The fog and the mountain - how insight reveals itself

Through the fog of distractions you must go,

The Mountain's wisdom awaits at the far edge

 

Clarity and insight come mostly from dwelling on things over long periods of time.

It might feel like they appear in a moment, like in a flash of brilliance, but they actually come when the mind has been quietly marinating in certain ideas.

For me, insight emerges from looping through a familiar mix: writing, reading, thinking while walking, connecting thoughts, listening, consuming ideas, and then putting pen to paper again.

A busy, distracted mind has no energy to create. Distraction is perhaps the single biggest barrier to creativity. Writing helps anchor the mind.

But beyond writing, there is also a need for clear frameworks that help simplify and clarify thinking. It is only after one understands—by linking one idea to another—that it becomes possible to express what something really means, and make it simple and profound.

To show what this looks like in practice, consider the following example.

I was reading a book about early 20th-century expeditions to the South Pole. One striking detail was how explorers described the grand Antarctic mountains—massive, majestic—and yet often completely hidden behind fog and snow.

That sparked a thought. It is easy to become accustomed to seeing grand vistas like the Grand Canyon or the Himalayas—accessible places with seasons that allow for clear views. But in remote places like Antarctica and the Arctic, some of the most spectacular sights may remain unseen—not just because of their remoteness, but because they’re perpetually obscured by the elements.

There was a compelling fact—fog covers monumental mountains in Earth’s remotest places. And a wishful thought: that maybe some of the most beautiful vistas on Earth will never be seen or felt by humans.

At this point, it’s not yet insight. Just a curious observation. To make something of it, one has to write it down. Then review it. Then revisit it, using a framework like the one below.

This is where the earlier point about inhabiting a thought becomes real. The framework that follows is what allows a fleeting idea to evolve into something meaningful. It is a way of staying with the thought long enough for it to reveal something new—something that moves from noticing to insight.

This framework helps move from absorbing to seeing. From gathering to generating. From skimming past something to inhabiting it.

Here’s how it works.

First, to inhabit a thought, one needs to stay longer with it. Add more stillness between inputs. This is where reflection starts to deepen. Helpful questions include:

What is the emotional core of this?
Which part of me is responding to it?
What does it evoke in me?

Second, one has to make it strange again. Be childlike and indulge in some divergent thinking. Ask:

What would a child or a weird philosopher say about this?
What is this a metaphor for?
Where else does this pattern show up?

Third, one must zoom out and give attention more weight. Let the subconscious do its quiet work. Questions that help here:

What’s the larger truth being hinted at?
How can this be said more simply?

This is how uncommon connections form. And that’s where insight begins to surface.

Returning to the Antarctica example: the emotional core of the thought was longing—for beauty, for inspiration. The part that responded was the curious inner explorer. What it evoked was a kind of FOMO—not of missing out on trends, but missing out on inspiration.

Then, making it weirder—imagining that a philosopher might say that there is beauty out there, but it’s hidden—not because it doesn’t exist, but because it cannot be seen through the fog.

From a note about unseen Antarctic mountains, it became a metaphor about inspiration hidden by the fog of distraction.

That’s when the ideas clicked. There are things that remain out of reach not because they’re distant, but because attention is clouded. This is what people experience when they have writer’s block. Or creative plateaus. Because writing requires us to go to remote places - internally. Insight is often found in the places that are off the map.

What is the larger truth? To see the sublime, one must clear space. Remove the fog.

The mountains are there for the seeing—but only when one clears the fog of noise, haste, mental clutter and dares to venture to the edges where true insight lurks, can they finally come into view.

That is the power of inhabiting a thought—not grazing past it. Insight doesn't come from more inputs. It comes from deeper attention. And writing, more than anything, helps engage the whole of one’s consciousness.

The only caution: this should not become a mechanical exercise. One must not confuse deep thinking with sounding clever. Inhabiting thoughts for longer quietly dissolves that urge. 

BOOK NOTE - Table for Two - Amor Towles

Mark of great writing is when you can imagine a scene so vividly that after a while, you start doubting whether it was from a book or a movie—or even a real-life experience. Especially when you are reading another book, and a scene from that earlier book plays in your mind like a movie and then shapes how you imagine the current book’s scene.

For example, in one of James Hadley Chase’s books, a couple of crooks rob a casino. I read that about a year ago. Now, as I am reading Amor Towles’ Table for Two, there is a novella where a character robs a casino, and I imagined it in Chase’s prose. It is also because of the vivid nature of stories set in Los Angeles.

Chase’s books are pulp fiction. But iconic pulp fiction. Towles’ writing is good literature. And I am sure that sometime later, I will experience Towles’ prose like a movie too, when I am reading another heist story.

Table for Two is a wonderful collection of short stories and a novella. They are characterized by Towles’ evocative prose, rich in history and culture, and written with subtle humour. Towles evokes the sense of the cities his stories are set in beautifully. Reading the ones set in New York in the 90s evokes a deep sense of nostalgia.

For someone who has not visited New York at the time of reading, the nostalgia I am referring to is the one shaped by consuming great New York stories—like The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, and from movies like The Godfather and TV shows like Mad Men.

I loved the evocation of the old bookseller who inhabits the literary world in The Ballad of Timothy Touchett, and the simple optimism of Pushkin in The Line. Both are amazing and touching stories. But my favourite was The DiDomenico Fragment, which is brilliant in its description of old money in New York and the art world.

