Match My Freak: Did the Pandemic Kill Our Reading Shame?

Harrison Cook
September 05, 2024 | 7 min read

Everyone has a pandemic story. Some will remember the day a state of emergency was declared in their country; others will have taken precautions months prior.

I remember the quickness of it all — societal norms flipping, turning, and somersaulting, which still makes my head spin when I read an early entry in my notebooks dating back to 2020. It was supposed to be the year of renewal. Everyone was going to get a fresh start. I remember discussing this on my friend’s porch during the early stages of the pandemic.

The faint possibility of our year hung in the air like the aftermath of fireworks, dissipating to make way for the abrupt future we were presented with. As a part of a small group of friends who took their social isolating seriously, we were alone, but at least we could be alone together. I’d sit with my friend, remembering the sound of cars zooming up and down the street.

“Stuff is gonna get weird,” I remember telling her. “Especially art.”

“I hope so,” she said.

Looking back at the following years, 2021, 2022, and 2023, weird became the default — with books, with movies, with everything. A24 came out with some of its biggest, campiest titles, like The Green Knight and Everything Everywhere All at Once, which even won the 2023 Academy Award for Best Picture. Amazon Studios tried to copy the aesthetic with hits like Saltburn. Dramatized true crime narratives shot through the roof — remember that little show called Tiger King?

Excuse my use of the phrase “the new normal,” but the unrealness the pandemic presented affected our artistic consumption, turning the new normal into the downright weird.

In fact, I believe our collective experience of the pandemic gave rise to the current popularity of narratives with fantastical and strange premises and the widespread acceptance of these things that were once considered “weird.”

“Stuff is gonna get weird,” I remember telling her. “Especially art.”

The Rise of Smut

Sarah J. Mass, author of the Throne of Glass, A Court of Thorns and Roses, and the Crescent City series, saw a surge in sales thanks to their popularity on BookTok. A Court of Thorns and Roses, initially published in May 2015, with its most recent installment published in 2021, landed her the moniker “The Mortal Queen of Faerie Smut.” Publishers Weekly praised the book’s “sexy dark academic aesthetic,” in addition to giving it a starred review.

In the summer of 2023, it seemed everyone was reading a Maas series. I’d look around the break room and find coworkers reading a Maas book, with my one friend going so far as to read aloud a passage (without prior context) of the protagonist caressing another character. (I’m generalizing so as not to spoil A Court of Thorns and Roses for anyone who is lagging behind the trends, like myself).

The original meaning of the word “smut” refers to a small flake of soot or other dirt. Calling a book smut harkens back to this definition of dirtiness, this smudginess, which in my opinion only emphasizes its necessity.

Overnight, it seemed everyone was reading Fourth Wing (book number one in the Empyrean series) by Rebecca Yarros, which just won International Book of the Year through the TikTok Book awards. Dubbed a “dragon-filled romantasy,” I’d often ask my coworkers if they were reading dragon smut or fairy smut today. Though, I was assured by those of my friends who read Fourth Wing that the main point of the series was not the “saucy moments,” but more so the plot that may or may not include some saucy moments. “You’ll see when it’s picked up as a TV show,” my coworker told me. Fourth Wing’s publisher just confirmed a potential purchase and series development from Amazon Studios.

Even short stories and personal essays (and other non-genre prose) elevated the artistic merit of the sex scene. When I’d thumb through a glossy magazine or an online lit mag, characters in close proximity would more than likely agree to consensual canoodling. The pandemic made us horny for scenes of intimacy, and I can’t blame readers. During an extended period of uncertain time where there was a real risk to intimacy, our imaginations created the next best thing.

The pandemic made us horny for scenes of intimacy, and I can’t blame readers. During an extended period of uncertain time where there was a real risk to intimacy, our imaginations created the next best thing.

But not all smut is created equal.

While the fantastical elements of A Court of Thorns and Roses and Fourth Wing provided a fresh take on the sexy vertical, some authors and stories have taken the trend of intimacy and, well, weaponized it.

