Category: Writing

Categories
AI Writing

The Kitchen Is Not the Meal

A warmly lit home kitchen with late-morning sunlight falling across a wooden counter, where a lemon, fresh herbs, a cutting board, and a bowl sit beside a simple plate of pasta. A closed door recedes into the softly shadowed background.

I watched Katie Parrott talk on Every’s AI & I this week. Natalia Quintero asked her how a working writer uses a model, and Parrott did not start with a manifesto. She started with a kitchen.

The model is the kitchen, she said. The outline is closer to chopping. Composition is closer to heat. None of that matters if the ingredients are stale. You need them fresh, and you need them to be yours, or the plate is just a plate.

I would call what she was doing cooking ideas, then the work after cooking. The phrase is mine, not hers. David Sparks used it years ago — around 2010 or 2012, if I have the years right — when he talked through his writing process. Get the idea into an outline or a map early. Give it little visits. Let it percolate before you try to make sentences. Parrott was doing a later version of that motion with a partner in the room. First the idea gets heat. Then the passes that keep asking whether the spark is still in the sentence.

I was on my morning walk with the interview in my ears when I recognized it. I have been in that kitchen.

Mine always starts the same way. A memory, or an insight that arrived attached to a place or a number or a smell. Not a prompt. The private thing is already there. Then a partner. Back and forth. I say what I noticed. It asks. I answer. It tries a shape. I throw the shape out if it has started speaking for me.

The useful part is not that a model can write. Plenty of models can write. The useful part is the interactive pass that moves a private thing toward a piece a stranger can read, without replacing the spark that made it worth sitting down.

Parrott said working with AI made her fall in love with writing again. For a long time the page had been a slog. With a partner she had energy left for the harder questions. The work felt like exploration again — of the tool, and of her own mind.

I have felt that. Not as a conversion. As a return. The chair is less of a stall. The memory does not have to die there because the next sentence is hard. You can get the thing onto the page and still recognize it as yours when you read it back.

Worth sharing, here, is small. A stranger can take the scene, or the distinction, and not need a sermon. What remains should still work.

Then there is the other room. I cannot point to one essay and one accuser. I can only say what I keep hearing in group talk: writing with AI is a stain. People say they can see slop. They get angry when they think they have found it. The test they are running is origin. Did a model touch this. Not: is the spark still in the sentences. Not: did a person start with something only they had.

Slop exists. A first-draft dump asked to stand as a finished piece is slop. Thin assertions. Rhythm that never lands. A kitchen with nothing in the bowl. That object is real. Thin rhythm is something a reader can taste. That tasting is not the other room. The other room begins when the same reader stops tasting and asks who touched the food.

The pile-on does not separate that object from a cooked one. It looks at the door the food came through and decides. A piece that began as a memory and was walked, question by question, toward the page gets the same verdict as the dump. The jury is not tasting.

I am not asking anyone to love the tool. The origin test cannot do the work it claims. It cannot tell a spark that survived the pass from a paragraph that never had one.

Fresh ingredients, heat, a plate. The kitchen is not the meal. The meal is whatever is left when you sit down to it and the private thing is still there.

Categories
San Francisco/California Writing

The Company of Fog

Note: a little fun this morning with a piece envisioning Jimmy Breslin writing about lunch with Herb Caen at Tadich Grill…

I went to San Francisco to meet a man who writes about the place the way a guy writes about a woman he still wants to sleep with after thirty years.

His name is Herb Caen. He has been telling this city about itself every morning since before most of the people reading him were born. They call him Mr. San Francisco. In New York we don’t hand out titles like that. In New York you earn the right to be called a son of a bitch, and you take it as a compliment.

We met at Tadich Grill. Open since the gold rush, and it still looks like it never got the news that things change. Dark wood. White tablecloths. Waiters old enough to remember when the bridge was new and still sore about it. The fish comes out of the water and onto the plate without a lot of conversation in between.

Caen was already sitting when I got there. Neat. Jacket. That California tan that never quite goes away, like the sun signed a contract with him. He stood up and shook my hand like a man who has shaken a lot of hands and still means it. I ordered a martini, because when you’re in another man’s town you drink what the town drinks, even when the town is wrong.

He had one too. Stoli, twist. He called it Vitamin V.

We talked about columns. About writing for a city that never sleeps against writing for one that takes long naps in the fog and calls it lifestyle. I told him New York will rob you and hold the door on the way out. He said San Francisco smiles while it’s doing it, then writes a nice item about your necktie.

