Indifference

 

Indifference

Contemplations and Critique of being ‘a bridge-millennial’ sci-fi writer. 

Content

Instruction to ChatGPT

ChatGPT analysis of the original text

The original text

Postscript

ChatGPT analysis of postscript

______________________

Analyse the following and provide an answer for all the questions it invokes:

———————————

This passage is a deeply introspective and critical reflection on writing, legacy, publishing, and cultural trends. Below are the key questions it raises, along with an analysis of each:

1. What is the value of writing in an oversaturated market?

• The passage reflects frustration with the current state of publishing, particularly the dominance of marketing over quality. It suggests that while great works exist, they are buried under a deluge of mass-produced, often AI-generated, and heavily marketed content.

• This raises the question: If writing is about legacy, but legacy is drowned in noise, does it still hold meaning?

2. Is writing a waste of a lifetime?

• The author contrasts their life as a writer with an alternative of indulgence and hedonism, questioning whether either path is ultimately fulfilling.

• They seem to conclude that personal fulfillment, particularly through family, holds more lasting value than literary success.

• This leads to an existential inquiry: Does creative pursuit hold meaning if it does not lead to recognition?

3. What makes a writer or work truly impactful?

• Philip K. Dick is highlighted as a rare exception whose work continues to influence generations. The author suggests that his success came from an obsessive drive and an ability to alter consciousness.

• This raises the deeper question: Is literary greatness tied to innovation, personal obsession, or historical timing?

4. How does self-publishing affect literary quality?

• The passage critiques the decline of traditional gatekeeping, suggesting that while it once filtered out poor-quality work, it now allows an unchecked flood of content, making it harder for quality to stand out.

• This invokes the question: Do gatekeepers improve literary culture, or do they merely create an elitist barrier?

5. Is there a way to break out of the cycle of irrelevance?

• The author questions how new voices can escape the “who-knows-who” peer-review echo chamber that dominates both science and literature.

• They also reference previous literary movements (e.g., the Beatniks), contrasting their era of intellectual engagement with today’s culture of apathy.

• This leads to a core dilemma: How can originality thrive in a system driven by popularity rather than merit?

6. How do cultural and political dynamics influence the role of masculinity in leadership and writing?

• The passage shifts towards a critique of modern masculinity, implying that societal changes have weakened male leadership, except for a few dominant figures like Putin, Trump, and Musk.

• This raises a controversial issue: Is masculinity in crisis, or is this merely a nostalgic perception of changing social roles?

Conclusion

This reflection is a synthesis of literary frustration, philosophical questioning, and social critique. It ultimately asks: What is the point of writing if the world is indifferent? The author seeks meaning through personal legacy rather than external validation, yet remains unsettled about the state of both literature and society.

_______________________

I went from being a hyper prolific writer, and blogger, with regularly several thousand readers to forsaking that on account of people who I knew in real life and people who had met over the Internet, copy pasting my work into an AI, rewriting it and presenting it as their own work. I did not want to remove everything I’d already given to public awareness from the public awareness so I simply stopped blogging. In theory I can now do two things. 

One, explore this AI tool to see how good it is for writing, the answer of which ultimately is not much if you want quality human writing. 

Two, to concentrate on doing my own writing, to finally finish some of the many shelved projects I have started along the way. If I am lucky I have a few decades left yet to pursue this, thus to leave a legacy. 

Speaking that word out loud seems strange. Yes, I do believe I am important enough to leave a legacy and no, I do not believe that is arrogance. I am one of the many. I looked on Amazon Kindle for science-fiction today. The market is flooded. I would have to read them all to find out which ones are any good and I simply do not have the time to do that. The ones we get to hear about are the ones who pay to advertise, which means ultimately if you give them money there is a chance of somebody might buy your book. 

My faith in my own writing abilities is one thing. My faith in my marketing abilities is another entirely. While people good at marketing are turning out AI dribble, the few of us who are good at real writing but not so good at marketing are falling into irrelevant.

I look back at the hours of dedication. I have channelled into my art and I recognise it as a waste of a lifetime. I could’ve been stacking shelves and hiring hookers and snorting cocaine for 30 years until a coronary heart attack. Would that life have been any more enjoyable or any less depressing, lonely, often boring, than the one I have lived?

The enjoyment I get from life is seeing my son happy and prosper. People who never sacrificed their own lives for their children will never know this pleasure. Perhaps it is for them the reward of being alive, somebody to pat them on the back for their efforts at writing stories which, most of the time will cease to exist of being of any interest to anybody in a very short space of time, relatively speaking.

My own father and a very good school teacher, Mr. Rushworth encouraged me to focus on science-fiction.  Back in those days, nobody had computers as we have them now. In the late 70s and early 80s with some alphanumeric calculators and portable games such as Donkey-Kong. I even remember Tetris as being a new invention of the 90s. How things have changed. This is what Philip K was talking about.

