Majeye's been sitting on her fourth book like a dragon on a pile of gold, and she's finally cracking the vault. El is a two-volume roman à clef set in San Francisco — and if you don't know what a roman à clef is, don't worry, she's got you covered. The opening excerpt is here, the explainer is here, and the only thing left to do is read. Fair warning though: if you've ever heard that siren song about San Francisco — the one about gentle people and flowers in their hair — this book is going to have some things to say to you. Strap in. Oh, and new poem about wolves and dragons. Whimsical stuff. Wrote it 8/4.

Here's a question nobody asks out loud: what if above and below aren't real? What if the whole vertical axis — the rankings, the status games, the endless calculating of who's up and who's down — is something we projected onto the world rather than found in it? Because here's the thing: reality doesn't have a hierarchy baked in. It has difference, which is a much richer thing. And the people who've figured that out? They're steadier, warmer, more genuinely present than anyone still white-knuckling their way up a ladder that was never there. This one's about getting off it.

Balzac wrote The Deserted Woman in 1832 and somehow managed to describe my life with uncomfortable precision. This post is about Madame de Beauséant—a woman exiled, slandered, and eventually abandoned by the man who loved her for someone more socially acceptable—but it's also about every person who's ever had a whisper campaign run against them, a reputation pre-assembled by people with a vested interest in the assembly, a recovery that certain people needed to prevent because it implicated them. It's about the machinery of slander—who runs it, who benefits, and why the intensity of the suppression is always, without exception, proportional to the threat of the recovery. It's personal. It's merciless to the people it should be merciless to. And it ends with Gaston, who had the real thing and traded it for a respectable piano recital that never got better—and who I can only bring myself to pity, because he knew exactly what he'd done. Come inside. ☠️🔥

The rules about who gets to think out loud have always been a hustle. This piece pulls the curtain back on how epistemic gatekeeping actually operates — not as a neutral system for sorting good ideas from bad ones, but as a protection racket for conclusions that were never meant to compete. Twain spotted it in Camelot. It hasn't gotten more subtle since.

There's a passage in Balzac where a man spends a paragraph explaining why a woman isn't worth wanting — and somehow can't stop talking about her. What he calls coldness, we're calling a gate. What he calls a Lais of the intellect, we're calling a misread. And what's behind the gate? Not more intellect. Something that would reroute him entirely, if he had the frequency to find the door. He doesn't. He never did. Come inside and find out why that's not her problem.

BREAKING: Local dominance hierarchies revealed to be epistemically fraudulent. Sources confirm that rigging the sample before the experiment runs does not, in fact, constitute winning. Investigators further report that the confidence on display in your nearest entrenched social environment is a prosthetic device requiring constant maintenance, a rotating cast of suppressed competitors, and a complete moratorium on honest measurement. The suppressed, meanwhile, are building anyway. Developing.

Have you ever wondered why you finish a prestige drama feeling vaguely hollowed out, mildly manipulated, and somehow convinced of three things you didn't believe before you sat down? Television isn't just entertainment—it's a normative document, an emotional grammar lesson, and an ideological installation running quietly in the background while you think you're just watching attractive people make bad decisions. In this post, I'll show you exactly how I watch the same shows everyone else watches and walk away with essay outlines, civilizational theories, and a detailed inventory of what the apparatus needs you to feel this quarter. The screen is either a window or a mirror. Let's talk about the difference.

Before the Victorians bricked over the exits and called it virtue, the world ran a more honest taxonomy—wife, courtesan, salon hostess, companion—and everyone knew their role and played it with their eyes open. This post traces how that nuanced architecture got collapsed into two boxes, why the matron had a strategic rather than moral objection to the courtesan's existence, and what it means that the woman of independent formation still has no respectable noun. Spoiler: the diagnosis belongs to the taxonomy, not to her.

Envy has a dossier, a headquarters, and a speech it's been rehearsing for months. This is how you spot it before it asks for your signature.