He works in three dots. Little pieces, one after another, like a man feeding a parking meter all day instead of buying the car. Gossip, jokes, the name of whoever just opened a place on Union Street. I need more room than that. I need to turn around. He said my way was fine if you like carrying a piano up the stairs every day. I told him his was fine if you don’t mind never sitting down long enough to find out what you actually think.

The sand dabs came. Caen looked at his like a priest looks at the host. I ate mine like a man who skipped breakfast. Everything on that table was good — the bread, the butter, the light coming in off the street looking like it had been there as long as the wood and knew it.

He leaned in. “You know the difference between our two cities?”

I waited.

“In New York, the people are the story. Here, the city is the story. The people just get to live in it for a while.”

That’s a hell of a thing for a man to say about his own hometown — that the place is bigger than everybody in it, including him. I told him about the man who dug Kennedy’s grave, the one nobody else thought to ask. Caen nodded. He understood the assignment. It was the only time all lunch he didn’t have a joke ready.

We stayed too long. The martinis did their work. Outside, the fog came in soft and certain, the way it does out there, like it’s been rehearsing. Caen put his coat on like a man who has never once been in a hurry. I put mine on like a man who has somewhere else to be, even when he doesn’t.

On the sidewalk he tipped his hat. An actual hat. Nobody tips a hat in New York anymore. We’re too busy hailing something.

“Come back,” he said. “The city likes company.”

I walked toward the cable car line, the fog thick enough to make the streetlights float like they’d given up on the ground. Two men, two ways of loving a place. One writes it in little pieces that catch light for a second and go dark before the next one starts. The other digs until he finds the one man nobody else remembered to ask about, and doesn’t stop until the shovel hits something.

Neither of us was going to change. Neither was the city. That’s probably why we got along.

I caught the cable car and rode it a few blocks just to feel it move under me, the way you touch a thing to make sure it’s real. Behind me somewhere, a man who’d spent his life telling San Francisco it was beautiful was walking home through the fog he’d helped invent — which is either the best job in America or a life sentence, and he never once let on which.

I never did find out if he got tired of saying the same true thing a different way every morning. I didn’t ask. Some men you let keep their secret. Besides, I had my own city waiting, and it doesn’t smile at you while it robs you. It just takes the money and tells you to have a nice day.

Categories
Writing

Wait, What? The Art of the Irresistible Lead

A few weeks ago I sat with a fresh draft of one of my daily reports, the cursor blinking on a perfectly serviceable first sentence. It told the reader exactly what the piece was about. It was clear. It was polite. And it was, frankly, a little boring.

I deleted it and tried again. Then again. On the fifth try, something shifted. The sentence wasn’t flashy, but it carried a quiet spark of surprise—an unexpected detail that made even me lean in. In that moment I felt the familiar thrill of a good lead doing its quiet work: not demanding attention, but inviting it.

Susan Orlean has long been one of my quiet heroes in this regard. She crafts first sentences that land like gentle provocations—declarative, sometimes absurd, always authoritative in their own small way. They dare you not to keep reading, even when the subject seems, at first glance, ordinary.

For years now I’ve paid close attention to these opening moves—not just in Orlean’s work, but across the writers who consistently pull me in and refuse to let go. In a world of endless distractions and shorter attention spans, the lead is no longer optional; it is an act of hospitality. It says, gently but firmly: Come sit with this for a while. There’s something worth your time here.

This post is my reflection on that craft—why it matters, what the masters do so well, and how those of us who write (whether for blogs, reports, letters, or larger ambitions) might get better at it. Along the way I’ll share specific examples that still make me pause and smile, plus some practical ways I’ve tried to strengthen my own first sentences. Because if curiosity and receptivity are part of my compass, then learning to write better leads feels like one small, ongoing way to live into that.

Why Leads Matter More Than Ever

Attention is the scarcest resource we have. A strong lead doesn’t just inform—it seduces, surprises, or jolts the reader into “Wait, what?” mode. It earns those first crucial moments in a distracted world.

When I struggle with a draft, it’s often because the opening is doing too much summarizing and not enough inviting. A great lead respects the reader’s time while promising payoff. It’s generous. And in my own writing, whether a morning report or a more personal essay, refining the lead has often clarified the entire piece.

Masters of the Lead

Over time I’ve noticed how the same principles appear across very different forms. Feature writers like Susan Orlean seduce us into caring about subjects we didn’t know existed. Obituary writers work under tighter constraints but with profound stakes—distilling a life into something that honors the dead while engaging the living.