Titles like Kissing the Coronavirus, Morning Glory Milking Farm, or Get in My Swamp: An Ogre Love Story invoke a “cringe” different from the now mainstream-accepted cringe of romance about fae or dragons.

We could call this other group of examples "fringe writing." Unlike the marketable successes of Maas and Yarros, these other titles exist mainly on Amazon, not the traditional publishing world. In other words: you probably won't find them on shelves in Barnes & Noble.

However, I would also like to mention that, in my career as a writer, I never thought I would be examining the line between good smut and smut that goes too far — and, honestly, I’m living for it.

Shedding Our Shame

Perhaps defining that line is where shame comes into play? Shame is a very social and self-conscious emotion, next of kin to embarrassment. The root of shame is mostly fear, usually the fear of others’ judgment, but in a time of sporadic social isolation from 2020 through 2022, we were left to our own devices, with limited human contact, which could have misaligned the self-perception of our own reading habits and tastes. We were by ourselves for a long time, which also means our bodies had a hard reset. The harshness of reality steeled the parts of our brains that gave a shit about what others felt, and instead placed an emphasis on oneself and one’s own tastes.

As another TikTok trend goes, “I’ve been a nasty girl/match my freak/match my freak.”

It seems humanity is finally coming to the conclusion that it’s okay to like what you like — from dragon smut to adult Shrek fanfiction — even if there are people out there who will judge you for it.

It seems humanity is finally coming to the conclusion that it’s okay to like what you like — from dragon smut to adult Shrek fanfiction...

The original meaning of the word “smut” refers to a small flake of soot or other dirt. Calling a book smut harkens back to this definition of dirtiness, this smudginess, which in my opinion only emphasizes its necessity. A society having such a term for books with intimacy indicates it’s a repressive one, and the mere act of writing pleasure or sexuality implies some rebellion. As a writer, I’m no stranger to the power of a kiss, embrace, or acts of intimacy on the page. As a queer writer and artist, I feel like I owe intimacy to my gay characters as a means to speak to my younger gay self and to write a future for them where said intimacy can exist free of shame.

Perhaps, with books “deemed smutty” trending on social media platforms and other top book lists, we are in nothing short of a sexual revolution, where sexual minorities and centuries of shame are finally put in check.

Perhaps, with books “deemed smutty” trending on social media platforms and other top book lists, we are in nothing short of a sexual revolution, where sexual minorities and centuries of shame are finally put in check.

It only took a global pandemic to get us to this point.

Let's Get Weird

Everyone has a pandemic story. I remember the quietness of the first day of the “official” pandemic. Time moved like molasses. My body felt every minute dripping into an hour. The silence didn’t help. I often played ambient music while cleaning dishes, rearranging furniture, or watering my plants. When I’d complete my morning chores, I’d then move to reading submissions for a literary magazine.

As an editor, I searched for prose (fiction or creative nonfiction) that pushed the genre forward, prose that reached back to the essay’s original roots “to attempt” a subject, scenario, or examination, and sentences that searched to redefine the common in uncommon ways. The same themes seemed to present themselves, though submitted by different writers, and I always considered the slush pile a petri dish for the collective concerns of essayists. Though each piece of writing came from their own consciousness, there were undercurrents, pulses threading the works into some larger tapestry.

I’d never read so many essays on loneliness, isolation, and grief. Homes and apartments served as metaphors for habitats or prisons. Some harnessed their creative drives into an “art residency” mentality and documented their progress in a timely article pitch.

There was also the ever-lurking fear of catching the virus, the guilt of giving it to a loved one, and the grief of others not taking the same precautions as yourself. These essays were hard to read. They were harder to forget. But most importantly, I felt, as an editor, it was too soon to write about a pandemic that was still unfolding. I ended up not accepting any pandemic-related essays or short stories, no matter the caliber of writing, given we still needed time. Time we still need. Time I’m still needing.

People with anxiety often watch the same movies, read the same books, or play the same games over and over again. There is a sense of control while engaging with the same media, the same arcs and falls of a story, the same surprises coming around the corner. We all had our comfort shows and our characters that offered us sanctuary in 2020. Our familiarity with a world, with a story, plays to the root of nostalgia, which means “a pain for home.” A pain for going back to 2019, a pain for the time before COVID, a pain for an alternative reality.

