Title Goes Here: The Interview

I know I've mentioned it quite a bit, but I have a book! It's pretty cool if I do say so myself.

Last night, I was chatting with another creative friend of mine (shoutout to Idle Friend) and he mentioned that he was using AI to psychoanalyze him via the lyrics he creates. Curiosity got the better of me and so I decided to do something similar. Some of the standout phrases to me are "peripheral yet influential" and "respected for insight but sometimes seen as contrarian."

At the same time, I recently had one of the worst reviews I ever received. Not in that they didn't like the book (it's a glowing review in that regard), but in that I'm not sure that they actually read the book. Much of the review is lifted directly from the publicly available synopsis and I didn't see anything that convinced me that they actually had a copy. Tis life, I suppose.

Pictured: We're doing an interview today!

But after that, I decided to take steps a bit further. So I assumed the role of someone who thought the book was dangerous and asked what steps I could take to minimize Dewy's influence. While the system I was using flat out refused to do anything malicious, it did spit out a series of "hard-hitting" interview questions aimed at undercutting my core message. I took that as a challenge. So, without further ado, here are my answers to the questions it spit out.

***

• Your book mixes poetry, fiction, and what you call “spells.” How do you define the boundary between artistic provocation and practical advice?

There really isn’t a good one, particularly for my book. It basically begs the reader to try to go out of their comfort zone in their life and try to live in a more foolish way. I’m definitely trying to provoke a reaction to the world around the reader and offering friendly advice as to what I did when I was in that position.

• If a reader acts on a passage and is harmed, how do you think about responsibility?

I’d probably feel terrible but that doesn’t take away from the fact that they made their choice. Taking away that choice, to me, would involve committing a greater atrocity.

• You begin with a warning and later say your beliefs “subject to change.” Do you view the book as an argument, an experiment, or something else?

It is what it says on the title page: An adventure in foolishness. I try not to shy away from all the repercussions that entails. It was certainly a journey authoring the book and I’m sure that it’s quite the journey reading through it.

• Which parts would you now revise or retract?

As of now, I wouldn’t change anything.

• In “Fear of the Future” and other pieces you make broad causal claims about society and power. What empirical evidence or real-world examples most shaped those claims?

I feel like just living in the world is enough to prove them true but I’ve studied these concepts academically as well. I have a bachelors in economics and political science as well as a law degree. I’ve also worked within various courts and firms, so I’ve seen power operate at a very base level firsthand. But again, you don’t need the degrees to see my point (at least, I hope).

• Can you name three studies or incidents you relied on?

If I have to pick three experiences that come to mind, I’d say the study of criminal law in law school, interning within a district attorneys office, and assisting a bankruptcy court judge with certain matters. But, yet again, I like to think that the principles I’m picking up on are universal enough that you don’t need to have had that kind of experience in order to recognize them.

• Several poems and spells suggest structural critiques (e.g., “Corporate Personhood,” “The Tyrant”). What concrete policy changes do you propose to address those problems?

Are you seriously asking me for “concrete policy changes” on how do we get rid of tyrants? That’s quite the ask. We’ve been trying to do that since forever.

I’d argue awareness is the first step though and, by identifying patterns of behavior and understanding the rationale that goes on behind the scenes, we are better equipped to deal with them. I like to think that’s where my poems come in. Understanding leads to recognition and that leads to mitigating damages.

• How would you measure success?

If even one person recognizes a tyrant in their life and better is able to deal with them as a result of my poems, I’ll have succeeded.

• You write about “spells” that alter perception. Do you see rhetorical techniques in this book as ethically neutral tools, or do you accept limits on persuasion?

As presented within the book, I think they are laid out in a very neutral way that is respectful to the reader as an individual with their own will. This was the needle I was trying to thread with the section. However, I think you’re getting at the idea that someone could then use the spells in the book in a less than ethical way. I wouldn’t be a fan of their use in this manner but I have no real way of stopping this. But that’s also on that person for being shitty. Respecting someone’s will cuts both ways and I can’t compromise there.

• How do you avoid manipulating vulnerable readers?

I think I covered this already. I’m pretty happy with how I threaded the needle of presenting powerful spells in a way that’s respectful to the reader and affirms their agency rather than hijack it.

• Some passages use moral absolutism and theatrical language (e.g., “The wise dream of eradication”). Do you worry this framing polarizes readers rather than persuading them?

I’m just a girl telling a story. If people see reality in that story, then there’s something wrong with reality, not my story.

I guess what I’m saying is that if someone is worried my poem is “polarizing”, maybe the issue is that the society we are forced to live within is polarized between those who control and those who are controlled. It’s a symptom of what surrounds us, not the other way around.