Orlean often opens with vivid, affectionate character portraits or surprising details that feel like delightful invitations. One classic: “In Bulgaria, some tennis balls are like dumplings.” It’s playful, specific, and instantly makes you wonder about the world these athletes inhabit. Another strength is the rapid, layered sketch: “John Laroche is a tall guy, skinny as a stick, pale-eyed, slouch-shouldered, and sharply handsome, in spite of the fact that he is missing all his front teeth.” The list is cinematic; the twist humanizes. Orlean writes the way a reader experiences the story, starting at the beginning and pulling you along with warm observation.

Obituary writers like Alden Whitman show the form’s power under pressure. Whitman conducted thoughtful advance interviews, framing them as biographical updates rather than morbid exercises. He asked reflective questions about identity, turning points, and what mattered most—gathering the intimate details that made his leads gracefully revealing. His portraits treated lives as coherent stories, full of flavor and humanity. Modern masters like Margalit Fox continue this with witty, precise openings that capture essence in one surprising stroke. British obituary traditions add elegant wit and anecdote, often using a single eccentricity to humanize even formidable figures.

The contrast is illuminating. Orlean’s warmth draws you in with delight and empathy. Joan Didion might open the same subject with cool cultural dissection, noting contradictions and performance. Wright Thompson would make it mythic and sensory. Jimmy Breslin would give it street-smart heart and working-man respect.

I sometimes test this by imagining how each would open a scene I actually remember: Moe’s Books on Telegraph Avenue in 1969. I was young, new to Berkeley, and the place felt like a sanctuary. The cigar smoke drifted out onto the sidewalk. Moe himself held quiet authority behind the counter. Browsers moved slowly, as if time among books was time well stolen. He bought books fairly—no haggling, just a fair price—and held court with that cigar while the avenue hummed with protest outside.

Orlean might begin with affectionate observation: the smoke, the quiet authority, the browsers moving as if time were something you could borrow among the shelves. Didion would coolly note the cultural performance—the revolutionary texts amid fading energy. Thompson would immerse you in the sensory sanctuary, the myth of the place. Breslin would tell it like a guy at the bar: Moe buying books fairly, no nonsense, holding court with that cigar while the world outside churned.

Each approach turns the same details—cigars, fair dealing, the charged atmosphere—into something that hooks and reveals. What unites them is deep curiosity and receptivity: seeing people and places fully, with compassionate attention.

How to Get Good at Leads

Mastery comes from deliberate practice. Here are approaches I’ve found helpful:

  • Read and dissect. Keep a notebook of great leads. Note what emotion or curiosity they trigger and what promise they make.
  • Write multiples. For any story, draft five versions—zinger, scene, metaphor, question, quiet setup—then choose or combine.
  • Draft first, revise last. Write the piece, then craft the lead. Or iterate after you know the emotional core. Read aloud.
  • Hunt arresting details. Look for surprising combinations (Orlean) or telling contradictions (Didion). Your own memories are full of them.
  • Get feedback early. Share just the lead. Ask: Does this make you want to read more?
  • Experiment with constraints. Try ultra-short leads or imitate a master’s voice, then adapt to yours.

Over time this becomes instinctive. Leads force clarity about what your story really is.

Common Pitfalls

Avoid summaries that feel polite but boring, or cleverness that sacrifices clarity. The best leads align with your internal compass—generous, empathetic, curious. They reflect compassionate honesty: offering truth with care.

Writing better leads is one small way to live my life theme more fully. It’s about paying close attention, finding the spark in the everyday, and inviting others to do the same.

These values are my compass—and today, curiosity feels like the right direction.

Categories
AI AI: Large Language Models AI: Transformers Authors Podcasts Writing

The Billboard

The fog was still sitting on the hills when I put in my earbuds and headed out.

Sebastian Mallaby was talking about billboards.

Tim Ferriss had asked him the question he asks everyone: if you could put anything up there, for millions of people to see, what would it be? Mallaby has spent years inside the minds of the people who shaped modern finance — the hedge fund managers, the venture capitalists, the builders of things that changed how the world moves money. He has more material than most people accumulate in a lifetime. He could have said anything.

He said: Prepare your mind.

I kept walking. The houses were quiet in the particular way they get when school lets out for summer — no buses, no car doors, no kids at the corner. Somebody’s sprinklers were running.

