This one was a fun read and listen. You learn a lot about how pronouns have changed over the years. For example, “I” used to be something like “eg.” It’s totally fine to use “Billy and me went to the store” and not “Billy and I went to the store,” since this often pedantic issue runs up against basic logic when examining usage. In Old English, “she” used to be “heo,” which used to be too similar to the Old English word for “he,” “he” (talk about confusing). McWhorter also gets into “thou” and “you,” including Shakespeare’s use of them in “Othello” to indicate social status, familiarity and belittling.

One interesting anecdote is about nicknames. In Middle English, “mine” was used before words that started with vowels in place of “my.” So “my Ed” was “mine Ed,” and over time, that “n” became attached to “Ed,” giving us “Ned.” This process is called rebracketing.

And of course, a very enlightened view on “they” culminating in McWhorter doing what he says linguists don’t normally do: give usage advice. He says we should use “they” as though it were singular when referring to one person in all regards, including in this construction: “she/he/they wants.” Currently, we’d say, “They want to go to the store.” But if “they” is singular, “they” should follow the same construction as “he/she wants.” So, it should be, “They wants to go to the store.”

McWhorter is self-aware that he’s sometimes seen as contentious, but he’s level-headed, not a language curmudgeon but a realist who understands language changes. That is the distinction between linguists and pedantic linguaphiles who cling to words and older meanings when language is always on the move.

So, who is this A.C.D., M.D.?

I haven’t found any interview or source where Crichton clearly acknowledges who he means, but I think we can suss it out. We don’t have to be rocket scientists to infer that M.D. means doctor. We know that Crichton was briefly a doctor and studied medicine at Harvard.

Could this be one of his professors or a classmate?

No, I think it’s clear, if we take a step back and look at Crichton’s breadth of work, we can see the contours of another figure. You don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to discover his true inspiration.

A.C.D., M.D. is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes and, like Crichton, a doctor-turned-writer.

Doyle didn’t just write Sherlock Holmes stories. He wrote historical fiction, a history of the occult, a silly yet earnest treatise on “the coming of the fairies” (yes, little green sprites like Tinkerbell), and fun young adult adventure books and stories.

So, what does Crichton mean by “who first proposed the problem?”

Well, let’s keep in mind the Simpson footnote: “organisms in the upper atmosphere.” In Doyle’s short story, “The Horror of the Heights,” published in The Strand Magazine in 1913, a pilot encounters dangerous organisms that live in the upper atmosphere, or as the “aeronaut” calls it: “air-jungle.” So dangerous are these jungles that the pilot doesn’t survive. His notebook is discovered in taters and it’s that notebook that helps the narrator piece together the incident.

Organisms that live in the upper atmosphere that can harm humans? Sounds a lot like The Andromeda Strain. “The Horror of the Heights” is told in a similar vein to Crichton’s novel, in that it is told as though it were nonfiction. We’re presented with the facts, and then the rest of the story is the first-person perspective from the uncovered notebook.

So, this was the story that inspired Crichton?

Not so fast.

I’d argue that that’s not the whole picture. There’s another piece to the puzzle.

Crichton had another multistory protagonist: Professor George Challenger

We first meet Professor Challenger in Doyle’s The Lost World (yes, Crichton borrowed the title of his second Jurassic Park book from A.C.D., M.D.). In that story, dinosaurs survived extinction on a remote plateau in the South American jungle. In another Professor Challenger book titled “The Poison Belt,” the Earth passes through a poisonous area of the solar system. This toxic “ether” threatens life on Earth. The only way to survive: the professor and his companions seal themselves in an airtight room with oxygen tanks. Once the Earth passes through the ether, they discover a grim sight: everyone is dead. Or are they? I don’t want to spoil the story, but the ending is not as bleak as it appears.

But you can clearly see Crichton’s inspiration. He replaced the toxic ether (The Poison Belt) with dangerous organisms from the upper atmosphere (“The Horror of the Heights”), or, more accurately, micro-pathogens from space.

These two stories feel the most plausible inspiration for The Andromeda Strain.

There are many places A.C.D., M.D. pokes his head through Crichton’s work (we won’t explore them all here, but maybe sometime in the future). Not just in premise, but in style. Crichton wrote The Andromeda Strain as if it were nonfiction. There was great care taken to lend it verisimilitude. In Doyle’s time, people believed Sherlock Holmes was real. There’s a great interview where Conan Doyle talks about how he got letters from people who wanted to be Holmes’ “housekeeper.”

“One of them, when she heard that he had turned to the occupation of keeping bees, wrote saying that she was an expert at segregating the queen, whatever that may mean, and that she was evidently predestined to be the housekeeper of Sherlock Holmes.”

It’s worth a watch.

To this day, Sherlock Holmes is sometimes treated almost as if he were real.

Much of Crichton’s later work tries to build a sense of reality, differently than Doyle, but certainly in a similar vein. Crichton obviously felt a kinship to A.C.D., M.D., specifically both being doctors, later giving that up to write popular books, and later, as we’ll see in Travels, exploring the paranormal, a point that Doyle calls a “much more serious one.”

Sources

Then, in my last year of school, it became publicized that I had written a book called The Andromeda Strain and sold it to the movies for a lot of money. Overnight, I was identified as a successful writer, and it changed everything in my life.

The success of the novel cannot be overstated, and the timing of publication was perfect. The Andromeda Strain was published on May 12, 1969, just over two months before the Apollo 11 Moon landing on July 20, 1969. The fear that some extraterrestrial pathogen could be carried back to Earth was not just a fictional premise. NASA had thought about this and had set up strict quarantine procedures for the astronauts. Crichton was in lockstep with the zeitgeist.

