top of page

by Catherine Mwitta for The 44 North, Contributing Writer - Politics


An orange-hued image of a page with handwriting on it. A modern quill is resting on the page.
An orange-hued image of a page with handwriting on it. A modern quill is resting on the page.
"Burnout became inevitable, and writing fiction became a hustle rather than a creative art form. This pace of creation wasn’t sustainable, but unfortunately, something else appeared to be.

When I was ten years old, I gathered sheets of printing paper to write stories whenever I found myself daydreaming. I remember the first time I wanted to write. Maybe I was bored, and writing kept me busy. Or rather, I was moved by novels, magic, and life in such a way that only writing could help me respond; help me wake up without leaving a dream. 


As I grew older, writing became an activity I returned to in my free time. Everyone turns to writing for different reasons, but each—no matter the form—is connected to a core desire to distill and share our relationship with the world around us. I didn’t start publishing my work until I was much older, and decided I wanted to pursue a career in writing, but I never lost sight of that very human feeling, propelling my words across the page: Being Seen. 


For a long time, choosing writing as a career was discouraged based on income.  According to a 2022 Authors Guild survey, referenced in Publishers Weekly, established full-time authors earn $23,329 a year—up 21% from 2018. The job site Indeed.com says authors in the United States earn on average $52,625 per year, which translates to $22.57 per hour. Change the search to “Writer,” and these numbers climb to $70,641 and $30.24, respectively.


These numbers are well-known and circulated, but even so, many writers, including me, see writing as an opportunity to escape the rat race of a nine-to-five job. Yet, unbeknownst to most (myself included), pivoting to a writing career means entering a whole other race. Another, perhaps unanticipated change was on the horizon.


The rise of indie/self-publishing technology and markets.


During the digital revolution, Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) launched in 2007. This technological innovation allowed anyone to publish a novel without having to bypass the well-guarded gates of traditional publishing. For much of the early and mid-2000s, self-publishing was a surefire way to bar yourself from traditional publication, often seen as a last resort for frequently slush pile-rejected writers. This all changed during the pandemic.


Around this time, indie/self-publishing by writers increased exponentially (Vancouver Sun, Self-publishing Advisor, EA Books Publishing). Publishers no longer catered to their mid-list-tier authors, resulting in lower advances and a lack of marketing that often prevented them from recouping already abysmal advances to earn royalties as passive income. KDP offers a 30 percent to 70 percent ratio on royalties, an enticing upside considering traditional publishers offer a 15 percent split after factoring in literary agents (who take another 15 percent of the cut).

 

Writers opted for self-publishing over traditional publishing due to its high return on investment. They uploaded digital novels to Kindle and advertised them to readers through social media ads. The biggest bestsellers were (are) romance novels, and many indie-published writers made six figures writing Romantasy and now dark romance. 


Becoming a full-time writer was more accessible and possible than ever before. But, as always, there were conditions: Authors had to release at least three to four books a year to meet readership demands, and marketing became a side job, considering most “self-pubbed” authors didn't have the same connections as “trad-pubs.” Burnout became inevitable, and writing fiction became a hustle rather than a creative art form. This pace of creation wasn’t sustainable, but unfortunately, something else appeared to be.


The Indie & self-publishing demand meet generative AI.


Why spend years on a novel when you could write solely to generate income and pump out a book within an hour? 


In the New York Times piece, “The New Fabio Is Claude: The romance industry, always at the vanguard of technological change, is rapidly adapting to A.I. Not everyone is on board,” romance novelist Coral Hart stated that she used to write 10-12 novels per year. Her output is now 200 novels per year using generative AI. 


A phone with AI apps on a dark screen.
A phone with AI apps on a dark screen.

“If I can generate a book in a day, and you need six months to write a book, who’s going to win the race?” Hart said.


Readers debate the quality of Hart’s books, but what’s certain is that she’s sold around 50,000 copies and currently earns six figures. 


Traditional publishers have also recognized the profitability of AI, much like how many of them have now recognized the profitability of signing bestselling self-published authors, rather than cultivating submissions from their slush piles. In 2024, HarperCollins inked a deal with an unknown AI company to train their models on non-fiction books, and last year announced plans to use AI for translations, deciding to replace employees with tech. Regarding content creation, many readers contend that Silver Elite by Dani Francis (a pen name) was an AI-written novel, and that the Hachette-acquired book Shygirl by Mia Ballard was as well. 