But almost five years later, I’m finally ready to join this craving for the new and the weird. Hard science fiction and high fantasy are mainstays in pop culture, but even more so after an event that proved the need for escapism.

We’re ready as a readership and as consumers to begin a new adventure — finally, together.

It just so happens, as trends are suggesting, this new adventure is a sexy one.

Recommended articles

More recommended articles for you

August 29, 2024 4 min read

Right now, the choice for a writer to use artificial intelligence (AI) or not has been largely a personal one. Some view it as a killer of creativity, while others see it as an endless well of inspiration.

But what if, in the future, your choice had larger implications on the state of literature as a whole?

This is the question that’s being raised from a new study by the University of Exeter Business School: If you could use AI to improve your own writing, at the expense of the overall literary experience, would you?

Let’s explore some context before you answer.

The Set Up

The 2024 study recruited 293 writers to write an eight-sentence “micro” story. The participants were split into three groups:

  • Writing by human brainpower only
  • The opportunity to get one AI-generated idea to inspire their writing
  • The opportunity to get up to five AI-generated ideas to inspire their writing

Then, 600 evaluators judged how creative these short stories were. The results confirmed a widely accepted idea but also offered a few surprising findings.

Prompts from AI Can Jumpstart the Creative Process

Right off the bat, the reviewers rated the AI-guided stories as being more original, better written, and more enjoyable to read. (Interesting to note that they did not find them funnier than the fully human-inspired stories.)

This actually isn’t that surprising. Most writers know the “blank page dread” at the beginning of a project. Even as I write this, I can’t help but wonder, “If I had been tasked with writing an eight-sentence story, what the heck would I have written about?”

Many writers share this sense of needing to pick the “right” story to tell. And that uniquely human concept of perfectionism can end up actually inhibiting our creative process.

A prompt, then, can help us quickly clear this mental hurdle. To test this, I’ll give you one, courtesy of ChatGPT: “Write a story about a teenager who discovers a mysterious journal that reveals hidden secrets about their town, leading them on an unexpected adventure to uncover the truth.”

Can you feel your creative juices flowing already?

Since its release, AI has been celebrated for its ability to assist in idea generation; and this study confirms how effective using artificial intelligence in this way can be for writers — some, it seems, more than others.

AI-Generated Ideas Helped Less Creative Writers More

It doesn’t feel great to judge a writer’s creative prowess, but for this study, researchers needed to do just that. Prior to writing their short stories, the writers took a test to measure their creativity.

Researchers found that those considered less creative did substantially better when given AI-generated ideas — to the point where getting the full five ideas from AI “effectively equalizes the creativity scores across less and more creative writers.”

This isn’t the case just for writing. Another study by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship WZ also found that AI tools most benefit employees with weaker skills.

So is AI leveling the playing field between okay and great writers? It seems it may be. But before we lament, there’s one more finding that proves using AI isn’t all perks.

AI-Aided Stories Were More Similar — And Needed to Be Credited

The researchers took a step back to look at all the AI-supported stories collectively. And what did they find?

The AI-assisted stories were more similar as a whole, compared to the fully human-written stories.

Additionally, when reviewers were told that a story was enhanced by an AI idea, they “imposed an ownership penalty of at least 25%,” even indicating that “the content creators, on which the models were based, should be compensated.”

This leads us to that all-important question about AI-assisted work: who owns the content?

According to Originality.AI, an AI and plagiarism detector, “When there’s a combination of AI and human-generated elements, the human elements may receive copyright protection if they meet the requirements.”

So right now, if a writer uses AI to generate ideas — but writes the content themselves — they retain rights to the work.

However, Originality.AI even admits that “the legal system is having a hard time keeping up” with the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence. Time will only tell what AI regulations will look like in a few years.

What Does an AI-Assisted Literary Future Look Like?