The phrase comes originally from Louis Pasteur, who understood something that most people don’t: that chance is not democratic. It does not distribute itself evenly among those who wait. It finds the people who are ready. Chance favors the prepared mind. Pasteur said it, and then he proved it, and then the rest of us spent a century and a half learning it was true.

What struck me about Mallaby’s answer wasn’t the phrase itself. It was the way he said it had kept appearing in his research, surfacing in different decades and different worlds, like a message the material kept trying to send him.

He told the story of Arthur Patterson at Accel Capital. Before a new technology arrived, Accel would work through the implications — what company needs to be built, what founder fits the moment, what the right pitch looks like. So when an entrepreneur finally walked in, when the situation was live and competitive, they already knew ninety percent of what they were hearing. They could move fast because they had already moved slow.

That’s preparation as institutional practice. But Mallaby found the phrase again in a different register entirely, embedded in a single human moment that has always seemed to me like one of the hinge points of our era.

He was interviewing Ilya Sutskever, asking him why he had seen it so quickly.

In 2017, a paper called Attention Is All You Need appeared online. It described a new architecture for neural networks — the transformer — that would eventually rewrite the terms of what artificial intelligence could do. On the day the paper went up, Sutskever read it. And then he ran. He went down the corridor to find his collaborator Alex Radford and told him to stop what he was doing. Everything. Stop. We are going to build a language model on this architecture.

Not someday. Now.

Mallaby asked him how he had seen it so clearly, so fast. And Sutskever’s answer, in its essence, was the same two words: prepared mind.

He had been thinking about the problem of modeling sequential data since his PhD in Canada. For years he had been carrying a question the field hadn’t answered yet. And when the answer appeared — when the transformer showed up on a website one ordinary day — he didn’t have to reason his way toward it. He recognized it. The solution arrived and found a mind that had been waiting for it, that had already cleared space for it, that was already arranged around the shape of exactly this kind of answer.

This is what preparation actually is. Not the accumulation of facts. Not readiness in the generic sense, the vague self-improvement sense. It is the long, patient cultivation of a specific question, held close and kept alive until the answer has somewhere to land.

Mallaby chose that phrase for his billboard because it kept finding him — in the venture capital world, in the AI world, across decades and disciplines and very different kinds of genius. The prepared mind is not a personality trait. It is a practice. It is the work you do before the work arrives.

The sprinklers had clicked off by the time I turned back toward home. The fog was starting to lift off the hills. I was thinking about what I had been preparing for, whether I even knew.

Categories
Books Writing

John McPhee Home Library

Im an avid fan of John McPhee having first been introduced to him when he profiled Ted Taylor in the New Yorker in 1973. I’ve collected a stack of his books in our home library. One useful query I’ve used with Gemini is this:

This is a stack of the John McPhee books in our home library. Give me a list with: title, year published; summary; how reviewed; an interesting story about the book.

Here’s the result – good fun!

John McPhee: Library Stack Directory

A detailed guide to the nine books by legendary narrative nonfiction writer John McPhee shown in the library stack. The list is organized in order from the top of the stack to the bottom.

1. Oranges

Year Published: 1967

Summary: An immersive, multi-layered look into the history, botany, and global trade of citrus. McPhee tracks the orange’s journey from its ancient Asian origins through Europe and the Americas, culminating in a detailed portrait of the highly industrialized orange juice concentration plants of 20th-century Florida.

How Reviewed: Celebrated for showing how a single, seemingly mundane topic can be transformed into compelling, poetic literature. Critics praised it as a hallmark text of the “New Journalism” movement and creative nonfiction.

An Interesting Story: McPhee originally intended to write a quick, single article for The New Yorker. However, he became so fascinated by the complex subculture of Florida orange growers and the science of the fruit that he stayed for months, ultimately producing enough rich material to fill this entire book.

2. Pieces of the Frame

Year Published: 1975

Summary: A diverse collection of eleven narrative essays covering eclectic topics, including a family search for the Loch Ness Monster, the landscape and history of Atlantic City, the art of fly-fishing, and the deep geology of the Appalachian basin.

How Reviewed: Warmly praised for its boundless curiosity and McPhee’s signature knack for weaving disparate human interests with environmental science.

An Interesting Story: For the title essay, McPhee brought his wife and young daughters to camp right on the shores of Loch Ness. Instead of writing a cynical piece about a local myth, he embedded with the genuinely dedicated, scientifically minded monster-hunters who spent months using sonar to sweep the deep waters.

