Ten years ago, I completed my first screenplay. It’s been more than a decade in my writing journey. I still haven’t been able to make my movie, but writing helps me hold everything together. I hope my journey inspires you to do your own thing.

P.S. I didn’t include the screenplay link mentioned in the video, so don’t look for it.

Get full access to Rajaneeshwar+ at rajaneeshwar.substack.com/subscribe

What’s History?

What’s history? History is a study or record of past events. It doesn’t matter where you live or what culture you are part of — it works the same. We have to look at history to decide the present and future. So history is very important; either bad or good, history is important.

However, in my observation, the history we know of as a general audience through basic education is not particularly history. It’s a narrative.

History vs. Narrative

Why aren’t history and narrative the same thing? What the narrative approach does to history is take historical events and apply them in a biblical framework, then present the narrative. That’s not history. There is a viewpoint — a singular viewpoint in most cases.

You cannot understand the past in that way because you’re going to see exactly the result that the narrative produces. Narrative serves a storyline. It doesn’t serve objective facts, because narrative is a framework. History doesn’t happen in a narrative order.

History is more of a case study, and approaching history as a narrative is very problematic because when you read a narrative, it only gives some glimpse of the past to titillate the audience. It’s problematic when you look at actual events in that way.

Narrative Framing in Documentaries

Something came to my mind to compare this to streaming documentaries. I don’t want to name brand names, but if you watch any documentaries from the past 5–10 years, every documentary starts with the same tone, has a similar editing technique, and similar ominous music. That’s not a documentary. It looks like somebody went to film school, understood all the filmmaking techniques, and was just good at editing.

Before the subjects talk about a problem or what happened, they play the music to make the audience feel a certain way before they even understand the context. That is what narrative is. And documentaries shouldn’t be that way because it’s a documentary. It shouldn’t spoon-feed you. It shouldn’t tell you this is the bad, this is the good. Instead, try to understand the subject — what exactly happened, the context. Most documentaries out there right now look like that. That is the worst technique to present facts.

The Problem With Teaching History as Narrative

That’s the same problem I have with history. Unless you are deep into it, you never come across actual history. Fine, not everybody will read that much to understand history. But at least if you are giving somebody context of history, you should not give them a narrative. Because what you’re doing is training them to see any history in a certain way.

You cannot see history from a biblical standpoint. It doesn’t matter where you’re from, who you are, or what language you speak. Every history should have its merits and its lessons. Seeing an already judged view is not good. It’s not healthy. It’s not healthy for humanity.

I’m concerned about that as a writer because I think that is cheating. Because everything I do with fiction — it’s out there in nonfiction. That’s disturbing. You shouldn’t do that.

Tip: Reason vs. Faith

I divide how I look at history into two ways: Reason vs. Faith.

I look at history in a reasoning way, not faith-based. I mean, both somehow deal with truth and belief. But the difference is that when you look at history through a reasoning lens, you look for evidence.

Instead of trying to create a narrative or looking for patterns, we should only look at the events. That event itself has its own truth, its own facts. But when we try to connect that with another event, then we start creating a sequence that eventually creates a story. And that’s problematic. That’s not good for history.

Because faith-based history already looks for a conclusion without evidence, or before it even gets to the evidence. You cannot apply, in this case, “I believe it, so it’s true.” No, it’s not. Sometimes history doesn’t support what you believe. Maybe you are wrong in that case.

Get full access to Rajaneeshwar+ at rajaneeshwar.substack.com/subscribe

Let me tell you a story that happened a long time ago. There was a thing called the internet. People used it for different reasons. Then social media came along and blew everything up, both good and bad.

Then the internet got cheaper, and people could communicate with anyone, anytime, anywhere. What did they do? They created silly content and posted it, like in a classroom, making paper rockets and throwing them at others.

There’s nothing wrong with it. In the end, it’s just for fun. People want to throw their frustration into something and move on. And that’s the point—intelligence isn’t mainstream. Not everybody is interested in intelligence.

AI is a great tool. It cuts a lot of time in researching, editing, and other tasks. But it’s an assistant, and you are the pilot. You still need to give commands. So what is an ordinary person going to do with it? Like the internet and social media, they’ll make silly stuff. That’s already happening.

People will probably use it for porn, and that industry may die because porn can be generated by AI without performers. People will just type prompts and get content.

