Geworfenheit: Not Born, Just Here: What Drives My Fiction

A common question I get about my writing—my fiction, anyway—is: what motivates you?

It sounds like a harmless question. Like asking a plumber what motivates them to fix pipes. But fiction is not plumbing. And motivation, for a writer, is often post-rationalised. Still, I have answers. Or at least fragments of them.

Audio: NotebookLM podcast on this topic.

A primary driver is to convey philosophical concepts that I feel apply to life in general, but don’t tend to get the airtime they deserve. A good example is Heidegger’s Geworfenheit.

In English, that’s usually translated as “thrownness.” It refers to the feeling—no, the condition—of having been thrown into existence without consent, without context, without recourse. It’s the anti-heroic beginning. You wake up on a raft. No map, no memory. Just current.

Now, Heidegger gets a bad rap. And some of it is earned. He joined the Nazi party. There’s no excusing that. But if we’re going to disqualify thinkers based on political affiliation, we’ll need to scrap about half of the Enlightenment and most of the 20th century. The point is: Geworfenheit is useful. It names something modern life often glosses over: the fact that you didn’t choose to be here, and now you have to swim.

This theme shows up across my work. In Temporal Babel, Jef is stranded in a temporally dislocated world. In Sustenance, the visitors are alien in both senses of the word. And in Hemo Sapiens, the title species are cloned into personhood with no legal or cultural footing.

None of us choose how, where, or when we are born. But I like to amplify that truth until it becomes impossible to ignore. Take the Hemo Sapiens case: they aren’t born; they’re instantiated. But what is birth if not a legally sanctioned instantiation? Once you remove the ritual scaffolding of parentage, nationhood, and paperwork, what remains is the raw fact of being.

Another key motivator for me is philosophical provocation—questions I don’t intend to answer, only pose. Like this one: imagine you’re shipwrecked and wash up on a tiny island. A single inhabitant lives there and claims ownership. He tells you to leave or die. You have no weapon. He has a spear. The sea is vast and lethal.

Do you have the right to stay?

Do you take the spear?

Does ownership matter when survival is at stake?

Sustenance explores that tension. Property, sovereignty, mercy, survival—these are themes we pretend to understand until the scaffolding is removed. My aim isn’t to preach about what’s fair. My aim is to show what happens when fairness loses its footing.

Related to this is the theme of otherness. Us versus them. But I’m less interested in dramatising hostility and more interested in the quiet bewilderment that comes when categories fail. What do you call someone who isn’t man or woman, isn’t alive or dead in the way we recognise, doesn’t speak our language or obey our metaphysics? What happens when you meet something you can’t assimilate?

Another layer is cultural construction—the way our societies retrofit meaning onto reality. We build scaffolds. Gender, law, ownership, grief. Then we forget we built them. My fiction likes to peel back the drywall. Not to show the truth, but to reveal the studs. The story behind the story.

And finally, I write because I suspect something important is always missing. That language is never quite enough. So I keep trying. Not to solve the insufficiency, but to dwell inside it.

That’s what motivates me.

Or maybe I’m just trying to answer questions I never knew how to ask.

That too.

AutoCrit Challenges

I don’t hide the fact that I rely on AI for early editorial feedback. Once a story is complete, I break out AutoCrit. This programme works well for typical stories that follow standard practices with common tropes. It gets quite confused when I feed it intentionally awkward stories, not the least of which is to advise me to eliminate the awkwardness.

This is a challenge with AI more generally. In this particular story, I leave a lot of loose ends and misdirects, as it’s a commentary on the conspiracy-driven culture we inhabit. The advice, is along the lines of, “You forget to close this lopp. What happened to so and so.”

But this is life. We don’t always know the full story. We drive past an multi-car accident where cares are overturned and in flames, but we never find out what happens – even if we scour the newspapers and internet. Who was that? What happened? What caused it?

We often never find out. In most books and movies, we find out everythung, and it all comes packaged with a nice bow. This is what AI expects. It’s the diet it’s been fed.

Some stories subvert these notions here and there, but by and large, this is not typical American fare. Readers and viewers need to be spoonfed without inconsistencies.

Speaking of inconsistencies addressing one scene, AutoCrit said that a character should act impulsively in one situation and reserved moments later. This was flagged as an iinconsistent character.

In the scene, a woman stops her car immediately to help an injured man on the roadside, but as she gets out of her car an approaches her, she shows caution.

This was a red flag. Why would she have always been rash or always been cautious?

My response, because that how real people act. She acts on instinct but quickly considers that she’s a vulnerable woman alone with a man miles from anywhere.

I don’t suspect a human reader would find this surprising. This is the intelligence absent from Artificial Intelligence — cultural intelligence, a cousin of EQ, emotional quotient.

I know how I want the character to act. I do want AutoCrit to inform me that character A is wielding a pistol but then stabs another character, or that character B is a teetotaler and is getting drunk or that character C has a shellfish allergy but is downing lobsters like they’re going out of style. And I certainly what to be shown continuity errors.