What further made the novel stand out was that it was written as though it were nonfiction. It reads as a deeply researched classified report. As Crichton told The New York Times in 1969, “I found you could make something more believable if you pretended not that it might happen or was happening but that it had happened.”

This specific framing device was at the suggestion of Crichton’s editor, Robert Gottlieb, who saw potential in the first draft but felt it needed to feel more real. As Crichton tells it, “Bob said that the novel should read like a New Yorker profile, that it should be absolutely convincing.”

And so it was.

A Brief Synopsis

A satellite crashes into Piedmont, Arizona and releases a deadly otherworldly microorganism, killing everyone in the town except for an old man who drinks too much and a colic baby. From there, a secret team of scientists investigate the spread in a covert facility in the middle of a desert, and try to contain it, all while working against time to ensure the organism doesn’t spread.

You can see the seed of themes that run throughout Crichton’s work. The satellite that releases this pathogen was part of a secret military program to further biological weapon research. Like Jurassic Park, The Andromeda Strain suggests that nature cannot be controlled. As Ian Malcolm warns scientists are “so preoccupied with whether or not they could” that “they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

The Style

It does read as though it actually happened. Though this is an earlier work of Crichton’s, if not the earliest, if we ignore the pen names, you can see the germs (no pun intended) of his later style. But this is also its weakest element. Because of the nonfiction narrative style, you don’t feel the necessary urgency; you’re pulled back from the story and the characters. You’re also aware that the world does not end, since this is a classified file. I mean, who could classify a file if the whole world ends?

Instead, much of the novel is focused on building this sense of reality, focusing on every minute detail, going into asides that feel too overwrought, background information that doesn’t feel pertinent to the story, but that continues to build the world without necessarily advancing the plot. Science is mixed with reality, to the point that even at the end of the novel there’s a bibliography.

Initial Thoughts

I thought it’d be interesting to add my initial notes I wrote right after reading the novel and then further elaborate. Here’s what I wrote:

Slow start. Too technical. Fairly decent ending, particularly the countdown sequence; this was fairly predictable, though. The more interesting part was the idea itself, and the development of the plot. You can tell Crichton is a… or rather was a doctor. The seeds of the Sphere are clearly here. Sphere is significantly better.

Slow Start

I’ve tried to read The Andromeda Strain for nearly 20 years. As a huge Crichton fan who has read nearly every single one of his books, it’s honestly embarrassing I haven’t read the book that made Michael Crichton a household name, and solidified not only his thriller status, but him as the forefather of the techno-thriller.

But, I found the novel slow going, and multiple attempts over the last two decades have continued to prove this out. Finally, I was able to get through it. What changed? The audiobook in conjunction with reading. That helped get through the slower bits.

The story opens with a military recovery team searching for a fallen satellite in Piedmont, Arizona. The town appears empty at first, until they begin finding bodies. Before they can make sense of what has happened, the small recovery team dies. From there, the novel focuses on the military response and Major Manchek, who activates Project Wildfire. Much of the next stretch of the novel is buildup: assembling the scientific team, explaining Project Wildfire and everything in between.

During the setup (which seemingly lasts forever) the plot takes a backseat to world building. This is what I mean by slow. To build the “reality” we are subject to so much detail, history, and science that the plot really doesn’t progress much.

Too Technical

As I said, the technical issues. It discusses the different levels of the building that was designed specifically for this project. From the color that each floor is painted (“Yes,” Leavitt said. “All levels are painted a different color. Level I is red; II, yellow; III, white; IV, green; and V, blue.”) to the “seductive” voice used for the automated medical machine (“The voice,” said the supervisor heavily, “belongs to Miss Gladys Stevens, who is sixty-three years old.).

You can tell Crichton’s still working out how to add technical and scientific information into a novel in a way that doesn’t slow down the story. Here, it slows down the story.

Predictable

There are a lot of elements that weren’t predictable. Crichton introduces many questions that need to be answered and he does answer all of them in a satisfactory way. Such questions as:

1. What is the pathogen?

2. How did a baby survive when the townsfolk did not?

3. How did an old man with a bad stomach survive when others did not?

4. What do the two have in common?

However, the facility contains a nuclear bomb that will detonate within three minutes if there’s a lab leak. Dr. Hall is the only one with the key to make the decision to switch if off. Because of this emphasis throughout the story, you know that the novel will likely end with that countdown. It’s Chekhov’s Gun (or rather, Chekhov’s bomb).

But that predictability does not diminish the chapter “Three Minutes” suspense, which was an edge-of-your-seat affair. Honestly, the best part of the book. This suspense is absolutely reminiscent of later Crichton thrillers, except in later novels the suspense is not contained in a single chapter.

The Verdict

The Andromeda Strain has a great premise and plot, but the execution was lacking due to the constrained limitations of its conceit, non-fiction, leading to over-explanations, and under utilization of story progression. This is a solid three point five. However, Crichton does showcase his unique ability at creating a page turner, even in this early novel, once you get through 90 percent of the book. If you want to read a book about scientists working together to solve a unique alien-related problem, then I highly suggest reading Crichton’s Sphere, instead.

Sources

I don’t know why I love Fry’s commentary here so much. I loved it so much I made my college students listen to this shorter version and write about it. They seemed to enjoy it, partly because it was a good respite from my lecturing but mostly because they got to watch something on TV. Let’s face it, we all loved whenever the television was wheeled in on that cart.

