• Home
  • Start Here
  • Podcast
  • Thinking Bigly
  • Investing
  • Arts
    • Contact/Donate
    • Sign Up
    • Search
    • Privacy
    • Disclaimer
    • Arts
    • Investing
    • Newsletter
    • Theatre
    • Poetics
    • India (1997)
    • Indonesia (1998)
    • Popular
    • Blogs
    • Food
    • Photography
    • Personal
    • Mingle
    • Writer Bio
    • Investor Bio
    • Me
    • Yellow Gentlemen
    • Investment Aphorisms
    • Places in Between
    • Grants
    • Angel Investing
    • Shop
    • Unconference
Menu

Then Do Better

Street Address
City, State, Zip
Phone Number

Your Custom Text Here

Then Do Better

  • Home
  • Start Here
  • Podcast
  • Thinking Bigly
  • Investing
  • Arts
  • Support
    • Contact/Donate
    • Sign Up
    • Search
    • Privacy
    • Disclaimer
  • Archive
    • Arts
    • Investing
    • Newsletter
    • Theatre
    • Poetics
    • India (1997)
    • Indonesia (1998)
  • Blogs
    • Popular
    • Blogs
    • Food
    • Photography
    • Personal
  • About
    • Mingle
    • Writer Bio
    • Investor Bio
    • Me
    • Yellow Gentlemen
    • Investment Aphorisms
    • Places in Between
    • Grants
    • Angel Investing
    • Shop
    • Unconference

Salima Saxton: Cancer, ‘Bad Patient’ Honesty, Estrangement, and Writing Without Waiting

February 24, 2026 Ben Yeoh

Salima Saxton on cancer, honesty, estrangement, and creative work in real life. Salima is Ben’s longtime friend, and they talk about her cancer diagnosis and what she calls an unexpected new “year of undoing”, a return to herself rather than a neat reinvention story.

“Be the sky, not the weather. The weather passes through.”

They discuss why the language of “brave” can feel wrong, why “What can I do?” often misses the mark, and what Salima means by being a “bad patient”.

The conversation turns to Salima’s Substack essay “Builder Dad” on estrangement and what outsiders routinely misunderstand.

“‘Blood is thicker than water’ is not advice I believe in.”

Salima also shares the hardest things to write in memoir: telling the whole truth, including the parts that do not flatter you.

The chat then touches on anti-heroine storytelling, friendship breakups, social media’s double edge, and what creative work looks like without romantic routines: write where you can, start small, “plod”, find mentors, and build community.

“There’s never a perfect moment. Start with something tiny and plod.”

A lighter finish includes an overrated/underrated game (champagne, dressing up, height, hustle culture, social media, coconut oil), Salima’s plan to audition again, and why dark humour matters when things get rough.

“A sense of humour is absolutely vital. You either laugh or you crack.”

Summary contents, transcript and podcast links below. Listen on Apple, Spotify or wherever you listen to pods. Video above or on Youtube.

Contents

00:00 30-year friendship,  Himalayas, coconut oil
01:23 Cancer diagnosis and a new “year of undoing”
03:41 Returning to the 18-year-old self
05:07 Illness clarifies relationships, energy is finite
07:29 Why “brave” and “What can I do?” can land badly
09:02 “Bad patient”: performing “good” on an overstretched NHS ward
13:05 Honest female voices, dissonance, anti-heroine truth
15:28 “Builder Dad”, estrangement, and searching for father figures
17:57 What people get wrong about estrangement and friendship breakups
21:29 Hypervigilance and the hidden inner life
23:31 The hardest memoir scene: dad’s death and anger at mum
26:15 Writing about mum: respect, friction, truth
29:44 Childhood contradictions: hippie roots, no heating, love of glamour
30:37 No perfect routine: writing around kids, work, real life
33:09 Ditch the artist romance: money, time, and the true cost
35:00 Tiny wins: one sentence still counts
36:49 Bed writing, socks, and self-trickery
38:06 Overrated/underrated game
41:31 Social media love/hate and quiet communities
43:59 2026 as the “year of saying yes”, auditions, dark humour
46:37 Advice to creatives: start small, “plod”, mentors, community
50:15 Long friendships and gratitude

Transcript (lightly edited, transcribed by LLM AI, so mistakes are very possible)

Ben: Hey everyone. I'm super excited to be speaking to Salima Saxton. Salima is a brilliant writer, performer, and podcaster herself. She has her memoir the Year of Undoing, which should be out in 2027. She's also my friend of 30 years or maybe more. Before we had mobile phones. She was my friend. She was my first friend I know to actually have had a mobile phone.


I've directed her for the London stage. I've climbed mountains to go and visit her and we still argue about who is taller. Salima welcome.


Salima: Thank you so much. Just to clarify one thing, I am certainly tall now I cannot believe we've been friends for 30 years. That's terrifying.


Ben: Says something about our age.


You are also gonna shrink more than me.


Salima: Oh God. You have to get that in, don't you? All I remember is that you arrived exhausted halfway up the Himalayas very early one morning when I was living there


Ben:  I carried coconut oil. Do you remember that? .


Salima: Yes. I remember that very clearly. [ ]



Salima: As a proper friend, someone who carries coconut oil halfway up the Himalayas. 


Ben: You are having a year of undoing or maybe more than in a year. What are you undoing this year and what are you trying to rebuild in its place and why are we undoing anything?


Salima: Oh, great. Just give me five questions in one, why don't you? So this year was unexpected, so this year I got quite unwell. I had a cancer diagnosis, which  has involved two massive surgeries and a lot of chemo. And I'm on the, I'm on the mend now, so I'm, very blessed in that it was caught in time and everything.


But I wasn't expecting this latest year of undoing the year of undoing that I write about in my memoir, which by the way, you are in was about changing our lives when we left London, when Carl's mental health had gone up in the air, is the politest way of putting it. And we changed our lives radically overnight.


One lesson I have learnt in these last few months with the further I'm doing and I'll get more into what I'm doing actually means in a minute, is not a midlife crisis. Is what? Which is what many people seem to think it means. Is that, I thought that year, that neat little memoir year would be it.


I romantically thought I would get through this year and then it's plain sailing until my hundredth birthday and I'll die in my sleep. The end. And what I have really learned over these last few months, and perhaps a little bit too late in my life, considering I'm in my late forties and I've known you for a hundred years, is that we're constant.


There's going to be. There. There 's that old saying, isn't there about, be the sky, don't be the weather. The weather just passes through, right? We're the sky. So we just have to be, we just have to remind ourselves that we are that big blue sky and that the weather will pass through no matter what.


And I think I've always thought that for other people, but I didn't include myself in that rather childishly. So I always assumed that, yeah, that can happen to other people, all these things, but it's not going to happen to me. And then it did.


Ben: And so are you rebuilding anything or We just undoing like a midlife crisis would've been easier.


That's like standard.


Salima: Yeah. Midlife is just buying a motorbike. Or I don't know. Yeah. Leaving your marriage or just like turning a table upside down. No, this is slower. This is me coming back to myself. This is me coming back to the 18-year-old that, like I feel like I lost that girl for many years.


And that girl who wasn't intimidated by Mark, I arrived at Cambridge, didn't I? State school kid. Wasn't intimidated by the fact that you all knew each other and you did, all of you knew each other and was just interested and you know how I was just curious and enthusiastic and pretty optimistic.


Still always worried about everything as you remember, but I just assumed everything would work out, and I think I lost that a bit over the years and got closer to catastrophizing about everything. You know this more than anybody.


