Amazon.com: Restoration: 9798273673083: Taylor, G. B.: Books

This is a quick public service announcement for the procrastinators among us. (I see you. I am you.) Two days ago, I announced my new novel, Restoration, was available for free on Amazon. Today is the last day. When the clock strikes midnight, this promotion, like Cinderella’s coach, turns back into a pumpkin—or in this case, a regular-priced eBook. And pumpkins cost money.

Well, I've gone and done it. I wrote a novel. Yes, a novel. With plot. And characters. And feelings. It’s called Restoration, and here’s the kicker: it’s a contemporary romance. I know, I know. But it turns out my lifelong obsession with old houses and an unhealthy reliance on strong coffee had to go somewhere. So, What’s It About?

Architect Laura Vance’s career is collapsing. Haunted by a professional scandal and drowning in debt, she’s one invoice away from losing everything. Her salvation arrives in the form of a mysterious, ...

Let's kick things off with a little something to set the scene, shall we? Imagine this: You're staring at a single, solitary stop sign on an otherwise deserted road, rain streaking down its faded red octagonal surface. There's no intersection, no traffic light in sight—just this one defiant command in the middle of nowhere. What does it mean? Why is it there?

Let’s be honest. When you hear the words story and narrative, you probably think they’re interchangeable, right? They’re cousins at best, synonyms at worst. I certainly did for a long time. It’s one of those common linguistic sloppinesses we all indulge in. But if you want to understand how we—as individuals, societies, and markets—make sense of the glorious, terrifying chaos of reality, you need to draw a much sharper line between them.

Let’s be honest. When someone asks what you did last weekend, “Nothing much” is a response delivered with a certain degree of shame. You’re supposed to have climbed a mountain, or attended a secret pop-up dinner, or at the very least, binge-watched a culturally significant television series you can dissect on Monday. You’re supposed to have been busy. We live in a culture that worships at the altar of the anecdote.

Ah, the writer's quest. We hunt for the secret recipe, the magic formula, the one weird trick that will turn our messy drafts into literary gold. We read craft books, we watch interviews, we nod along sagely, hoping some of that genius will seep in through osmosis. Here’s a little secret: there is no formula. And thank goodness for that. But there are principles—deep, fundamental mechanics that separate a story that…

The Great AI Job Apocalypse: Why Your Toaster Isn't Coming for Your Mortgage Let's be honest, the air is thick with predictions. From tech billionaires whispering about universal basic income to pundits hyperventilating about a jobless future, the narrative around Artificial Intelligence often sounds like a script ripped straight from a particularly gloomy sci-fi flick. We're told AI is coming for…

Your Coffee Order Is Probably Wrong. Let’s Fix It. Let’s be honest. You’ve stood there, staring at a café menu with the intensity of a bomb disposal expert, and felt a quiet dread. Cortado, Flat White, Lungo, Macchiato. They all sound vaguely Italian and sophisticated, but you have a sneaking suspicion they’re just different ways to mix two ingredients. You’re not wrong.

Ah, the eternal question. It’s a variation on the theme of banging your head against a wall: it feels great when you stop, but was it a productive use of your time to begin with? The short answer is no. The long answer is also no, but it's a far more interesting journey. Let's start with a classic piece of folk wisdom, often misattributed to Mark Twain: "Never argue with an idiot.

Reality has always felt a bit suspect. This isn't some new paranoia born from late-night forums; it’s an ancient philosophical discomfort that has simply dressed itself in modern clothes. The simulation hypothesis is just the latest, most technologically savvy version of this old suspicion: What if our entire universe is just a game of The Sims being played by a bored, omnipotent teenager?

We stand at a peculiar crossroads in human history. We have more ways to tell stories than ever before—virtual reality, interactive media, AI-generated content, immersive experiences that blur the line between fiction and reality. Yet we seem to be losing our grip on the most fundamental question: what makes a story worth telling? In our rush to embrace new technologies and platforms, we've forgotten to ask whether we're using these tools to reveal truth or obscure it, to connect with our deepest humanity or escape from it entirely.

The worst thing that ever happened to literary criticism was the invention of the book review. Somewhere along the way, we decided that the primary job of the critic was to function as a consumer guide—thumbs up or thumbs down, buy or don't buy, worth your time or skip it entirely. This reduction of criticism to recommendation has impoverished our entire relationship with literature, turning what should be a collaborative search for meaning into a marketplace transaction.

Here's the thing about Plato's ideal ruler: he never wanted the job. The philosopher-king, that paragon of wisdom and virtue who could govern justly, would rather spend his days contemplating the eternal Forms than dealing with the messy business of human affairs. But duty calls, and sometimes the person best equipped to wield power is precisely the one who finds it distasteful.

The book you're writing isn’t just a random collection of words; it’s a specific kind of thing. It has a structure, a purpose, and a form. And for Plato, that form would tell him everything he needed to know about its relationship to Truth. We've talked about how some writers are closer to the Forms than others, but what about the genres they work in?

If there’s one thing Plato was obsessed with, it was order. He saw it everywhere, from the perfect geometry of a triangle to the ideal structure of a just society. He believed that true beauty wasn’t just a matter of subjective taste, but a reflection of a deeper, divine order. A thing was beautiful because its parts were in perfect proportion to one another and to the whole.

We've spent a lot of time pointing out the problems. We've wrestled with the lie of the memoirist, grappled with the soulless algorithms of AI, and confronted the thorny questions of moral responsibility. It's a lot to unpack, and it's easy to feel like Plato left us with a set of intellectual landmines. His philosophy, on its surface, seems more suited to destroying art than to building it.

Plato's decision to banish the poets wasn't an act of aesthetic snobbery. It was a matter of national security, as he saw it. He wasn't afraid of bad writing; he was afraid of dangerous writing. He believed that art, particularly poetry, had an unchecked power to corrupt the minds of the young, to promote irrationality, and to undermine the very principles of a just society.

We live in an age that worships "authenticity." The more personal, the more confessional, the more "real," the better. As we've seen, the Romantic tradition took Plato's concept of divine madness and turned it into a virtue, suggesting the artist was a pure conduit for truth. This has led us to a modern crisis where we are inundated with memoirs, personal essays, and tell-all podcasts, all promising to give us unfiltered access to someone’s “truth.” But what does that word even mean?

It’s easy to dismiss Plato as a cranky old man who just didn’t "get" art. But you do so at your own peril. As we saw in the previous post, he was simultaneously terrified and captivated by art's power, even while he was busy proving the artist was an irrational, untrustworthy mouthpiece for a "divine madness." This paradox is key. His "ancient quarrel" didn't die with him; it just mutated.

You’d think after hearing that a philosopher wants to kick all the poets out of his ideal city, the conversation would be over. But with Plato, it's never that simple. The truth is, he was utterly captivated by art’s power. He just believed it was a power he couldn’t trust. This brings us to the most confusing, and frankly, most infuriating part of his poetic theory: the concept of…

Let's get straight to it: Plato hated your guts. Not you specifically, of course, but your profession. He didn’t trust you. He didn’t want you around. In his ideal society, he’d have shown you the door with a perfectly polite—but very firm—ceremony. This isn't some historical footnote; it's the foundation of Western thought on art, and it begins with a fundamental philosophical rejection.

Why on earth would a modern writer, armed with a laptop and a Wi-Fi connection, care about the musings of a long-dead Greek philosopher? Frankly, it's a fair question. Plato is best known for his theories on ideal Forms and his rather blunt critique of the very profession we're in. To him, the poet was a dangerous, irrational creature—a liar who created cheap copies of an already imperfect world.