3. Irons in the Fire

Year Published: 1997

Summary: A compilation of seven essays focusing on obscure, highly specialized worlds. It features pieces on modern cattle-rustling brand inspectors in Nevada, the lifespan of military cargo planes, the manufacture of forensic charcoal, and the historical journeys of Plymouth Rock.

How Reviewed: Reviewers warmly received the collection, highlighting McPhee’s unique talent for mastering technical jargon and making niche professions completely accessible and thrilling to general readers.

An Interesting Story: In the essay “The Gravel Page,” McPhee introduces the world of forensic geology. He follows an expert who can solve complex criminal cases, like kidnappings or murders, simply by analyzing the microscopic dust, pollen, and soil types caught in a suspect’s shoe treads or car tires.

4. A Sense of Where You Are

Year Published: 1965

Summary: McPhee’s brilliant debut book profiles Bill Bradley during his time as an All-American basketball star at Princeton University—long before Bradley became an NBA champion with the New York Knicks and a U.S. Senator.

How Reviewed: Widely celebrated for its exceptional character development and meticulous analysis of athletic grace, launching McPhee’s legendary literary career.

An Interesting Story: The famous title comes from a moment when Bradley demonstrated his flawless spatial awareness to McPhee. While walking backward away from the basket without looking, Bradley flipped the ball over his shoulder and sunk it. When McPhee asked how he did it, Bradley simply remarked that he just had “a sense of where you are.”

5. The Curve of Binding Energy

Year Published: 1974

Summary: A chilling profile of Theodore Taylor, a visionary nuclear physicist who designed some of the world’s smallest atomic weapons. The book details how alarmingly easy it would be for a motivated individual to steal nuclear material and build a homemade bomb using unclassified, public information.

How Reviewed: Nominated for a National Book Award, this work shocked readers and terrified policymakers by laying bare massive vulnerabilities in domestic nuclear facility security.

An Interesting Story: The book created an immediate national security panic. Because McPhee’s descriptions of security flaws were so detailed and accurate, it acted as a massive wake-up call that forced the U.S. government to dramatically overhaul and tighten security protocols at nuclear stockpiles.

6. The Control of Nature

Year Published: 1989

Summary: An epic three-part exploration of human hubris versus the elements. It profiles three intense battles: the Army Corps of Engineers trying to stop the Mississippi River from changing course, Icelanders fighting a volcanic eruption, and Los Angeles residents combating massive mountain mudslides.

How Reviewed: Frequently heralded as one of McPhee’s ultimate masterpieces, praised for its cinematic tension, incredible environmental writing, and deep philosophical look at humanity’s defiance of nature.

An Interesting Story: During the 1973 eruption on the island of Heimaey, Icelanders refused to let lava swallow their vital fishing harbor. They rigged up miles of plastic piping and pumped millions of gallons of icy ocean water directly onto the glowing molten rock for months, successfully freezing the advance and creating a natural rock breakwater.

7. The Patch

Year Published: 2018

Summary: A late-career compilation split into two sections: immersive outdoor essays covering fishing, bears, and golf courses, followed by “An Album Quilt,” a series of shorter, mosaic-like reflections on historical figures, celebrities, and fellow writers.

How Reviewed: Reviewed as a poignant, comforting, and delightfully nostalgic anthology that showcases a master writer looking back over a lifetime of keen observation.

An Interesting Story: The title essay, “The Patch,” refers to a hidden, pristine pocket of water lilies in a lake in eastern Canada. McPhee’s family kept its exact coordinates a closely guarded secret for generations because it was an unrivaled fishing spot for chain pickerel.

8. Silk Parachute

Year Published: 2010

Summary: An elegant essay collection ranging from the geometric intricacies of lacrosse and the geology of chalk to a loving profile of longtime New Yorker editor William Shawn and deeply personal memories of youth.

How Reviewed: Celebrated for its unique emotional warmth, with critics appreciating the rare, deeply personal glimpses into McPhee’s own childhood and family relationships.

An Interesting Story: The title essay is a tribute to McPhee’s mother. When she was a young woman in the early 20th century, she impulsively went up in a biplane and did a parachute jump just for the thrill of it. In her nineties, she would playfully drop a toy silk parachute out of her window down to her adult son.

9. Uncommon Carriers

Year Published: 2006

Summary: A fascinating look into the invisible freight network that keeps the American continent running. McPhee journeys across the country alongside long-haul truckers, towboat captains moving massive barges on rivers, and operators of cross-country coal trains.