Ben: I still thought you had it, have it even, although, I guess perhaps that's one of the things we're just growing older with all of these things is more, we get more baggage to catastrophize over.


We've got 30, 31 years of it.


Salima: Yeah.


Ben: Compared to when we were 17, 18. But I guess what's, is there any small or maybe weird detail from the last few weeks then, which is captured? How has your life changed from that in terms of capturing back the younger you?


Salima: This is gonna sound quite brutal, but I'm not gonna talk about the beauty of walking through the fields and living in the moment because I haven't found that has happened for me.


And I think for a lot of people when they have health scares, they fall in love with the everyday and domesticity and the normal stuff that hasn't happened for me. What has happened for me though is that I. I'm really aware, first of all, of who I want to talk to or spend any time with.


And you know this about me. I've collected people over the years where I've just hung on to friendships for sentimentality. But over this period, some people you included, have appeared for me and. And just being, and just speaking very truthfully and reminded me of who I was.


Other people have disappeared, have totally disintegrated in these people I wouldn't expect. And in observing all these new dynamics in my life, which I wasn't expecting over illness, I've really realized I've had a, I've got a real awareness of that. My energy is finite and I must only spend energy on the people that I really love or the people that I'm very energized by, or who really see me.


But I used to compromise a lot more. So I've done the opposite. I haven't become like that. Sanguine wise little owl over these last few months. As you know from reading some of my essays, I've become like a pretty cantankerous bad patient, but I see real beauty in that.


Yeah, for my own take.


Ben: I think there's actually really relatively few people who do this mindfulness thing. Maybe they write about it on Instagram occasionally, but that's probably fake, I reckon. You've got a handful of monks dying breed. Yes. And some mothers because I remember now, this is ages ago now, this is over 30.


This is over 30 years as well. When my dad had cancer, he got a bit annoyed when people used to say, oh, you're being brave. And he was like. It's just, there's no bravery stuff about it.


Salima: Yeah, exactly. I can't, there are certain words and phrases that I haven't been able to stand over the last few months.


Yeah, so definitely you are being brave. You are so courageous. You're and also, the, what the famous, what can I do, which I think is the worst question to ask anybody who is unwell, what can I do? Really puts the onus on that person. And I think when, whether you've just had a baby, whether you are unwell, whether you're going through divorce, like you just need people to turn up.


Just to call you or just to check in or just to send the thing or whatever that you haven't got space in your brain to know what to ask that person to do.


Ben: If you'd figured it out, you'd be doing it.


Salima: And I think it's a little bit of a get out of jail card for people because then they feel they can give themselves a pat on the back.


They've said to the person, what can I do? And so they've done their duty, but actually, yeah.


Ben:I don't even remember. In Cambridge one of my close friends Nadia died and it was a little bit like that. Although you're surrounded by 18 and 19 year olds, they don't really know how to react.


Anyway, although it hasn't changed that much in 30 years, 'cause most people don't come close to death for quite a long time. COVID changed that a little bit, but you've written this series, I guess this is your sort of second year titled bad patient. I'm interested, what does being a bad patient mean, mean to you?


'cause it isn't just really being cantankerous, it's like you say, being a little bit more you, but with these different elements to it. Why did you decide to write about being a bad patient and what, what does bad patient mean? Because actually it isn't being bad. It's bad. That sense of, again, when we were young, when bad was actually good.


Salima: Exactly. I suppose a bit of it is like. Because I didn't feel that I was being good enough, or grateful enough, because people told me early on, while I was lucky, it was lucky it's been found, it is lucky that we've, we were doing this. It's lucky this is happening, and I didn't really feel lucky at all, until very recently.


Since I've had, since it's out. There's a bit of me that feels lucky. Now I can see how that is. How I will feel more like that in six months time possibly. But back then I didn't. And also I gave the impression in my NHS ward that I was a very kind and kindly patient, but I wasn't, I was doing that in order to make sure the nurses took care of me.


So I knew I needed to be charming and kind and ask after their son and ask whatever, so that they came back and checked on me because I could see how overworked everybody was and I could see what they were fighting against. So I knew they had to remember me, remember my name, and they had to like me so bad.


Patient was also outta that, in that I was very consciously being good.


Ben: There is no altruism. Maybe we are kind to others, so others are kind to us.


Salima: I was buying biscuits for everybody and everything, but that again, that was to be like, oh, the lovely lady in bed one A, so that they come back and check on me because I could see what happened when you didn't behave.


I am, I had to have this nasal gastric tube inserted, which was horrendous. And another lady in the ward was arguing about why I should get this special window bed because that's like the best bed. And she was so rude about it. But then she effectively got punished because.


The matron came to see her and then like they weren't checking on her as much I could see, so I could really see things, really see, that's no one's fault. It's just natural


Ben: They're all overworked already, right? So


Salima: They're all exhausted. They don't get paid for their lunch break.


They don't get paid for their breaks. As I met incredible gems there, I was also working the system. So I was really aware from very early on there was a real dichotomy between who I was perceived to be and who I actually was.


Ben: But I think maybe you're just being honest about it. I think the majority of us, most of the time are like that and there's only small glimpses of when I think we're feeling particularly 150% good, then we can have that excess and it spills over into the spills over into the world.


Salima: Yeah, because also I was humoring people all the time, but then that's how I got an extra blanket, or that's how I got a bit longer with the consultant or whatever.


And also look, I'm, I was very lucky in that I had a combination of private healthcare and NHS healthcare for all of this. So like straddling the two systems and and obviously I'm incredibly privileged to be in that situation, but, but


Ben: You're also really unlucky that you had to be in that situation at  all.


Salima: Yeah, and also, but just like how much work, how much emotional work I had to do whilst in the NHS, whereas that didn't exist for me within the private sector. I didn't have to do any of that work.


Ben: Do you think there's do you think people are more receptive now to this, I guess honest writing about how things really are, not how we would want them to be or how we wish them to be, but how things really are.


Salima:  I think so. Particularly from women. I think they might have received it from men, but I think it's a much, it's much newer that we'll receive this from. A female voice.


Ben: The lived experience of women. I guess you, you explored this on your own podcast that it's been so undertold for so long. We don't have those boluses of stories and they're not what they tell us in the movies or the books, or at least the bestselling books.


It's actually the range of experience and what you can feel is just it's a myriad of everything. Yes. And that hasn't really been expressed.


Salima: And also that there's going to be a constant dissonance between what you are feeling. There, the heroine doesn't exist.


Like the, he, the heroine is made up of the villain and the heroine always you like for all of us. And I think we've only been ready to hear that. From Women's Voices relatively recently. So I, and for me, is really the cornerstone of my writing. When I'm writing memoir or fiction, I'm just finished I'm just finishing a novel as well about a kind of anti heroine, and that's really important for me because I cannot stand it. That's part of the reason that we get on so well because you are so blunt, cannot stand people, what's the word, Ben? When someone's not ready.


Ben: They're pretending


Salima: They just pretend. That's as simple as that, right?


Yeah. You can dress it up. Not so ways, but like I know if I ask you a question, you'll answer me truthfully, even if I don't like hearing the answer.


Ben: Yes.


Salima: That's right, that's why I married Carl. Carl's similar, right? In that he'll, that's, I always say that's part of the reason I married him, because he'll say things to me and I don't like the answer, but.


Answer, then I feel safe. But I think that is a direct result of having been raised by someone like my dad, where I never knew where I was.