• How would you reframe for an audience skeptical of your premises?

I don’t really care. If it doesn’t resonate with you go read something else. I sometimes wish I was that unburdened.

• A number of short stories depict extreme suffering and trauma. What duty do you have, as an author, to provide context or resources for readers who may be triggered?

Those two stories you’re referencing aren’t for the faint of heart. They are quite bleak. It was quite the experience writing them. And I made sure to say as much in the book right before the material came up. Though I did that more as a favor to the reader rather than out of some kind of obligation. It’s my duty to be authentic and write what I feel I must first.

• Why place trigger warnings where you did, and would you change that placement?

I put it right before the material in question began. I think this was the best place to put it because it’s very specific to those two entries. I don’t think I’d change where it went.

• In “Excess Gas Reserves,” a campaign is derailed by an embarrassing clip. Do you think publishing scenes that model public shaming risks encouraging real-world harassment?

I don’t like this framing. Reality was already this ridiculous long before I was born. This seems to presume things are at the cusp of being rational or not and that my story somehow is the deciding weight to see how things come out. I write what I see. Have an issue with that? Make reality not like that instead of telling me to write some kind of sterile and contrived drivel.

• Where do you draw the line between satire and instruction?

I don’t. I think that’s something that the reader decides for themselves. To go beyond that is to claim that I have mind control or something.

• You claim confidence in chaos and exploration, but you also warn about irresponsibility. How do you reconcile advocating risk with acknowledging the real harms that can follow?

By believing that the greater harm would be to stay silent. By believing promoting individual agency is better than repressing it. The list goes on, but you can probably see a pattern.

• Is there an ethical framework you follow when encouraging others to “be fools”?

Nope! I wouldn’t presume to make those kinds of decisions for another.

• The book toggles between empathy (dedications, friendships) and misanthropy (cruel leaders, prisons). Which sentiment best represents your overall ethic, and why?

Both? Neither? I’m not really sure I have any kind of ethic I’d be willing to say is my “primary” one. I try to stay fluid in my approach so that I can stay somewhat objective. If I had to point out a more general tendency, I’d say that my distrust grows with power imbalances. The less you recognize my own inherent authority, the less I’ll trust you.

• Who is your intended audience for this book — activists, poets, general readers, or a mix?

Honestly, I think the book does a good job of self-selecting its readers. It’s a book that, if it interests you, you’ll probably like it. I know that’s a dumb way of putting it but I didn’t write this for any particular audience except for “those who might like it.”

• How should a reader apply your “spells” in everyday life responsibly?

I’m a fool! Irresponsibility is kind of my whole thing. I advocate for living life rather than calculating it.

• You reference building movements and shifting perception. Have you been involved in organizing or policy work that applied these ideas?

So I know you aren’t going to like the answer to this. In short, yes. I do things. But I don’t think it really matters as to the validity of the arguments I put forward. I want them to be reviewed and tried on their own merits, not just because of something I happened to be in the right place at the right time for. To me, that cheapens my argument. So I won’t elaborate further.

• What were the outcomes?

I'm not telling. You'll have to use your imagination as to what I get up to.

• Which writers, theorists, or traditions most influenced the “spells” section and why?

I have an eclectic practice, which means my traditions are my own. If I thought someone else covered the topic, I wouldn’t have bothered writing on it.

I didn’t always believe in magic the way I do now. The spells section of the book is largely me coming to terms with reframing the magic in the world in a more real and applicable manner. So they’re incredibly personal and to suggest that they came from another tradition is a bit insulting to my craft.

• Can you point to a nonfiction source that grounds any of the spells’ claims?

I think the whole point of my spells is that their applicability is self-evident. Like with invisibility, do you really need a source to tell you that people dismiss certain people based on things like what they are wearing?

• You mix satire, parable, and direct address. Did you test these pieces with readers before publishing? What feedback changed the manuscript?

I did a round of beta-reading with a prior draft of the book. One person didn’t really get what I was going for and one fanned out over how “good” it was. Both of those comments were largely useless. There were two readers who helped with some more structural critiques (the ones that come to mind was my response to the twelve step program and inclusion of an Adam and Eve retelling I ended up cutting).

But through these revisions, I don’t think I really changed the soul of the book. I don’t think I was really open to the changes you’re describing.

• If critics say parts of this book enable manipulation or irresponsibility, what is your single strongest rebuttal?

I’d say that my aim is to reduce manipulation. I try to recognize everyone’s independence and will in my actions and would suggest that people do the same or ignore it at their own peril.

