A lot to enjoy here. Aside from the obvious compliments (this is so true, I'm going to keep this in my saved folder, etc.) my favorite thing is just your writing style. You're one of very few writers I know who happens to write both a) clearly and b) with a sort of rhythmic, serious, literary artfulness. Your sentences and paragraphs are constructed very well without seeming like you're trying to "sound beautiful." This essay is an example of itself, and that's the best part.
Profound insights. I will sit with this. As someone who has claimed the identity of "writer" since age 10, I actually haven't given it a great deal of thought other than "I like to write and I'm good at it." I have for sure endeavored "not to sound like AI" in the past few years, but trying not to write in this way or that way is very different from writing like no one else can except me. I have not really considered how impinged-upon my writing style has been, not just by AI but other "styles" that I have fed my internal grist mill with over the years.
I take your warning about the Kahneman paradigm seriously, because that is what I tend to do. It's hard not to build a box for myself between "what my audience is more likely to read" and "what my critics will say if I don't back it up." I'm breaking out of that as of now. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Betsy. I'm especially happy to hear that the Kahneman frame resonated. It's something I've noticed in myself and was hoping it wasn't just me.
This is wonderful. I’m totally guilty of writing like a taxidermist, which sucks because in reading this I was in full agreement with you.
I guess it’s hard when you’re still finding your footing as a beginner. It’s nice to have some inspiration and encouragement to get in the game and have fun, so thank you.
Amazing. And the part about BB and the similar analytical types - I had the same conclusion yesterday that I find the writing intriguing but can never bring myself to believe the “air-tight Bayesian logic” of it all…but I think it all often reads as an interesting sci-fi short story that sticks with me.
My monkey brain has certainly clocked this article - thank you.
I know you reject this but “the taxidermists tend to think they are working toward a unified “Theory of Everything.” A perfectly stuffed hyper-knowledge-object that will unravel all domains of wisdom by its touch and also not need to move or change and just sit there, looming all correct-like,” is EXACTLY how I would describe what it is I’m trying to do with all my work.
I view my work as a precursor to work such as yours; but our respective projects serve entirely different purposes. Yours is truly great, no doubts about it, but to disparage the taxidermists is a little hurtful to me, a taxidermist. (Although most taxidermists are unaware of the fact that their work is merely presaging what comes afterwards, so I certainly understand the attitude.)
Hopefully you’re catching my drift and I’m not spinning off into nonsense-land here.
I think my point is this: you need to be a taxidermist BEFORE you can produce works such as yours. In other words, I think you have to understand it all BEFORE you can play around with words and language as you claim. Does that make any sense?
Funny enough, some of the best books I’ve read boast “poor” writing skills compared to academic standards—which can now be easily implemented by AI. They boast some sort of effortless erudition; almost always brimming with “mistakes” … You arrogantly tend to think: I could have written this better. Yet deep down you know very well you couldn’t. It can’t be explained why they’re so good. Intellectual serendipity. Crazy inspiration. Genius. Talent. Perhaps the divine helped a bit. Perhaps luck. What I know for sure: great writing doesn’t always look like great writing. It’s something that can’t be easily deciphered. And this is great news. Especially today.
That touches on something I've noticed: if you're too arrogant to notice what "works" despite the rules, you're never going to become the sort of person who finds his talent.
You perfectly described LinkedIn in the pseudo-objective writing style. Which is why it has now become a site where people use AI to talk about the best way to use AI.
Very insightful and fun to read! I will trade in henpecking my writing for lacking clarity and expertise, and instead henpeck myself for lacking passion and abandon.
Thank you for writing this, James--you saved me from having to 😂 Seriously, man, great job. I just found you this AM with "All waltzes are for ghosts". I see I have a lot of seriously satisfying reading ahead of me!
Writing appears to be a dying technology. Reading is a dying use of technology. Why not use our time inventing their replacement? All technology eventually fails and is replaced. Even words. As we don't even yet understand what words are, maybe its time to move on.
The notion you can't or won't grasp how technological advancement works in communication is suspect. People who invented the car rode horses and bicycles. People who invented the radio wrote letters, sent telegrams.
Radio and letters and telegrams all use language. Cars and horses are both transportation. It's like you're saying "We won't need transportation in the future." And I'm saying, "How will you get from here to there?" and you're saying, "You lack imagination, luddite." And I'm like, "Ok but you brought it up."
You're using narrative reduction, not theoretic inquiry. And you're getting even the narrative reduction wrong. Radio isn't solely for spoken language. Letters ie paper can offer any kind of writing that's non-arbitrary.
Face the notion that reading and writing are in steep decline. Don't bank on them being legacy tech purely from their disappearance in children. They'll be using something way beyond metaphors/words. It's dead tech.
I can tell you don't value language because that's difficult to parse. You're using metaphors/words to describe their own irrelevance and not even doing a very good job at handwaving. If you think words are so dead, you should put your money where your mouth is and stop relying on them. Try communicating your non-linguistic philosophy via trendy dances on TikTok, which is what children are doing now instead of reading.
Actually, I'm developing a language with filmmakers and neuroscientists that replaces words. But until the parameters are finished, I'll have to use words meantime. I value language as what it really is, glass ceilinged poetic gibberish that gets us through the day.
Man… powerful metaphors and outstanding piece on writing. Looking forward to reading more of yours.
Thanks, Kyle.
A lot to enjoy here. Aside from the obvious compliments (this is so true, I'm going to keep this in my saved folder, etc.) my favorite thing is just your writing style. You're one of very few writers I know who happens to write both a) clearly and b) with a sort of rhythmic, serious, literary artfulness. Your sentences and paragraphs are constructed very well without seeming like you're trying to "sound beautiful." This essay is an example of itself, and that's the best part.
High praise, Justin. I work like hell to approach that and only occasionally do.