Ben: Yeah. Never got the answer. That's a good segue. You wrote this long essay memoir piece, build a Dad.


Salima: Yes.


Ben: I'm interested in what you were trying to understand in that piece, writing from your perspective?


Salima: I was estranged from my dad for the last 10 years. I chose to be estranged from him. He was a kind of alcoholic, he was an alcoholic. And I had a very difficult relationship with him. Not really, I think anymore because of the alcoholism, but because of who he was, which was an overused term at the moment.


But, a kind of narcissistic self engrossed. Artist who didn't really, beco didn't become the artist that he thought he deserved, he should be, and was very angry and bitter really, and bored. He was a very bored man. And he wasn't really cut out for fatherhood. I can see that really clearly now.


So builder dad has fed really into my memoir. I write a lot about it because in the year of undoing, my dad also died and left explicit instructions for me not to be invited to his funeral, and he cut me out of his will. So it, my relationship with my dad is ongoing, even though he's dead. And


Builder dad. That Substack piece was really about the fact that I have looked around for years. Other examples of father figures, not necessarily even fathers in the traditional sense, but people who are playing that kind of role and were always seeking edges of that even…. Don't you remember that very much older boyfriend that I had?


Like that was definitely part of it, seeking that kind of like male elder reassurance, and trying to work out for me what a father was because I didn't really know what a father was meant to be. Luckily I've married somebody who I think is an amazing father.


And he's had to work it out himself 'cause he wasn't fathered in a traditional sense either. But I am quite obsessed by the ideas of motherhood and fatherhood and what they mean to all of us, and, and what we all come from. They're dominant themes in my life.


Ben: And what do you think outsiders misunderstand about what estrangement is or what estrangement is in, in your experience, although I guess this was two ways you chose first, and then in some ways he was making a point in his will. But is there anything you think on the outside looking in, it's just oh, this, these are the pieces that you just really don't get?


Salima: Oh yes. And I've had many people's opinions over the years. Normally really well-meaning, but just not understanding, so the most obvious. People literally have quoted blood is thicker than water at me so many times, which I don't believe. I don't believe in that. And many people ask me, what will happen to you when your father dies if you don't?


Resolve it. But look for me, and I can't speak for other people, I would say that my father died many years before he actually died. So there wasn't a big moment when he actually passed away, and I heard that he had done. I didn't disintegrate into some big thing and if only, I felt really sad.


He had just never been able to be the father that I had wanted. But I had been grieving for my dad probably since I was a teenager, to be honest. So I think that's an odd thing to hold above someone's head. It's like holding someone's finger to a flame, but what if they die?


What if they die? I don't believe in mending, fractured and often harmful relationships. Just because somebody might die. That makes absolutely no sense to me.


Ben: And I guess this points to the fact that the family we choose, or the friends we choose in some ways then are more important and could be more painful if friend, I've seen this now, getting a little bit older that I've seen some friendships have broken up, and I look at that and say, actually that's more painful than other things.


Salima: I've had friendships dissolve and it's been really painful. I was very good friends with somebody and. I think I kind of misunderstood that friendship because we became friends when our kids were tiny. And she was a school mom. And I, somebody once said that when they saw us together, it always looked like we were having a party.


Wherever we were, we were always laughing and things. And that friendship, she walked away from that friendship. It wasn't me at all, and I was heartbroken. I was completely heartbroken. I never quite understood it. Nothing there, there wasn't a big argument or anything, and who knows what it would be from her point of view, but I was really blindsided by it.


And, but also look, when you've got tiny kids, I had three tiny kids who knew where my brain was at that point. But yeah. But coming back to people misunderstanding, estrangement, everyone's obsessed at the moment about Brooklyn Beckham.


Ben: Yes.


Salima: And sure, okay, writing on your Instagram stories. And it's all very public.


But even though that's all he really understands, isn't it? That's how he's grown. That's his language. He doesn't understand privacy and handwritten letters. Obviously, that's not how the Beckhams have brought him up. But who knows, who knows? And I think that's the main thing that I would say to anybody who judges quite harshly about estrangement, unless you were there. It's very difficult to know what's happened in the


Ben: Yeah. Understanding that in the li well, understanding one's own inner life is hard enough, right? Like, how am I actually feeling, let alone other people's inner lives?


Salima: And also, Ben, if you think about it, you were around, like you were around when I was 18, 19.


And you wouldn't, I didn't talk about it then. So you wouldn't have seen me, we had that nice house, didn't we? It all looked quite pretty. I dunno whether I did ever mention anything, but I think I kept it all fairly,


Ben: not until we are flatmates in our twenties, then it,


Salima: right exactly.


You do it, we had that lovely thatched house and I had piano lessons and then I went to Cambridge and I was head girl and it all looked very beautiful and in control. But things were very out of control actually. Things were really out of control. That's partly why I loved school so much.


I would never have shown that to people wouldn't have believed it at the


Ben: time. Yeah. Even if you did, it would be like, this is the thing about some nonfiction is if you wrote it as fiction, nowadays, people don't believe you.


Salima: Yeah.


Ben: It has to be written as well, no, this is my inner life. This is how this


Salima: course, what, and also look, I think with alcoholism as well, it was all kinds of things. I became a very hypervigilant kind of kid because I could just sense things turning in the evening or I knew and things wouldn't go the wrong way at home when, when it was all gonna explode. And then everything would be fine in the morning.


Nobody would talk about it. Like I remember going to a birthday party when I was about 10 and my dad was really drunk and I was very upset. And my mom just said, put on a party dress. Here's the present. And we just left. And she called me to blow my nose. And then I went to the party and I was completely fine at the party and I remember enjoying it.


There was a magician, I remember really loving it, but I was very used to, from quite early on, just going, okay, that's happened. Blow your nose. Don't tell anybody. Get on with it.


Ben: Wow. So what's your story? E either bit of the story, bad patient or build a dad or anything which you've most resisted writing down, but I guess have written down or there's something which is resisting at the moment and you think, oh, maybe I'm, it's not even gonna make it in.


Salima: The hardest thing to write about has been the day of my dad's death, not because of the news, but because of my behavior with my mother on that day. So mothers,


Ben: mothers do it to us, right?


Salima: They do. So my mom, although she's been divorced by that point for nearly 30 years, was catatonic with grief and I lost my temper.


And behaved really badly. You'll have to read my memoir to see just how badly, but I just


Ben: but you did manage to write about it then if you're not gonna


Salima: leave it out. No, I'm not gonna leave it out because I think it's a really important thing for people to read about. If you're going to write about estrangement and you're going to write about difficult dads that I think you are owed, you owe the readers like all of it.


Yeah. 'cause if anyone's reading this that has any overlaps with this kind of thing, I want them to know that they're not imagining it or by themselves. I think that's what I felt for years. Oh, I'm making this up slightly. Yeah. Drunks drink whiskey for breakfast and they beat their children, don't they?


Black and bloom. But when it's emotional stuff, like I hit my dad never hit me. When he was very drunk, I pushed my dad. I hit my dad as a teenager in a very out of control way. And know, we hear about the extremes, don't we? We hear about, yeah.


You are beat in black and blue by a parent, or you hear about the other extreme, the kind of like the best of the best parents, but this kind of murky middle, which left me. Pretty I was always worried really as a kid, and you knew me from the tail end of that, where I was so happy to be at Cambridge and be meeting people and doing all these exciting things.


