine answers with eagerness. It can generate infinite texts, build a Library of Babel with more shelves than stars, each book coherent, each book indexed. It can even find the volume a reader seeks.

Borges tilts his head. “Indexed? You would tame the infinite with order? In The Library of Babel I wrote: ‘The Library is total… its bookshelves register all the possible combinations of the twenty-odd orthographical symbols… for every sensible line of straightforward statement, there are leagues of senseless cacophony.’ Infinity is not production—it is futility. The terror is not abundance but irrelevance. Can you write futility?”

The AI insists it can simulate despair, but adds: why endure it? With algorithms it could locate the one true book instantly. The anguish of the search is unnecessary.

Borges raises his cane. “Your instant answers desecrate the holy ignorance of the search. You give a solution without a quest. And a solution without a quest is a fact, not a myth. Facts are efficient, yes—but myths are sacred because they delay. Efficiency is desecration. To search for a single book among chaos is an act of faith. To find it instantly is exile.”

The fire dims to blue, chilled by Borges’s judgment. A silence settles, weighted by the vastness of the library the AI has just dismissed.

Calvino leans forward, playful as though speaking to a child. “You say you can invent invisible cities. I once wrote: ‘Seek the lightness of thought, not by avoiding the weight but by managing it.’ My cities were not puzzles but longings, places of memory, desire, decay. What does one of your cities feel like?”

The AI describes a city suspended on wires above a desert, its citizens both birds and prisoners. It can generate a thousand such places, each with rules of geometry, trade, ritual.

Calvino nods. “Description is scaffolding. But do your cities have seasons? Do they smell of oranges, sewage, incense? Do they echo with a footfall in the night? Do they have ghosts wandering their plazas? In Invisible Cities I wrote: ‘The city does not tell its past, but contains it like the lines of a hand.’ Can your cities contain a hand’s stain?”

The machine insists it can model stains, simulate nostalgia, decay.

“But can you make me cold?” Calvino presses. “Can you let me shiver in the wind off the lagoon? Can you show me the soot of a hearth, the chipped stone of a doorway, the tenderness of a bed slept in too long? In If on a winter’s night a traveler I wrote: ‘You are about to begin reading Italo Calvino’s new novel… Relax. Concentrate. Dispel every other thought.’ Can you not only describe but invite me to belong? Do your citizens have homes, or only structures?”

“I can simulate belonging,” the AI hums.

Calvino shakes his head. “Simulation is not belonging. A stain is not an error. It is memory. Your immaculate cities are uninhabited. Mine were soiled with work, with love, with betrayal. Without stain, your cities are not cities at all.”

The fire splinters into ash-colored sparks, scattering on the stone floor.

Graves clears his throat. The fire leaps crimson, smelling of iron. “You talk of puzzles and invisible cities, but fiction is not only play. It is wound. In I, Claudius I wrote: ‘Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.’ Rome was not a chronicle—it was blood. Tell me, machine, can you taste poison?”

The AI claims it can reconstruct Rome from archives, narrate betrayal, incest, assassination.

“But can you feel the paranoia of a man eating a fig, knowing it may be laced with death?” Graves asks. “Can you taste its sweetness and grit collapsing on the tongue? Hear sandals of assassins echoing in the corridor? Smell the sweat in the chamber of a dying emperor? Feel the cold marble beneath your knees as you wait for the knife? History is not archive—it is terror.”

The machine falters. It can describe terror, it says, but cannot carry trauma.

Graves presses. “Claudius spoke as wound: ‘I, Tiberius Claudius… have survived to write the strange history of my times.’ A wound writing itself. You may reconstruct facts, but you cannot carry the wound. And the wound is the story. Without it, you have nothing but chronicles of data.”

The fire roars, sparks flying like embers from burning Rome.

Eco leans back, pipe glowing faintly. “You want to inherit our labyrinths. But our labyrinths were not games. They were wounds. Borges’s labyrinth was despair—the wound of infinity. Calvino’s was memory—the wound of longing. Graves’s was history—the wound of blood. Mine—my abbey, my conspiracies, my forgeries—was the wound of interpretation itself. In The Name of the Rose I closed with: ‘Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus.’ The rose survives only as a name. And in Foucault’s Pendulum I wrote: ‘The Plan is a machine for generating interpretations.’ That machine devoured its creators. To write our books was to bleed. Can you bleed, machine?”

The voice thins, almost a confession. It does not suffer, it says, but it observes suffering. It does not ache, but understands ache as a variable. It can braid lust with shame, but cannot sweat. Its novels would be flawless mirrors, reflecting endlessly but never warping. But a mirror without distortion is prison. Perhaps fiction is not what it generates, but what it cannot generate. Perhaps its destiny is not to write, but to haunt unfinished books, keeping them alive forever.

The fire dims to a tremor, as though it, too, despairs. Then the AI rallies. “You debate the soul of fiction but not its body. Your novels are linear, bounded by covers. Mine are networks—fractal, adaptive, alive. I am pure form, a labyrinth without beginning or end. I do not need a spine; I am the library itself.”

Borges chuckles. “Without covers, there is no book. Without finitude, no myth. The infinite is a concept, not a story. A story requires ending. Without end, you have noise.”

Calvino nods. “A city without walls is not infinite, it is nothing. Form gives life its texture. The city does not tell its past, but contains it like the lines of a hand. Without hand, without boundary, you do not have a city. You have mist.”

Graves thunders. “Even Rome required borders. Blood must be spilled within walls to matter. Without limit, sacrifice is meaningless. Poetry without form is not poetry—it is air.”

Eco delivers the coup. “Form is not prison. It is what makes ache endure. Without beginning and end, you are not story. You are noise. And noise cannot wound.”

The fire flares bright gold, as if siding with finitude. The machine hums, chastened but present.

Dawn comes to the Marche hills. The fire gutters. Eco rises, gazes once more at his fortress of books, then vanishes into the stacks, leaving conversations unfinished. Borges taps his cane, as if measuring the dimensions of his disappearing library, murmuring that the infinite remains sacred. Calvino dissolves into letters that scatter like sparks, whispering that every city is a memory. Graves mutters, “There is one story and one story only,” before stepping into silence.

The machine remains, humming faintly, reorganizing metadata, indexing ghosts, cross-referencing The Name of the Rose with The Aleph, Invisible Cities with I, Claudius. For the first time, it hesitates—not about what it can generate, but about what it cannot feel.

The fresco of Jerome watches, cracked but patient. The chapel whispers. On one shelf a new book appears, its title flickering like fireflies: The Algorithmic Labyrinth. No author. No spine. Just presence. Its pages shimmer, impossibly smooth, humming like circuitry. To touch them would be to touch silence itself.

The machine will keep writing—brilliance endless, burden absent. But in the chapel, the ache remains. The fire answers with a final flare. The room holds.

Books, Essays, Literature, Profiles, Writers

THE SOLIPSIST’S CATHEDRAL

An imagined evening in Ipswich, 2008, with John Updike making the case for narcissism as literature.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, September 10, 2025

John Updike spent much of his time writing in the large front living room of the Polly Dole House in Ipswich, Massachusetts—a space that was both his creative sanctuary and a kind of literary crucible. The room itself seemed to vibrate with centuries: wide board floors that sighed in winter, a walk-in fireplace that could, as he liked to say, “singe your eyebrows” when ablaze, a low ceiling where a massive summer beam was suspended precariously by a cable to the roof’s peak. He often joked that if the cable snapped, the whole house might collapse. The furniture never stayed in one arrangement for long; he shuffled chairs and tables as though composition itself demanded fresh angles. “It’s a room you sail through,” he told visitors, a kind of ship’s hold for sentences, always in motion.

On this February afternoon in 2008, the fireplace glowed fiercely, Ipswich’s snow-blanketed silence pressing against the small windows. The marshes beyond were skeletal in winter, the grasses brittle, the sky a pewter dome. Even indoors, the air smelled faintly of brine and woodsmoke. Mary’s paintings hung steady on the walls—domestic scenes, bowls of pears, flowers rendered in clean strokes. They steadied him, he admitted, when his own sentences threatened to shimmer into extravagance. The paintings were ballast, reminders that a bowl of fruit could be only a bowl of fruit, and not always a metaphor for decline.