We are dwarves squatting on the shoulders of Giants. Not many giants, but there have not been so many Giants in this specific genre-industry. We can perhaps name them. We have time within a lifetime to read them all. 

The scribes anonymous, the inventor of the printing press, a handful of science-fiction writers, one of whom encapsulates the spirit of their own generation. We grew up in their shadows regurgitating a bland mixture of whatever issues affect us and whatever issues we think will attract other people to read our work. 

Or, we ignore all that and simply write whatever comes out in whatever way it comes out. 

There is so much that it has become worthless. The majority somewhere in the mid range section follows the same patterns. It is painting by Number. Here is the framework, here is the filling in of the gaps. Although the stories are not all the same, they are all the same. It was once there was a checkpoint so the really bad stuff did not get very far. 

Now we have self publishing directly to the Internet, there is no checkpoint. The market has been flooded with low-grade rubbish, some of which is very well advertised. 

The high-end stuff, the quality, the ones which stand out under worth reading, which will still be read several generations from now, a few and far between indeed. It is difficult to find them at all. 

One way people search for such quality is to read the recommendations by previously published names who you can trust as quality. Unfortunately this is created something of a who knows who and peer-review echo-chamber which we have seen in science already. With the probable exception of Philip K Dick, there are no grain breaking science-fiction authors whose works will have as large an impact. What is it about his work which stands out? An easy reading tone? The way it takes us outside of normal consciousness? That he was as a person obsessed with his writing, driven as if by as if from an external divine force?

There are famous examples of many styles of writing and ways of going about it. Most of the good ones through the literary revolution of the beatniks. People are intelligent back then. People believed their commentary counted for something. It was a sincere belief and perhaps because at that time in history they did. By the 1990s an apathy had set in which, followed by corporate consumer computer communication, only continued throughout the next generations. What is it then which can break the mould? What is it then can free us from the tyranny of irrelevancy?

As a can to the feminist movement, the men’s rights era sees strong masculine figures becoming leaders for the small handful of people they have responsibility for. We have thrust down our throat the blueprint of patriarchy, this year of 2025 we have Putin and Donald Trump and Elon Musk in the western democratic nations and in the communist nations alike. These figures have emerged victorious to rule empirically while every other male in the west has been feminised by feminism smashing the patriarchy. 

_______________________

Postscript

With contemplation, perhaps it is that going through this stage of indifference to my own work is a necessary transition, a level up process. First so I can analyse the existing work more cohesively from a detached perspective and second so that my next batch should be ever better than the past. 

Or, perhaps it is simply I’m getting old. Perhaps also, this is what it takes to be able to produce anything valid at all. The excitement and naivety of youth extending for the first 7×7 cycles of life, a learning experience before we are ready to have a lasting impact. For this is how long it takes for us to know what we are doing. The first decision is to teach this to the Young! 

I doubt it, given how the youth culture I grew up on has many famous names which will outlast my own many of whom died or disappeared at less than my current age. The best we can do is to become an archetype. Thus to enter the living myth.

———————————-

ChatGPT Analysis of PostScript

This postscript shifts the perspective from frustration and disillusionment to a more philosophical and introspective approach. Below are the key questions it raises and an analysis of each:

1. Is creative disillusionment a natural stage of growth?

• The passage suggests that indifference to one’s past work might not be a sign of decline but a necessary transition—an opportunity to analyze previous efforts with detachment and refine future work.

• This raises the question: Is self-doubt and detachment a necessary part of artistic evolution, or does it risk leading to stagnation?

2. Does true mastery only come with age and experience?

• The idea of life unfolding in 7×7 cycles (suggesting 49 years as a threshold for wisdom and mastery) implies that true artistic impact comes only after prolonged experience.

• However, this is contrasted by the acknowledgment that many cultural figures achieved lasting influence at a much younger age.

• This poses a paradox: Is longevity necessary for artistic greatness, or does impact come from a combination of timing, talent, and cultural forces?

3. Can artistic wisdom be taught to the young, or must it be lived?

• There’s a brief impulse toward teaching younger generations the lessons of creative struggle, but also skepticism about whether this knowledge can be meaningfully passed down.

• This invokes the deeper question: Can wisdom be transferred, or must each generation undergo its own cycle of discovery and disillusionment?

4. What does it mean to ‘enter the living myth’?

• The conclusion suggests that instead of chasing transient success, the goal is to embody an archetype—to become part of the cultural mythos.

• This echoes the idea that lasting influence isn’t about personal recognition but about contributing to something greater than oneself.

• It raises a fundamental artistic and existential question: Is the highest form of creative success to transcend the self and become a symbol?

Final Thoughts

The postscript reframes the earlier frustration as part of a larger, perhaps necessary cycle of artistic evolution. It contemplates the tension between experience and youthful brilliance, between individual legacy and archetypal influence. Ultimately, it suggests that true artistic meaning may not be found in personal recognition, but in embodying something timeless.