But


Ben: and as part of your point that it's. I guess it's not that it's okay to behave badly, but that it happens and it happens. I'm guessing you're still talking to your mom and life also goes on and we have to admit that these things happen. And put it where it is and potentially learn from it, or at least acknowledge it and see what happens in the future.


Salima: And also look, you know my mom, mommy has had a very difficult life. She came here at 16 from Pakistan Scholarship to Guda and Lama. Amazing, but a fish outta water, obviously. Then even had, got, had an arranged marriage, then left that it was an abusive relationship.


Then married my father and was with my father for years and years. Living in the middle of the eighties British countryside, where she really was like the only South Asian for a hundred miles and everyone thought she ran like the local Indian takeaway. And my mom. I owe my mom a lot.


'cause my mom kept everything going. Always. And you know what she's strong at. She's got some overlap with your mom, hasn't she? Actually. In terms of what they demand of us, what they expect from us. But it hasn't always been easy with my mom, you know.


She's not an easy woman. But I also admire my mother and I do respect my mother. But we don't always get on.


Ben: Is your mother as present in the year of undoing as your father or,


Salima: Yes, she is. Although that's the interesting thing about writing a memoir, isn't it? Because I also feel that I want.


Look after my mother.


Ben: Yeah.


Salima: She's alive.


Ben: She's gonna read it. Probably.


Salima: Yeah. Although I've told her not to read it because of my dad and everything, but no, I, because no more, not because she's gonna read it or even, because even if she wasn't alive, I would feel the same about my mom actually, because for all the difficulties and complications my mom has.


Really, I, I know. My mom would always do anything for me or my sister. We might not agree with it. We might not agree with oh, the way she thinks about it, she is, she's a very strong, a strong woman who's also pretty blunt, yeah, I'm truthful about my mom in the year of undoing, and we went to live with my mom for the first few weeks when we left London, and that wasn't always easy, particularly she's got a much more traditional Pakistani way of like bringing up children compared to my EZ fair, more relaxed way of being with kids.


So that wasn't easy, but


Ben: I still remember. Your mum is teaching me how when you put things in a bin, you can eke out a little bit more volume depending on the way that you turn around your cartons. And I think about that sometimes when I reverse it goes, oh, you know what? That's crazy. Silly was who was, mum was the one who advocated this way of bin filling.


So there you have it. I don't think that says anything about anything, but I do remember it


Salima: also. But you know what, my, my parents were, before it was fashionable, like in the eighties and nineties when all my friends had immaculate Kneehigh white socks and like fabric conditioned, school uniforms.


My mother knitted my brown socks. We lived on dhal and rice and stew. Everything was composted. She didn't believe in heating, so being a child around my parents wasn't the most cozy experience. We lived in this massive house that we couldn't really afford, so we only heated half of it. And the other half was just absolutely, I like, icy basically.


And my dad would run over pheasants and then pluck them at the kitchen table. They were like hippies in many ways.


Ben: Does that make the book? 'cause I guess that's not the year, but that's the background.


Salima: Yeah, it does because it also explains how. Why I am me and what, what creates the contradictions within me.


Like I am more material minded. Partly because of that, because there's a lot of discomfort


Ben: Yeah.


Salima: In childhood. As I like glamor.


Ben: Yeah. We often go the other way, don't we?


Salima: Yeah. So I like the aesthetic is really important to me, I think because my house was just full of books.


Ben: Yeah. Still filling your teenage hole.


Salima: Yeah, exactly. Exactly.


Ben: And as in your creative process then, are you more of a procrastinator or do you get it all out? Are you a morning writer? Evening writer, 3:00 AM writer. Anything goes. And from your performing stuff, has that informed how your creative process works?


Do you have things or rituals you go to? What? What is your writing process?


Salima: I have no writing process. I, and I think that is informed from being an actor. So I'm really aware that like sometimes you're just not in the mood and sometimes it's just impossible. But you've gotta get, I don't know, 2000 words done by the end of the day.


So maybe we start at midnight or maybe I'll write it in the morning or maybe I like it, so I try to be quite instinctual about it. And obviously I've got three kids. I'm so busy with my family, home life, so I'm not, like I'm not a single white man who can just go to my office. And write for.


I don't… that's nothing to do with being white. 



Ben:  But sometimes I was thinking about this famous sculptor, about a hundred years ago. Giacometti was really famous, but he had essentially two women running after him. So he could do sculpture 12 hours a day.


They would literally feed him and make everything, everything goes, and it can work fine and no. Consensus genius art, but the enablement to have that genius art done to dedicate yourself to art is a strain on everything else around your life. Yeah. And that is really interesting how many artists are like that.


I wouldn't like to say it all because it isn't always like that, but it is interesting when you look at those that there is a cost to all of that.


Salima: And also I'm not willing to sacrifice family life for that. So I could be more boundaried and say to the kids, when you come home from school, mommy's in her office.


I don't know. I have Carl's office. Don't disturb me until 5:00 PM or whatever. But I don't, I just, that for me just doesn't feel right. And I've always wished, like even when I wrote a novel that didn't get published, but they got me a literary agent. When I was writing that, the kids were tiny, so I would just write, I'd write it even in the car at pickup, I would just have my laptop.


I'd get there half an hour early and I'd just do an extra half an hour of cafe bits and pieces like that, so I think also. There's a romance that people attach to writers, to actors, to artists, but I think we need to really get rid of that romance because I think it's quite damaging for a lot of people.


Ben: It's really rare. There's some who have that in them, like Giacometti, but it is really rare.


Salima: I was gonna say, let's say you're a trust fund baby, and you've. You don't have to think about money or anything like that, then of course, great. And then you can go and writers retreats and you can write your novel halfway up, a mountain on a beach, Bali, whatever.


But the reality is 99% of people that I know who are doing anything creative are, if not struggling, are very aware of finances, right? Because increasingly. These kinds of lines of work don't pay huge amounts. And you have to


Ben: fit it in with the rest of your life,


Salima: fit it in. And also if you want other elements of your life, do you want a long term partner?


Do you want children? Maybe not, but if you do want those other things, you also take up time and energy. Yeah. And some days, your 16-year-old comes home, she says, pulls up from her boyfriend. You can't just disappear. And go back to, you've gotta just sit on her bed with her for that.


That's the end of your day. There's no way around that.


Ben: What's the best advice you have that you've subsequently just ignored?


Salima: The best advice I've had, but then I've then ignored why is it the best advice?


Ben: It doesn't need to be best, but there's some, like I'm I'm always ignoring this whole, oh, you've got a show, not tell.





Salima: oh, I see.


Ben: Let's just ignore that, or I don't know. It could just be advice. Yeah. It might be more funnier because it's like classic advice and then actually it's not reality.


Salima: So I think you make a good point about the routine thing. In that, I would say, let's just blast out to smithereens, because you're never gonna start, if you are a normal-ish person, that's just never you.


There's never gonna be the perfect moment and the perfect space to do it. Yeah. But often people write their first novel whilst they're in the office, and then they get, eventually get a book deal, and then they realize maybe they can write full-time or whatever, and that's like the lottery winning writer, so yeah.


Ben: I ignore sometimes the thousand words a day thing in the sense that sometimes I just do one sentence and that's you know what? That's a win. I've managed to even get a sentence like, I was just sitting on the loo and I thought of one sentence. Yes, I'll take that, that


Salima: I've just noticed something down.


Or I just know I noted down something about or what's it called that the Japanese way of repairing things with gold.


Ben: Yes. [Kintsugi]... Something


Salima: like that. Exactly. I just noted something about it the other day and I was like, okay, yeah. And then I will write more on that, but I haven't …


Ben: One day….