As AI-generated books flood the market, I wonder when readers will no longer be able to tell whether a book was written by a large language model or by a human. I fear that day is soon. But even so, writing isn’t dead. Writers have and will continue to tell the stories closest to their hearts. We just have to look for them—and listen. And personally, quality over quantity not only matters most, but shows.


For example, Tomi Adeyemi signed a six-figure book and movie deal with Henry Holt and Co. (BYR), an imprint of Macmillan Publishers, for her first novel, Children of Blood and Bone. Jill Bearup has sold over 54,468 copies of her book Just Stab Me Now since its release in 2024, published by an independent press. Adeyemi wrote a West African-inspired YA fantasy, uncommon in 2018, and Bearup wrote a meta fantasy novel about an author’s characters acting out-of-character, a book no publisher knew how to sell. These two authors have done well in the publishing market because they chose to write deeply personal stories. 


When I feel I could be writing stories faster, or worse, that I’m not writing for market trends, I come back to my core beliefs and values: I don’t use AI for research, writing, or editing. The stories I write come from a part of me. Likewise, synthesizing what I hope to communicate to an audience during revisions is just as important to me as the final copy. All aspects of writing challenge me as a human, and as a reader, books do the same. 


What AI can’t do isn’t profitable. Maybe that’s a good thing.


As Western society pushes for more efficiency and higher profit margins, I continue to search for how to exist within this system. 


AI might be able to move me deeply as a reader, but it can’t expand my worldview. Anthropic recently settled a lawsuit over the illegal use of pirated books to train Claude, widely regarded as one of the better generative AI applications. Human experiences are not singular, and large language models can only replicate preexisting ideas. 


And thus, the greatest gift a writer can ever give a reader is the ability to think differently.


Catherine Mwitta has a bachelor’s in creative writing from Kwantlen Polytechnic University and a certification in Journalism from Langara College. She is an editor at Augur Magazine and INKspire. Likewise, bylines at Stir Vancouver, SAD Mag, This Magazine, C Magazine and Bluffs Monitor.


by Erin Sweeney for The 44 North, Second-Place Winner of our Inaugural Essay Contest


Artwork by Logan Brewer
Artwork by Logan Brewer
"Looksmaxxing offers something seductive here: a concrete explanation for inexplicable pain."

“Is it over for me?” In the exposing glow of a bathroom mirror, a young boy meticulously picks apart his facial features with surgical precision. Canthal tilt? Negative. Jawline? Insufficiently defined. Cheekbones? Too low. He has spent the day scrolling through posts where other young men share before-and-after transformation photos, amateur surgical tips, and elaborate routines under the false guise of transforming them into a version finally worthy of love. This is looksmaxxing, and it’s not your ordinary internet trend, but far more detrimental. It’s the consequence of a society that has convinced an entire generation that their worth, instead of being inherent, must be earned through an endless cycle of self-improvement, that belonging is conditional on meeting endlessly evolving standards of “perfection.”


Looksmaxxing refers to the systematic pursuit of physical attractiveness through numerous means, from skincare routines and fitness regimens to extreme cosmetic procedures such as orthognathic (facial bone) surgery. This term, originating in online male communities, frames appearance enhancement as a strategic “maximization” problem that can be solved through physical optimization. While levels distinguish between non-invasive “softmaxxing” and surgical “hardmaxxing,” the underlying philosophy remains consistent: physical appearance is a

variable to optimize one’s romantic and social success (Farrell).


The phenomenon exploits fundamental human psychology. We are, by evolutionary design, constant comparison machines. Our ancestors survived by assessing where they stood within stable communities of around 150 people, according to Dunbar’s number in anthropology.


Today, that same instinct faces an impossible feat: comparing ourselves to a curated algorithmic feed of millions (Collins).


Dating apps have weaponized this vulnerability, transforming romantic connection into a gamified meritocratic marketplace where first impressions occur in milliseconds (Cobb). A young man opens Tinder and immediately begins collecting rejections. These apps quantify what was once mysterious—attraction and desirability—transforming connection into data. Match rates, response times, read receipts. When rejection becomes numerically visible, insecurity doesn’t just seep in; it devours.


Social media intensifies this through “upward social comparison”: our tendency to measure ourselves against those who seem better off (VerPlanck). Instagram learns which idealized faces and bodies hold your attention and dispenses them relentlessly. Each scroll reinforces a brutal narrative: they have what you lack. Comparisons are always unfair: your lived reality against someone’s crafted illusion.


