Wasteland #1: Idealism and reality
Superman, Machiavelli, and the messiness in between.
Hi friend ✌️,
Welcome to The Wasteland, the place where my best essays begin.
My long-form essays don’t come out of nowhere—they emerge from months of thinking, reading, and refining. Instead of keeping that messy middle hidden, I’m sharing it with you.
These won’t be polished, but they will be real. If you want to see the ideas before they become full essays, stick around. If you’d rather wait for the finished product, feel free to skip these. You can also adjust your subscription preferences to not receive any future Wasteland editions:
If you’re interested in more of my polished work, and haven’t yet read my latest essay on Status Games, here it is.
What I’m thinking about: Idealism vs. reality
I was an extremely idealistic kid. Controversially, I thought Superman was better than Batman—precisely because he was a goody two-shoes. Not to mention, much, much stronger. And why be (even a little) bad when you can just be good?
But as I’ve grown, I see how idealism bends, cracks, and sometimes falters when faced with reality. Lately, I’ve been exploring this tension—through books, conversations, and personal reflection. Right now, I’m especially interested in these classics:
The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli (brutally pragmatic)
The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodyor Dostoevsky (philosophically weighty)
Meditations by Marcus Aurelius (stoic idealism; rereading after years)
The Rebel by Albert Camus (bridging idealism and reality)
In this edition, I will share my thoughts on The Prince and The Brothers Karamazov—other books will come later.
Thoughts on The Prince
Machiavelli’s name is now shorthand for ruthless pragmatism—and it’s clear why. The Prince doesn’t bother placating idealist notions.
For instance, he nonchalantly recommends eliminating a deposed ruler’s entire family.
“In that case all you have to do is eliminate the family of the previous ruler and your hold on power is guaranteed.”
If you were a ruler who just annexed new territory, would you do it? The idealist in me wants to find a nobler way—but what if not doing it meant rebellion, chaos, and even more deaths?
It’s unsettling, but The Prince forces a reckoning: politics isn’t bound by the ethics of everyday life. I haven’t looked at political leaders the same way since.
Thoughts on The Brothers Karamazov
This might seem cliché, but a few months ago, I was looking for a book with some “philosophical depth” and picked up the Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky—and boy was I not disappointed!
Here’s a quick take on some characters:
FPK: A buffoon who knows he’s a buffoon. He’s aware that others see him this way, feels insecure about it, yet can’t help playing the fool.
DK: Ex-decent guy; now a reckless lowlife, consumed by obsession with a woman (a prostitute).
IK: An intellectual tormented by his own inquiries.
AK: Saintly, but almost too pure for his own good.
KI: Takes pride in a twisted loyalty to DK.
I’m only halfway through, but the characters feel intensely human—flawed and contradictory. Next month, I’ll share more insights (hopefully without spoilers).
Looking Ahead
Next Essay: I’m leaning into “idealism vs. reality.” Still fuzzy on the thesis, but reading these classics is shaping my thoughts.
Wasteland #2: Expect more short updates, favorite quotes, and random observations.
Until next time!
— Aayush
Huge thanks to
! Your harsh, but necessary feedback was invaluable. Thanks to , from whom I stole the name “Wasteland.”