Salima: I've just added it to my manuscript and I might expand on it or I might not, who knows?


Maybe that just that thought in a week's time could end up taking you somewhere interesting. So I think that's it. Like not waiting for the perfect. Moment to start anything and also remembering as well, much like we remember as actors, right? Or directors that like when you're in the rehearsal space or when you're in your early drafts, just get something down or just do something.


Just play with some words. Pick up the script that's already written or write your own thing and it can be absolute gobbledy gook, but then that gobbledy go will become something. 



Ben:. Do you have any rituals or quirky rituals or even quirky rituals? Just generally. I still remember, so this is the coconut oil.


Again, it was coconut oil with green socks. Like I don't remember why I remember the green socks, but there was a for skin moisturizing. But do you do anything? 


Salima: These are socks your wife actually sent me. They're very cozy pink socks I live in. I still have to convince myself that I'm not working. I still have to trick… Do you remember when I was revising finals and things like, I was very much like never in the library. Like handles buy cookies, like incense has been in my bed. Like I still write often in my bed under a duvet on the sofa. I've always made it very nice.


So I'm like, oh, I'm just opening my laptop and Oh, I just happen to be writing. Yeah. It would be disastrous going to a library every day.


Ben: Then it feels like work.


Salima: I had to kid myself.


Ben: I remember advising, spending a lot of time just sleeping.


Salima: But you got that kind of super brain for those kinds of things you didn't need, you didn't need to do what the rest of us needed to do…



Ben: Let's do, I dunno if you played this little game, we'll just do, it's, we do overrated or underrated. So I give you a thing and you say whether you think this is overrated or underrated or maybe even correctly rated. And you can just say, you can just say why or not. Okay. Champagne overrated or underrated?


Salima: I think you know what I'm going to say. Underrated, but vintage champagne overrated.


Ben: Okay. And that's 'cause vintage champagne just doesn't taste very good


Salima: Exactly as you found out.


Ben: Okay. Alright. Dressing up. Overrated or underrated?


Salima: Underrated. Always feel better when you're dressing up. You can never be overdressed.


Ben: Never overdressed. Very good. Being tall, is this overrated or underrated?


Salima: Overrated. There's no need.


Ben: Yeah. What is With all these tall people


Salima: There's no need.


Ben: Your head on the doors


Salima: There's heels, there are step ladders. Many ways to get around things.


Ben: Hustling, hustle, culture.


Salima: Underrated, underrated.


Ben: We've all gotta be doing something. Side jobs.


Salima: Yeah. Always. Even if it's just to keep you awake, like even if you don't really need to just, I think it's like you are really great at that, right? If you think about what you cram into your life. You managed to hold down this very serious job.


I don't really understand what you do. And you do things like this. You are always doing creative side projects and things that you always have done right?


Ben: Yeah. So hustling is also underrated. Okay.


Salima: Yeah.


Ben: Social media


Salima: quick aside, do you think that's partly being second gen immigrants?


Ben: They might be attached to it. I think there's also a little, for me, it's a little bit. Money, although a lot of these things aren't money, but it's like you're doing things, then your opportunity might happen. Yeah. You're not doing anything. Opportunity won't happen particularly creatively where


Salima: yeah,


Ben: It doesn't, and then a little bit actually was not quite death, but Nadia dying and my dad dying.


But the little bit, just knowing, if you want to get on and do things, you should need to do it because you don't know. What's, you dunno what's gonna happen. Yeah. And then a little bit I think is the immigrant thing, but I think that just, you just get that from your parents so it,


Salima: Yeah.


Ben: It doesn't necessarily have to be that, but obviously if you think about why people tend to immigrate or tend to leave their home country, there will tend to be a bit of hustle. Because if you were very comfortable where you were in your home place, then usually you don't wanna move. Because it's comfortable.


So why are you moving? So I think there is like a little bit of that and I guess I'm probably, I get bored a bit as well. Yeah. And then it's what do you do with boredom? Am I sometimes being bored for a tiny bit and then it would be like, you gotta do something.


Salima: Yeah, I agree. I think that's heavily linked to the immigrant experience though. Like your mom and my mom, neither of them are still people.


Ben: Yeah, they're not, that's true.


Salima: No. So both of us have grown up with mothers who were like, busyness is a necessary part of existence.


Ben: Yes. I think that's true, although it is hard to know whether that's just our sort of mothers, but then you get them from immigrant mothers, don't you?


Okay. Last couple on overrated, underrated social media. Overrated or underrated?


Salima: I would say neither. Okay. Because I love it and I hate it.


Ben: So it's correctly rated or it's like it's both.


Salima: Both. It's both. Yeah. Yeah. I'm confused by social media. I've met some great friends over social media and actually it helped me get my publishing deal because of that moth talk that I did.


It went viral and then the publishers were very interested in my pitch, I think partly because of that. So it has really helped benefited me. But I'm not immune to comparisons and forgetting. Like you were saying about my bad patient writing and how people write about having realized certain things on social media when they become unwell or something.


Ben: Yeah.


Salima: So often it's just curated.


Ben: We're not immune to the algorithm and the things. I think that's all true. I do think that we do sometimes underrate other communities that it can bring, I see this in autistic communities and other special interest communities and 'cause they're not loud, right?


Yeah. Groups of communities which are interested in street food or buses or landscape or geocaching. And I think so. If you've just got a geocaching Instagram, that's all you are seeing, you don't actually complain about it much 'cause it's doing your thing so it's not noisy. So I do think there are actually, quite a lot of those quiet communities there probably are overshadowed by all of the other noisy stuff, but there are interesting things happening.


So it is, it's a complex one, which just reflects humanity, right?


Salima: Yeah, exactly. Although I love seeing your newest foodie things.


Ben: Yeah. I'm going into food again, yeah, I'm just really interested about food com and particularly London. I think London is underrated for food and if you want to eat cheaply you can, but you generally have to go out of zone one and you have to go for slightly more interesting food.


Okay. Last one, because it's been our recurring theme. Coconut oil. Is this now underrated or overrated?


Salima: Underrated. I still absolutely adore coconut oil. Still good. I cook with it. I eat, make chocolate from it. I moisturize my sculpt with it once a week. I use it as a body moisturizer. I pretend to my kids.


It's a medicine. I'm still pretty obsessed with coconut oil.


Ben: Okay. So it is a magic ingredient. All great. It's,


Salima: Yeah.


Ben: Okay. And so in terms of current projects, you have two books on the go, the Substack, you do your own podcast. Yeah. Anything else you wanna mention in terms of current and future projects?


Salima: Yeah, so I've recently agreed with my acting agent, I'm gonna start auditioning again actually. So although I took a break from acting, with all the health issues, yeah, I've just thought, I'm just, this is the year of saying yes. So I'm just gonna go for everything and see and see what happens.


And also my energy is very up and down. I've still got a few more weeks of treatment, so I'm just trying to say yes to whatever I can and what, yeah, what works. If I have to not be able to do it because I'm still not feeling a hundred percent fine, but yes is 2026 for me.


Ben: What do you think, if you look back on this year, last year, are you gonna look back and find anything funny about this or oh, that was a thing, or you're still too much in the middle of it?


Salima: I sat because Carl, as his sense of humor is incredibly dark, already laughing at lots of it.


Listen, only three and a half weeks ago, I was dragging the drain from my wound along the corridor of an NHS ward to try and get someone to change the dressing. And Cole was just appalled, but I just knew that was the only way to make things happen. So we were laughing about that last night.