I love this post because as a writer who sometimes splits his infinitives and ends sentences with prepositions, it’s nice to hear someone lament the “language mavens.” Language is always changing. It isn’t as fixed as a dictionary would leave you to believe.

Reading “The Language Instinct,” I can see where Fry was most inspired: the chapter on “The Language Mavens” and “The Tower of Babel.” “The Language Mavens” focuses on pedants and why language is not as fixed. It changes over time. In addition, many of the grammar rules we are subjected to are not rules after all, but are based on false premises, primarily the assumption that English is like Latin; it isn’t.

Those two chapters, to me, especially the former, are easily worth 5 stars. The rest of the book is not as captivating.

This was the second book on language I read after John McWhorter’s “Words on the Move,” which was fantastic. That book was more accessible and much more fun, with a fairly similar concept, though it goes into more detail about the ways in which language changes over time, hence the title.

In “The Language Instinct,” there was some information on primitive language models (like LLMs). This was interesting. It’s crazy how primitive language models were, and how, in 30 years, they have worked out the ability to write in a way that appears to understand a user’s question. In an added last chapter for a later edition, Gary Marcus is mentioned, as we know Marcus is a leading critic of LLMs.

The Verdict

Language is fascinating, and there are a lot of valuable insights here that can help you better understand the state of linguistics (well, from decades ago), but also ourselves and, honestly, how wonderful and adaptive we are as a species to be able to communicate in a language with infinite expression. A language that is perhaps instinct.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

★★★½

Subscribe now

Let me explain…

Looking at Crichton’s bibliography, Electronic Life was published in 1983. It was sandwiched between the books Congo and Sphere.

It’s staggering that Sphere (1987), Travels (1988) and Jurassic Park (1990) came out within three years of each other. Knockout success after knockout success!

Anyway.

Electronic Life has been on my bookshelf for almost two decades, untouched. I wondered how relevant the book was today.

The book stemmed from Crichton’s friends, who would ask him for help with their computers since he was an early adopter of the home computer. From there, his notes expanded until they became the book you see here.

He figured he’d turn his notes into a book to help everyday folks figure out how to work, use, fiddle with, and think about computers. In 1983, many people were intimidated by and fearful of computers, fearful that computers might take away their livelihood, take away their jobs. Sound familiar?

The home computer arrived around 1977, so six years before the book was published. So it was a relatively new concept to buy a computer for your home. Crichton saw himself as someone who understood computers. In fact, the 1973 film Westworld, which he directed, is credited with being the first film to use computer graphics. It’s also credited with having one of the first instances of a computer virus in fiction.

Crichton is known for being prescient.

You’d think Electronic Life would feel oddly dated. And let’s be real, there are tons of ways it is. For instance, the appendices are code that Crichton wrote himself that users could use to tinker with their computers. But the common thread throughout the book is not just practical advice on how to use a computer, but how to think about computers. And this is where the book is still relatable today.

The practical advice may be moot, but the insights are surprisingly relevant.

The book is organized alphabetically like a dictionary, with titles like “Drive, Floppy Disk,” “Jargon,” or “Files.” The writing is that laid-back, straight-edged, Hemingwayesque style that Crichton honed over the years. Very direct, to the point, but compelling. Much of the writing has interesting analogies to help you better understand computers.

Such as this section titled “Down,” found on page 62:

“Computers, like boxers and airplanes, go down when they fail. They are also said to crash, or bomb out. The sudden violence implicit in such terms should be taken seriously. This slang originates with hard-core computer technicians. They know what they’re talking about.”

And there are quite a few prescient parts. For instance, Crichton predicts the iPad: “For example, there is talk of building memory into monitors, so that you could load text into your thin screen, unplug the screen from the computer, and go sit on the couch to read, as you now read a book.” Anyone who’s a fan of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy would recall that the guide itself is very reminiscent of the iPad, except that it required keys like an old BlackBerry. Do you remember the BlackBerry? Do you even know what a BlackBerry is? Crichton was more accurate in his prediction, or rather, he was aware of the research that would eventually lead to the iPad.

He discusses the fear of computers, which easily parallels AI: “Worried about losing your job to a machine? Most people are. Are your worries justified? That’s hard to say.” But he continues, “I have trouble with the doomsayers who foresee human beings on the soup lines and machines ladling out the soup. Nor am I persuaded by the image of everyone tripping through sunlit fields… while machines do all the work and create all the wealth for us.”

Now I can answer your question: “Why did you read a 43-year-old book about computers?”

Sorry you had to ask it three times.

I was curious about Crichton’s perspective on computers and was curious if parallels existed between computers and AI. There’s a lot of hype about what AI can do. And a lot of fear about what AI can do. Much of the AI hype feels new, but it actually isn’t. We’ve been here before.

History doesn’t repeat or rhyme, it plagiarizes.

Computers certainly disrupted the job market, but they also opened up new industries. I’m not saying that AI is good or that computers are bad. I’m saying don’t buy into the doom and gloom. And certainly don’t buy into the hype.

The book is prescient. In a way, timeless. It is an artifact of its time, but much of the thinking, the “how to think about computers,” can be replaced with “how to think about new technology.” For a 43-year-old book, it’s actually pretty darn relevant today.