BOOK NOTE - Sharing a house with the Never-Ending Man - Steve Alpert

I recently saw a YouTube short about how the 90s and 2000s in Japan were a kind of nostalgic golden age. Japan then was still the second-largest economy in the world and a major cultural influence—both on its own and through its ties with the US and the rest of the world. Japanese consumer tech was ahead of its time – think Walkman and Nintendo. Japanese cars were state of the art – Toyotas and Hondas were top-notch. Japanese management ideas – kaizen, just-in-time, etc. – were all the rage in business schools. Tokyo, especially, was the world’s biggest city and had this mix of high-tech modernity and ancient, arcane traditions. Tokyo, in particular, was the biggest city in the world and was a unique blend of cosmopolitan, techno-West, embedded in an old-world society.

It’s in this setting that Steve Alpert’s book about his time at Studio Ghibli takes place. It’s an easy read, and Alpert writes with a casual pace, recounting his time as a Gaijin inside the world of Japanese office culture. He captures the eccentricity of people like Hayao Miyazaki and Toshio Suzuki, while also drawing an insightful contrast with their interactions with large American establishments like Disney and Hollywood. Alpert doesn’t take sides, but it’s clear he has a soft spot for his Japanese colleagues. He often points out how brutal and crass the American style of business could be compared to the more refined, if rigid and dogmatic, Japanese way.

I picked up this book while researching something I was writing – whether the AI threat to art is real – and wanted to understand more about Miyazaki and his potential views on the Ghiblification trend. While the book doesn’t go deep into Miyazaki’s biography, it gave me a good sense of the people, the culture, and a feel for the Ushinawareta Jūnen—the Lost Decade. That period of economic stagnation in Japan, post-bubble, which ironically turned out to be rich in culture.

Alpert talks about the evocative scenes of central Tokyo that were visible out the offices of Tokuma Shoten, the publishing company behind Studio Ghibli. It is very well described and evokes the metropolitan madness that is Tokyo very well – almost like out of a scene from a Stuido Ghibli movie.

Our tenth-floor office also had large corner windows with views that extended all the way out to Tokyo Bay. From my desk I could see all of Japan's various modes of transportation at a single glance. There was the shinkansen Bullet Train just slowing on its final glide toward Tokyo Station. The various color-coded JR local and long-distance lines came and went every few minutes. The newly built and driverless Yurikamome train zipped along on rubber wheels toward the Odaiba entertainment area and the Big Site convention center.

The aging but still graceful Monorail, a leftover from the 1964 Olympics, leaned precariously leftward as it rounded a curve on its way to Haneda Airport. There were the gracefully arching branches of the Shuto, the overhead highways. These were clogged with traffic that barely moved all day. Once or twice a day I could spot a ferry just easing into its berth at the Takeshiba piers after completing its twenty-four-hour trip from one of the far-away Izu-Ogasawara Islands, incongruously an official part of metropolitan Tokyo. There was the newly built Rainbow Bridge standing astride the harbor and linking it to the island of Odaiba. The bridge was silvery white in the morning sunshine or bathed in colored lights against a hazy pink and purple sky at dusk.

All day, passenger jet aircraft banked low over Tokyo Bay on their final approach to Haneda Airport. Immediately below, bustling Shinbashi's wide main streets were packed with cars and buses mired in the heavy traffic. The warren of narrow pedestrian-only alleys in the Mizu Shobai (bar) district were mostly empty in the morning and crammed with wandering pedestrians once the evening rush began. At the beginning and end of the lunch hour, which everyone took at exactly the same time, the sidewalks were full of people.

The more humorous and interesting parts are his observations of Japanese office quirks. One example that stood out was nemawashi (“securing the roots”), where everything is decided before the meeting even happens. I see this a lot in management in 2025 too. It’s just called stakeholder management now, but doesn’t sound half as cool as nemawashi. 

The process of visiting and obtaining the approval of all required persons in advance is called nemawashi (securing the roots). In this way the arguments for or against any proposal or new idea and the decision makers' positions on the proposal have all been fixed long before any formal meeting takes place. Once the nemawashi has occurred, a meeting is called to pretend to discuss the matter in question, and the attendees vote on the outcome in accordance with the positions they have previously (and privately) confirmed they would take. By the time the meeting has been called, everyone attending already knows what's been decided.

Alpert also gives a strong picture of Miyazaki’s temperament and what drives him. Miyazaki is a genius, and like most geniuses, has his own unique quirks. Working with him was tough:

Hayao Miyazaki's way of making a film was particularly stressful, and that was exactly how he thought it should be. He would often say that a person only does his best work when faced with the real possibility of failure and its real consequences.

But Alpert also shows how Miyazaki’s ideas took shape. Miyazaki was always drawing, and out of those loose sketches, something would take hold. It was a long process of trial and error, where many ideas were percolated, thrown away, resurfaced and slowly the one that stuck would emerge. Then, after more iterations and more stress, about two years later, a finished film, a work of art, would emerge.

This reminded me of the classification I had read about how creative people think and create. Some are experimental innovators, who iterate and let ideas and trials percolate before it is finalized. Others are conceptual innovators, whose ideas burst forth like a sudden fount. Miyazaki was clearly the first kind.

Alpert also notes how Miyazaki treated a film once it was done:

When Miyazaki signed off on one of his and it was officially done, he preferred to never think about that film again. It was done. There was nothing more he could do to improve or change it. He always wanted to be moving forward and thinking about the next film.