So I do think a sense of humor is absolutely vital for life, even more so than I even thought. Like I found, I've had some of the funniest moments. Over the last six to nine months, in really in situations that appear very dark. Yeah. And gruesome. I had some very funny moments.


Ben: Yeah. You either laugh or you crack.


Salima: Yeah. And also, look, I think the funniest things about life tend to be on that kind of precipice, right? Is it horrendous and are you going to sob or is it very funny? Like those. That they're the highest stakes, aren't they? So actually they can be the funniest things about life because actually most of life is pretty ridiculous considering we'll both be forgotten in a couple generations time.


Ben: Yeah.


Salima: We all think we are, these kinds of our egos as humans generally are pretty inflated considering what kind of little dots we actually are.


Ben: Yeah. Who's remembered from a hundred years ago? Like virtually nobody. Yeah. Famous people then. Great. Last couple of questions then. What do you think you've got anything to tell someone who's in the middle of a thing, which they're trying to do?


Find it hard to fix or maybe that they can't fix. And maybe we can broaden this out as also, do you have any thoughts to people who wanna be creative? Or I guess you've got lots of bits to talk about, like being a bad patient or building a dad and estrangement, but is there anything you'd like to offer as thoughts?


Salima: Yeah. I'd like to say plot. I think it's really important. Okay, so let's say you have a burning ambition to write a novel, for example, like lots of people do, they'd love to write a novel. They just dunno where to start. So start with the tiniest thing. So start with like a hundred words a day, like 50 words a day, like whatever, like on your bus route home.


Write 50 words. 50 times, seven times four. Oh God, I don't know. But that's up, that's 1400 words a month. So and that's with barely any effort whatsoever. So these little micro habits I think are really very vital. And like you were saying, you've just written one sentence that day, great.


So I think plot is a, is actually a word that can be used. In a way that we don't normally use. Like the mechanics of creating something are just like habits. It reminds me of how when you were in your twenties, you had on your computer these screensavers. Do you remember?


Ben: Yeah.


These are my, like lifetime goals.


Salima: Yeah. Yeah. Do you remember? Because I really remember that. I won't say what they were, but I do remember what they were.


Ben: I've hit a few of them. On


Salima: done. Yeah. Yeah. I think anything like that appeals to you. We've gone peak, manifesting peak, manifesting boards and all of that, but there's lots of different versions of that.


It doesn't have to be pretty. Collage that you put on your wall. It can be a screensaver or it can just be like some, like random notes that you make to yourself. So starting small I think is one massive thing. Start


Ben: small and plod.


Salima: Plod. And lastly, there's no. I need some help.


'cause I think these things are rarely created in a vacuum. So for example, years ago I did a favor and favor, those courses? Just an online writing course. 'cause my kids were tiny so I couldn't do the one that was like in their offices. And I just did a mini six week course of that.


And that got me, I think that was like how to write the first three chapters of a novel. And I think I wrote a few chapters from that. So whether you have a friend who is a writer or an actor or or you can find a mentor, I think that's really key to, rather than just taking yourself off and doing it.


And it also holds you accountable. Somebody who's gonna check in. It doesn't have to be something expensive. There's lots of versions of this, I think the collective, the community is really important when you're doing something creative.


Ben: That sounds excellent. So just start, plod keep going.


Find a mentor.


Salima: Yeah, exactly. And whatever that person is,


Ben: Excellent. Anything else you'd like to say?


Salima: I want to thank you for being my friend for so many years.


Ben: Let's hope it's gonna be we're, we could go for another 30 that should be within…..


Salima: Come on.


Ben: Yeah.


We'll be approaching 80 then…


Salima: I'm just living to a hundred remember


Ben: Yeah. Okay.

Salima: So I can, we can do another, we can do another 30 to 40. Yeah. I think, 'cause look. On a serious point, it is rare that you find people who then know you in that way. I can use a shorthand with you. We can pick up when we haven't spoken for a long time, and I can speak to you very directly and in a shorthand that I can't with very many people.

Ben: That's true. Cherish your long term friendships. On that note, Salima, thank you.

 Salima: Thank you so much.

In Podcast, Life, Arts, Writing, Theatre Tags Salima Saxton, Ben Yeoh Chats, cancer recovery, NHS, patient experience, estrangement, memoir, writing process, creativity, dark humour

Simon Kane: Performing Shakespeare on YouTube, Immersive Theatre, and Why Fun Matters

February 14, 2026 Ben Yeoh

Is walking around a fake bathroom really “immersive” theatre, or is a theme park actually more honest art?

“If you’re making a space from scratch, why make a space that already exists? One of the reasons I love Disneyland is: Walt Disney made a thing that doesn’t exist.”

In this episode, Ben sits down with Simon Kane, a writer and performer whose work spans the devised theatre world of Shunt, BBC radio comedy on John Finnemore’s Souvenir Programme, and a lockdown Shakespeare experiment where he began reading and performing the plays chronologically. Simon takes us inside the mechanics of performance, questioning what “immersive” should actually mean, and arguing for “fun” as a rigorous artistic metric.

“An idea of what theatre should be is not theatre. You can do anything. That’s the point.”

We also dive into why Richard II can be read as a story about a fallen celebrity, the difference between stage acting and voice work, and the challenge of maintaining creative intentionality in an age of streaming algorithms.

We cover

  • Story first: why Simon shifted his Richard II from “Sigma male” energy to “washed-up star” to make the play land.

  • The immersive fallacy: why “walking around a set” is not enough, and why theme parks might be the clearest form of intentional spatial design.

  • Devised vs scripted: how Shunt built worlds without starting from a text, and how that contrasts with the discipline of audio comedy and drama.

  • Yes, and no: the improv rule that a clown “must always say yes”, and how refusal can be a creative act.

  • Escaping the algorithm: practical ways to consume culture on purpose rather than letting autoplay dictate your taste.

“Do stuff on purpose. That’s harder and harder these days because it is so easy to just click the next thing on my algorithm. It’s different to go, no… what do you actually want to do?”

Summary contents, transcript and podcast links below. Listen on Apple, Spotify or wherever you listen to pods. Video above or on Youtube.

Contents

  • 00:00 Meet Simon Kane: writer, performer, and lockdown creator

  • 00:24 Lockdown Shakespeare marathon: the idea

  • 01:44 Why YouTube? From Defoe’s Plague Year to tackling Shakespeare chronologically

  • 05:02 Making Shakespeare accessible

  • 06:36 Story-first acting: motivation, ‘pretending,’ and finding the way in

  • 11:10 Cracking Richard II: reinventing the character to unlock the play

  • 15:28 Julius Caesar choices: Cassius, Antony, and playing the populist

  • 16:28 From Shakespeare to Shunt: ensemble theatre and a different kind of acting

  • 22:07 How Shunt builds shows: space as text, rewrites, and devising under pressure

  • 25:19 Audience, space, and ‘immersive’: Jonah, walks, Punchdrunk, and Disneyland

  • 34:25 Clowning 101: Saying “Yes,” Saying “No,” and the Absurdist Engine

  • 35:59 Writer-First vs Ensemble Theatre

  • 37:04 When Critics Don’t Get the New Thing

  • 39:32 Devising, Short Runs, and the Joy of Doing It Night After Night

  • 40:20 Voice & Audio Work: Fast Choices, Characters, and “Reacting”

  • 43:11 Post-Pandemic Theatre + Digital Futures

  • 47:29 What Sticks: Influences from Theatre, TV Comedy, and Low-Fi Ambition

  • 50:53 Overrated/Underrated: Criticism, Arts Council Funding, and Netflix’s Impact

  • 57:52 What’s Next: The Book, Edinburgh Decisions, and the Cost of the Fringe

  • 01:00:55 Advice for Creatives: Do It on Purpose, Make the New Thing, Have Fun

Transcript (lightly edited, transcribed by LLM AI, so mistakes are very possible)

Ben: Hey everyone. I'm super excited to be speaking to Simon Kane. Simon is a brilliant writer and performer whose work ranges from devised and ensemble theater to new writing, solo shows, audio work, and from comedy to Shakespeare. Simon, welcome.