A room full of Wile E. Coyotes in glasses, huddled over trap schematics, debating the optimal anvil-drop trajectory — while the Road Runner stands on the summit they were supposed to be guarding. This is committee culture in its purest form: elaborate, internally coherent, catastrophically late. This week's post is about what happens when democratic decision-making meets someone who doesn't wait for consensus. Spoiler: the meeting gets scheduled, the agenda gets circulated, and the anomaly is already somewhere else entirely — unimpeded, unjustified, and thoroughly unbothered by your rock slide proposal.

Naturalists have long debated whether two creatures can occupy the same cultural moment yet inhabit entirely different planes of existence. In this field dispatch, we track two such specimens through their daily circuits: one a solitary and industrious flame-keeper who has retreated from the poisoned watering holes of contemporary life to build, at considerable personal cost, something designed to outlast her; the other a sociable and well-lit cadaver who attends every gathering while remaining, clinically speaking, elsewhere. One is playing a long game. The other has refused to pick up the cards. Our cameras roll. Our clipboards are ready. Only one of these organisms is going to be difficult to eulogize.

Have you ever wondered why some criticism feels like an ambush rather than an assessment? Why certain reviewers seem to circle their subject with an almost proprietary intensity, as though the mere existence of the thing being evaluated constitutes a personal affront? This post takes a single passage from Chekhov — a narrator who cannot quite keep his composure in the presence of a woman who has never asked for it — and uses it to examine what separates genuine critical engagement from something considerably more revealing. It turns out that the most unguarded thing a person can do is attempt to tear someone else apart. The seams show. They always show.

A video of my proof copy (ignore the red right handprint), some thoughts about making Lucifer’s Lexicon, link for purchase, a brand new poem written 6/19 during ritual, defs from A-Z, some songs to check out.

( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°)

This essay drags the meritocracy onto the couch and asks it to explain itself, tracing a straight line from Puritan anxiety about salvation to the modern obsession with résumés, prestigious diplomas, and acceptance letters as proof of inner worth. It argues that what we call "merit" is mostly a measurement of compliance, scaffolding, and luck dressed up as character, and that the machines now eating white-collar jobs are quietly performing an autopsy on that whole belief system. The punchline isn't despair, though, it's relief: once the spreadsheet of human value gets debunked, what's left is the stuff that was actually worth something all along, courage, honesty, care that doesn't expect a receipt. Equal parts takedown and eulogy, with zero patience for anyone clutching their diploma like a security blanket.

Find out how much our current values align with Victorian values. Sure there’s more skin, but how much have things really changed?

Click now, human! Find out what your eventual AI Overlord requires of you.

Here we dive into more definitions from my upcoming book, Lucifer’s Lexicon. There’s poetry and freestyle writing too. Something for everyone!

When someone stops caring whether you acknowledge them, the ego reads it as warfare. This piece dissects a peculiar social blindness: how those still hustling for position mistake complete detachment from the game for megalomaniacal overreach. It maps the specific destructions that obliterate ego—homelessness, institutional exile, the loss of witness—and what survives in the aftermath: a person who no longer submits to unearned authority because they've already lost everything authority could take. To the credentialed and comfortable, this looks like pathological arrogance. To those who've been through the fire, it's just Tuesday. A field guide to telling the difference between someone who needs you to think they're special and someone who genuinely doesn't need you to think anything at all.

The dominant life script insists that biological propagation constitutes moral accomplishment — that following the oldest, most predictable human pattern somehow elevates you above those who decline to participate. But what if the rebels who trade genetic legacy for intellectual immortality, who choose frameworks over offspring and ideas over inheritance, understand something the compliant masses don't? What if the real arrogance isn't opting out of the breeding cycle, but assuming participation in it makes you superior? This is an examination of two forms of posterity: one that dissolves into demographic noise within generations, and one that embeds itself permanently in how humans think. One produces variations on what already existed. The other produces what the world has never seen. Guess which one history actually remembers.