AI is useful and efficient, but it’s not intelligence at a human level (yet). It cannot capture mannerisms, charisma, or personal nuance. Every individual is unique and constantly changing; those details make human performance creative. AI is smart but doesn’t have a personal life to be creative. It’s a tool in a toolbox, that’s it for now. Unless AI becomes self-aware, then we can talk.

Coming back to why people don’t care about intelligence: it has always been a niche concept. Most just want to consume, not interact or take action. Right now, AI videos and image creation are fun, but what’s next?

*Note: Maybe 3D printing could be very interesting. If it becomes cheap and accessible, people can make things at home instead of buying online.

Get full access to Rajaneeshwar+ at rajaneeshwar.substack.com/subscribe

Why aren’t there many characters in mainstream media that represent the working class, middle class, or lower middle class anymore?

Get full access to Rajaneeshwar+ at rajaneeshwar.substack.com/subscribe

Get full access to Rajaneeshwar+ at rajaneeshwar.substack.com/subscribe

My screenplay received a boost on Coverfly, just as rumors began circulating about the platform shutting down. In this video, I talk about what the boost means, what’s happening with Coverfly, and why it all feels oddly timed.

Get full access to Rajaneeshwar+ at rajaneeshwar.substack.com/subscribe

A grounded, colorful, and entertaining take on Superman. I talk about why it works, how it compares to past versions, and what stood out, especially Lex Luthor.

Get full access to Rajaneeshwar+ at rajaneeshwar.substack.com/subscribe

I talk about how not having purchasing power shaped my life, and how fear and guilt often drive the choices we make, not just with money, but in relationships, work, and everyday life.

Get full access to Rajaneeshwar+ at rajaneeshwar.substack.com/subscribe

I always wanted to watch Carrie, but I postponed it because it’s a horror. Then one day, I woke up early in the morning and, out of the blue, chose Carrie. From the first frame, it was engaging.

I have seen many films in this genre, like bully horror. Usually, it happens to men or boys. A kid looks innocent. Everybody beats him up. This is the first time I saw a film that captures, maybe exaggeratedly, women being as cruel as men (bullies).

The film starts with Carrie getting bullied in the locker room. She gets her first period and is scared of the blood. The strangeness starts there — it’s natural, yet everybody mocks her. Carrie doesn’t know how to handle it. It was a very effective scene.

Without the opening scene, the film would not exist. The opening creates all the obstacles and holds the story. You learn about other characters in the town and the mean girls.

I was confused why the other kids picked on Carrie, then the writer introduced Carrie’s mother. Carrie’s mother is a horny, God-loving, divorced mother, still youthful, living in denial because she cannot deal with her grief about her marriage and sexuality. She goes around the town bothering others in the name of God. Carrie is a direct victim. She’s frustrated and desperate.

When the writer introduces the mom, the story takes a different turn. Carrie’s life gets weirder. The mother withholds Carrie’s freedom passively and sometimes directly, throwing her delusions like sins. Carrie having a period is a sin. Sex is a sin. Sexuality is a sin.

The writing, characterization, and performance were very good and impactful. The battle between the mother and Carrie, a virgin exploring her sexuality, is claustrophobic and effective.

You can use Carrie as a metaphor for anything — social issues or individual life. It has an arc. There’s a supernatural element from the opening scene, but I won’t spoil it. Carrie is a horror and thriller, but not typical. It’s strange, almost artful. Very entertaining.

Get full access to Rajaneeshwar+ at rajaneeshwar.substack.com/subscribe

Men Come in All Shapes. Women?

When it comes to men, society accepts them in all shapes. If society is a game, and men are a set of characters, those characters can come in many forms: bald, chubby, fat, tall, short, etc.

The only expectation society has for men is, at least, to be successful. And that success is only measured by money. It’s funny when you think about it.

Society accepts all shapes when it comes to men, but when it comes to women, society expects them to be one shape. So if it’s a game, the woman character is supposed to have just one body type. It doesn’t matter the ethnicity or skin color.

It’s quite funny. Not for women! But funny as an observer of society.

Sexy: Instagram Default Setting

There are so many things on the internet that can make a guy horny. Because everything is, in a way, sexualized for no reason. It’s hard to see something not sexy.

I understand, on the other hand, that it’s hard to get somebody’s attention. Because everybody wants to make things faster, and making things sexy makes people click on it. I mean, if a YouTuber intentionally shows cleavage or some dirty title, dirty plot, fine. If I click on it, it’s on me.