The researchers from the University of Exeter Business School study raise an interesting point about what the future landscape for writers may look like. If droves of authors begin using AI to come up with ideas, we may end up with a lot of well-written yet dime-a-dozen stories.

So will human beings choose the easier, but less diverse, path? Or will we stick to fighting through writer’s block armed with nothing but our own brain?

Or, a third option: can we somehow learn to harness AI to supercharge our writing process without sacrificing the wholly unique creativity that infuses human creation?

That’s one question that even ChatGPT can’t answer.

Editor's Note: Artificial intelligence may have already transformed writing, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be in control of your own words. Read Astrohaus Founder Adam Leeb's statement on AI and privacy.

August 22, 2024 8 min read

While AI has capabilities that range from coding to image generation, the model that excites — and terrifies — writers is the LLM. It won’t be long before we see the world’s first blockbuster novel, written entirely by an LLM. What does this mean for art, and writers in particular? Is it all doom and gloom? The answer is, of course, more complicated than yes or no.

August 19, 2024 10 min read

The lyrics of JP Saxe’s most popular songs read more like poems than Top 40 tunes.

Turns out there’s a reason for that.

This Grammy-nominated songwriter found his first community in Los Angeles at Da Poetry Lounge, where he met and befriended bonafide poets like Tonya Ingram, Alyesha Wise, Cuban Hernandez, and Edwin Bodney — names he recites with reverence.

And that community has led to a vibrant career in songwriting, including this recent milestone JP shared on Instagram: his songs have been streamed one billion times on Spotify.

It’s difficult to visualize that number, but his other accomplishments are a little easier to wrap your brain around:

His hit “If the World Was Ending,” cowritten with and featuring Julia Michaels, was nominated for a Grammy. After a 30-stop tour opening for music legend John Mayer, JP did his own 70-stop headline tour that took him all over the world. He’s written songs with artists like Sabrina Carpenter, and "Wish You the Best," written with Lewis Capaldi, reached number one in the UK.

So how does a poetic songwriter turn his thoughts and emotions into chart-topping hits?

The short answer: Freewriting.

Read on for the long answer as we get into the nitty gritty of JP's creative process...

ANNIE COSBY: So it’s safe to say you’re majorly inspired by poetry?

JP SAXE: Most of my favorite writers are poets. I think the secret weapon of my career has been that I've been seeking the approval of poets, not other songwriters.

Because when I aim for the perspective of poets, I just write in such a different way.

Look, I love songwriters, so I don't mean to talk shit. But as a songwriter, you can hide some bullshit in a pretty melody and people will still buy it. It can still be nice to listen to.

As a poet, you have less to hide behind. It's just you and your sincerity, and the way you articulate that sincerity. I love the simplicity of that as an art form.

My first community when I moved to Los Angeles was Da Poetry Lounge, based out of the Greenway Court Theatre. Anyone in L.A. reading this, if you're a writer, I highly recommend going.

Those poets have become family to me and really have pushed me to be a better writer. Because if I do something that is lazy or contrived, they don't care how pretty it sounds.

If I do something that is lazy or contrived, [poets] don't care how pretty it sounds.

AC: What kind of writer do you consider yourself?

JP: Professionally, I'm a songwriter. That's the only kind of writing I've ever been paid for. But creatively, I just consider myself a writer.

I find myself and I articulate to myself who I am via writing. In more ways than just songs.

AC: How did you first get started writing?

JP: Songwriting was the first place I ever learned what it meant to have a good relationship with myself. I quite disliked myself as a young person, as I think young people often do. Because when you see yourself through the lens of the society around you, there are very few versions of being a person that seem acceptable.

And it was sitting down at a piano or a guitar with a journal and writing songs where I first understood what it felt like to see myself and like it.

When you see yourself through the lens of the society around you, there are very few versions of being a person that seem acceptable. And it was sitting down at a piano or a guitar with a journal and writing songs where I first understood what it felt like to see myself and like it.

To me, the magic of songwriting and creative expression in general is, in my experience, as a tool of self-understanding. But because we are so much less unique than we think, when you look for yourself in your art, other people find themselves in it, too.