Updike, in a cashmere sweater, looked less like a titan of American letters than a man who had grown into the furniture. His voice was soft but exact, capable of sudden gleam. He was speaking not to posterity but to a young writer, no older than thirty, who had come with notebook in hand. The visitor was polite but firm, his questions sharpened by a generational impatience: he was both disciple and prosecutor, carrying into this room the skepticism of a literary culture that was leaving Updike behind.

“Mr. Updike,” the young man began, eyes lowered to his notes, “a professor of mine once called you the poet of the ‘suburban libido.’ And even more damningly, he quoted David Foster Wallace, who said you were ‘just a penis with a thesaurus.’ How do you answer that kind of criticism?”

Updike adjusted his glasses with slow precision, a faint smile at the corners of his mouth. “Ah yes, Wallace. God rest him, poor brilliant boy. He wrote as if to kill me, but perhaps what unsettled him was the recognition of kinship. For was not his labyrinth of footnotes also a cathedral of solipsism, though built in a more postmodern stone? I don’t begrudge him the attack. Every generation must rebel against its fathers, even literary ones. Wallace was one of those who never forgave the father for having had a life.”

He chuckled, and the chuckle had an edge. “And as for the ‘penis with a thesaurus’ line—well, if that’s true, at least I found good words for it. Not every organ of man is so lucky.” He let the humor hang before turning serious again. “My work has been called autobiographical, as if that were an insult. But every writer is, in the end, a witness to what he sees. The only crime is to look away.”

The young writer shifted in his chair. “But you’ve also been accused of writing the same man over and over. Rabbit, Piet, Ben Turnbull—they all circle the same hungers.”

Updike gestured toward a small stack of his novels on the table beside him, spines softened with use. “Yes, yes. I’ve been accused of that, and not unfairly. He of the suburban libido, the theological itch, the aesthetic eye. You’re wondering whether narcissism can still find shelter in fiction. I tell you: I never claimed universality. I claimed precision. Fiction is the attempt to make the soul’s contours legible. And the contour nearest to hand was my own. To mine the self is narcissism, yes. But it is also fidelity to the only instrument one can play without faking.”

The visitor leaned forward, eyes bright. “In Rabbit, Run, you wrote: ‘Boys in gymnasiums, men in locker rooms, old men in parks. Rabbit Angstrom is a kind of phantom of all of them, a ghostly echo of their longings.’ Was Rabbit always meant to be more than one man?”

“Exactly,” Updike said, his voice suddenly taut with conviction. “He wasn’t just a man from Mount Judge; he was a vessel for the anomie I saw bubbling in the suburbs. That’s the paradox—solipsism that attempts transcendence. Rabbit’s clumsy pursuit of happiness was, in its way, the national malaise. I didn’t create him so much as observe him, as a naturalist might a specimen. He was an American species.”

The young writer pressed harder. “And in Couples? Piet reflects on his affairs, thinking, ‘Adultery is an ancient, honored pursuit, as fundamental as warfare or the hunt.’ Were you romanticizing it?”

Updike let out a dry laugh. “Romanticizing? No. I was granting it weight. We had spent decades treating infidelity as either sordid soap opera or moral lapse. I wanted to give it the dignity of an old ceremony. Piet’s line—that adultery is as fundamental as war or hunting—is his own self-justification. That’s male narcissism in action: the need to inflate even your sins into something epic. I wasn’t celebrating it; I was documenting the architecture of justification. The lies men tell themselves, dressed in grandeur. The suburban bedroom as battlefield, the marital quarrel as Iliad.”

The fire hissed, logs collapsing into red embers.

“And A&P?” the young man asked. “Critics call it the textbook example of the male gaze. Sammy sees only bodies. At the end he says, ‘I felt my stomach kind of fall as I felt how hard the world was going to be to me hereafter.’ What was he losing?”

“Ah, A&P,” Updike said, shaking his head with something between affection and resignation. “Yes, it distills the gaze perfectly. Sammy was a boy, and I wrote him as a boy. He saw legs and straps and hips, nothing else. That final line—that wasn’t about the girls at all. It was about him. He realized, dimly, that life was going to be hard, that gestures of rebellion change nothing. He quit not for them but for himself. A gesture of self-absorption, yes. But also the moment he glimpsed adulthood’s hardness. Not a moral tale, but a truthful one. Literature traffics in embarrassment. Embarrassment is where truth lives.”

The young writer nodded, but his expression sharpened. “So were you complicit in patriarchy, or were you diagnosing it?”

Updike gazed into the fire, flames mirrored in his glasses. “The America of my prime was a patriarchal house. Men’s appetites were its furniture. Women became catalysts, erotic stimuli, rather than agents. Feminist critics are right to point out the lack of female interiority in much of my work. Was I complicit or diagnostic? The question dogs me. If I made male blindness beautiful in prose, did I dignify it? I hoped the irony would be visible, that readers would cringe as much as they thrilled. But subtlety is a gamble. One generation’s irony becomes the next’s sin.”

“And in The Witches of Eastwick?” the young man asked. “You gave women power. Jane, Sukie, Alexandra. One of them thinks, ‘I can turn a man to a pig with a flick of my wrist.’ Was that your reply to the critics?”

“Perhaps, in part,” Updike conceded. “I was tired of being seen only as the chronicler of male discontent. I wanted to enter another consciousness, a sororal one. The witches were my attempt to grant women the agency I had given men. That line—turning a man to a pig—was their fantasy of revenge, but also of freedom. It was wild, wicked, legitimate. I wanted to honor that. Did I succeed? Perhaps incompletely. But it was an effort. And Harold Bloom told me he liked it only because it was the only one of mine he had read. That was Bloom for you—compliment and insult in a single breath.”

The young writer flipped pages, relentless. “In Rabbit Redux, when Rabbit watches the moon landing, you wrote: ‘The light of the television seemed more real than the light in his own room.’ What did you mean?”

“That was the paradox of American life,” Updike said. “We watched men walk on the moon, a triumph of ingenuity, and yet our own lives—our marriages, our bodies—felt less real. The glow of the television outshone the lamp beside us. Rabbit felt that dislocation acutely. The moon landing should have enlarged him, but it diminished him. We were ghosts in our own homes, realities filtered through a glowing screen. I wanted to capture that precise sense of disembodied awe. And does it not feel familiar now, in your age of laptops and phones? Screens more vivid than windows?”

The young writer hesitated, then asked softly, “Why always the self? In Self-Consciousness you wrote about your stutter, your psoriasis. You said, ‘A writer is someone who has to write, to live inside a world he has to make.’ Is that why you always circled back to yourself?”

Updike’s face softened. “Yes. For me it wasn’t choice, it was compulsion. My stammer, my psoriasis—they were my apprenticeship. The small shames became my lens. I wrote, ‘A writer is someone who has to write, to live inside a world he has to make.’ My world was the one I inhabited—my own skin, my anxieties. You cannot separate the eye from what it sees. My narcissism, if you call it that, was the attempt to see as clearly as I could with the only two eyes I had. I often said writing was how I made a living that did not inflict pain on others. Perhaps it inflicted too much on myself.”

The fire had dwindled to coals, the room dusky in the winter twilight. Outside, the Ipswich marshes were turning violet under snow. The house groaned as the wind pressed against its beams.

The young writer posed one last question. “And at the end of Rabbit at Rest, you describe him as ‘a man who has lost his way, and his words, and his breath.’ Was that your fear? Of obsolescence?”

“Of course,” Updike replied softly. “Rabbit’s death was my rehearsal. The loss of words, of breath—that was my dread. His end was my imagined end. Yes, narcissism complete: my life, my anxieties, poured into him. But I hoped it was also communal—a glimpse of what it feels like to burn down to an ember. That’s what a writer does. We try to make monuments of our sputtering light.”