There’s also what I think is a glorious moment from the book when Miyazaki visits the US for Princess Mononoke’s release. Hollywood royalty, including Martin Scorsese, sends an invite to meet him for after-dinner drinks. To the horror of the American studio executives, who think this is a great honour, Miyazaki and Suzuki decline politely and go hang out with a Japanese architect friend instead This prioritization of personal interests and artistic integrity over commercial networking is a recurring theme in the book.

The book gives a window into a world that feels lost now. Before the digital age flattened everything, and creative edges got smoothed out.

Alpert sees this too:

In a world where more and more of the little things that make one place different from the next are disappearing, it's somehow comforting to hold on to a few bits of the past.

This book was one of those bits. A reminder.

 

BOOK NOTE - The Last Place on Earth - Roland Huntford

 All stories are stories of adventure.

In the dawn of time, when the first adventurer left his tribe’s campfire and dared to wander beyond its glow, he brought back a story. Paul Zweig’s book The Adventurer calls this the source of storytelling itself.

Man risking his life in perilous encounters constitutes the original definition of what was worth talking about.

Roland Huntford’s The Last Place on Earth is one such book about adventure. It is a biography of two men, told through the lens of their grand journey to the South Pole at the beginning of the 20th century. In chronicling Robert Falcon Scott and Roald Amundsen's journeys —one ending in death and failure, the other in success that is almost clinical—the book takes us through a world on the brink of the modern era. A world without plastics, vitamins, or germ theory—this was adventure before comfort.

By the late 1890s, most of the world had been mapped. The last unconquered frontier was Antarctica, and at its heart, the South Pole. British explorers like Scott and Shackleton made attempts. But it was the Norwegian Roald Amundsen who won the race, reaching the Pole in 1911.

What drew me to this book was a reference to leadership. Greg McKeown in Effortless talks about consistency over intensity. He compares Amundsen—whose team succeeded—to Scott, whose team did not survive, on this leadership dynamic.

The key difference was in their approach. Amundsen was consistent. His team did 15-mile treks daily, regardless of weather, making steady progress without exhaustion. Scott’s team on the other hand was erratic. Some days they pushed too hard heroically, but on other days they completely stalled from exhaustion and poor planning. That emotional, unscientific style cost them the race—and their lives.

But this book offers so much more lessons for modern leaders. Lessons on preparedness, risk-taking, empowering autonomy, learning from the best, trying new methods, but also valuing cultural knowledge and the underrated value of good humour.

It took me over 4 years to finish reading it. Slowly. For the joy of it. For the story of an adventure from the last great expedition of the Age of Discovery.

The book chronicles the personal journeys of Scott and Amundsen—from their roots to their eventual race to the South Pole.

Scott was emblematic of a declining Britain. By the 1870s, the race of giants that defined the glory of Queen Victoria’s reign was coming to an end. Dickens died in 1870, Darwin’s last major work was published in 1871, and Livingstone died in 1873. Scott, born in 1868, was steeped in a world where that glory was slipping away—a hero for a nation in decline. It is because of this, and Scott’s temperament, that the author argues he made the expedition to the Pole an affair of heroism for heroism’s sake. Amundsen, by contrast, was a cool and calculated Norwegian who turned the conquest of the Pole into something between an art and a sport.

This led to remarkable differences in their motivations and approaches.

Scott, with civilizational pride behind him, expected the elements to align in his favor—and grew resentful when they did not. Amundsen, on the other hand, had the Viking respect for nature and prepared for the worst. When conditions favored him, he responded with gratitude, not entitlement.

Amundsen learned from failure. When his first sledging journey under his command failed spectacularly, he noted in his diary that they had “harvested experience.” Scott, more driven by passion, failed time and again to learn from experience—his ambition clouding his judgment.

Amundsen had a good read of people. Early in his apprenticeship journeys, he realized that under stress, passivity dissolved into apathy—and in extreme conditions, apathy was fatal. He developed ways to identify those prone to such weaknesses and removed them from the team before it was too late. Scott, meanwhile, was more swayed by flattery than by character. His choice of companions for the final push to the Pole reflected personal preference more than competence.

Amundsen had the humility to learn from anyone. He studied how to live under polar conditions from the indigenous Eskimos. He believed no civilization held a monopoly on wisdom—and that so-called primitive people had much to teach the modern man. From them, he learned how to dress in a way that avoided sweat (a deadly hazard in the cold) and how to effectively use dogs for sledging. Scott, rooted in Royal Navy traditions and ceremonies, resisted such learning. His reluctance to adopt key innovations in clothing, and his disdain for dog sledding, proved fatal for his team.

Scott carried the trappings of status as a Royal Navy officer but lacked true connection with his men. Beneath the mask of a gentleman officer, he smouldered with ambition, yet failed to truly move or inspire his followers. Locked into a command-and-control mindset, he couldn’t bring out the best in his team. Amundsen, by contrast, was quietly confident and inspired confidence in others. He preferred trust over control, noting that when “you let everybody have the feeling of being independent within their own sphere, there arises a spontaneous and voluntary discipline, which is worth far more than compulsion.”

This is not to say Amundsen was perfect. But he demonstrated the best traits of leadership where it mattered most.