The digital world isn’t only a space for comparison—it exacerbates isolation, breeding what has become known as the male loneliness epidemic. Nearly 1 in 5 men now claim they don’t have close friends (Holcombe). Without anyone to remind you that you give great advice or your presence makes their day, the ruthless cycle spirals endlessly. Isolation powers comparison to unrealistic standards, which convinces you that your looks are the problem, driving you deeper into reclusive, insecurity-driven self-improvement instead of reaching out for an actual human connection.


Looksmaxxing offers something seductive here: a concrete explanation for inexplicable pain. If you’re lonely and don’t know why, the uncertainty is agonizing. However, if you can point to your “negative canthal tilt,” suddenly, chaos has order. The forums provide a taxonomy of flaws, transforming nebulous suffering into specific problems with specific solutions. You can’t fix broader socioeconomic forces driving loneliness, but you can spend six hours doing facial exercises and measuring progress, believing you’re building towards the moment you’ll finally be enough.


What makes this sinister? The vulnerability of who gets targeted. It’s happening in plain sight, actively flooding millions of feeds. These communities—the manosphere and toxic incel subcultures—don’t just happen to stumble upon vulnerable young men by accident. They actively prey on them, targeting boys at their lowest, often in adolescence, when their bodies and identities are still growing. A 14-year-old whose face isn’t fully developed is told his natural bone structure has already sealed his romantic fate. These communities offer what seems like solidarity and answers precisely when young men are desperate for both, then gradually introduce more extreme ideologies alongside the facial measurements. What begins as skincare advice can become a pipeline into misogyny, radicalization, and deepening isolation: the very opposite of the connection these young men actually need (Rosdahl).


Women have always lived this way. They have been “looksmaxxing” for centuries, though we called it something else: beauty routines and feminine self-care. The crucial difference is not only in the attribution of blame but in the stakes themselves. For women, appearance has never been optional. It has been the primary currency of social value, the prerequisite for basic respect and dignity. A conventionally “unattractive” woman faces systemic devaluation: dismissed in professional settings, rendered invisible socially, treated as if her failure to be beautiful is a moral crime. Meanwhile, a balding, “unattractive” man can still command authority and be taken seriously as an intellectual. His worth is assumed; hers has to be proven physically through her face and body.


Patriarchy works exactly like this. It controls women by linking their value to their appearance, then profits off their efforts to meet unattainable ideals. The mental health consequences have been dire. Eating disorders are the deadliest of any psychiatric illness, with about 90% of cases reported in women (Clerkin). The dramatic increase in depression and anxiety in girls can be attributed to appearance-related social pressures, but this lifelong pain and suffering has instead been normalized and even glamourized. “Beauty is pain,” we hear as if starvation is a coming-of-age ritual instead of a mental health crisis.


When women engage in elaborate beauty practices, they do so under crushing systemic necessity. The narrative whispers that if they’re alone or overlooked, they simply haven’t tried hard enough. The blame curves inward, becoming a lifetime of shamefully monitoring their own acceptability. They internalize a system designed to diminish them.


Many men approaching looksmaxxing operate from a fundamentally different position. They have not been taught that their entire social value depends on their appearance. Rather, they’re experiencing perhaps their first sustained encounter with the appearance-based judgment women experience daily. Instead of turning critique inward, they externalize it, constructing theories about female “hypergamy” (Whitney). The forums seethe with resentment towards women framed as obstacles rather than fellow human beings facing impossible standards.


This distinction matters. Women face systemic oppression that strips them of dignity and opportunity. Many men in these spaces are facing romantic disappointment, which is indeed painful but not the same as having one’s fundamental value questioned. The anger stems from entitlement, believing they deserve romantic access. When it’s not granted, they blame women rather than questioning the transactional way they’ve been taught to view relationships. While both internalization and externalization lead to suffering, externalization has contributed to concerning patterns of misogyny and gender-based violence (Patel).


Looksmaxxing is merely one manifestation of what we might call the optimization imperative: a cultural belief that human worth must be perpetually earned, measured, and improved. In society, every aspect of existence has become a spot to enhance: sleep, diet, and even social skills are subjected to relentless improvement.