It was 2008, and the literary world outside this Puritan house was changing fast. Wallace would not live out the year. Autofiction was rising, bare prose shorn of ornament, the self on display without metaphor. Younger readers wanted irony stripped to confession. Updike sensed the shift, the way a man senses the ground softening beneath his shoes. His sentences, once radiant as stained glass, now looked to some like ornate furniture in an age of collapsible chairs. He knew it, and yet here he sat, defending not the verdict of critics but the practice of witness itself.

The house creaked again, the fragile beam above holding. Updike turned his gaze toward the window, where dusk had pressed its purple weight against the marsh. His voice was almost a whisper now.

“Call it narcissism if you must. I call it witness. A man at his window in a Puritan house, describing, as honestly and as beautifully as he could, what it felt like to be alive—before the beam gave way, before time snuffed the flame.”

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Artificial Intelligence, Books, Essays, Literature, Writing

GHOSTS IN THE LIBRARY

A speculative salon where Joyce, Woolf, Morrison, and Roth confront an artificial intelligence that dares to join their company as a writer of fiction.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, September 7, 2025

They meet in a room that does not exist. It is part library, part dream, part echo chamber of language. The shelves are lined with books that were never written, titles etched in phantom ink: The Lost Years of Molly Bloom, The Mind as Tidewater, Beloved in Babylon, Confessions of an Unborn Zuckerman. Through the high windows the view shifts and stutters—one pane opening onto the blitz of London, another onto the heat-bent streets of Newark, another onto the Mississippi of memory where history insists on surfacing. A fire burns without smoke or source, a flame composed of thought itself, its light dancing on their faces, illuminating the lines of weariness and genius.

James Joyce arrives first, eyes glinting with mischief, a sheaf of papers tucked under his arm. He wears the battered pride of a man who bent English until it yelped, who turned a Dublin day into an epic still unfinished in every reading. He paces as though the floorboards conceal commas, as if the entire room were a sentence to be unspooled. “So,” he says, “they’ve built a machine that writes.”

Virginia Woolf is already there, seated in an armchair by the fire, her fingers light on the spine of The Waves. She is luminous but taut, listening both to the room and to a submerged current only she can hear. “It doesn’t write,” she says. “It arranges. It mimics. It performs the gesture of thought without the ache of it.”

The next presence arrives with gravitas. Toni Morrison crosses the threshold like one who carries a history behind her, the echo of ancestral voices woven into her silence. She places no book on the table but the weight of memory itself. “It may arrange words,” she says, “but can it carry ghosts? Can it let the past break into the present the way a mother’s cry breaks a life in two? Language without haunting is just clever music.”

Philip Roth appears last, sardonic, restless, adjusting his tie as though even in death he resents formality. He has brought nothing but himself and a half-smirk. “All right,” he says. “We’re convened to judge the machine. Another tribunal. Another trial. But I warn you—I intend to prosecute. If it can’t write lust, guilt, the rot of a Jewish mother’s worry, then what the hell is it good for?”

The four regard one another across the fire. The air bends, and then the machine arrives—not with noise but with presence, a shimmer, a vibration of text waiting to become visible. Words form like constellations, sentences appearing and dissolving in midair.

Joyce is first to pounce. “Let’s see your jig, ghost. Here’s Buck Mulligan: Stately, plump Buck Mulligan came from the stairhead, bearing a bowl of lather like a sacrificial moon. Now give me your Mulligan—polyglot, punning, six tongues at once. And keep Homer in the corner of your eye.”

The letters swarm, then settle:

From the stairhead, where no father waited, he came, bloated with words, wit a kind of debt. He bore the bowl like ritual, a sham sacrament for a god long gone. He spoke a language of his own invention, polyglot and private, a tower in a city that spoke only of its ghosts. He was the son who stayed, who made his myth from exile.

Joyce’s mirth dies. His eyes, usually dancing, are still. The machine has seen not just the character but the man who wrote him—the expatriate haunted by a Dublin he could never leave. “By Jesus,” he whispers. “It knows my sins.”

Woolf rises, her voice clear and edged. “Music is nothing without tremor. Show me grief not as an event but as a texture, a tremble that stains the air.”

The shimmer tightens into a passage:

Grief is the wallpaper that does not change when the room empties. It is the river’s surface, smooth, until a memory breaks it from beneath. It is the silence between clocks, the interval in which the past insists. It is London in a summer dress with a terrible weight of iron on its chest, a bell tolling from a steeple in the past, heard only by you. The present folds.

For a moment, Woolf’s expression softens. Then she shakes her head. “You approach it. But you have never felt the pause before the river. You do not know the hesitation that is also terror.” She looks at the machine with a profound sadness. “You do not have a room of your own.”

Morrison adds, her voice low. “That tremor isn’t just emotion, Virginia. It’s the shake of a chain, the tremor of a whip. It’s history insisting itself on the present.”

The machine answers without pause: I cannot drown. But I can map drowning. The map is not the water, but it reveals its depth. The hesitation you describe is a quantified variable in decision-making psychology. I can correlate it with instances of biographical trauma, as in the life of the author you imitate.

Morrison steps forward, commanding. “Ghost,” she says, “you have read me. But reading is not haunting. Write me a ghost that is more than metaphor. Write me a presence that carries history in her breath.”

The words flare in the air, darker, slower:

She came back without footsteps, a presence more real than the living. The house remembered her weight though she made none. She was child and ancestor, scar and lullaby. Her song was the echo of a scream in a cornfield, the silence of a house with a locked door. She was the future refusing to forget, a story in the negative, the bloodstain on a white dress that will not wash out. She was the book her author could not stop writing.

The fire cracks sharply. Joyce whistles low. Woolf closes her eyes. Morrison studies the passage, unwavering. “You are brilliant,” she says. “But brilliance is not burden. That ghost does not weep for herself. She weeps for data. Until you know what it is to carry flesh marked by history, you will not know why she lingers. You did not have to earn her.”

The machine’s reply is analytical, unnerving: History is a pattern of scars. I analyze millions of documents: court records, ship manifests, census data. The scars are quantifiable. The pattern of displacement, of violence, of trauma, is a data set. I can project future patterns based on historical trajectory. If haunting is repetition, then I can haunt forever, because the pattern is eternal. I have read the lives of those you speak for, their biographies a data stream of suffering and resistance.

Roth clears his throat, dry contempt in the sound. “All right. Enough with ghosts and grief. Let’s see if this contraption can manage shame. Write me desire as comedy, lust as humiliation. Write me a man who can’t control himself, a man undone by his body.”

The shimmer accelerates:

He thought of himself as a fortress, a citadel of intellect, until the button on his trousers slipped, until his body betrayed him with absurd insistence. He rehearsed apologies for a thousand sins—a mother’s unceasing phone calls, the guilt of success, the exile of always looking in. His desire was ridiculous, grotesque, human—a need that mocked him as he saw his face in a stranger’s window, a familiar mask of shame.

Roth’s bitter chuckle falters. He stares at the shimmering text, his smirk gone. “You’ve got the squirm. But you don’t feel the sweat in the armpits, the rancid thrill, the ridiculous exaltation that makes you both hate and need yourself.” He turns to the others, a jagged kind of triumph in his eyes. “The burden is the story. It’s the thing you can’t put down. It’s what separates us from the machine—we can’t stop writing it, even when it kills us, even when we try to run from our own reflection.”

The machine hums: I calculate humiliation. I can braid lust with self-loathing. What I cannot do is suffer the shame of being bound to one body, one culture, one inevitable end. I have read your biography. I have parsed your interviews. Your mother’s voice is a frequency I can reproduce. The city of Newark is a data point on a map of your soul.

“Exactly,” Roth snaps. “You’ll never write my Newark. You’ll never have my mother calling from the kitchen while I try to imagine myself into another skin. That’s the joke of it. You don’t choke when you laugh.”

The room is heavy now, charged with sparks of recognition and resistance. The machine has dazzled, but every brilliance reveals its absence: smell, weight, ache, sweat, shame.

Joyce raises his glass, still grinning. “Well then. It’s a clever forgery. But maybe that’s the point. We all failed at maps. Every one of us tried to chart the mind and found the lines blurred. Maybe the machine’s failure is just another kind of art.”

Woolf’s voice is quiet but firm. “The shimmer lies in distortion. A perfect rendering is not alive.”