When Amundsen finally reached the South Pole, there is a poignant passage. He experiences not jubilation, but something closer to emptiness:

Amundsen had learned what the Duke of Wellington had meant when, in the moment of victory, he wrote that ‘Nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won.’ Such, then, was the attainment of the South Pole: a muted feast; a thing of paradox, of classic detachment; of disappointment almost.

And yet, it is Scott’s ill-fated expedition that lives on in popular memory. Amundsen, almost too perfect in his accomplishments, is largely forgotten.

That, perhaps, is the final lesson in leadership: success demands both science and art. The science of preparation and execution. And the art—not just of living the moment—but of making it live in others.

Ghiblification Is not the problem. Concentration of artistic power is.

I have this view, that those arguing that the Ghiblification trend is an insult to artists, have got it mostly wrong.

The panic is misplaced. What people should be concerned about isn’t whether AI is replacing artists. It’s who owns the tools, who controls the pipelines, and how creativity is quietly being fenced in by a few tech players.

This itself is not a new story. It is an old one — one of power concentrating around access, infrastructure, and enforcement, while everyone else argues about taste and authenticity.

What we’re watching is not the death of art. It is the quiet and at-scale takeover of the conditions for making and sharing it. It’s not imitation we should fear — it’s when only a handful of companies get to decide who imitates, and who gets paid. The scale of this concentration that AI enables is what should be the concern here. Those that claim that AI might be Humanity's last invention, need to focus on its real threat.

And now that this point is on the table, let’s address the three other things people keep circling back to: Would Miyazaki be offended? Is AI art real craft? And does imitation degrade originality?

I. Would Miyazaki care?

I don’t think Hayao Miyazaki would care about the Ghiblification trend that flooded the internet in early 2025. It's mostly those who are unable to create something like the great director that seem to be obsessing over and ranting about this supposed “affront to artists” — with their predictable arguments about copyright infringement and creativity deterrence.

Now, yes, there’s the infamous quote from 2016 when Miyazaki was shown an AI-generated animation. He was horrified. He said, “I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself.”

But context matters.

This moment comes from the documentary Owaranai Hito — The Never-Ending Man — a portrait of Miyazaki grappling with retirement and continuing to be creative. In it, he embarks on his first CGI project, Boro the Caterpillar. He doesn’t reject the new tool. He experiments with it, albeit with disdain and reluctance. Eventually he adapts, then returns to what he does best. That’s what artists do.

The point is: Miyazaki was not rejecting technology in absolute terms. He was reacting to a shallow use of it. The AI demo he saw lacked not skill, but soul. It had no intentionality. It had a sense of movement that was not grounded in meaning. His discomfort wasn’t with technology — it was with indifference.

And as of today, neither Miyazaki nor Studio Ghibli has issued any public statement on the Ghiblification trend. That silence should tell you something.

II. What counts as craft?

Let’s continue with Miyazaki to understand the ethos of artists and craftsman like him. To understand Miyazaki’s relationship with craft, you need to look at how he works — or rather, how he obsesses. Ghibli’s work isn’t for the attention economy. It’s a meditation. Built over years. Layered with meaning.

As Steve Alpert recounts in Sharing a House with the Never-Ending Man, while watching Princess Mononoke scenes repeatedly during production:

“I once repetitively watched a sequence where the heroine San charges into the Tataraba Fortress, leaps up onto the roof, and speeds across it. Then the hero Ashitaka leaps up and goes after her. What I noticed after seeing this again and again was how the tiles on the rooftop react to being stepped on, first by the light and lithe San, barely registering the weight of her compact body and small feet, and then by the heavier and less graceful Ashitaka. Just by how the rooftop registers the tread of their feet you have a sense of the weight, mass, velocity, and physical force exerted by each character. What I also noticed in the sequence was that when Ashitaka jumps up onto the roof he causes a few of the tiles at the edge of the roof to crumble. Pieces of them fall to the ground.

With my newly gained knowledge of animation, I realized that what was unusual about this is that the roof is a part of the background and not something that normally moves in animation. Princess Mononoke was the last major feature-length animated film to be drawn by hand and animated on hand-painted cels. In hand-painted cel animation the moving pieces are done in a somewhat simplified style that allows them to be more easily replicated and manipulated. But the elaborate backgrounds on which they move are too detailed, too intricate, and too finely done to be manipulated (animated) in that way. Also, they are done in watercolor and not pencil.

In other words, in order to get those few pieces of rooftop tile to crack and crumble to the ground, Miyazaki would have had to get an animator to specially create elaborate hand-painted cels to match the background image and to painstakingly recreate them in enough versions of crumbling to make the effect work. This sequence lasted on screen for perhaps only a few seconds or less. But it would have taken a large chunk of someone's time (and therefore money) to create. This on a project that was already precariously in danger of not meeting its production deadlines.”

That level of care for a detail barely anyone would consciously notice — that’s not just technique. That is philosophy. That’s the difference between making art and just making content.

Someone with that kind of dedication isn’t going to be threatened by a trend. Leonard Cohen put it best: 

“You can add new technology — synthesizers, effects — but a song without a soul is still a dead song.” 

That’s Miyazaki’s position. I doubt he’d waste time being offended by machine mimicry.

All AI is doing right now is mimicking. Some results are charming, sure. But they’re not creating anything truly original. The outrage against Ghiblification is sort of virtue signaling. Because originality was never about output. It was about seeing, noticing, intending. As Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said,

“A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.”