How Reviewed: Highly praised as an eye-opening, deeply engaging look at the modern logistics industry and the eccentric, highly dedicated people who master it.

An Interesting Story: To write the opening chapter, McPhee spent days living in the cramped cab of a chemical tanker truck driven by Don Ainsworth. Ainsworth was an elite driver who treated long-haul trucking like a fine art, teaching McPhee the high-stakes rules, specific lane etiquette, and hidden subculture of the open road.

Categories
Writing

The Grain Bin and the Ghost

Richard Rhodes published How to Write in 1995. In it, he offers practical advice about a writer’s reference shelf: keep a dictionary at home, own a one-volume encyclopedia. He mentions, almost in passing, that he just received the OED on CD-ROM as a birthday gift.

That sentence stops you cold in 2026.

Not because it’s quaint — though it is — but because of what it reveals about how a writing life was organized. Rhodes wasn’t describing luxury. He was describing infrastructure. The reference shelf was load-bearing. You kept facts at home the way you kept food in a pantry: because access wasn’t guaranteed, because the library closed, because the gap between not-knowing and knowing could be measured in trips and hours. A writer’s bookshelf was a personal hedge against scarcity.

Think about what it meant that someone’s birthday present was a reference tool. Not a novel. Not a bottle of wine. Twenty volumes of the most authoritative dictionary in the English language, compressed to a disc, given because a writer needed it and couldn’t otherwise have it on their desk. That’s what a writing life cost. That’s what it demanded of the people around you.

That scarcity is gone so completely it’s hard to reconstruct the phenomenology of it.

The bottleneck in Rhodes’s world was access. You either had the fact or you didn’t. Getting it required physical movement — to the shelf, to the library, to someone who knew. The reference book’s value was proximity: it collapsed the distance between the question and the answer. The OED on CD-ROM was remarkable precisely because it put those twenty volumes on your desk. No trip. No waiting. That was the gift.

The bottleneck now is entirely different. Access is solved, trivially, for anyone with a phone. The question isn’t where the facts are. The question is which facts to trust, how they were assembled, whether the source has an agenda, whether the model that synthesized them has introduced drift. We moved from a scarcity problem to a judgment problem, and most of our inherited intellectual habits were built for the former.

But something else happened too, something Rhodes couldn’t have framed because it didn’t exist: the infrastructure became generative. The reference shelf held facts. It didn’t think with you. It didn’t draft alongside you, or push back on your argument, or notice that the claim you just made contradicts something three paragraphs earlier. The CD-ROM OED was static; it waited to be consulted. The tools a writer reaches for now don’t wait. They participate.

This is the structural shift that the grain bin metaphor can’t contain. Rhodes was describing a writer’s relationship to stored knowledge — how you accumulate it, how you keep it close, how you move through it when you need it. That relationship was essentially curatorial. You built a collection. You maintained it. You drew from it.

What’s emerging now is something more like a collaboration with an infrastructure that has opinions. Not always right ones. Not always trustworthy ones. But opinions nonetheless — which means the writer’s job has changed in kind, not just in degree. You’re no longer managing a pantry. You’re managing a working relationship.

Where does it end up? Probably somewhere Rhodes would recognize at the level of the goal — clarity, the right word, the true sentence — and find almost unrecognizable at the level of method. The shelf is still there. But it talks back now. And figuring out what that means — whether to trust it, when to push against it, how to stay the one doing the writing — is the work no one has finished yet. Maybe no one can, while it’s still changing this fast.

Categories
Writing

Still Learning

I never thought about rhythm in my writing. Not once.

A lifetime of writing. More essays than I can count. One book. And the sonic quality of my sentences — the way they moved, or failed to move, through a reader’s mind — simply wasn’t something I considered. I was too busy trying to say something true. I thought that was enough.

What changed was reading differently. Not for pleasure anymore, or not only for pleasure. David Perell conducts long interviews with writers about how they actually work — not what they believe about writing, but what they do, physically, at the desk, in the dark, before anyone sees it. He asks the same structural questions of very different writers and the patterns emerge slowly, the way patterns always emerge: first you see it once and think nothing of it, then you see it again, then you can’t stop seeing it. Rhythm came up constantly. Always in different language. Pacing. Breath. Music. Momentum. Always pointing at the same thing.