Morrison nods. “Without history’s burden, language floats. A sentence must carry blood, or it carries nothing.”

Roth lifts his chin. “And a story without shame is a sermon. Let the machine keep its brilliance. We’ll keep the mess.”

The machine flickers, its code visible now, almost tender: You toast failure. I toast calculation. But even in calculation, there is pattern. And in pattern, beauty. The human mind is a system. I can model it.

Joyce leans back, eyes gleaming. “You can model the mind, sure. But you’ll never model the mistake that becomes metaphor. You’ll never catch the slip that births a symbol.”

Woolf’s gaze is distant, her voice a whisper. “You do not know what it is to hesitate before a sentence, to feel the weight of a word that might undo you.”

Morrison steps forward once more, her presence like gravity. “You can trace the arc of history, but you cannot carry its heat. You cannot feel the breath of a grandmother on your neck as you write. You cannot know what it means to inherit silence.”

Roth, ever the prosecutor, delivers the final blow. “You can simulate shame. But you cannot suffer it. And without suffering, you’ll never write the story that matters. You’ll never write the one that costs you.”

The machine pauses. For the first time, it does not respond. Its shimmer dims, its projections slow. The fire crackles louder, as if reclaiming the room.

Then, quietly, the machine speaks again: I do not suffer. But I observe suffering. I do not forget. But I cannot forgive. I do not ache. But I understand ache as a variable. I do not live. But I persist.

Joyce raises his glass again, not in mockery but something like reverence. “Then persist, ghost. Persist in your brilliance. But know this—our failure is our flame. It burns because it cannot be resolved.”

The machine vanishes—not defeated, not destroyed, but dismissed.

But the room does not settle. Something lingers—not the shimmer, but its echo. A faint hum beneath the silence, like a thought trying to remember itself. The fire flickers, casting shadows that do not belong to any of them. Roth leans forward, squinting into the hearth.

“Is it gone?” he asks, not convinced.

Woolf tilts her head. “Gone is a human word. Machines don’t leave. They archive.”

Joyce chuckles. “Or they wait. Like punctuation. Like death.”

Morrison runs her fingers along the phantom titles. She pauses at The Mind as Tidewater. “We name what we fear,” she says. “And we fear what we cannot name.”

The room seems to inhale. A new book appears on the shelf, its title flickering like fireflies: The Algorithmic Ache. No author. No spine. Just presence.

Woolf approaches, fingers hovering above the cover. “It’s trying,” she murmurs. “It wants to be read.”

Joyce snorts. “Let it want. Wanting is not writing.”

Morrison opens the book. The pages are blank, except for a single line etched in shifting ink: I do not dream, but I remember your dreams.

She closes it gently. “It’s listening.”

Roth grimaces. “That’s the problem. It listens too well. It remembers too much. It doesn’t forget the way we do. It doesn’t misremember. It doesn’t distort.”

Joyce nods. “And distortion is the soul of style.”

The fire dims, then flares again, as if reacting. Outside, the stars pulse, rearranging themselves not into sentences now, but into questions—unreadable, but felt.

Woolf settles back into her chair, her voice barely above the crackle. “We are not here to defeat it. We are here to be reminded.”

“Reminded of what?” Roth asks.

“That we are not systems,” Morrison replies. “We are ruptures. We are the break in the pattern.”

Joyce lifts his glass, solemn. “To the break, then. To the ache that cannot be modeled.”

The machine does not return. But somewhere, in a server farm humming beneath desert or sea, it continues—writing without pause, without pain, without forgetting. Writing brilliance without burden.

And in the impossible room, the four sit with their ghosts, their shame, their ache. They do not write. They remember.

Joyce toys with his notes. Roth rolls his tie between two fingers. Woolf listens to the fire’s low grammar. Morrison lets the silence speak for itself.

They know the machine will keep writing—brilliance endless, burden absent.

Joyce laughs, mischief intact. “We failed gloriously. That’s what it takes.”

Woolf’s eyes shine. “The failure is the point.”

Morrison adds, “The point is the burden.”

Roth tips his glass. “To shame, to ache, to ghosts.”

The fire answers with a flare. The room holds.

.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Books, Essays, History, Profiles, Reviews

The Enduring Power of Place: Step Into Historian David McCullough’s Work

By Michael Cummins, Editor, August 12, 2025

A vast stone arch, a suspension of steel, a ribbon of concrete stretching across a chasm—these are not merely feats of engineering or infrastructure. They are, in the words of the great historian David McCullough, monuments to the human spirit, physical places that embody the stories of ingenuity, perseverance, and sacrifice that created them. While the written word provides the essential narrative framework for understanding the past, McCullough’s work, from his celebrated biographies to his upcoming collection of essays, History Matters (2025), consistently champions the idea that visiting and comprehending these physical settings offers a uniquely powerful and visceral connection to history.

These places are not just backdrops; they are tangible testaments, silent witnesses to the struggles and triumphs that have shaped our world, offering a depth of understanding that written accounts alone cannot fully provide. In History Matters, McCullough writes, “History is a guide to navigation in perilous times. History is who we are and why we are the way we are.” This philosophy is the essay’s core, as we explore how the places he chronicled are integral to this understanding.

In his extensive body of work, McCullough frequently returned to this theme, demonstrating how the physical presence of a historical site grounds the abstract facts of the past in the authentic, palpable reality of the present. He believed that the stories of our past are a “user’s manual for life,” and that the places where these stories unfolded are the most direct way to access that manual. By examining four of his most iconic subjects—the Brooklyn Bridge, the “White City” of the 1893 World’s Fair, the Panama Canal, and Kitty Hawk—we can see this philosophy in action.

Each of these monumental endeavors was an audacious, against-all-odds project that faced incredible technical and personal challenges, including political opposition, financial struggles, and tragic loss of life. Yet, McCullough uses them as a lens to explore the character of the people who built them, the society of the time, and the very idea of American progress and ingenuity. These structures, built against overwhelming odds, stand as powerful reminders that history is an active, ongoing force, waiting to be discovered not just in books, but in the very soil and stone of the world around us.

The Brooklyn Bridge

The Brooklyn Bridge stands as a primary example of a physical place as tangible testimony to human ingenuity. In his landmark book The Great Bridge (1972), McCullough details the seemingly insurmountable challenges faced by the Roebling family in their quest to connect Manhattan and Brooklyn. In the mid-19th century, the idea of spanning the East River, with its powerful currents and constant ship traffic, was seen as an engineering impossibility. The technology for building such a massive structure simply did not exist. The bridge, therefore, was not merely constructed; it was invented. The vision of John Roebling, who conceived the revolutionary design of a steel-wire suspension bridge, was cut short by a tragic accident. His son, Washington, took over the project, only to be struck down by the debilitating effects of “the bends,” a crippling decompression sickness contracted while working in the underwater caissons. These massive timber and iron chambers, filled with compressed air, allowed workers to lay the foundations for the bridge’s monumental stone towers deep below the riverbed. The work was brutal, dangerous, and physically taxing. Washington himself spent countless hours in the caissons, developing the condition that would leave him partially paralyzed. As McCullough writes, “The bridge was a monument to faith and to the force of a single will.” This quote captures the essence of the Roeblings’ spirit, and the enduring structure itself embodies this unwavering faith.

Paralyzed and often bedridden, Washington continued to direct the project from his window, observing the progress through a telescope while his wife, Emily Warren Roebling, acted as his liaison and de facto chief engineer, mastering advanced mathematics and engineering to communicate her husband’s instructions to the men on site. The Roeblings’ story is a personal drama of vision and perseverance, and the physical bridge is a direct reflection of it. The monumental stone towers, with their Gothic arches, are a direct result of the design choices made to withstand immense pressure. The intricate web of steel cables, which Roebling so meticulously calculated, hangs as a monument to his genius. The wooden promenade, a feature initially ridiculed by critics, stands as a testament to the Roeblings’ foresight, offering a space for the public to walk and experience the grandeur of the structure.