The biggest challenge I have with AutoCrit that is less promonent with other AIs is that I can preface my content with a note explaining my intent. I can even do this after the fact.

If I feed ChatGPT, Claude, or DeepSeek a story of segment to critique without a preface, the responses may be similar to AutoCrit, but when I follow up with some meta, the response may be, “Now it makes sense, but why is John wearing lipstick?” Perhaps he’s metrosexual or non-traditional. Perhaps it’s an oversight.

I dont meán to demean AutoCrit. I’m just advising that if you are writing stories not compliant with 80 per cent of published works, take the advice with a grain of salt, or reserve AutoCrit for more standard fare.

Book Review: The Blind Owl

What, again? Didn’t you alredy post this review?

So, I decided that the review was at too high of a level, so I did a new one. Let me know if this one is better.

It turns out the new was got a bit long, so I broke it into three parts. This is the first part—a summary but with more context. The other two parts shall follow.

Book Review: The Blind Owl

“The Blind Owl” is a highly regarded Persian novel written by Sadegh Hedayat, first published in 1937. The novel is a dense and surreal exploration of despair, madness, and existential dread. The narrative is fragmented and non-linear, presenting the protagonist’s experiences and inner turmoil in a disjointed manner that reflects his disturbed mental state.

VIDEO: The Blind Owl

The story follows an unnamed narrator who lives in isolation, haunted by visions and memories that blur the line between reality and hallucination. He is obsessed with a mysterious woman who appears to him in various forms, embodying his deepest desires and fears. As the narrative unfolds, the protagonist recounts bizarre and disturbing events, including the dismemberment of a woman and interactions with shadowy figures.

The novel’s structure is cyclical, with repeated motifs and themes that create a sense of inescapable fate. The protagonist’s descent into madness is depicted through his disjointed thoughts and unreliable narration, leaving readers questioning the boundaries between reality and imagination.

Commentary from a Postmodern Literary Position:

From a postmodern perspective, “The Blind Owl” can be seen as a text that challenges traditional narrative structures and notions of objective reality. The novel’s fragmented and non-linear form disrupts the conventional flow of storytelling, reflecting the postmodern interest in multiplicity and indeterminacy. The unreliable narrator, whose perception of reality is constantly in question, embodies the postmodern skepticism towards absolute truths and stable identities.

The novel’s exploration of themes such as existential despair, alienation, and the search for meaning aligns with postmodern concerns about the human condition in a fragmented, disenchanted world. The repetitive and cyclical nature of the narrative can be interpreted as a critique of the idea of progress and linear time, suggesting instead a sense of eternal recurrence and the impossibility of escape from one’s existential plight.

The surreal and dreamlike quality of “The Blind Owl” also resonates with postmodern aesthetics, which often incorporate elements of the uncanny, the grotesque, and the fantastical to disrupt the reader’s sense of reality. Hedayat’s use of symbolism and imagery, which defy straightforward interpretation, invites multiple readings and emphasizes the instability of meaning.

Comparative Literature:

“The Blind Owl” can be compared to several other works in terms of its themes, style, and narrative approach:

  1. “Nausea” by Jean-Paul Sartre: Both novels explore existential themes, focusing on the protagonist’s sense of alienation and the search for meaning in an indifferent world. Sartre’s use of stream-of-consciousness narrative and exploration of existential dread parallels Hedayat’s portrayal of the protagonist’s inner turmoil.
  2. “The Metamorphosis” by Franz Kafka: Kafka’s novella shares a similar sense of surrealism and existential angst. Both texts feature protagonists who undergo a profound and disturbing transformation, confronting the absurdity and alienation of their existence.
  3. “One Hundred Years of Solitude” by Gabriel García Márquez: While differing in style and cultural context, García Márquez’s work shares with “The Blind Owl” a cyclical narrative structure and a blending of reality with fantastical elements. Both novels use magical realism to explore deep-seated human emotions and existential themes.
  4. “The Trial” by Franz Kafka: Kafka’s exploration of the absurdity of bureaucratic systems and the protagonist’s sense of helplessness and disorientation can be compared to the surreal and oppressive atmosphere in “The Blind Owl.”
  5. “Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad: Conrad’s novella, with its journey into the depths of the human psyche and exploration of madness, can be seen as a thematic counterpart to Hedayat’s exploration of the protagonist’s inner darkness and despair.

In summary, “The Blind Owl” is a seminal work that delves into the depths of human despair and madness through a fragmented and surreal narrative. Its postmodern elements, such as the unreliable narrator and cyclical structure, challenge traditional storytelling conventions and invite readers to question the nature of reality and meaning. The novel’s themes and style resonate with works by Sartre, Kafka, García Márquez, and Conrad, making it a significant contribution to existential and modernist literature.