Then I found this from Susan Orlean:

My new preoccupation was on the sonic quality of my writing — the rhythm and tone of the sentences. I began reading all my work out loud, listening for places that lagged and dragged, that didn’t sparkle. I knew it was unlikely that anyone else was reading my stories out loud, but I was convinced that you do “hear” writing in your head as you read, and this pushes you (or stalls you) through the piece. I wanted the music — that is, this subconscious tonal effect — to match the subject.

I stopped. Read it again.

Because she was describing something real — something I had been doing wrong for twenty-five years without knowing it was wrong. You don’t know what you can’t hear. That’s the whole problem. The silence where the knowledge should be is itself silent.

I don’t read my work out loud. There’s something strange about it, something that breaks the spell — you stop being a writer and become an actor, hearing your own sentences hanging in the air, too exposed. But I do read and read again, more carefully now, looking for the wobble. Orlean’s point holds regardless of method: you hear writing in your head as you read it, and that hearing either carries you forward or it doesn’t. The ear that matters is the one inside.

George Saunders has a practice he describes in A Swim in a Pond in the Rain: he reads from the beginning of a piece over and over, and the moment something feels off — a word, a rhythm, a single syllable landing wrong — he stops and fixes it before moving forward. Never skips the trouble spot. Never tells himself he’ll come back. His opening pages accumulate dozens of passes before he ever reaches the end. What he’s really doing, underneath the technique, is training himself to feel the exact microsecond when a reader’s attention would start to drift. To catch the loss before it happens.

That’s not craft instruction. That’s building a new sensitivity where there wasn’t one before.

John McPhee works from the other direction entirely. His famous boxes — index cards, sorted into piles, piles arranged into sequences, nothing drafted until the structure is known — are about architecture before a single word is written. He’s deciding which rooms exist, and in what order, before he furnishes any of them. Where Saunders builds outward from one true sentence, McPhee builds downward from a blueprint.

But they’re asking the same question. McPhee: is this section in the right place? Saunders: is this word in the right place? Both listening for the moment the piece loses its hold on the reader. Both doing triage on something most writers never even examine.

What I’m still learning — slowly, and late — is that rhythm isn’t decoration. It isn’t the thing you tend to after the real work is done. It’s structural. A sentence moving at the wrong speed for what it’s carrying fails the thought itself, not just the ear.

There’s something else I’ve been thinking about. If rhythm is the thing that’s hardest to hear in your own work — if the ear takes years to develop — then maybe the most useful writing tool isn’t a grammar checker. Those are solved. What isn’t solved is the rhythm problem. An editor who listens for the wobble, explains what’s failing and why, and works through the fix with you rather than just patching it. Not a red pen. A teacher.

I’ve been experimenting with exactly that. An AI editor I call Clark. His job isn’t correctness. It’s the sonic quality of prose — the rhythm — the same thing Orlean was describing, the same sensitivity Saunders spent years training. Clark finds what’s working as hard as what isn’t. And when something fails, he explains what the reader’s inner ear is hitting and why. Helpful.

I didn’t know much about rhythm in writing when I was fifty. Didn’t know it at sixty.

I’m not entirely sure I know it now. But I know it more than I did, which might be the only kind of knowing that’s real.

A lifetime of writing. Still learning how to listen.

Categories
Creativity Photographers Photography Serendipity Writing

He Taught Us How to See

Michelangelo said he didn’t create his sculptures. He just removed the marble that wasn’t the statue.

I’ve been thinking about that lately. About what it means to have a collaborator whose job isn’t to add things but to help you find what’s already there. I’ve been doing that kind of work recently — the excavation kind — and it has changed how I write and honestly how much I enjoy the making of it.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Start with Jay.

Continue reading “He Taught Us How to See”
Categories
Storytelling Writing

The Craft in the Work: A Reading Guide to Ten Storytellers

There’s a kind of reading that’s really a form of listening — not to what a writer is saying but to how they’re solving a problem. Every great piece of nonfiction is an argument about structure, and most writers never explain it aloud. The argument is in the choices: where the piece starts, when it digresses, what it leaves out, how it ends. You can enjoy the work without seeing any of this. But once you start seeing it, you can’t stop — and eventually, some of it becomes yours.

This guide is for both kinds of reading. Each writer here is worth your time as a reader. Each one also has something specific and stealable for anyone who writes. I’ve tried to name both.

The ten: John McPhee, Robert Caro, John Jeremiah Sullivan, Michael Lewis, Joan Didion, David Grann, Sam Anderson, Susan Orlean, Tom Junod, and Wright Thompson. Different registers, different obsessions, different methods. What they share is a commitment to making difficult things feel inevitable — and the discipline to make that look effortless.