Profound insights. I will sit with this. As someone who has claimed the identity of "writer" since age 10, I actually haven't given it a great deal of thought other than "I like to write and I'm good at it." I have for sure endeavored "not to sound like AI" in the past few years, but trying not to write in this way or that way is very different from writing like no one else can except me. I have not really considered how impinged-upon my writing style has been, not just by AI but other "styles" that I have fed my internal grist mill with over the years.
I take your warning about the Kahneman paradigm seriously, because that is what I tend to do. It's hard not to build a box for myself between "what my audience is more likely to read" and "what my critics will say if I don't back it up." I'm breaking out of that as of now. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Betsy. I'm especially happy to hear that the Kahneman frame resonated. It's something I've noticed in myself and was hoping it wasn't just me.
This is wonderful. I’m totally guilty of writing like a taxidermist, which sucks because in reading this I was in full agreement with you.
I guess it’s hard when you’re still finding your footing as a beginner. It’s nice to have some inspiration and encouragement to get in the game and have fun, so thank you.
AI as taxidermist is the best analogy yet. I witness this on your behalf.
ha, thanks, Clark. It strikes me as plausible, at least.
I picture your friend’s taxidermy Xbox room and cinderblock racquetball cathedral as Wes Anderson dioramas.
I’m reader not writer or critic but can’t help but notice I and my kind are getting worse at reading while writers are upping their game.
Wes Anderson visual is the best I could hope for in this instance, I think.
Or maybe you're just getting better at noticing what's good as you get better ?
Amazing. And the part about BB and the similar analytical types - I had the same conclusion yesterday that I find the writing intriguing but can never bring myself to believe the “air-tight Bayesian logic” of it all…but I think it all often reads as an interesting sci-fi short story that sticks with me.
My monkey brain has certainly clocked this article - thank you.
That is exactly how I feel about him. Couldn't disagree more... happy he exists. Thanks for the kind words.
I know you reject this but “the taxidermists tend to think they are working toward a unified “Theory of Everything.” A perfectly stuffed hyper-knowledge-object that will unravel all domains of wisdom by its touch and also not need to move or change and just sit there, looming all correct-like,” is EXACTLY how I would describe what it is I’m trying to do with all my work.
I view my work as a precursor to work such as yours; but our respective projects serve entirely different purposes. Yours is truly great, no doubts about it, but to disparage the taxidermists is a little hurtful to me, a taxidermist. (Although most taxidermists are unaware of the fact that their work is merely presaging what comes afterwards, so I certainly understand the attitude.)
Hopefully you’re catching my drift and I’m not spinning off into nonsense-land here.
I think my point is this: you need to be a taxidermist BEFORE you can produce works such as yours. In other words, I think you have to understand it all BEFORE you can play around with words and language as you claim. Does that make any sense?
Bro holy shit
Funny enough, some of the best books I’ve read boast “poor” writing skills compared to academic standards—which can now be easily implemented by AI. They boast some sort of effortless erudition; almost always brimming with “mistakes” … You arrogantly tend to think: I could have written this better. Yet deep down you know very well you couldn’t. It can’t be explained why they’re so good. Intellectual serendipity. Crazy inspiration. Genius. Talent. Perhaps the divine helped a bit. Perhaps luck. What I know for sure: great writing doesn’t always look like great writing. It’s something that can’t be easily deciphered. And this is great news. Especially today.
That touches on something I've noticed: if you're too arrogant to notice what "works" despite the rules, you're never going to become the sort of person who finds his talent.
You perfectly described LinkedIn in the pseudo-objective writing style. Which is why it has now become a site where people use AI to talk about the best way to use AI.
Totally. Nothing talking to nothing and the only thing holding it together is the vague hope of a better job.
Very insightful and fun to read! I will trade in henpecking my writing for lacking clarity and expertise, and instead henpeck myself for lacking passion and abandon.
Thank you for writing this, James--you saved me from having to 😂 Seriously, man, great job. I just found you this AM with "All waltzes are for ghosts". I see I have a lot of seriously satisfying reading ahead of me!
Writing appears to be a dying technology. Reading is a dying use of technology. Why not use our time inventing their replacement? All technology eventually fails and is replaced. Even words. As we don't even yet understand what words are, maybe its time to move on.
What is a word? Murphy
https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/007920
I'd be more inclined to believe you if it weren't the medium by which the message is wanting to be communicated.
The notion you can't or won't grasp how technological advancement works in communication is suspect. People who invented the car rode horses and bicycles. People who invented the radio wrote letters, sent telegrams.
The argument you're using is luddite.
Radio and letters and telegrams all use language. Cars and horses are both transportation. It's like you're saying "We won't need transportation in the future." And I'm saying, "How will you get from here to there?" and you're saying, "You lack imagination, luddite." And I'm like, "Ok but you brought it up."
You're using narrative reduction, not theoretic inquiry. And you're getting even the narrative reduction wrong. Radio isn't solely for spoken language. Letters ie paper can offer any kind of writing that's non-arbitrary.
Face the notion that reading and writing are in steep decline. Don't bank on them being legacy tech purely from their disappearance in children. They'll be using something way beyond metaphors/words. It's dead tech.
I can tell you don't value language because that's difficult to parse. You're using metaphors/words to describe their own irrelevance and not even doing a very good job at handwaving. If you think words are so dead, you should put your money where your mouth is and stop relying on them. Try communicating your non-linguistic philosophy via trendy dances on TikTok, which is what children are doing now instead of reading.
Actually, I'm developing a language with filmmakers and neuroscientists that replaces words. But until the parameters are finished, I'll have to use words meantime. I value language as what it really is, glass ceilinged poetic gibberish that gets us through the day.
https://x.com/kevinmcld/status/1838210221807706136?s=20