The Verdict

Crichton’s perspective on computers is relatable, despite the 43-year difference between when it was written and today. This snapshot of the history of the home computer and the anxieties that Crichton attempts to quell from new users can be transposed onto AI, or really any new technology. I really enjoyed this book, learned a lot about computers I didn’t know, and it helped me reframe my thoughts, fears, and frustrations with AI. This gets a four and a half out of five, which I know is pretty high. I enjoyed this more than A Murder in Hollywood, which was published on May 5, 2026.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

★★★★½

But while reading the book, you realize that the “How to Think About Computers” subtitle is actually the most important part of the book. The subtitle would be better written as, “How to Think About New Technology.” Because Crichton’s unique perspective and level-headed approach to technology is very relatable today.

Case in point: Crichton’s perspective on primitive chatbots like ELIZA. ELIZA was a very rudimentary pattern-matching chatbot that was designed to simulate therapy. It was an early iteration of ChatGPT; not built with the same technology, but the same premise. As Crichton writes, “The program fooled a great many people into thinking that a new era of automated therapy was about to begin. Many otherwise sensible scientists advocated just that.”

Later he writes, “Without doubt, inappropriate faith in the computer is an issue that must be faced.” This could easily be written about AI today.

The home computer revolution was pretty new in 1983. And computers were seen as job stealers. People held a lot of negative views toward the new technology. And that’s where it’s important to help reframe our own attitudes and thoughts about AI. I’m not saying we should condone AI’s mass theft and the slop we see daily, or that if you’re against AI, you should be for it. I’m saying that if you’re afraid of technology stealing jobs or creeping into artistic spaces, you shouldn’t let that fear drive you.

With computers, Crichton claims he isn’t sure whether or not they’d lead to loss of jobs. But he stresses we don’t actually know the future, and that fears and hype of technology go hand in hand. Don’t let the hype scare you.

Crichton states:

“But in our disillusionment, it’s worth remembering that the virtues of the technological future have been consistently oversold—often by the technologists, always by the press, and frequently by consumers themselves.”

I’ll end with this quote: “People are people. Machines are machines. Only a fool confuses them.”

A Brief History

A Murder in Hollywood was originally written in 1973 and intended to be published under Crichton’s pen name, John Lange, a name he used for writing quick thrillers during medical school at Harvard. In the introduction by Sherri Crichton, Crichton’s widow, we learn a little about his use of pen names. Unfortunately, we don’t learn anything new, specifically the reason the completed manuscript was never published in the first place. This lack of context is the biggest disappointment of the book. It would have been nice to have a little more information.

What can be worked out is that 1973, the year the book is said to have been written, was the year Crichton’s film Westworld was released. This was the second film he directed, the first being the TV movie Pursuit, based on his novel Binary, which he wrote under the Lange name.

The timing of the composition of A Murder in Hollywood makes a lot of sense. A book about the struggles of filming a Western: dealing with know-nothing studio heads and egotistical Hollywood actors. The book has many details that only someone with the experience of working in Hollywood could have knowledge of. Crichton has explained before that Westworld was a trying experience. Perhaps this was a bit of catharsis.

But why didn’t the work get published in 1973? I have a few thoughts:

1. Maybe at this point in his career, Crichton didn’t need a pen name anymore. John Lange was behind him, and now, with The Andromeda Strain under his belt, he could focus on his work under his own name.

2. Maybe it was written for fun. Crichton had an idea and just went with it. Then, since it didn’t align with his plans or his future passions, he moved on, much like he’d later do with Hollywood.

It makes sense to be a writer struck with an idea and just going with it to see where it leads. Crichton has claimed he could dish out these books relatively fast; one was completed in nine days. As we know, he was very prolific when writing, constantly typing away until the work was done. He even ate the same thing for lunch every day while working, to save time and stick to a routine.

It would have been nice to have been provided with answers to these questions. People are interested and continue to be interested in Crichton’s work. I think it’s important to give some clarity to his loyal fans.

The Review

The book is a fun, quick read. I received my copy in the mail around 6 p.m. on release day and proceeded to finish it in two days. One of those days was spent on the beach reading. As a beach read, especially for summertime, I couldn’t agree more that this is the sort of novel that is made for reading on the beach. I wouldn’t say breezy, at least not until the end of the book, as it does take some time to get into. This is not the fault of the manuscript itself.

Before reading this book, I had read Rising Sun another work by Crichton. I also struggled to get into that. Both are mysteries. As someone who currently has a mystery on submission with my agent, I can attest that mysteries take time to unfold. However, one fun aspect of this novel is that it already opens essentially with the murder.

The story takes place on the film set of a Western called “Bloodrock.” It’s narrated by Harvey Jason, the unit publicist on the film. By page 6, we learn that the lead writer has been found dead in his bathtub. Originally, its thought to be an accident, but we soon learn fingerprints had been wiped away from the crime scene, leading people to assume that it was a murder after all. There are several suspects, Clete Williams, the lead of the film, being the number one. As the leading man, you can imagine the media frenzy.

The studio calls in a special auditor by the name of Harlow Perkins. Because Jason is the publicist, he has to deal with Perkins and essentially becomes Perkins’ Watson. Harlow Perkins is meticulous in every detail, down to his dress, which is formal and neat, and not the sort of thing you’d expect someone to wear in the 100-degree weather of Tucson, Arizona.

Perkins is your typical genre detective. He has peculiarities, to the point that he feels like a cross between Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot. No doubt, the initials H.P. are a reference to Agatha Christie’s famous detective. There’s a scene where Perkins expertly taps open the top of a boiled egg, reminiscent of, if not an homage to, Christie’s detective. Like Holmes, Perkins keeps his suspicions to himself. Like Poirot, he has a show of solving the case.