This ideology rests on a dangerous premise: that we must become worthy of love and belonging rather than possessing these rights inherently. When worth is conditional, the target inevitably moves. The teenager measuring his canthal tilt will be measuring something else tomorrow, because the problem was never how he looked. The problem is the belief he needs to earn his place through ceaseless self-transformations.


Recent research makes this clear. Rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation among young people have boomed (World Health Organization). When existence becomes a performance for worthiness, the pressure becomes excruciating. The impacts go beyond individual suffering. Lonely young men become easily pushed towards radicalization and extremist ideologies offering simple answers to complex problems (Santa Cruz), creating a culture built on resentment in which misogyny flourishes. Meanwhile, women navigate impossible standards while bearing additional burdens of discrimination. The optimization culture doesn’t discriminate in its cruelty but simply distributes damage differently. Perhaps most tragically, the optimization imperative prevents the very connections it ostensibly serves. When we view relationships as transactions, only showing the best version of ourselves, we eradicate the potential of truly being known. For intimacy, we need vulnerability to embrace who we are, even with doubts and flaws.


After everything, there is hope. It’s not some faint dream, but change already happening right here. Conversations are shifting: body neutrality, believing your body is a tool for living, not an object to perfect, has now become mainstream discourse (Sreenivas). Millions of young people are seeing these ideas right when they’re most vulnerable to the optimization trap, now understanding that their worth isn’t debatable before the lie has fully solidified.


The research speaks volumes. The Harvard Study of Adult Development found a truth of beautiful simplicity after nearly 80 years of tracking its subjects’ lives: the quality of one’s relationships is a far better predictor of happiness and longevity than appearance, achievement, or material success ever could be (Mineo). Couples who were happily together after many years weren’t the ones who had the best wedding pictures, but the ones who built genuine intimacy through vulnerability, not transaction. If connection triumphs appearance, why believe the lie?


Online spaces are fragmenting in interesting ways. Yes, toxic forums still exist and continue to prey on vulnerable young men. However, positive communities are rising equally as strong. Content creators have built audiences around authenticity: no filters, discussing therapy and medication transparently, and sharing actual struggles. Fitness influencers now expose how lighting, angles, and hormonal changes drastically affect our appearance, showing even those with visible abs have belly rolls when they sit down, breaking myths that people stay “chiselled” every second. These aren't minority creators; they’re reaching millions of the same algorithmically vulnerable teenagers that the manosphere targets, offering a different story: being human was never about being “perfect.”


Some of this hope is institutional. Even schools here in Canada are incorporating media literacy into their curriculum to educate children on how algorithms use insecurity for profit (Johnson), with other Canadian organizations dedicated to upholding this, such as MediaSmarts, which educates students to critically analyze digital platforms. Policy is also moving forward to make a change. This includes legislation in the United Kingdom that has banned the advertising of cosmetic surgery targeting minors due to potential concerns about body image and mental health (Gruet). Influencers must also disclose photo editing in commercial posts to combat unrealistic beauty standards under Norwegian law (Grant). These measures won’t solve everything, but they do recognize something important: individual effort alone doesn’t stand a chance in billion-dollar industries whose main goal is to profit off of insecurities.


Although the real change happens privately: therapy sessions and group chats. People

have been realizing a key truth: There’s no such thing as “reaching a full physical potential” that

will finally make one acceptable.


This realization is contagious. Each person who breaks free weakens the system because the optimization imperative is artificially constructed. It only works if people believe in it, and increasingly, they don’t.


The path forward requires rejecting the premise entirely. We must learn to recognize the optimization imperative’s promises as lies. Building lives rich with meaning beyond appearance, pursuing passions, and creating genuine connections can offer liberation. Together, we must demolish systems that profit from insecurity while teaching young people that their worth is inherent, not earned, to create space for authentic connection.


The young man in front of his mirror, asking, “Is it over for me?” deserves an answer: No. It’s not over. It never was. His canthal tilt is irrelevant to his capacity for kindness. His jawline has no impact on his worthiness of connection. The person he already is, uncertain, searching, imperfect, is enough. The young woman, exhausted from monitoring her appearance, deserves to reclaim that energy for what actually fulfills her. This requires courage to be imperfect, to be vulnerable.


They both deserve liberation from the belief that worth must be earned. That liberation is becoming inevitable, not through optimization, but through recognizing that optimization was never necessary at all.