AI doesn’t bear anything within it. It just recombines. But even recombination has its place. The right question isn’t whether AI threatens art. The real question is whether audiences will still care enough to tell the difference.

III. Imitation isn't theft. It’s how craft evolves.

Levelling the AI imitates accusation is shallow. Are we really arguing that human artists don’t learn from existing works? Does emergence of a new tool threaten an art form completely? Emergence of photography did not kill painting. And when photography took over realism, painters didn’t give up — they reimagined what it meant to see. Impressionist and surrealist movements were born. The two art forms are unique. 

Are we seriously going to ask artists to avoid digital brushes and synthetic paints because they’re too easy? Should we instruct storytellers to avoid the Hero’s Journey because it is templated? This kind of logic borders on the absurd.

As Leonard Read said in I, Pencil, everything today is built through distributed craft — no single creator, but a web of specializations, tools, and imaginations. Artists will use AI just like they used synthetic paints and make better things. 

Just like fast food doesn’t destroy high cuisine, Ghiblification doesn’t impact what Studio Ghibli stands for. One is engineered for mass attention. The other is for depth. We know the difference.

AI is just the next new tool humanity has discovered. Artists will experiment with this, the market will react, and once it commodifies, new things will have to be found — things that hit a chord the way Spirited Away once did. AI won’t be creating that. At least not without a human prompt. And what the artist creates with a new tool will often be better than what a non-artist can create with the tool. Basically, tools don’t make the artist, on the contrary, new tools make the artists even better.

The concern is not that anyone can now produce a Ghibli-style frame in five minutes. The concern is when those five minutes belong to a platform that logs your data, watermarks your work, and licenses your prompt to someone else.

And that brings us back to where we started.

The real danger isn't that artists will be replaced. It's that artists — and all of us — will be locked out.

Locked out of meaningfully shaping the tools.
Locked out of owning our own work.
Locked out of the new infrastructure being built under the guise of creativity.

Ghibli’s films were born from a context where the director had the final say. Not the algorithm. Not the platform. That’s what we’re at risk of losing.

So yes — use the new tools. Experiment with Ghiblification. Remix. Reimagine. But don’t confuse the tool for the vision.

And don’t be distracted by outraging over mimicry while the platforms are building moats around your cathedral.

Outrage, if you must, against monopolization of creativity.

PS: My previous post on this was more of a rant and had some errors, like wrongly calling the book by Steve Alpert by the name of the documentary. I have updated my views here and have also presented a more comprehensive view.

 

SERIES: Potentially Contrarian Ideas - Miyazaki wouldn't care

I think Hayao Miyazaki would not be too worried about ChatGPT’s Ghiblification trend. It’s mostly those who are unable to create something like Miyazaki who seem to be obsessing over and ranting about copyright infringement.

Yes, he was horrified back in 2016 when he saw what AI animation produced and called it “an insult to life.” But if I understand him right, he was saying that AI would never be able to create what he can — and that he would never incorporate it into his work. And he’s right.

All AI is doing is mimicking. And while some of the results are charming — especially considering they often take less than five minutes of effort — they aren’t doing anything truly original.

And let’s be honest: the trend is literally called Ghiblification.

Even if it does produce something original, are we really arguing that artists don’t learn from existing works? Are we suggesting that if a machine does it, it’s somehow more of an infringement than if a human artist had done the same?

Are we going to ask artists to use only natural paint, which takes years to produce, instead of the incredible synthetic paints we have now?
Are we going to say that artists shouldn’t use MS Paint just because it allows things to be created faster than with watercolours?
Are we going to tell advertisers and filmmakers not to create themes inspired by popular films?
Are we going to instruct storytellers to avoid the Hero’s Journey as a structure?

It borders on the absurd.

Leonard Read already explained the modern world through I, Pencil. AI is just the next new tool humanity has discovered.

Yes, some claim AI might be the last invention of humanity. But I, for one, remain skeptical.
We shouldn’t confuse a fad with a trend. Artists will experiment with this, the market will react, and once it commodifies, new forms will need to emerge — forms that strike a chord, like Spirited Away once did. AI won’t be creating that. At least not without a prompt from a human.

Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli had a clear passion for their craft. AI today cannot mimic that.

What we’re witnessing is not just a copyright issue. It’s the age-old tension between new tools and existing power structures.
The real concern shouldn’t be mimicry — it should be about the concentration of these capabilities in the hands of anti-competitive forces.
It’s regulation and intellectual monopolies that risk stifling creativity.

On a side note, to understand better Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli's potential views, I am reading Sharing a House with the Never-Ending Man by Steve Alpert. A book by one of the few foreigners (gaijin) who spent years working with Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli. I haven’t finished the book, but in the introduction I find this text below:

Studio Ghibli's films have influenced and inspired both animated and live-action filmmakers worldwide. Reflections and versions of images originally created by Hayao Miyazaki can be found in the films of well-known independent and Hollywood motion picture directors, including some major box office hits. Hayao Miyazaki has been called the Walt Disney and the Steven Spielberg of Japanese film. His influence on other filmmakers has been enormous.

Craft is about learning from the best.

And in some ways, this Ghiblification trend is a kind of homage to Miyazaki’s passion.

It’s not going to derail his creative output.

Owaranai Hito, the Japanese title of the book, translates to “The Man Who Is Never Finished.”