Without spoiling the story, the book builds at a modest clip. By the last 100 pages, you can’t put it down. Like Crichton’s other books with the Lange pen name, the ending twists and surprises, which is exactly what you want out of a mystery.

The writing style is personable, always referencing the reader with phrases like “I’m sure you remember hearing about…” and “If you’ve ever had…” Jason, as a narrator, has much more personality than most other narrative styles of Crichton’s later works, specifically thinking of Rising Sun, which was also written in first person. However, Jason is much more subjective in his assessment of situations, and we get to know him, and his personality reads through the text much more so than Peter Smith in Rising Sun, which, at times, makes it easy to forget it’s even in first person. That was not the case here.

The Verdict

There’s a lot that could be critiqued in this manuscript, but overall, as a mystery novel written in 1973, it’s fun. I’d give it four out of five stars. It was an engaging read, and as a mystery enthusiast, I think it does a good job of building suspense, dare I end on a cliché, and keeping the reader guessing.

This is the 5th posthumous book by Crichton, following Eruption, published in 2024 and co-written with James Patterson. I’ll be honest, that one was a bit of a disappointment. I’m not a huge Patterson fan, and I felt the blending of their two storytelling styles didn’t work well.

Yes, they both write lean, but Crichton can build suspense and characters, unlike Patterson. Also, Crichton cares about details and exactitude, and Patterson… not so much.

This new novel should be more exciting.

On the eve of its release, it got me thinking about the first posthumous book, Pirate Latitudes, published in 2009, a year after his death. It was a completed manuscript. In a 1979 interview, “Ready When You Are, Dr. Crichton” by Patrick McGilligan, Crichton is described as planning to “complete a long-standing book project about Caribbean pirates in the seventeenth century.”

In 1981, Crichton mentioned the book again in Wayne Warga’s Los Angeles Times interview “Fact, Fiction Intertwined by Crichton”:

“I’ve been working on a pirate story set in the seventeenth century, but it has been tough work. I spent a week trying to figure out what people had for breakfast then, and I couldn’t even find out if breakfast existed at that time.”

The book had likely been completed for almost 30 years before publication.

It makes you wonder how old A Murder in Hollywood is and how many more manuscripts Crichton might have in an attic or drawer somewhere. It takes a lot of time to write a book. Sometimes, even ones we finish end up in a drawer waiting to be rediscovered.

Subscribe now

The hunter becomes the hunted.

What do you do if you’re a mouse with a pest problem?

Death is a standup guy. He’s just a little touchy about his standup.

Subscribe now

Sometimes, it’s nice to catch up with old friends and have a good warm cup of imaginary tea.

Subscribe now

If you’ve ever played Risk, you’d know it’s a game of world domination, the goal being to essentially conquer the world one country at a time. Most games end with the last two players, one player has conquered every territory except one, and the other player is in Eastern Australia. Don’t ask me why but the final battle always takes place in Australia.

I don’t recall how I lost, but knowing my luck, I hadn’t made it past my third turn (and Ontario). My game was over.

So, I ended up in the philosophy section, where a battered copy of Marcus Aurelius’ “Meditations” was staring back at me. The book itself was not old enough to warrant the level of wear and tear it wore. It was a seasoned veteran, with sunbaked pages and old underlines from someone who not only read the book, but reread it and revisited passages again and again.

I like used books. I especially like used books with highlights. It’s interesting to see what other folks found compelling. The book grows character, personality. Reading a book with highlights builds another layer of community. If a book is a conversation between the writer and the reader, highlights are like a discussion, offering a new layer of communication.

For a book so heavily read and reread, highlighted and underlined, why did the previous owner ditch it? Were the highlights for study, maybe for an exam. At the time, I believe it would be 2009, I was in college myself, and in a philosophy class. But the teacher didn’t talk much about Stoicism. It was my humanities professor who did, but we didn’t have to read “Meditations.

At the time, my friend Nick was obsessed with our philosophy teacher. In college, or fresh out of high school, you are curious, curious about the world, curious about your place in it, more so than you ever will be, at least more curious for a long time. The mind is open to these new experiences, new attitudes and ideas.

You’re especially more open if you lost a game of world domination to your friend Nick, and you have nothing better to do than wander a bookshop. I remember sitting back down at the table with my new find. It was one of those cheap, plastic, white-top foldable tables with the sturdy metal legs that if you don’t pay enough attention to kick you in the shin.

I opened the pages and read lines here and there. All while listening intently to the battle cries of the Australian division (Nick).

I still have this same book (it’s the lede image of this post) and I’m leafing through it now. It’s the Gregory Hays translation, a more modernized version. It has more wear. Its pages are more yellow. The back cover is missing a corner because my dog went through a phase of eating book covers. He had good taste.

Later that evening, I would read it. Read it through and through over the course of a few months. Over the course of a few years, I’d reread it again and again, multiple versions and translations.

But this version, this translation is my favorite. There’s a strange attachment you have to the first book you pick up and read, and I’m happy I still have this edition, this aged version. I have two editions of this book, because, if you haven’t learned this already, when you lend a book, especially one of your favorites, you should have a copy in case the person you lent it to never gives it back, and for the off chance you suddenly want to read what you don’t have. Happens all the time.

Little did I know that day I was in that bookshop I’d be discovering a philosophy, Stoicism, that would change my life.