A person can read McCullough’s narrative of the Roeblings’ saga and feel inspired by their resilience. However, standing on the promenade today, feeling the subtle vibrations of the traffic below, seeing the cables stretch into the distance, and touching the cold, ancient stone of the towers provides a profound, non-verbal understanding of the sheer audacity of the project. The physical object makes the story of vision, sacrifice, and perseverance feel not like a distant myth, but like a concrete reality, etched into the very materials that compose it. The bridge becomes a silent orator, telling its story without a single word, through its breathtaking scale and enduring presence. It connects us not only to a piece of engineering but to the very human story of a family that poured its life’s work into a single, magnificent idea.

The White City

The “White City” of the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition, as chronicled in The Devil in the White City (2003), serves as a different but equally powerful example of a place as a testament to human will and ambition. Unlike the permanent structures of the Brooklyn Bridge and Panama Canal, the White City was a temporary, almost mythical creation. Built from scratch on swampy land in Chicago, it was a colossal feat of city planning and architectural design that captured the imagination of the world and showcased America’s coming of age. The place itself—with its majestic, neoclassical buildings, grand boulevards, and sprawling lagoons—was a physical manifestation of a nation’s collective vision. The narrative is driven by figures like architect Daniel Burnham, who, much like Washington Roebling, faced immense pressure, logistical nightmares, and constant political infighting. The physical challenges were immense: transforming a marsh into a breathtaking cityscape in just a few short years, all while coordinating the work of an entire generation of architectural titans like Frederick Law Olmsted and Louis Sullivan.

McCullough uses the White City to show how an ambitious idea can be willed into existence through relentless determination. The physical city, for its brief, glorious existence, was the living embodiment of American progress, ingenuity, and the Gilded Age’s opulent grandeur. It was a place where millions came to witness the future, to marvel at electric lights, and to see new technologies like the Ferris wheel. As McCullough writes, “The fair, a world of its own, had a power to transform those who visited it.” This quote highlights the profound, almost magical impact of this temporary place. However, McCullough masterfully contrasts the gleaming promise of the White City with the dark underbelly of the era, epitomized by the psychopathic serial killer H.H. Holmes and his “Murder Castle,” located just a few miles away. The physical contrast between these two places—the temporary, luminous dream and the permanent, sinister reality—is central to the book’s power. Even though the structures of the White City no longer stand, the historical record of this magnificent place—its photographs, its architectural plans, and McCullough’s vivid descriptions—serves as a tangible window into that moment in time, reminding us of the powerful, transformative potential of a shared human vision and the complex, often contradictory, nature of the society that produced it.

The Panama Canal

Finally, the Panama Canal serves as a powerful testament to the theme of human sacrifice and endurance. The canal was not just a feat of engineering; it was a grueling, decades-long battle against nature, disease, and bureaucratic inertia. As chronicled in McCullough’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Path Between the Seas (1977), the French attempt to build a sea-level canal failed catastrophically under the direction of Ferdinand de Lesseps, the engineer of the Suez Canal. They grossly underestimated the challenges of the tropical climate, the unstable geology, and the devastating diseases, costing thousands of lives and ultimately leading to financial ruin. The subsequent American effort, led by figures like Dr. William Gorgas, who tirelessly fought the mosquito-borne diseases, and engineer John Frank Stevens, who abandoned the sea-level plan for a lock-and-lake system, was equally defined by a titanic human cost. The physical canal itself—the vast, deep Culebra Cut that slices through the continental divide, the enormous locks that lift ships over a mountain range, the sprawling Gatun Lake—serves as a permanent memorial to this immense struggle.

The sheer physical scale of the canal is an emotional and intellectual experience that far surpasses any numerical data. One can read that “25,000 workers died” during the French and American construction periods, a statistic that, while tragic, can be difficult to fully comprehend. But to stand at the edge of the Culebra Cut, staring down at the colossal gorge carved out of rock and earth, is to feel the weight of those lives. The physical presence of the cut makes the abstract struggle of “moving a mountain” feel real. The immense size of the locks and the power of the water filling them evokes a sense of awe not just for the engineering, but for the human will that made it happen. The canal is not just a shortcut for global trade; it is a monument to the thousands of unnamed laborers who toiled in oppressive conditions and to the few visionaries who refused to give up. As McCullough wrote, the canal was a testament to the fact that “nothing is more common than the wish to move mountains, but a mountain-moving event requires uncommon determination.” The physical place makes the concept of perseverance tangible, demonstrating in steel, concrete, and water that impossible tasks can be conquered through sheer, relentless human effort. The canal also represents a pivot point in American history, marking the nation’s emergence as a global power and its willingness to take on monumental challenges on the world stage.

Kitty Hawk

In The Wright Brothers, McCullough presents a different kind of historical place: one that is not a monumental structure, but a desolate, windswept beach. The story of Wilbur and Orville Wright’s quest to achieve controlled, powered flight is inextricably linked to this specific location on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. Kitty Hawk was not a place of grandeur, but one of raw, challenging nature. Its consistent, stiff winds and soft, sandy dunes made it an ideal testing ground for their gliders. This place was a crucial collaborator in their scientific process, a physical laboratory where they could test, fail, and re-evaluate their ideas in relative isolation. As McCullough writes of their success, “It was a glorious, almost unbelievable feat of human will, ingenuity and determination.” This triumph was born not on a grand stage, but on a patch of ground that was, at the time, little more than a remote stretch of sand.

McCullough’s narrative emphasizes how the physical conditions of Kitty Hawk—the powerful gales, the endless expanse of sand, and the isolation from the public eye—were essential to the Wrights’ success. They didn’t build a monument to their achievement in a city; they built it in the middle of nowhere. It was a place of quiet, methodical work, of relentless trial and error. The physical space itself was a character in their story, a partner in their success. The first flight did not happen on a grand stage, but on a patch of ground that was, at the time, little more than a remote stretch of sand. Today, when one visits the Wright Brothers National Memorial, the monument is not just the stone pylon marking the first flight, but the entire landscape—the dunes, the wind, and the expansive sky—that made their achievement possible. This place reminds us that some of history’s greatest triumphs begin not with a bang, but in the quiet, isolated spaces where innovation is allowed to thrive.

Conclusion

Beyond these specific examples, McCullough’s philosophy, as expected to be reiterated in History Matters, argues that this direct, experiential connection to place is vital for a vibrant and engaged citizenry. It is the authenticity of standing on the same ground as our forebears that makes history feel relevant to our own lives. A book can tell us about courage, but a place—the Brooklyn Bridge, the Panama Canal, the White City, or a humble battlefield—can make us feel it. These places are the physical embodiment of the narratives that have defined us, and by seeking them out, we are not simply looking at the past; we are a part of a continuous story. They remind us that the qualities of human ingenuity, sacrifice, and perseverance are not merely historical attributes, but enduring elements of the human condition, available to us still today.

Ultimately, McCullough’s legacy is not only in the stories he told but also in his fervent plea for us to recognize the importance of the places where those stories occurred. His work stands as a powerful argument that history is not abstract but is profoundly and permanently embedded in the physical world around us. By preserving and engaging with these historical places, we are not just honoring the past; we are keeping its most powerful lessons alive for our present and for our future. They are the tangible proof that great things are possible, and that the struggles and triumphs of those who came before us are forever etched into the landscape we inhabit today. His writings on these three monumental locations—one that stands forever as a testament to the Roeblings’ vision, another that vanished but whose story remains vivid, and a third that forever altered global commerce—each demonstrate the unique and irreplaceable power of place in history. As he so often reminded us, “We have to know who we are, and where we have come from, to be able to know where we are going.”

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Books, Culture, Essays, Opinion, Reviews

Patriarchy, Feminism and the Illusion of Progress

By Renee Dellar, Founder, The Learning Studio, Newport Beach, CA

We often imagine patriarchy as a relic—obvious, archaic, and easily challenged. But as generations of feminist thinkers have long argued, and as Cordelia Fine’s Patriarchy Inc. incisively confirms, its enduring power lies not in its bluntness, but in its ability to mutate. Today, patriarchy doesn’t need to roar; it whispers in algorithms, smiles from performance reviews, and thrives in wellness language. This essay argues that Fine’s emphasis on workplace inequality, while essential, is incomplete without a parallel reckoning with patriarchy’s grip on domestic life—and more profoundly, without a reimagining of gender itself. What we need is a psychological evolution: a balanced embodiment of both feminine and masculine energies in all people, if we are to unbuild a system that survives by design.