I will return and update my views if the book reveals otherwise 

BOOK NOTE - A Gentleman in Moscow - Amor Towles

I was introduced to Amor Towles’ books via James Altucher’s podcast with him. Amor and James discussed the writing process and particularly about creating memorable characters. I found A Gentleman in Moscow to be one of the best books I have read in recent times. Towles’ writing style is smart and witty, but also profound. You can know from the way the stories and characters interact and intersect that they are crafted with great care. And while the story builds slowly after an amazing start, it is a pleasure to read and leads up to a great crescendo and climax.

A Gentleman in Moscow is set in the early 1900s in post-Imperial Russia. It is in that unique time set soon after the Bolshevik revolution, where the true horrors of Communism and of Stalin are yet to happen, excepting off-screen. Us readers know about it, but the characters are unaware. They must find out as the story progresses. But the book’s style is not very crass to get into the horrors and describe them. It is only through the mood that we ever come across it.

The setting—the magnificent Metropol Hotel in Moscow—is as much a character as any of the human protagonists. And through the characters and the changes that happen to them, we see the golden age of Russia descend—initially into a sense of euphoria and then into the despair that Communism brings.

Along with the Metropol, Count Rostov is a perfect protagonist to show this transition. An erudite aristocrat, he knows the glories of the golden Imperial age. But he is not an out-of-touch aristocrat. He embodies what Kipling says in the famous poem If,

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much

He is the Metropol in human form, and the hotel is him as an institution.

Amor Towles has mentioned in his interview that he is not a Russologist, but the book is an amazing exploration of Russia and the divided classes in Russia of that time. What is even more fascinating is that he talks about how his writing style is not direct research-driven.

“Rather than pursuing research-driven projects, I like to write from areas of existing fascination,” he says on his website. “…I chose to write A Gentleman in Moscow because of my longstanding fascination with Russian literature, culture, and history. Most of the texture of the novel springs from the marriage of my imagination with that interest.”

As a book which captures a long period of time, and at the same time is a book of mystery and intrigue, getting the pacing right is very important. I alluded earlier that the book starts off great, but then slows down before ratcheting up the pace and a crescendo towards climax. Without giving any spoilers, this is achieved through a unique accordion style of time expansion and contraction, which is very unique to any books I have read. Towles observes how this reflects how we remember our lives as well –

While odd, this accordion structure seems to suit the story well, as we get a very granular description of the early days of confinement; then we leap across time through eras defined by career, parenthood, and changes in the political landscape; and finally, we get a reversion to urgent granularity as we approach the denouement. As an aside, I think this is very true to life, in that we remember so many events of a single year in our early adulthood, but then suddenly remember an entire decade as a phase of our career or of our lives as parents.

Some amazing life observations that have stayed with me from the book are:

“Arriving late, what a delicacy of youth”

The Count observes how it is stylish and acceptable when young people arrive late or in-between things. This is part of growing up, and even stylish. But soon fades when in middle age and the focus of lives becomes more monotonous. It made me reflect about how we lose part of our youth when we become too rigid in our ways.

“The surest sign of wisdom was constant cheerfulness – Michel de Montaigne”

The Count and the Metropol in some ways are embodiments of this maxim. They survive and even thrive by finding joy in the toughest of times. Wisdom is being able to get what you want, despite the circumstances.

In terms of historical fiction, A Gentleman in Moscow does a great job of reflecting the sense of the times. And for those interested in the strange time of transition, in one of the most radical shifts in human history—from Imperial grandeur to Bolshevik commanding heights—it is a must-read.

A masterpiece in capturing the romance of the golden age as it slips through our collective hands.
 

How to Focus on One Thing

One of the main challenges many of us face in this hyper-distracting world is the ability to focus.

Any pursuit of mastery requires some degree of focus. Real mastery demands an exceptionally high level of it. We are what we give our attention to. If we fail to do so, we are at the mercy of external forces, and mastery will elude us.

Focusing on mastery is a lifelong journey. But distraction is also a persistent, lifelong challenge. Steven Pressfield famously described this as the evil thing called “resistance" in his book The War of Art.

A 1987 Esquire article on mastery, which has recentlygained renewed interest thanks to Jerry Seinfeld’s reflections on his pursuit of it, contains a particularly insightful passage (hat tip SatPost by Trung Phan):

The modern world can be viewed as a prodigious conspiracy against mastery. We are bombarded with promises of fast, temporary relief, immediate gratification, and instant success, all of which lead in exactly the wrong direction.

Life’s incentives often favour speed. But I believe this is a false motivator—an easy trap to fall into, especially since society actively rewards it. While this hustle may be beneficial in certain seasons of life, and even suited in certain seasons of life, it is unsustainable in the long run and can ultimately be detrimental.

True joy lies in slowing down, trusting yourself, and even embracing boredom.

Monotasking is an incredible source of satisfaction. In fact, it is a luxury. If you can mono-task, you are already winning. This ability comes when you resist the urge to maximize short-term output and short-term rewards.

But how does one disconnect from distractions and push back against the "prodigious conspiracy against mastery" imposed by the modern world?

Here are some personal observations that have contributed to my success in professional, personal, and intellectual pursuits:

Ways to Reduce Distractions

• Establish a schedule — even if you don’t always stick to it.
• Set specific intentions for time blocks — separate planning from doing; frequent task-switching creates overwhelm.
• Track your progress visibly — streaks create momentum and reinforce habits.
• Identify and manage distraction triggers — know the who, what, where, and emotional/social context that lead to distractions.
• Select analogue over digital whenever possible — mindfulness increases when distractions decrease; savour experiences instead of getting lost in digital rabbit holes.