I wouldn’t say I’m a Stoic by any means, but I find myself always going back to Stoicism, finding comfort in Aurelius, and the other Stoic philosophers.

Since that fateful day in the book store, I have read beyond Meditations. I discovered Epictetus, Seneca, and Musonius Rufus, and more modern thinkers like Ryan Holiday.

I haven’t gotten any better at Risk, but I like to think that because of Stoicism, I’m okay with that.

to sit down and get to work writing nonfiction, so I can be the patient, kind, caring and the Stoic dad I would like to be.

I know that being a dad won’t be easy. I know that it will be challenging, it’ll challenge me. This is why I’m creating a weekly Stoic blog to ensure I stay on track with my reading, my writing and my patience.

The thinking is: if I have a blog, I’ll read more Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. I believe I will be a better dad doing so, and better at being more kind to myself and to the people close to me.

Even though I’m writing this for me, I like to think it means I’m writing this Stoic blog for you, too. The advice I discover, the stories I tell, the reading and Stoic exercises I practice—I think they will be helpful to you.

You probably noted that I said in 1 day I will have a daughter. This is my first child, so technically I’m not a dad yet. I’m a dad-in-waiting. A dad-in-waiting who is anxious about what is on the other side of this title change, this new role I’ll have—a promotion some would say.

To say I’m anxious would be an understatement. I’m concerned (as any new parent likely is) about what exactly it is I got myself into. But I’m mostly excited.

This is where Stoicism comes in handy. Stoicism is a practical philosophy that can be distilled down to a simple idea: you can’t control events but you can control how you react to them. As Epiecteus says right at the start of The Enchiridion:

“There are things which are within our power, and there are things which are beyond our power.”

I can control how I react, and I can try to understand that my nervousness is warranted but I do not need to let it consume me. Nervousness is a fear of the unexpected. As Seneca says in Letter 13 of Letters from a Stoic:

“How often has the unexpected happened! How often has the expected never come to pass!”

Why run to meet a what if if it’s unlikely to happen? And surely it’s most likely not going to happen.

What are my what ifs? I’m nervous about being a dad. I want to be a good dad. I’m nervous about the operation my wife is undergoing. I’m nervous for my daughter. But I should instead focus on what I can control, which is myself. Be a good husband, do the best I can, and focus on the excitement I have. Don’t focus on the later which is what nervousness is, an overreliance on prediction. Remember how often your lucky numbers won you the lottery? Instead, focus on the now.

These sorts of insights are what makes studying Stoicism important.

I can’t promise my interpretations will always align with yours, but that’s the great thing about literature and thought: conversation.

I’m a new dad who is writing to figure out what that means through the lens of Stoicism. There may be a ton of these sorts of blogs but what makes this unique is I’m the one writing this one. This is A New Dad’s Stoic Journey.

Subscribe now

We’ve heard it. We understand. Which is why we’re adding more AI!

MORE AI TO EVERYTHING!

Now, everywhere you look on any of your devices (Phone, Computer, TV), you’ll see the tell-tale signs of AI slop. Someone sent you an email, don’t worry about reading it. AI will incorrectly summarize it for you. Did someone compromise your bank account… or is it just a standard invoice? You’ll have to find out after your trip to the cardiologist.

We know, we know! How did we find more space to add AI slop?

We have to tell you, it wasn’t easy. Not in the slightest. We’ve already jammed every inch and corner with AI crap. But, we took a beat from Pizza Hut. Like cheese on a pizza, we can find new places to stuff it—cheese crust, double cheese, cheese dough, cheese on cheese action!

Subscribe now

Now, we’ve decided to add AI right to your device’s home screen. Right there waiting for you like a deranged Clippy.

If you want to know how to switch it off. You can’t. Not without really Googling it… and even that will pull up an AI response which won’t help at all. We made sure to prevent you from switching it off so you just deal with it until you can ignore it properly, like that weird pain you have in your lower back.

You’re wondering. Please, God! When will this end?!

Look at the stock market. You have to wait for these bright-eyed investors to realize that no one wants AI. Of course, our investors don’t use AI—that’s crap. But you… you will have to one day. And we’ll be there, waiting, in plain sight. Ready to offer you bad writing, bad advice, and bad images that can be shared on Facebook and convince your aunt that a dog really can play poker.

You’re welcome.

Signed,

That tech executive

Subscribe now

You’ve got writer’s block!

Gene Fowler said it best:

“Writing is easy. All you do is stare at a blank sheet of paper until drops of blood form on your forehead.”

So, let’s pack some Band-Aids you’re in for a bloody time.

Here are important questions that should help you overcome writer’s block.

Why do you write?

This is an easy question to ask. It takes four words: an adverb, a transitive verb, a pronoun and a noun. It isn’t so easy to answer. A lot of thought has gone into answering this question from people much smarter than me. Think about it. Think about it real hard. If you think long enough writer’s block will pass. Time’s up! There’s no time left to write today! Feel satisfied knowing you don’t have to worry about writing anymore.

What is it that’s holding you up?

Is something on your mind? Are you thinking about how much of a failure you are? A 30-something washout who hasn’t written anything clever besides that response to your sister’s funny birthday card—the note that was tossed into a waste basket like your dreams?

Are you thinking about that pain you have down your left side? Google it. By the time you’re on your fourth Reddit forum you’re pronounced dead. Great, now you don’t have to worry about writing! Maybe your sister will have something funny to say in your condolence card!

What do you want to work on?