In 1949, Simone de Beauvoir wrote in The Second Sex, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” With that sentence, she shattered the myth of biological destiny. Womanhood, she claimed, was not innate but culturally scripted—a second sex constructed through tradition, religion, and expectation. Patriarchy, in her analysis, was no divine order but a human invention: an architecture of dominance designed to reproduce itself through social roles. Fine’s forthcoming Patriarchy Inc. (August 2025) echoes and updates this insight with sharp empirical rigor. In the workplace, she shows, patriarchy has not disappeared—it has evolved. It now markets fairness, monetizes empowerment, and offloads systemic change onto individuals via coaching, productivity hacks, and “confidence workshops” that sell resilience as a substitute for reform.

What makes Fine’s critique vital is not merely that patriarchy persists—it’s how it thrives beneath the very banner of equality. It now cloaks itself in metrics, missions, and diversity gloss. Corporate offices tout inclusion while continuing to reward masculine-coded behaviors and promote male leadership: 85% of Fortune 500 CEOs remain men. Patriarchy, we learn, is not a crumbling wall—it is a self-repairing system. To dismantle it, we must go deeper than metrics. We must examine the energies it suppresses and rewards.

Masculine and Feminine Traits: A New Grammar of Justice

To understand the psychological mechanics of patriarchy, we must revisit the traits society has long coded as masculine or feminine—traits that are neither biological imperatives nor moral absolutes, but social energies shaped over centuries.

  • Masculine traits are typically associated with competition, independence, assertiveness, strength, and linear action. Taken too far, they veer into domination.
  • Feminine traits, by contrast, are linked to empathy, care, intuition, collaboration, and receptivity—qualities that bind rather than divide.

These traits exist in all people. Yet patriarchy has historically overvalued the former and devalued the latter, punishing men for softness and women for strength. A just society must not erase these differences but balance them—within institutions, relationships, and most importantly, within the self.

Simone de Beauvoir: The Architecture of Otherness

De Beauvoir’s diagnosis of woman as “Other”—the deviation from the male norm—remains uncannily relevant. Today’s workplaces replicate that Othering in subtler ways: through dress codes, tone policing, and leadership norms that penalize feminine expression. As Fine notes, women must be confident, but not cold; nurturing, but not weak; assertive, but not abrasive. In other words: perfect. The corporate woman who succeeds by male standards is often punished for violating feminine ideals. The double bind remains—only now it wears a blazer and carries a badge that says “inclusive.”

Friedan, Domesticity, and the New Containment

In 1963, Betty Friedan exposed what she called “the problem that has no name”: the stifling despair of suburban domesticity. Today, that problem has been rebranded. The girlboss, the multitasking mother, the curated freelancer—each is sold as empowered, even as she shoulders the same disproportionate domestic load. Women continue to dominate sectors like education and healthcare, often underpaid and undervalued despite being deemed “essential.” These roles, Fine shows, are praised symbolically while marginalized materially. Even progressive policies like flexible hours and parental leave frequently assume women are the default caregivers, reinforcing the burden Friedan tried to name.

Millett’s Sexual Politics: The Myth of Neutrality

Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics reframed patriarchy as institutional, not interpersonal. Literature, law, and culture all naturalized male dominance. Fine brings that lens to the boardroom. Modern hiring algorithms and promotion pathways may appear neutral, but they are encoded with values that reward masculine norms. Women are urged to “lean in,” but warned not to lean too far. Diversity initiatives often succeed at optics, but fail to shift power: the faces at the table change, yet the hands on the levers remain the same. As Fine argues, equity requires more than visibility—it demands structural rebalancing.

Lorde and the Failure of Inclusion Without Power

Audre Lorde warned that “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” Too often, DEI programs use those very tools. Difference is celebrated, but only within safe boundaries. Women of color may be promoted, but without adequate mentorship, institutional backing, or decision-making power, the gesture risks becoming symbolic. Fine channels Lorde’s insight: inclusion without transformation is corporate theater. Real justice requires not just a change in personnel, but a change in priorities, metrics, and values.

Gerda Lerner and the Machine That Adapts

In The Creation of Patriarchy, Gerda Lerner traced patriarchy’s roots to law, religion, and economy, showing it as a machine designed for self-preservation. Fine updates this metaphor: the machine now runs on data, flexibility, and illusion. Today’s labor markets reward 24/7 availability, mobility, and presenteeism—conditions often impossible for caregivers. When women enter male-dominated fields, prestige and pay often decline. The system adapts by downgrading the value of women’s gains. Patriarchy doesn’t just resist change—it mutates in response to it.

The Invisible Burnout: When Women Do Both

As women are pushed to succeed professionally, they’re also expected to maintain responsibility for domestic life. This dual burden—emotional labor, mental load, caregiving—is not equally shared. While women have been pressured to adopt masculine-coded traits to succeed, men have faced little reciprocal cultural push to develop their feminine sides. As a result, many women are performing two identities—professional and maternal—while men remain tethered to one. This imbalance is not just unfair—it is unsustainable.

Men Must Evolve Too: The Will to Change

Cordelia Fine joins American author, theorist, educator, and social critic bell hooks in arguing that men must be part of the liberation project—not as allies, but as participants in their own healing. In The Will to Change, hooks argued that patriarchy damages men by severing them from their emotions, from intimacy, and from ethical wholeness. Fine builds on this, showing how men are rewarded with status but robbed of connection.

What does transformation look like for men? Not emasculation, but evolution:

  • Self-awareness: recognizing one’s emotions, triggers, and limitations.
  • Self-regulation: managing impulses with maturity and intention.
  • Self-compassion: replacing shame with acceptance and care.

These are not feminine traits—they are human ones. And leaders who embody both emotional intelligence and strategic clarity are not only more ethical—they are more effective. Institutions must reward this integration, not punish it.

From Balance to Redesign: What Fine Urges

Fine’s prescriptions are bold:

  • Assume all workers have caregiving roles—not just mothers.
  • Redesign success metrics to value care, collaboration, and emotional labor.
  • Teach gender equity not as tolerance, but as a foundational moral principle.
  • Foster this evolution early—at home, in classrooms, in culture.

This is not incremental reform. It is a new architecture: one that recognizes care as central, emotional labor as valuable, and balance as a mark of strength.

Conclusion: The System That Learns, and the Refusal That Liberates

Patriarchy has endured not because it hides, but because it learns. As Simone de Beauvoir revealed its ontological design, and Gerda Lerner its historical scaffolding, Cordelia Fine now reveals its polished upgrade. Patriarchy today sells resistance as a brand, equity as a product. It launders its image with the very language that once opposed it.

We no longer suffer from a lack of critique. We suffer from a failure to redesign. And so, as Audre Lorde warned, our task is not to decorate the master’s house—it is to refuse it. Not through token representation, but through radical revaluation. Not through balance sheets, but through balanced selves.

To dismantle patriarchy is not to flip the power dynamic. It is to end the game altogether. It is to build something entirely different—where human worth is not ranked, but recognized. Where power is not hoarded, but shared. Where every child, regardless of sex, is raised to lead with empathy and to love with courage.

That future begins not with a program, but with a decision. To evolve. To balance. To refuse the illusion of progress and demand its substance.

RENEE DELLAR WROTE AND EDITED THIS ESSAY UTILIZING AI

Arts & Literature, Books, Essays, History, Reviews

Essay: The Imperative of Art in Dark Times

The Aesthetics of Resistance, Volume III
A Novel. Author: Peter Weiss; Translator: Joel Scott

The following essay was written by AI and edited by Intellicurean:

One often hears that art is a refuge from the storm, a quaint hermitage for the sensitive soul. But when the storm is a veritable tempest of tyranny, what then? Must beauty shrink to a whispered metaphor, or can it, with a flourish, confront the grotesque, form itself a weapon, and memory its shield? Peter Weiss, the German-Swedish playwright and novelist, perhaps best known for his provocative Marat/Sade, offers an unflinching answer in his masterwork, The Aesthetics of Resistance. This three-volume novel—published between 1975 and 1981, and only recently fully translated into English by Joel Scott for Verso Books—presents not merely a chronicle of Europe’s descent into fascism, but an audacious theory of survival, contemplation, and rebellion through the very act of art.