About the Author

Erin Sweeney is a youth advocate passionate about political literacy and confidence. As the founder of the global youth initiative Diplomatic Drop (@thediplomaticdrop) and a core team member of Let’s Change Confidence, a Plan Canada movement, she is dedicated to empowering young people around the world. Erin aspires to study law in the future.

Connect with Erin on LinkedIn & Instagram @itserinsweeney


References

by Gillian Smith-Clark, ​for The 44 North, Editor in Chief


A chess set overexposed in pink, purple, and blue hues
A chess set overexposed in pink, purple, and blue hues

What if the most radical act today is not to react, but to pause?

Chess is not just a game. It is an ancient philosophy of attention—a way I first learned to analyze the world from my father, who taught me to play as a young child. We’d sit together on the living room floor with a board and a beautifully carved chess set between us, as he guided me through the moves and the stories of each piece. Over the years, he used the game as a metaphor for life: patience, strategy, and the understanding that not every threat needs an immediate response. I stepped away from the game for many years but returned in 2016, when it proved to be an excellent anxiety reducer during the particular politics of that year. When the world feels like it’s moving too fast, I still turn to the board. It reminds me that wisdom often lies in the pause rather than the rush.


It asks for patience, wisdom, and the ability to think beyond the immediate move. The game rewards restraint, foresight, and the understanding that not every threat needs an immediate response; that the dramatic move is not always the wise one.


Lately, I have been reflecting on the discipline required to “play the long game” in both my own life and the world around us at this moment. We live in a time that rewards reaction: outrage is immediate, drama permeates the air in real time, and power is often performed through impulsiveness rather than judgment. But force without thoughtful strategy is not mastery; it is instability, chaos, and the erosion of our own judgment.


That feels especially true now. As war escalates between the United States, Israel, and Iran, and as political life in the U.S. continues to be shaped by bluster, performance, and short-term domination, it is hard not to notice the absence of genuine discipline on the global board. There is an added irony in watching Trump threaten to strike Iran “extremely hard” and send it “back to the Stone Ages” while appearing, once again, to misread the strategy of the very regime he claims to be overpowering. The lesson is clear: intelligence and power are not the same thing, and finesse—in politics as in life—is rarer than it should be.


At The 44 North, we are interested in something quieter yet more demanding: thoughtful attention, moral seriousness, and the long view. This issue reflects that commitment in different ways – from questions of gender and power to stories about surveillance, selfhood, and control. Again and again, the pieces in this issue ask what it means to remain clear-sighted in systems that would rather make us reactive, doubtful, or numb.


You’ll find that spirit in our review of Inter Alia, Suzie Miller’s play about the slow, cumulative violences that can unsettle even the most accomplished women in male-dominated spaces. You’ll find it in our latest Artist Spotlight featuring Capsule Community, and in this issue’s Writer’s Room selection, “On the OSAP Cuts: Could We Have Stratified the Cold?” You’ll find it, too, in the second- and third-place winners of our essay contest, which examine surveillance, optimization culture, and the erosion of inherent worth with urgency and intelligence.


This issue also includes Andrea Gibson’s powerful poem: “In the chemo room, I wear mittens made of ice so I don’t lose my fingernails. But I took a risk today to write this down.” Its title feels like its own kind of opening move: vulnerable, precise, and brave.


On the political side, we are pleased to feature work from Sylphia Basak and Cole Martin, whose pieces explore public anxieties around artificial intelligence and the geopolitical stakes of the Strait of Hormuz. More broadly, this issue also marks an exciting next step for The 44 North: the addition of a new team of political writers, including Basak and Martin, who will be contributing analysis and commentary between issues. At a time when public discourse is often flattened by speed, certainty, and outrage, we are proud to be making more space for political writing that is thoughtful, independent, and unafraid of complexity.


We are also happy to share that our newsletter has officially moved to Substack and is reborn as Points North: a place for field notes on culture, politics, and the world around us, alongside updates on our latest issue, podcast episodes, events, contests, and more. We hope you’ll join us there – not just to read, but to reflect, to question, and to play your own long game.


If chess teaches us anything worth carrying into daily life, it is this: patience is not weakness. Restraint is not retreat. To pause, to think carefully, to resist manipulation by headlines and noise—these are not acts of passivity, but of discipline. They are how we protect our judgment. And with it, our humanity.


Thank you, as always, for reading.


Warmly,

Gillian Smith-Clark

Editor in Chief, The 44 North Media


bottom of page