That was such a major realization for me a few years ago — that what made my writing effective for others wasn't what made me unique, it was what made me basic. And that there was such power in the expression of my basicness.

AC: Are you always writing for yourself first?

JP: Usually, the first format I'm writing in is just freewriting.

AC: You know we love to hear that!

JP: Yes. I will sit down with a journal, and I will just heart-barf onto a page.

AC: *laughs* Do you have "heart-barf" copyrighted?

JP: I should at this point. I've used that terminology in a number of different mediums, t-shirts included.

But, yes, freewriting is usually the beginning of the process. First, I just have to barf onto a page, just let words happen, and then I can go back through with an editor's mentality and figure out whether I'm writing songs or poems or whatever.

Of course, if I'm going with another artist into the studio, that's a little bit different in that it's targeted to a specific format or a specific person's perspective.

I will sit down with a journal, and I will just heart-barf onto a page.

AC: You write very deeply emotional lyrics. Do you have to be in a certain state of mind for that, or can you sit down in the middle of, like, the airport and heart-barf?

JP: Well, I have two answers to that.

Firstly, I find I am more honest before I think about anyone reading it. So that's why I try not to think about what the writing is for when I start. It allows me to be more sincere when I don't have a reader or a listener in mind.

Something I’ve been noticing recently is I am stumbling into the ideas that interest me the most after I've started writing when I didn't feel like it.

Almost as if when I feel like writing, it's because there are ideas closer to the surface. But when I don't feel like writing and I do it anyway, the ideas that I arrive at were buried a little deeper down. They didn't want to come out as badly and therefore they are more intriguing.

I am stumbling into the ideas that interest me the most after I've started writing when I didn't feel like it.

AC: That’s so interesting. Almost like when you feel like writing, your subconscious already has an agenda.

JP: Yeah, my favorite things I've written recently happened when I started writing when I didn't want to.

 

AC: I remember reading an interview with you where you mentioned Fleabag and a quote by Phoebe Waller-Bridge where she's like, and this is paraphrased, if it scares you, it needs to be in the final edit.

JP: Totally. I saw that interview around the time of my first album. There's a song on my first album that got kept on the track list because of that interview.

I just really related to that. You know, one, Fleabag is one of my favorite shows of all time. So great.

AC: The hot priest!

JP: Phenomenal, iconic characters. Overall, I think that being a writer is such a blessing and I'm so grateful to do it, so if I am playing it safe with my subject matter, I'm kind of doing it a disservice.

Every job comes with its professional hazards. If it's your dream to be a hockey player, you accept that you might get CTE or lose some teeth.

If you get the blessing of being a writer, you accept that people are going to see more of you than you're comfortable with sometimes.

If you get the blessing of being a writer, you accept that people are going to see more of you than you're comfortable with sometimes.

AC: Were you always OK with that, or did you have to learn to get used to that?

JP: I think I just came to the conclusion along the way that trying to formulate my identity was far less exciting than trying to unravel it.

AC: That's interesting, especially in the context of our modern music scene, where you see a lot of created, pre-packaged personas.

JP: Well, occasionally it's a persona that is derived as a mechanism, a delivery mechanism for something that was uncovered. I think there's maybe a subtle distinction there, but one that feels really significant.

For example, one of my favorite artists right now is Chappell Roan. And obviously there's a very creative, formulated artist statement there, but it is so sincere. It feels so derived from a human experience, but they've captured it in a way that is elevating that sincerity rather than disguising it.

AC: I'm glad you made that distinction! I love Chappell Roan. Go, Missouri! We’re both from the Show-Me State. You often work with collaborators, right?

JP: I love writing as a team sport. I think often there is a mentality that there is more value to writing that is done independently, and I just don't subscribe to that.

If anything, I think co-writing really elevates the work. I think it's just as much of a craft to know how to navigate multiple creative voices in a room as it is to express your own.

I love writing as a team sport.

AC: That's amazing to hear, because that's kind of what we're trying to do here at Freewrite — elevating the idea of writing within a community. Writing is traditionally a very solitary exercise, but it doesn't have to be.