I Just Wanted Food Videos

But on Instagram, I only go there to watch food-related content. I click on it. One, food-related videos. Two, same. And the third one, some random sexy content that I didn’t ask for.

So, I click the three dots and say, “Don’t suggest this kind of content.” Because I can go anywhere if I want to get horny. It’s not that hard to find sexy content. But Instagram clearly knows I’m not there for that. And that’s what bothers me.

Also, I have to go to the feed and select the food videos. Otherwise, some random sexy content will pop up.

Repetitive and Boring

And this sexy content is not even that good. It’s just this repetitive content. They just take the concept, and everybody makes their version. Just a different character, different people. But the editing, the camera angle, the music. It’s the same. It seems they are forcing you to like something.

Based on my behavior, I see myself not even spending more than 10 minutes there. Because there’s nothing good there anymore. Most of the content is AI slop anyway.

AI Is Not the Problem

But it’s fine if it’s experimental AI content. I enjoy them. Some things are funny, crazy, odd, and strange content. As much as people say they created it using AI completely, it’s okay. It’s like the early days of Photoshop. People just go crazy. That’s not the problem.

The Real Problem

The problem is that Instagram, based on your age and gender, suggests sexually provocative content in order to keep you there, even though you don’t have a behavior pattern for it. I mean, this isn’t the type of content you consumed in the past.

That’s a sign, in my understanding, that Instagram is on its deathbed.

We Lost Control of Randomness

The Remote and the Algorithm

Short-form video content like TikTok or Instagram Reels isn’t a new thing. We’ve been doing this for a long time with a different device. I remember coming home, taking the remote, turning on the TV, and just changing the channels because I didn’t want to watch TV. I just wanted the TV to be on. It’s more like looking for something — random cuts every time I change the channels.

I’m sure pretty much everybody has done it. We all liked that feeling of looking for something — a kind of relaxed but time-wasting activity. It’s not fully looking for entertainment. It’s just like a mood swing. I think that’s what short-form video content is.

The Illusion of Randomness

This content is presented to you in a strategic way — by changing very quickly, a few seconds, next, next, next — so random. It doesn’t have a narrative. This randomness is something we’ve always looked for or used regularly.

However, there’s a huge difference between surfing through TV channels for hours and surfing, or in this case, swiping through TikTok or short video content.

The core difference is, when you surf through TV channels, you have control over the remote, which means you choose the randomness. You can change the channel you want. You can click the numbers or go up and down in order — it doesn’t matter.

But that desire to consume random content is still decided by you because you have the remote. With TikTok, you have the content, but you’ve given up the remote. Somebody else — in this case, an algorithm (I refer to the algorithm as a group of decisions / an entity) — is the remote that you have no control over.

It chooses the randomness for you, which is not random. It’s kind of funny because it’s all calculated content — or at least appears in random order, which is also not random. Because they place it in a way to keep you on the platform, so you’ll watch ads or spend more time.

The more time you spend on the platform, the more money they make, or the company learns about your behavior. But that power, as an audience — giving up control of that randomness — is kind of fascinating.

Power Shift: Cable to Streaming to Algorithms

First, there was cable; you wanted to watch a show, whatever show you liked. The cable companies or the TV networks decided what time you should be in front of the TV to watch that show. You had no control there.

You only had control of the remote to turn on the TV and change the channel, etc. The cable companies decided when you should watch, and you waited — one week, maybe two months. Who cares? You didn’t have the choice. They decided for you.

Then streaming came. That flipped everything. Now the audience, the viewer, had the power to choose when they wanted to watch. They could watch an entire season or five seasons in a day. Binge-watch, done. Or they could watch episode by episode, week by week. Streaming took the power that cable and TV companies had and gave it to the audience — a punch to cable companies.

That power shift completely changed things. Once the audience tasted that power, the freedom to choose when to watch — they didn’t want to give it up. Once they experienced that control, they weren’t going back.

However, the viewer gained power to choose anything they wanted to watch through streaming by ditching cable, and gave up the power of watching something random for no reason, surfing through TV. They gave that power to TikTok or Reels.

It’s kind of funny because new media now uses our old relationship with TV, just in a different way – with a different kind of power. Certain powers we didn’t have before with TV, we have now. Certain powers we had watching TV, we gave up.

Get full access to Rajaneeshwar+ at rajaneeshwar.substack.com/subscribe