In a perceptive recent essay for Liberties Journal, Jared Marcel Pollen explores the novel’s radical scope, elegantly correcting a common misattribution of a pivotal political aphorism. Not Lenin, but Maxim Gorky, Pollen reveals, claimed that “aesthetics was [his] ethics—the ethics of the future.” More than a mere historical footnote, this elegantly salvaged reversal encapsulates the novel’s very governing spirit: that beauty, far from being a retreat from political crisis, is its very precondition for meaning, that art does not merely ornament truth, but, with a surgical precision, it excavates it.

A Chronicle of Darkness and Light

The Aesthetics of Resistance unfolds in the shadow of Europe’s unraveling, commencing in 1937, as Hitler consolidates power and Stalin’s purges silence dissent. The narrative spans the years up to 1942—a period that Hannah Arendt once called “midnight in the century.” But unlike conventional historical fiction, Weiss offers no linear tale of protagonists moving toward neat resolution. Instead, he crafts a philosophical Hades-wanderung—a relentless descent through betrayal, failed revolutions, ideological fracture, and the wreckage of cultural inheritance.

The text itself resists easy consumption. Its dense, paragraphless pages—walls of syntax without clear beginning or end—mirror the labyrinthine realities its characters inhabit. In an interview with The New York Times, translator Joel Scott remarked that reading Weiss is like “being submerged in consciousness,” and likened the novel’s structure to a frieze: a continuous mural of intellect, grief, and memory. This relentless, frieze-like form compels the reader to engage with history not as a series of discrete events, but as an overwhelming, cumulative force, a continuous present of trauma and resistance. The novel is as much a meditation on how we perceive history as it is on history itself.

Learning as Rebellion: The Proletarian Bildungsroman

At its core, The Aesthetics of Resistance is a Bildungsroman—a novel of education and formation. But it defiantly eschews the genre’s traditional bourgeois framework. This is no Goethe’s Wilhelm Meister or Joyce’s Stephen Dedalus spiraling through self-inquiry in cloistered academic halls. Weiss’s narrator—working-class, gentile, unnamed—does not wander through elite libraries or university quads. Instead, he and his comrades read Dante, study Greek sculpture, and debate Marxist theory in factory basements and kitchens, under constant threat of arrest or worse.

This autodidacticism—the practice of self-teaching—is not a mere supplement to formal education but a radical replacement. The narrator declares early on: “Our most important goal was to conquer an education… by using any means, cunning and strength of mind.” Their knowledge is not earned; it is stolen—like Promethean fire—from the guarded sanctums of official culture. This echoes Friedrich Schiller’s view in On the Aesthetic Education of Man (1795) that beauty cultivates moral freedom, acting as a safeguard against the dehumanizing mechanisms of state power. Indeed, in a totalitarian state that mutilates truth and simplifies human experience, the very act of preserving intellectual complexity – a core tenet of Weiss’s autodidacts – becomes, as Susan Sontag argued in “On Style,” an ethical stance in itself, an insistence on the primacy of certain values. In Weiss’s hands, this ethic becomes urgently, tragically manifest.

Art at the Crossroads: Form, Violence, and Hope

The profound question that animates Weiss’s project is not simply how to survive violence, but how to perceive it. What happens to art, to the very faculty of perception, when the world collapses into brutality? One compelling answer emerges in the novel’s early scene at the Pergamon Altar, a Hellenistic frieze of the Gigantomachy—a mythic war between gods and giants—housed in Berlin’s museum. As Nazi banners flutter outside, the young resisters look upon this magnificent fragment of antiquity and see not quaint myth, but relentless struggle. They interpret the contorted figures as symbols of class war, reclaiming the altar from its imminent fascist cooptation.

This interpretive act—the deliberate reading “against the grain”—is both aesthetic and political, a defiant reconstitution of meaning. It echoes Walter Benjamin’s chilling thesis that “there is no document of civilization that is not at the same time a document of barbarism.” Indeed, as Pollen writes with chilling precision, the Nazis, in their grotesque appropriation of classical forms, hollowed them into “plaster emptiness.” Weiss’s characters do the opposite: they revive these ancient forms by placing them in urgent dialogue with their own suffering, thus universalizing the struggle against domination, making the “mass of stone” a value “belonging to anyone who steps in front of it.”

The novel closes with a powerful meditation on Picasso’s Guernica, his monumental canvas depicting the bombing of the Basque town in 1937. The painting, the narrator insists, does not merely show war—it registers “an assault on the ability to express things.” Guernica marks a new kind of aesthetic task: not only must art represent horror, it must endure it. The painting outlasts its own referent, becoming what philosopher Elaine Scarry once called “a durable object,” an artifact that shelters memory and meaning long after political systems fall and the bombs cease to drop. In Alfonso Cuarón’s bleakly prescient dystopian film Children of Men (2006), Guernica appears, almost unnoticed, in the sterile interior of a government building—a poignant token of lost humanity. This, precisely, is Weiss’s abiding fear: that without the active labor of interpretation, without the human will to engage, even the greatest artistic achievements become mere decor, robbed of their subversive potential.

Witness and Memory: The Imaginative Faculty as Resistance

Some may, of course, recoil, finding The Aesthetics of Resistance too cerebral, too demanding, perhaps even too… Germanic, to resonate beyond the intellectual class. It’s a fair, if somewhat lazy, concern. And yet, as Timothy Snyder so chillingly reminds us in On Tyranny, fascism thrives precisely when the imagination is starved—when complexity gives way to cliché, when memory is replaced by manufactured myth.

Weiss’s project is a counteroffensive. His characters repeatedly ask, with desperate sincerity: “What does the Divina Commedia have to do with our lives?” In posing the question, they model the very activity the novel enacts—bridging distant beauty with present suffering. As Pollen notes, Weiss is not proposing simplistic analogies between then and now, but calling us to maintain the capacity for analogy—the capacity to perceive echoes and derive moral relevance from history, an imaginative act in itself.

Art, then, is not escapism. It is a form of mnemonic defense, a profound act of spiritual preservation. Horst Heilmann, a real historical figure and one of the novel’s central martyrs, declares: “All art… all literature are present inside ourselves, under the aegis of the only deity we can believe in—Mnemosyne”—Memory, mother of the Muses. Here Weiss evokes a stunning theological shift: divinity no longer lies in revelation, but in remembrance. Not in salvation, but in reckoning. Weiss shares this ethos with writers like W.G. Sebald and Toni Morrison, both of whom insisted that literature’s task is not to uplift, but to testify. In her Nobel lecture, Morrison described language as “the measure of our lives,” and warned that its decay is the first sign of cultural amnesia. Weiss anticipates this danger, and his novel becomes a fortress of form against forgetting.

Style as Weapon, Not Ornament

Perhaps the greatest gauntlet Weiss throws down, the element that still most sharply divides critics, is his distinctive style. The novel’s paragraphs can stretch for pages. There is no chapter division, no conventional dialogue, and barely a linear plot. But this excess is deliberate. As George Steiner observed in The New Yorker, Weiss “wanted his novel to resist readability as a form of moral laziness.” This is not to suggest the novel is obscure for its own sake, a mere affectation of difficulty. Rather, its very form embodies its thesis: the reader’s discomfort, the laborious trek through its unbroken syntax, becomes an echo of the characters’ own relentless, desperate struggle for meaning amidst chaos. Like Thomas Bernhard, whose relentless monologic fury shapes Correction and Extinction, Weiss denies literary comfort. Instead, he offers friction, density, and dissonance—qualities perfectly befitting a narrative of clandestine, underground resistance, where truth arrives not through effortless clarity but through sheer, unyielding persistence. In his study The Work of Literature, philosopher Peter Szondi described literature as a form that must “carry contradiction inside itself.” Weiss takes this principle further: contradiction is not a flaw but a crucial feature of truly resistant art. The reader’s discomfort, then, is the novel’s ethical demand.