Simon: Hello. I've never actually written any Shakespeare.

Ben: But performed in?

Simon: Yeah. I've just been re-edit, trying to re-edit on this phone, the stuff I did in lockdown projects where I was reading the whole thing. But the phone doesn't have quite enough memory. I want to make sure I, in case YouTube ever suddenly falls to pieces, that I have everything I put on there in other versions.

And I also thought I'd just to explain: during lockdown, I did an actor weekday. That's a bad way to explain it, isn't it, Ben? I read an act, a play, a day for a week, intending to do the complete work of Shakespeare a week at a time. And I got four plays in and then I came back for another play and didn't like it.

So I did that again. And basically, yeah, I didn't achieve playing every character in Shakespeare, but I'm very proud of some of the work they did. I really love the Titus, I really love the Julius Caesar, and I'm thinking of coming back to it as well. I stopped 'cause things were opening up and because I was doing the histories, and Rich II goes into Henry the Fourth, which goes into Henry the V.

And I didn't really feel like doing Henry the V at the time. And also I realized recently, another reason I did it was I didn't know how to do Falstaff, and I've worked out, 'cause I have to choose lots of different voices and it did just have to be big voice choices. 'Cause I'm, and I realized I'll do what I did for Petco, make him Australian.

Ben: What made you choose that as a lockdown project?

Simon: So I'd started the project was I've always been interested in YouTubing and then in lockdown, a lot of my friends were suddenly making stuff like John Finnemore was doing stuff as Arthur from Cabin Pressure and Carrie Quinlan was doing stuff with Andy Stanton.

And that was one aspect of the decision. Another was, as lockdown started, I thought, oh, I'd really wanna read Daniel Defoe's Journal the Plague Year. And then I realized I had that in the flat and I started reading it and it was really interesting. And I thought, oh, I can do read that on YouTube. I'll read 10 pages a day and I'll, and that'll be me reaching out to people on YouTube and by the, and I really enjoyed that.

I really liked that. Discipline's too strong a word. Structure. And already I have a blog and for some reason at the end of the year, previous year, I decided this time I'm really gonna post a thing a day, which would never be the discipline before. And then we went into lockdown. It's, oh, great.

And so that was also provided a thi, the blog was a place where I could then post an episode and a little explanatory thing. And then I got to the end of Journal of the Plague Year and thought, I'm really enjoying this. I want to rea, I'll do another book. And it had to be out of copyright, didn't have to be out of copyright, but I thought—

Ben: Preferable.

Simon: Yeah. And then I suddenly thought, oh, there's no theaters. I haven't done Shakespeare in a while. I'll do the complete works of Shakespeare. And I have, which I won for a competition. I can't remember exactly what it's called. It's the Oxford University Press, I think, which has made some controversial decisions such as Falstaff's not actually called Falstaff.

They call him John Oldcastle. So I quite look forward to being the first actor to play John Oldcastle in a while. They've got a giant magic cat in Macbeth and it's got two king Ls. And I just, anyway, I just, I've got this book. I'll perform the complete works with Shakespeare chronologically as he wrote them.

And I realized I'd get to The Tempest if I'd done that by Christmas and I started reading Two Gentlemen of Verona and really enjoyed it.

Ben: You think you are going to get to the end one day?

Simon: I don't see why not. What was great because it was locked down, there were no theaters, so it would've been a project that would seem, I don't, I actually, I'm not sure I believe in stupid hubris anymore, but it would, this actor's gonna do the complete works of Shakespeare, but if there's no theater going on, it made more sense.

But I'm so pleased with the stuff I did, and I, and it's so, for some people, for some of the people who saw it, and that's very few people, it was their first introduction to this play. And I think they're good introductions. I thought I try to make sense of it and that's, it is good for me as well to have come up with a version of a play that to me makes sense.

Where I know why everyone's doing what they're doing and they're fun and that you approach and it doesn't seem frightening. Like people know I've prepared this in the morning. I've shot it, I've edited. One of the reasons I stopped doing it again was it was just taking up every waking hour.

So by the time I got to Tamer the Shrew already, if I was actually gonna do it chronologically, I would've gone onto the histories. So I thought, save the histories and do those separately. Okay. So then I got to Titus Andronicus. And by the end of that, I was so tired. I thought, I need, I can't continue this.

I'll do, I'll just head onto Julius Caesar, which was a play I was interested in. And then stop. And that's a season, that's four Shakespeares, that's a season. And then come back to it later. So yeah, and then when I tried to do the, I don't, yeah, I tried to look at the Henry of the Sixes, part one, two, and three, which are plays I love, but there are a lot of characters in there who—

Ben: [that's tricky].

Simon: A lot of 'em talk quite similarly and especially the first one is, I think, a big spectacle. So without all the battle scenes and explosions, it's a little hollow. Yeah. It's a much harder, it's a much harder thing to do if you don't, like 12th Night, the characters are really well defined and you can have fun playing all of them.

But also history, people keep changing their names 'cause they win and lose titles. So Richard II is quite handleable because there's three or four characters in it. And also every time I do a new act, I say the story so far. And also usefully offer some content warnings and explanations.

Explanations of the stuff. And also, yeah, all the melanin hatred you keep coming across. You just go, this is gonna turn up and yeah, don't make an excuse for it, but it's good to warn people of it. 'Cause you don't want people to go, oh, watch Shakespeare, suddenly feel like they've been mugged.

Ben: It's good to make it accessible.

And I think there was a tradition even at the time of essentially throwing around your troupe of players. They had a day to rehearse and then they just put it on that evening. Oh yeah. Yeah. So there's a, there was a lot of that. I'm interested in your overall process, but maybe through the lens of this project about what's your starting unit or starting point.

Do you tend to like character or an image as a starting point?

Simon: For what?

Ben: For getting into putting on the piece or performing somewhere. Is it through image or line and speech? Is it through character? Or there's a lot of talk about directors nowadays from the US school about everything has gotta be action and want and things like that.

So I'm interested in how you mix together all of those things.

Simon: I do different things, so I don't, it's not all the same process. I've never really directed anything.

Ben: But you're directing yourself in this piece in a way.

Simon: Yeah, but I don't, I'd happily go, yeah, I'm directing, but that's not directing.

Yeah. If you're not, if you're not taking it to someone else that's not directing. It's, but it's, it is like, all writing is improvisation as well. At some point you're improvising it and then you're recording it. And that's how I worked in devised theatre often we'd be improvising stuff and then, and I'd be the one to go and write up my memory of it, then bring that in and everyone else could go, no, there's this.

And at least there, there was a text there to turn, to use, however everyone wanted to use it. But I guess I still don't, I make things in different ways, so I dunno what you're asking me about.