JP: There's so much about movie and television writing that I think is a couple steps ahead of songwriting.

AC: Like the writers’ room?

JP: Yeah, TV writers know this. It’s a very established concept that writers work collaboratively on a script.

AC: I would say book publishing is even farther behind songwriting in that regard. So what does your creative process look like? Are you always writing, always recording?

JP: I have to compartmentalize a little bit. There are three major parts of my career and it's very hard for me to do more than one of them well at a time.

Those three things are: touring and performing; writing and creating; and audience building and marketing.

Of course, all three of those things are intertwined, but in order to do any one of those things very well, I can only really prioritize one of them fully at a time.

AC: Interesting. And you’re home from tour and writing now, right?

JP: Yes, I’m very much in this right now. I have a writing week coming up, where I will be with co-writers and in the studio every day.

So I am currently using my Traveler every day to heart-barf, as a way to create my source material for those sessions.

I’ll just do pages and pages and pages of unedited, unrefined feelings, thoughts, explorations, stories, ideas, looking at what I've written already, trying to figure out what pieces are missing in the emotional spectrum I'm trying to capture on this album.

And then in the few days before those sessions, I'll read through all of it. If something seems interesting to me, then I'll take those pieces and further delve into them, either on my own or with co-writers in our writing sessions.

And that's how it starts to shape into something that has a form that a listener can take in.

So I am currently using my Traveler every day to heart-barf, as a way to create my source material for those [co-writing] sessions.

AC: I, not being a songwriter, had never thought of songwriting has having that same division as prose — writing or freewriting first, and then studio work as editing.

JP: I think every writer knows how different the feeling of creative brain and editing brain is. I really need to separate that process because I literally feel like a different person as an editor than I do as a creator.

I have to start by not considering who's reading it, who's hearing it, who it's for, what the melody is … I just have to put it there.

I think every writer knows how different the feeling of creative brain and editing brain is. I really need to separate that process because I literally feel like a different person as an editor than I do as a creator.

AC: So is that what drew you to Freewrite?

JP: Yes. And, I mean, I think part of the fun of being a writer is romanticizing the life of being a writer, too.

When I sit on the rooftop of a cafe in Lima, Peru, and write on Traveler, that is a different moment than being up there with an iPad — I was just in Lima on tour, and this is a real moment I'm describing.

I sat on this just spectacularly romantic gallery cafe rooftop in Barranco, this neighborhood of Lima, and as I'm sitting there and I'm writing, I start up a conversation with this group of people who look friendly sitting beside me, and they ended up being a choreographer and an artist and a dancer. And then they're like, “What's that you're writing on?” And I'm like, “It's a digital typewriter.”

And then I show them and they're like, “What are you writing?” And then I hand it over to them, and they're reading it on the rooftop. And then someone shows up with a guitar.

And there was this moment on that roof that I will never forget where there were like maybe 10 of us. And on one side, there was someone drawing a portrait of me, while I was kind of on the other side of the social dynamic, writing. And then everyone in the middle was laughing, drinking, talking. And it was just this symbiosis of both creatively representing the moment and being present in the moment.

It was life and art so intertwined on that Lima rooftop.

And if I'm painting that picture, like if I'm writing that scene in a movie, or I'm painting it to put it on a wall, an iPad is such a fucking eyesore.

AC: Are we going to get a song about that rooftop?

JP: Probably. The amount of journal entries that occurred on that rooftop is… The word-to-location ratio on that rooftop is probably higher than anywhere else in the world at this point.

AC: Last question: What's your #1 piece of advice for aspiring songwriters?

JP: Write as many bad songs as possible. If you spend a month trying to write a good song, I think you are less likely to get something that you love than if you write a bad song every day for a month.

I think bad writing is the soil in which good writing is allowed to grow. And if you don't have a pile of shit big enough, your good stuff can't grow out of it.

I think bad writing is the soil in which good writing is allowed to grow. And if you don't have a pile of shit big enough, your good stuff can't grow out of it.

AC: You heard it hear first, folks: Write more shit.

Find JP's music wherever you like to listen: Spotify | Apple | YouTube