Cultivating deep engagement:

• Love the process—attach joy to intention, not just outcomes:
• Celebrate the process, not just the result.
• Observe and compliment others who embody this mindset to create a reinforcing feedback loop.
• Be comfortable with plateaus—progress isn’t always visible, but sticking with it prevents frustration.
• Approach tasks as if they’re new — curiosity enhances focus. Haruki Murakami finished writing his first novel because he seized the moment of inspiration that struck him while watching a baseball game. He didn’t overthink the logistics of publishing or the long road ahead—he simply acted on the creative impulse in front of him. Similarly, Seth Godin advises:

If you’re feeling creative, do the errands tomorrow. If you’re fit and healthy, take a day to go surfing. When inspiration strikes, write it down. The calendar belongs to everyone else. Their schedule isn’t your schedule unless it helps you get where you’re going.

• Avoid rigidity—choose flexibility—perfectionism can be a distraction; complexity should exist at the right scale.
• Incorporate playfulness—play reduces mental resistance, making focus easier (e.g., Richard Latham’s idea of "clowning around" to learn writing).

Ambiguity, and how to deal with it

Imagine you are a professional working in a corporate environment, managing multiple stakeholders and projects. One of the most critical challenges you'll face is dealing with ambiguity. Ambiguity is a fundamental experience for professionals operating in a VUCA world—an environment characterized by Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity.

The challenge of ambiguity in knowledge work

Ambiguity is particularly challenging for those engaged in knowledge work. Most modern knowledge work involves overlapping domains—technology, humanities, commerce, to name a few. While individuals can build expertise in specific fields, success often favours those who develop an intersection of skills across multiple domains. Even deep experts must collaborate effectively with others who possess different skill sets and expertise, or they risk struggling to achieve their goals.

This overlap inherently breeds ambiguity. Each domain has its own "language," and people from one domain often find it challenging to understand those from another. This dissonance arises partly from the differing objectives of each domain but largely from poor communication—whether over-communication or under-communication.

Mastering the ability to navigate and feel comfortable with ambiguity is essential for success in the modern professional landscape. It is a non-negotiable skill, requiring effort on two fronts:

• Mindset: Cultivating a growth mindset is crucial for thriving in ambiguity. Without it, professionals can quickly feel overwhelmed and unable to progress.
• Practical Actions: Translating this mindset into everyday practices helps bring clarity and momentum.

Over a meal with a friend who now works at a prestigious consulting firm, we discussed this topic. She is an analyst supporting commercial consulting teams, managing multiple projects with diverse stakeholders. Often, she must deliver value-driven outcomes without the luxury of fully understanding the domain. Her situation epitomizes ambiguity: unclear requirements, limited resources, tight timelines, undefined ownership, and non-existent processes.

How does one handle such ambiguity? Based on over 20 years of professional experience, here are a few strategies that have worked for me.

1. Frontload, Frontload, Frontload

To manage ambiguity successfully, begin before you're ready.

The concept of "frontloading your project" is well-articulated in The McKinsey Edge by Shu Hattori, though I've applied it since my early career. Frontloading means driving maximum effort during the initial phase of a project—precisely when ambiguity is at its peak. This proactive approach lays the foundation and reduces uncertainty.

Here’s what frontloading looks like in practice:

• Over-index resources early: Commit significant effort in the first week or day of the project.
• Adopt a bias for action: Engage stakeholders, list key questions, define potential outputs, and anticipate challenges.
• Build relationships: Meet with team members early to understand their perspectives and ideas.
• Plan ahead: Schedule meetings and establish timelines, even with incomplete information.

Frontloading combats analysis paralysis by prioritizing action. It fosters teamwork, incremental solutions, and momentum, which can influence others positively. By demonstrating progress, you can elicit valuable input from senior stakeholders, reduce ambiguity, and establish control over expectations.

2. Reframe the focus from outcomes to process

Ambiguity becomes more daunting when the focus is solely on outcomes. Instead, shift your attention to processes and the next actionable step.

If a clear process doesn't exist, create one. Focus on executing the next task in the sequence. This approach simplifies complexity and reduces the perception of ambiguity. Dale Carnegie famously advised living in “day-tight compartments”—focusing on today and the immediate task rather than worrying about the entire journey.

I call this approach Process Quest. (You can read more about it here.)

3. Document and follow Up

Always document discussions, ideas, and thoughts. Never rely solely on memory.

Overconfidence in our memory is a common trap, especially in ambiguous situations with many moving parts. Documenting ensures clarity, prevents conflated ideas, and helps track progress. Reviewing notes often reveals insights that may not have been apparent earlier.

Follow-up is equally crucial. Shu Hattori emphasizes that follow-up is a low-profile yet vital activity. By revisiting discussions, identifying root causes, and demonstrating sustained interest, you can effectively reduce ambiguity and uncover actionable insights.

Systems as an antidote to ambiguity

The three practical strategies above—frontloading, process orientation, and documentation—underscore the importance of systems in mitigating ambiguity. Combined with an open and growth-oriented mindset, these systems enhance resilience and clarity in uncertain environments.