I craft powerful spells and paradigms and make them available for others to use. I would tell others to use them at their own risk. Anything beyond that feels patronizing (and even that little bit kind of does; I feel like it’s strongly implied throughout my work).

I’d be remiss not to point out that I’m sure those critics benefit from a system of manipulation. It’s just that we treat societal manipulation as somehow “better” than an individual’s.

As to being irresponsible, I’m quite irresponsible. I think I even say that choosing to be a fool is “the definition of irresponsibility.” But is that really what you want? A “responsible” life? I know I sure as hell don’t.

• What concrete editorial change would you make in response to that critique?

I wouldn’t change it. My readers are their own people. If I censored my thought to try to shape or anticipate what they might do, that seems like a recipe for making things worse, not better.

• Suppose a reader claims they followed a “spell” and it harmed someone else. What steps would you take publicly and privately in response?

I do dread this. I picture someone saying that they “followed my advice” and did something horrible. I’m convinced it’s probably inevitable. That fills me with more dread than you know.

So let’s say the nightmare became true. Someone realized that nothing was stopping them from doing some terrible action and just… did it. And that I was the one who made them realize their agency.

If I were somehow addressing that person directly, I’d say something like:

“You wanted agency and now you have it. From this point on, no one will confuse you with someone who sits idly by. Your wish has been granted. Congratulations.

But I think you’ve missed a critical point in my writing. Everyone else has agency too. Each person you’ve hurt, each soul you’ve tormented, and even each government you’ve offended will be directing their agency into making sure you never are able to hurt anyone ever again. And in the same way you don’t think you can be blamed for doing what you thought was right, you cannot blame them for doing what they think is right.

I have some existentially horrifying news for you: You’re outnumbered. Drastically. Like it’s not even close. If you think you can fight it, you can’t. If you think you can out run it, you can’t. It is truly better to just give up now. Anything else will make your situation exponentially worse.

But the worst realization is yet to come. Because I believe you’re smart enough to fully realize what you’ve done eventually. And all the efforts of others to destroy your life will feel like nothing compared to the guilt you will feel.

Until you get to that point, know that I’m fully on the side of those that seek to imprison you. When you’re on the other side of that, you’ll gain a modicum of my sympathy. But trust me when I say it will not be the consolation you think it may be.”

But if your question is whether I would stop trying to get people to see their own agency, I wouldn’t. To deny that is a crime against our very nature.

• You made a provocative claim; please point to the specific passage and the evidence behind it.

I make a lot of provocative claims. It’s what I do. You, ironically, haven’t given me which claim you’re referencing so I’m going to assume it’s just the general je ne sais quoi of my position as a fool on their journey and my inherent distrust of any kind of authority.

History provides a wealth of examples as to why we should distrust authority. So many that it feels dumb to make a list. I mean, the United States itself was founded on the whole breaking away from tyranny thing. Wherever there has been one person telling another what they should be doing, abuse follows. Can you point me to literally any example to the contrary?

I feel like this begs the question as to whether you should listen to me. And the answer is “no” for the exact same reasons. It’s why I call myself a fool and warn people that any alleged “wisdom” is an accident. I don’t have any more authority than any other person on this planet. And that’s my whole point.

• That’s an interesting framing — can you translate it into a clear policy or action step?

I think many things would be better if we stopped holding certain things to be impossible. For example, one of my biggest gripes in economics is the oft-repeated axiom credited to Milton Friedman that “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” My response to that would be “Well, with that attitude, I suppose.”

As long as people take constraints as self-evident and impossible to get around, they will be. And it’s a complete waste of my time to come up with actions within that framework because they will be doomed to fail. So instead, I try to get people to approach problems with the assumption that there is a solution. Only once enough people believe a solution is possible can more concrete steps be made.

I believe nothing is impossible in the face of will. I impatiently await for humanity to come to the same conclusion. In the meantime, you had better believe I’ll be putting my thumb on that scale.

• You’ve used evocative language; for those who want to act on this, what safeguards do you recommend?

Safeguards? I think you’re missing the point. I’m not here to give people yet another version of what they “should” do. I’m here to empower people to do what they feel is best. If that makes you uncomfortable, then do something about it instead of requiring others to self-censor to fit your comfortability. But I refuse to limit the will of another. Directly like you seem to be wanting me to do, anyway. My optimism about humanity demands nothing less.

If I had to give advice, this is what it would be: Be aware actions have consequences. Be aware that some rules are in place for a reason. But never forget that in the “now” you can truly do anything. It is up to the world to stop you.