That’s the problem. You’re stuck between ideas. You’re at a crossroads. The thing about a crossroads is you have to make a clear decision. But you’ve never been good at that. That’s why you became a writer in the first place.

You’ve f***ed your life up enough. Flip a coin. Let fate decide for you.

Now that you have some answers, let’s go over some solutions:

1. Stare at the blank page. Keep staring until either you or it blinks. Someone’s going to lose here, and it damn well isn’t going to be the paper.

2. Purchase eye drops. You’re going to need them.

3. Write your name at the top of the page. If you write it in big enough letters, you’ve already filled a whole page! Great work!Draw a picture of an animal of your choice. Was it a cat? It was probably a cat. If you make it big enough, you’ve completed a second page. Great work!

4. Alright, now it’s time to start. If you don’t know what to write, let’s do some brainstorming. Here are a few topics that usually get the juices flowing:

   1. Generational wealth: Why don’t you have it? How can you get it? Can you think of someone who does? What a jerk.

   2. Jerks: Who do you really hate? Is it the person you thought of above? Probably. Now put that person in a room with no doors or windows. What happens next?

   3. Favorite animal: If it’s a bear, add it to the doorless windowless room. Now you’re cooking.

5. Now that we’re done brainstorming ideas. Let’s get to writing.

   All great stories start with a great opening line.

   “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness…”

   That Dickens! What an opener!

   How do we start with something that will stand out like that? Let’s take our example from above and use it as a template:

   He was having a great time; he was having a terrible time.

   Doesn’t quite capture our attention, does it? Let’s be more specific.

   He was having a great time, he was having a terrible time, he was stuck in a room, he was being mauled by a bear.

   The last part is a real shock. Let’s move that to the beginning. You want to start with something that makes the reader ask: “What the heck am I reading?”

   He was being mauled by a bear but that wasn’t the problem. The problem was he liked it.

   There you go. Now, that’s an opener!

6. Once you’ve got your first line, it’s time to string a few sentences together.

   It’s like adding grounds to your coffee maker. It doesn’t have to be exact, no matter how much you add, it’s still going to come out looking like crap.

7. Stop! This is the most important part. Once you’re on a roll, just stop! You don’t want to intimidate anyone with your progress.

   Hemingway always stopped as soon as he knew what was going to happen next. That’s terrible advice. Instead, stop writing when you aren’t sure what’s going to happen next.

   The great thing about writer’s block is you don’t know what’s going to happen next before you begin. So, before you start writing. Stop! Set the pen down. Close your laptop. Feel good that you’ve conquered writer’s block before it got a hold of you.

Where’d they get those bags?

Do you think that’s how they eventually got caught? The police went straight to the source.

Bank Robber: Yes, I’d like a beige bag with a cash symbol embroidered right there on the side… Hey, wait a second, you’re not my embroidery guy!

Sometimes, they wear Halloween masks. There’s really nothing like getting held up by Cat Woman and Spider-Man.

Hostage: I thought you were on my side?... Times really have changed!

The robbers would line everyone up first.

Bank Robber: Single file, everyone!

It felt like you were back in school lining up for a field trip.

Bank Robber: No cutting the line! We may be robbers, but we won’t put up with that sort of thing.

They sit everyone down behind one of the reception desks. Start taking away phones.

That’s got to be the hardest thing. We’re all so attached to our phones. It’s the first thing we pick up in the morning—the last thing we put down at night.

Hostage: You want this phone. You’ll have to pry it out of my cold dead hands!

There’s always that one hostage who tries to become best friends with the robbers. This idiot thinks he’ll be the first hostage to be set free—to be let out for good behavior.

The police lineup out front. Ducking behind their cars. FBI shows up in dark aviators. There’s always two of these guys, with one toothpick shared between both of them.

There’s that argument over jurisdiction between the FBI and the cops. But sunglasses and toothpicks beat local law enforcement.

Then the FBI calls the robbers.

Of course, maybe there aren’t bank robbers around anymore because it never worked out. There’s always that one guy who grows a conscience.

Bank Robber 1: Should we be doing this

Bank Robber 2: You could have picked a better time to have a moral crisis, Dave.

Bank robbers always demand a helicopter, which they never get.

What would happen if someone tried to rob a bank today?

Bank Robber: Give me the money; preferably the largest bills you have!

Bank Teller: We don’t have any bills. Everything’s digital now.

Police arrive, handcuff the guy.

Police Officer: Everything is digital. Why’d you try and rob the bank?

Bank Robber: I thought I’d get away with it. I didn’t even get to demand a helicopter.

When you’re looking for something, you never find it. Only when you stop looking, that’s when it finds you.

Of course, this sort of logic breaks down when you start to think about it. If Christopher Columbus stopped looking for a new path to the East Indies, would the East Indies have found him? I don’t think so.

Then again, Columbus never did discover the path. Instead, he found the Americas—yet, totally missed the actual North American continent and landed on a few scattered islands (on 4 separate voyages!). So, maybe if Columbus did throw up his hands and shout, “I’m not looking anymore!” the East Indies would have found him.

You might be asking, “Jamie, what’s all this stuff about Columbus have to do with you?”

I can sense your concern, especially since Columbus doesn’t have the best reputation—to say the least. Maybe this isn’t the best metaphor.

Let me explain.

As a writer, I’ve been looking for a literary agent for nearly 14 or so years—around as many years between Columbus’s first and last voyage to the Americas. Now, I’m not saying writing is anything like Christopher Columbus finding the Americas (it’s more like Magellan finding whatever it is he found). I’m saying that after so many years looking for an agent, I threw up my hands and shouted, “I’m not looking anymore!”