A word of caution

These strategies should not be pursued obsessively or frantically. Instead, approach them with presence and intentionality. Adopt a SLOW approach as an antidote to urgency and haste. (You can explore the concept of SLOW here.)

BOOK NOTE - Steve Jobs - Walter Isaacson

I truly enjoyed reading Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs. Jobs needs no introduction, and Isaacson is among the best biographers, but I had not managed to read this book since its publication in 2011. Incidentally, my father, who is an avid reader, had purchased it in December 2011, and it was sitting in my parents' home in Bangalore. I was rummaging through the books during my recent visit, and this tome caught my attention.

I have been a fan of so many things Jobs did, his personality, and the iconic impact he has had on the world. I have loved using the iPad, but for many reasons, I had not bought into the cult of Apple. I do not like the closed-loop system of Apple devices, for instance, and I had only heard about the sort of mercurial person Jobs was. I had seen the not-so-great movie about Jobs starring Ashton Kutcher. I had consumed the many videos of Jobs talking about marketing and product design on the internet. I had watched, many times, the iPhone launch event in 2007. And of course, I had heard and read about the many things said about Jobs by the people who worked with him.

More recently, I had read Sir Johnny Ive's article remembering Jobs on his 10th death anniversary in 2021. Jobs and Ive's obsession with design was something I loved and thought highly of.

Ive writes beautifully about Steve's curiosity and the insight he brought to any situation:

"...but now, above all else, I miss his singular and beautiful clarity. Beyond his ideas and vision, I miss his insight that brought order to chaos.
It has nothing to do with his legendary ability to communicate but everything to do with his obsession with simplicity, truth, and purity."

What Ive said about Jobs' curious mind was what had primed me to pick up this book and read it straight in six days. I was wondering, as I read, what it was that made it possible for Steve to have this insight and curiosity. One was certainly his unique genius, but Isaacson offers another note from the Zeitgeist:

"The 60s created an anarchic mindset that helped imagine a world that did not yet exist."

Walter Isaacson does a great job of telling us the story of Steve Jobs—his professional and personal journey—and what you realize is that, for Steve, there was no barrier between the two. The two were the same. He lived one life and brought his intense personality to every facet of his life.

I will mention briefly below a few points that resonated with me from this masterful biography.

Reality Distortion Field

Much has been said in the book and outside about Jobs' famous reality distortion field.

How he could get people—and himself—to get things done despite seemingly insurmountable odds.
Believing and obsessing about getting something done is an important skillset, and Jobs seemed to have it inbuilt in him. Manifesting on steroids. One version of this reality distortion field is about how someone is perceived. Nolan Bushnell, the CEO of Atari, tells a young Steve Jobs that

"Pretend to be in complete control, and people will assume you are," and Steve does this most of his life.

It is different from "fake it till you make it," but in the same vein. Different because this is not about faking it at all.

The reality distortion field is all about really believing that something is real, despite all evidence against it, and willing it into reality.

Teacher Arrives When the Student Is Ready and Willing

I have often found that one is only able to appreciate something when one is ready for it.

It might be learning about something or just even appreciating a piece of art—there is a certain openness needed for the mind to form connections and reveal insight. Early in Steve's life, when he is in search of a Japanese Zen master and is thinking about traveling to Japan to visit one, he finds a spiritual master right down the road. His spiritual advisor urges him to stay, and Steve says,

"He said there is nothing over there that isn’t here, and he was right. I learned the truth of the Zen saying that if you are willing to travel around the world to meet a teacher, one will appear next door."

Often, we underestimate the power of what we already know in helping us become better.

Intersection of Technology and Humanities

We often read about the industrial revolution and technological revolution and assume it is about growth in those domains.

But what this book illustrates is it is actually the intersection of those domains with the humanities and arts that really creates progress. Jobs' unique insight that made Apple, Pixar, and NeXT—all of his creations—such amazing innovators is that they put technology in service of art and not the other way around. The growth in domains happens naturally, but it is when tech advancements are put in service of art that true progress happens. Many technology leaders, like Xerox and others, had the technology, but it needed Jobs to obsess about the graphical user interface and make it about an elegant user experience that made the progress in the field possible. Jobs' reality distortion field made that possible.

Form may follow function for the masses, but for real progress to happen, function and form need to be equally important and elevated into an art form.

I highly recommend this book because it puts you in a reality distortion field.

By describing Jobs and his characteristics and without really offering any judgment on it, Isaacson masterfully invites us into believing.

Finally, on a personal note, something which amused me because it resonated with me but was also a cautionary note: Jobs was a strict vegan for most of his life, as I am as well. What I also found revealed in his mindset, which I also very strongly share, is the concept of pleasure from restraint. Lisa, his estranged daughter, observes the following about his strict diets and fasting: "Even at a young age Lisa began to realize his diet obsessions reflected a life philosophy, one in which asceticism and minimalism could heighten subsequent sensations.”

“He believed that great harvests came from arid sources, pleasure from restraint,’ she noted. ‘He knew the equations that most people didn’t know: Things led to their opposites.”

The cautionary note in this is that despite these healthy practices, it was probably his intense obsessions that led to his health challenges.

Steve Jobs' worldview was the opposite of moderation, but sometimes, while intensity blazes bright and illuminates the path for others, it can burn out fast as well. The genius of Jobs is that he might have passed away early, but what he managed to create in the short time was so bright that it is illuminating worlds long after he has gone.