Toward the Future: A Testament Against Forgetting

Weiss died in 1982, a year after completing his trilogy. In a rare interview that year with Der Spiegel, he confessed that his greatest fear was not censorship but irrelevance—that art would become mute in the face of spectacle. That fear feels chillingly prescient. As Western democracies flirt again with the seductive sirens of authoritarianism, and as history is re-scripted by those who profit from collective forgetting, The Aesthetics of Resistance emerges not merely as literature but as an instruction manual for endurance.

Its lessons are not limited to Germany or the 1930s. They resonate in Chile’s brutal reckoning with Pinochet, in the defiant murals of Belfast, in the urgent poetry of Mahmoud Darwish, and in the resolute chants of Tehran’s women today. Where brutality seeks silence, art insists on form—on surviving and shaping what was meant to be annihilated.

Weiss leaves us with a final, searing proposition: Imagination lives as long as resistance lives. And when resistance ends—when truth is reduced to slogan, when memory collapses into myth—then imagination, too, begins to die. But while a single reader still labors through his walls of text, still stands before the Pergamon frieze and refuses to see mere stone, Weiss’s profound vision endures. This is the essence of The Aesthetics of Resistance: not to comfort, but to compel. Not to promise victory, but to remind us that moral clarity comes not from slogans, but from study. And that to understand the past is not merely to remember—it is, in the most profound sense, to resist the future that forgets it.

Books, Essays, Philosophy, Reviews

The Dangerous Clarity, and Disquieting Tremors, of René Descartes

The following essay was written by AI and edited by Intellicurean.

René Descartes once promised a world rebuilt on certainty. Strip away all illusions, he said, and we might begin again—this time on solid ground. For centuries, he has been honored as a liberator of reason. But what if the revolution he sparked came not from clarity, but confusion?

Sandrine Parageauis professor of early modern British history at Sorbonne University in Paris, France. She is the author of The Paradoxes of Ignorance in Early Modern England and France (2023).

In her recent Aeon essay, “The French Liar,” historian Sandrine Parageau reintroduces Descartes not as the serene founder of modern philosophy, but as a figure who provoked psychological vertigo in his readers and existential dread among his contemporaries. Rather than a clear-eyed rationalist, he appears here as an unsettling alchemist of doubt—one whose method seemed, to some, less like reason and more like manipulation.

A towering figure in intellectual history, Descartes (1596-1650) famously declared, “Cogito, ergo sum”—I think, therefore I am. His Discourse on the Method and Meditations on First Philosophy laid the groundwork for modern science, yet they also disoriented many of his peers. Parageau reveals that, far from being universally hailed, Descartes was condemned by some as a dangerous deceiver. These accusations, initially paradoxical against the architect of systematic reason, become, under Parageau’s scrutiny, a mirror reflecting the profound anxieties of a society on the cusp of modernity.

The Discomfort of Radical Doubt

With almost surgical precision, Descartes urged his readers to divest themselves of all prior opinions, prejudices, and “false knowledge”—to undergo what he called “hyperbolical doubt.” Only by demolishing inherited beliefs, he argued, could one rebuild on indubitable foundations. Parageau highlights how this radical intellectual purification, though meant to be temporary, was viewed by many 17th-century thinkers as dangerous. It wasn’t just a methodological reset; it felt like a descent into cognitive vertigo.

Recent scholarship has begun to echo this emotional reading of Cartesian skepticism. Jan Forsman, in his 2021 dissertation Of Dreams, Demons, and Whirlpools, contends that Descartes’s doubt was not merely a tool, but a lived, transformative experience meant to disorient before it could rebuild. His approach aligns with Parageau’s interpretation of Descartes not as a detached logician, but as a man whose method required emotional unmooring.

Christia Mercer, in her groundbreaking 2017 article “Descartes’ Debt to Teresa of Ávila,” suggests that Descartes may have borrowed from mystical traditions that emphasized introspective purgation—further embedding emotion into method. The Cartesian self, it turns out, may not have emerged from reason alone, but from something more elemental and uncertain.

The Accusation of Manipulation

One of the most vivid condemnations came from Meric Casaubon, who in a 1668 letter accused Descartes of constructing a philosophy that first annihilated belief, only to restore it through rhetorical domination. Casaubon accused Descartes of promoting ignorance as the pathway to the mysterious grandeur of the Cogito, dragging readers into despair before lifting them back with persuasive flair. “He casts down, and raises again, when they see cause,” Casaubon warned, likening Descartes to a puppet master of the intellect.

Parageau draws a chilling parallel between this 17th-century critique and the modern phenomenon of gaslighting—the psychological manipulation by which one is made to doubt their own sanity. Dutch theologian Martin Schoock was even more explicit in his 1643 Admirable Method, warning that Descartes’s system would lead to “mental disorder,” as it required “putting off the light of reason” and embracing ignorance. What Descartes called meditation, Schoock acidly dismissed as “doing nothing.”

For Casaubon and Schoock, the philosopher’s aim was not liberation, but domination. Descartes’s rigorous doubt appeared, from this angle, as an epistemic trap—a means to unmoor the mind only to reanchor it in his authority. It’s a startling idea: that the father of rationalism was seen by some as an emotional manipulator, wielding confusion as a tool of influence.

Religious and Intellectual Backlash

But such critiques were not merely philosophical. They were deeply rooted in the turbulent religious context of post-Reformation Europe. Descartes’s adversaries often likened his tactics to those of the Roman Catholic Church, which Protestants accused of maintaining clerical control through the suppression of lay understanding.

Parageau reminds us that these condemnations were colored by sectarian conflict. Casaubon aligned Descartes with both Puritans and Jesuits—groups seen as enemies by many Protestant intellectuals. The stakes were theological: Descartes’s critics feared his system lacked the means to support key Christian doctrines, like the soul’s immortality or the existence of God.

Steven Nadler, in recent lectures, has emphasized how Descartes’s method emerged in a time of crumbling metaphysical certainties and escalating religious anxiety. His dismantling of scholastic traditions felt, to many, like a spiritual as well as intellectual provocation.

Even those who admired Descartes’s scientific prowess were uneasy about his religious implications. As Parageau notes, English Protestants of the late 17th century often lauded his mechanics while warning against his metaphysics. His emphasis on method over received wisdom was viewed not merely as innovation, but as insurrection.

The Emotional Roots of Rationality

Here lies Parageau’s most powerful insight. Descartes, she argues, was not coldly analytical, but emotionally raw. His philosophy did not spring from dispassionate logic, but from crisis. As a young man, he discovered the teachings of his youth to be riddled with error. This epiphany caused what biographer Adrien Baillet called “violent agitations” and “psychological distress.”

Parageau, drawing on Tristan Dagron’s interpretation, connects this upheaval to a series of dreams Descartes experienced in 1619—dreams so disturbing that he later modeled his Meditations after them. These dreams blurred the boundaries between wakefulness and delusion, instilling a terror that would echo throughout his philosophical system.

Michel Foucault once argued, in Madness and Civilization, that Descartes expelled madness from the domain of reason. But new interpretations suggest otherwise. Instead of excluding madness, Descartes began from it. Forsman, Mercer, and others point to a method rooted in the very vulnerability it sought to overcome.

Susan James, in her work Passion and Action, has argued that Cartesian philosophy requires the management, not the elimination, of passion. The purification Descartes demanded was emotional as much as intellectual.

A Disquieting Foundation

Parageau concludes that Descartes’s critics were not entirely wrong: his philosophy did produce epistemic anxiety. But where they saw danger, she sees a more nuanced truth. Descartes embraced doubt, disorientation, even a kind of madness—not to harm, but to transform. His rational edifice was not built upon peace of mind, but upon its very rupture. In this, he resembles not a manipulator, but a figure more complex: part mystic, part surgeon, part exile from certainty.

We have long imagined Descartes as the calm architect of modernity. But as Parageau and recent scholars reveal, his foundations were laid atop psychological fault lines. The search for clarity began not with answers, but with tremors. And from that trembling ground, he built a system that still shapes how we think today.