I had a polished query letter and a polished manuscript. I went to several writer’s conferences, met and pitched multiple agents. Yet nothing happened besides some terse feedback and a hole in my wallet about the size of Hispaniola.

For anyone who doesn’t know, the process of finding a literary agent is sort of like finding an island in the middle of the Atlantic ocean. There are a ton of agents and it takes time to find one that matches your specific genre and taste.

Once you do find an agent to submit to, you have to personalize a query letter, which is a letter of introduction that briefly pitches your story. This takes a lot of time.

In addition, it takes time for the agent to respond to you (if they ever do). I’d say about 20% of agents actually sent me a response. To be fair, agents receive a ton of manuscripts. Some estimates are thousands of queries a month. If anyone ever gets overwhelmed opening their inbox after a long weekend, imagine how an agent feels opening their inbox after a short one.

Now, I didn’t stop submitting queries but I stopped hoping for immediate results. I was just sending them out there and not expecting much. I stopped overly complicating the process and stopped personalizing queries. I just made sure they were looking for my manuscript’s genre.

I also started using QueryTracker. It’s an amazing way to find agents and track submissions. I heard about it during my research on submitting. The paid version is only $25 a month and is totally worth it.

I tried for years submitting without a tool and keeping track of a spreadsheet, but QueryTracker makes everything so easy and seamless. If you are a writer, check it out. I don’t get paid for singing its praises—I just am that impressed by the tool.

I kept submitting once or twice a week. Finally, years later, I had a bite. An agent was interested.

The process was fast. He responded within about a day of my query… I missed his response because I use my iPhone’s inbox and if anyone has ever used the iPhone’s built-in Mail app… I’m truly sorry. I reached out a few days later and he was understanding.

We did an initial phone call. He was animated and passionate about my project, telling me how he could pitch it. He asked for a quick revision. I revised my manuscript and sent it back. And we were connected.

Now, I am currently on submission. This means my manuscript is in the hands of publishers. It’s like querying all over again, except this time it’s the agent who’s doing the querying. It’s a waiting game. Some estimates are that it can take up to a year to even longer.

But I’m going to focus on the win. After years, I finally got a literary agent.

Submitting your work is like a sea voyage. You aren’t really sure where you’re going or how to get there, but the journey is part of the adventure.

Set your sails to the winds and let fortune be your destination. There may be slight detours. You may end up on an archipelago or Calypso’s island—maybe you never end up where you intended (like the East Indies), but if you take a step back from the helm and stop stressing—keep to the work—you’ll find your way.

As you know, there’s a shortage of experienced pilots, which is why Northeast decided to find inexperienced ones. It has become extremely important to not disrupt air services, which is why qualifications for the FAA have been… streamlined. Candidates were required to have time on their hands… and I can assure you, I was the most qualified candidate. *laughs*

*panicked screaming*

Don’t worry! Qualification is just a big word that means nothing as it relates to air travel. It doesn’t matter how qualified you are, if the lord decides it’s time to bring this big bird down into a mountain, then I’m as qualified as anybody.

*inaudible shouting*

You ask, “How much experience do I have?” Well, let me ask you, “What is experience?” Look at me, I almost sound philosophical. Is experience defined by familiarity with a specific role? Yes. So, do I have experience as a pilot? Absolutely… not.

However, I have experienced air travel! Which, in itself, is almost exactly the same thing as being the pilot of a Boeing 737. I know what it’s like to wake up early, drink stale coffee and get into a fight with the TSA about a bottle of water—and totally miss my plane because of it. I know what it’s like to try and put my carry-on into an overhead compartment and not be able to close the bin properly without bashing my head (or someone else’s) into it. I know what it’s like to have to climb over the person in the aisle seat while they nap so I don’t wee in my pants. There’s really no difference flying economy and flying a plane.

Do you ask a plane if it has experience flying? Of course not, that’d be absurd—and not just because a plane can’t answer, but for other reasons that currently escape me.

I also have experienced some terrible cart service. When you ask for a Jack and Coke, not just any whiskey will do! Okay… Anyway, I will tolerate this drink right now… But please, I would appreciate good service. Of course, this is what you get when you hire an inexperienced air hostess.

*inaudible shouting*

What did I do before this? That’s a terribly personal question. If you must know, I was between jobs. Which is why I jumped at this.

But I do… I do have a lot of experience.

As you can tell, I have no problem speaking over the intercom. Let’s face it, most of this job is just a pilot telling you where we’re going and how we’re going to get there. I may have no formal pilot training, but I have used Google Maps before, and can easily tell you where we’re headed, so long as this flight offers complimentary WI-FI…

*inaudible whispering*

Apparently this fight does not offer complimentary WI-FI… Sorry, how much? Yes, well we’ll be flying without Google Maps then. But that’s fine. I can always orient myself by licking my finger and sticking it out the window…

*Rush of wind over the intercom. Plane plunges.*

Yes, east is that way…

Anyway, if you look to your left, you’ll see a big city. To your right, the ocean. And if you look straight ahead, that’s the ground.

That feeling of weightlessness you’re currently experiencing is perfectly normal. It is not, as the shouting copilot next to me suggests, the feeling you get coming down from the ark of a really big swing. But, what does he know? He’s only six.

*blaring beeping*

Anyway, we hope you enjoyed your flight with us today. Please, as you frantically escape the fiery fuselage, do not forget to thank your air hostess.