They fall into three loose clusters, which might help you find your entry point. Structure builders — McPhee, Caro, Grann — write pieces that feel inevitable because the architecture is invisible but load-bearing. Emotional access — Orlean, Junod, Thompson — get you inside feeling before you know you’re there. Voice and form — Didion, Sullivan, Lewis, Anderson — the sentence, the digression, the explanatory seduction, the essay as genuine inquiry. The clusters overlap, and the best writers in each group are doing all three things at once. But if you’re trying to solve a specific problem in your own writing, the clusters tell you where to look first.

Continue reading “The Craft in the Work: A Reading Guide to Ten Storytellers”
Categories
Reading Writing

The Starting Five I Keep

On November 25, 1963, every journalist in America was at Arlington Cemetery covering the state funeral of John F. Kennedy. Jimmy Breslin went to find the grave digger.

His name was Clifton Pollard. He was paid $3.01 an hour. He had been called in on his day off because the foreman thought he was the best they had, and the foreman was right about that. Breslin spent the morning with him while the ceremony unfolded a few hundred yards away — the dignitaries, the riderless horse, the flag folded into a triangle and handed to a widow. Pollard ate a ham sandwich and kept working.

The piece Breslin filed that afternoon is still taught in journalism schools sixty years later. Not because it covered the funeral better than anyone else. Because it didn’t cover the funeral at all. It found the true subject by ignoring the announced one.

That instinct — turn away from the obvious, walk toward the unglamorous specific, trust that the universal is hiding there — is the one idea I’ve returned to more than any other. It shows up in two very different writers who occupy, in my mind, the same position on the roster.

Breslin got there through deadline fury and a saloon-bred instinct for where the real story was breathing. He didn’t theorize about it. He just did it, on a deadline, in a city that rewarded the loud and the fast. John McPhee got to the same place by an entirely different route: patience, structure, and a willingness to spend six months learning how canoes are made or what happens to a piece of shad on its way up the Delaware River. Breslin worked like a man catching a cab. McPhee worked like a man building a cathedral.

But the underlying claim is identical. If you stay with a specific, unglamorous subject long enough — if you resist the pull toward the obvious center — it will eventually yield something that couldn’t have been reached directly. Pollard and his shovel. The orange grower and his grove. The nuclear physicist who also happens to be a canoe builder. The method is the same. Look where no one else is looking. Wait longer than feels reasonable. Write what you find.

This is one player, really. Just wearing two different jerseys.

The second seat belongs to Wright Thompson — not a single book but a stance. The premise that the most revealing place in any story isn’t the event itself but the moment before and after it, when the subject is alone with something they haven’t yet put into words. Every piece in this tradition is quietly asking: what is this person carrying that they can’t say out loud? It’s a question that turns out to apply well beyond sportswriting. It applies to most things worth writing about.

The third is whatever the Apple design era taught about constraint and clarity. Not nostalgia — something more durable. The idea that removing something can be an act of confidence. That the most useful things often appear to be doing less than they are. This one surfaces constantly in writing, in argument, in the editing pass where you decide what the piece actually needs versus what it accumulated along the way. Features are easy to add. Knowing what to cut requires a different kind of certainty.

The fourth is the philosophy embedded in spaced repetition — not the algorithm but the claim underneath it. That knowledge you don’t revisit isn’t really yours. That understanding decays on a predictable schedule whether you acknowledge it or not. The honest response isn’t anxiety about this; it’s the habit of return. Going back to the same passage, the same idea, the same question on a different day, and finding it has changed — or finding that you have.

The fifth seat shifts. That’s probably the right design. Four constants and one that evolves is roughly the correct ratio for a starting lineup that has to play in different eras. Right now that seat belongs to the question of what AI does to a practiced human sensibility — whether it erodes it by substitution or clarifies it by contrast. Earlier it was held by a certain kind of systems thinking. Before that, something else. The player who earns that spot is always the one asking the question the current moment most needs answered.

The coach who wins five championships doesn’t do it with the same roster. But he does it with the same philosophy. The starting five aren’t the players who happened to be good once. They’re the ones who keep earning their minutes regardless of what the season throws at you.

Breslin knew where to find Clifton Pollard because he’d been looking in that direction his whole career. The skill wasn’t the story. The skill was knowing that the story was never where everyone else was standing.

That’s the one I keep coming back to.