Ben: Yeah. Okay. I guess for this project, [. Because we'll come onto the Shunt work.]

I'm interested, perhaps when you are getting into Shakespeare, you're gonna perform Shakespeare or a play. A play where you have a written text and there's characters, so we are defining it down.

Simon: Yeah.

Ben: Do you, and maybe obviously you'll listen to the director and things, but before the director or the work you are doing alongside the director, do you approach that from a very character driven, let's get inside the head of a practice or?

Simon: I approach it from a, I approach it from a, I think, a story.

Ben: Story?

Simon: Right. So, I think the two main focuses for me, not as a manifesting, but just the thing I do, is the story and, but, and the, all the normal story things of that. What's your motivation?

Ben: So it is a motivation. Yeah.

Simon: Another way to put it is what are you pretending?

Ben: Yes. That's slightly different though, but, yeah.

Because a motivation could be just your simple want, but if you are pretending that's a kind of projection of what you or whatever you want to pretend, but it might not be the same as your want.

Simon: But how is it different, give me an example?

Ben: You could come across, I guess, as pretending to be beautiful or pretending to be ugly.

So that's the thing.

Simon: Oh, I see.

Ben: [But you are but you are wanting to do… cross talk]

Simon: I don't think in those terms at all. How do you pretend to be? Some people do are completely in, that doesn't make sense. Sorry, I'm talking over you.

But you can, yes. You yourself projection is a thing. But you're so, yeah. You're doing it in character, I think, oh, actually. Yeah. I guess a lot of the work I have hasn't really relied on me finding a character because it is so much about my interaction with the audience or my, or my interaction with the story.

And it's just, and I think actually now you bring it up, one of the wonderful things about doing full Shakespeare is I could really do characters and immediately play people who weren't me. Yeah, no you are right. You're right to make that distinction.

Ben: Yeah, I guess this is because I probably want to go and start with the Shunt work and then come forward at this time, and I, this is obviously taints everything in a really simplified bucket, but you could say that some people would approach something purely from get inside the head of the character and from the character.

Play, pretend, or however the extreme, which you may not think works or not, is I'm not gonna think about the character, all I will just dress up like this character, everything on the outside, clown nurse or something. And from that external point of view, everything might flow. And then you have potentially a third blob of work, which is where you don't have a text or anything to working from and you're working with a bunch of other people.

And from that, and then I'm interested, what might be the thing from flows from that. And it's interesting when you're working with a text from Shakespeare, you think I can get inside and think about a character and do that. And so that's why I was interested about coming to that and how that might contrast for when you are devising work or doing ensemble work when you might not have a script or you're trying to do the script or you're making the script and how that all works.

Simon: Yeah. So I've put, I've got a few things to put a pin into for the Shakespeare, I think. The, it's the absolute best illustration of that for me is the fact that I played Rich of the, I did two Richard IIs. So when I came back to it, I thought, I'll start with the histories. And by the time I got to like the fifth act, I was like, I still don't get this play.

Ben: Yeah.

Simon: I still don't. I've made, I've make, I'm making and putting some something out, which is a story that I don't understand what the story is. And I thought, and I think round about Act four when I was recording, I thought what's one of the things we know about Richard? We know that Elizabeth the First saw Richard the Second and thought that's me.

And I thought I'm definitely not playing that. I am giving a very naturalistic, slightly odd book as every, I, I lean into the oddball nature of myself when I do Shakespeare. I've a lot of experience of, of doing Shakespeare when I was young, and it was really nice to be playing that kind of, I might be using this phrase wrong, sigma male, but like the Jaques and the Lucio and then Hamlet, like the, the underminers, the outsider intellectuals.

I, I really, and who don't fit in but have their own authority. And that's how I've been playing Rich II and that's how I often see Rich II played. And I thought, but that doesn't make sense. That's not who e, if you look at Elizabeth the First, did I say first or second? Elizabeth the First, there's a very clear on that. And I was thinking, I'd seen photos of Ian Richardson.

I thought what if I play Richard II as Ian Richardson, complete full old school, absolutely delivering every line like you love the poetry, like it's a proper performance. And I thought I'll, I'm gonna redo Rich II, but with a completely different characterization of Rich II. And that changed the whole thing and it made sense to me.

By Act four of this second one, I realized I've been playing, I'm Thatcher, this is, I'm playing amongst other things, and I'm also Norma Desmond, because we don't really have a concept of majesty, but we know what a fallen star is.

And Richard II was as, as a story about a fallen star, about a story about someone who absolutely was the thing they projected themself at, and then loses that because it's built on nothing and then has nothing to replace it with.

That changed the play and also changed how every other character behaved. And that, and it suddenly became a story. I understood what I was telling, and that was specifically because I changed the characterization, Richard the Second, and similarly when I came to and I'm—

Ben: Just gonna pick on that.

Simon: Yeah.

Ben: And that makes sense to me now that you say it's story first, because from understanding the story—

Simon: Yeah.

Ben: The character changed. And from the character, everything else changed to make sense of the story. Yeah.

Simon: Yeah.

Ben: Whereas you could have gone, someone could have gone the other way, I'm just gonna make sense of the character.

Yeah. And then whatever story comes out of that, comes outta that. But you weren't satisfied. 'Cause the first time around you, you had a character. Yeah. But it's like, when I play this character the story doesn't seem to make sense to me anymore. So I think that's a really interesting way of approaching it.

Simon: Yeah. I, and you know that, that's why talking about character and motivation and story are interlinked. But often, especially with a well-worn text, especially with part of the canon, I'll see productions where it doesn't make sense. I don't understand what the story is 'cause the characterization doesn't.

And, but with the great classics, you can change what a character is and still tell a different story. Yeah. And I think Hamlet's the, the best and worst example of this. I've seen so many Hamlets way that work so well, yeah.

Ben: Great character.

Simon: For the first, for the first act, and then come the second act it is, but why isn't he killing Claudius?

Ben: Yeah.

Simon: What, there is this huge gap in Hamlet where you… I think you have to know what's, you have to tell the story of why Hamlet then doesn't kill Claudius.

Ben: Yeah.

Simon: And it's not, well because he is pretending to be mad.

What is he, why is he pretending to be mad? Yeah. And I think yeah, it's what's the, so great to be told a story and it becomes, there, there could still be lots of great stuff, but I'd also like, Polonius, what's going on with Polonius. That's a great thing. One of the great things about Shakespeare is just, there are stories there if you wanna—

Ben: Yeah.

Simon: And what's the story—

Ben: We're telling.

Simon: And oh yeah. I, and one of the reasons I'm so proud of my Julius Caesar is I'd always sensed this version of Cassius and Mark Antony. I loved the character of Cassius. I loved how right he was about everything and how he kept deferring to Brutus because he also knew that he was a hothead.

He also knew that he was not a born leader and that dooms them. And I'd always wanted to play that. And then when it came to Mark Antony, I just, I dunno why, is bloviating the right word, sort of Boris Johnson, him, I don't dunno. It was just, he had a very few lines in the first act, but they were so obsequious, Dees, I thought, just go B.

And then by the time you get to his oration, to the Romans, I love doing that so much, even though it's such a sort of classic scene. It was just playing a total populist as a total populist. Without any. Without any, yeah. Without any, yeah. And anyone you play is charming. I could, this is really what you would talk about, but yeah.

It was, it just felt so good to be getting it.

Ben: And let's contrast that then. Do a little potted history. There was a collective called Shunt, which I think was one of the most influential theatre collectives, call it almost a movement, particularly within the London theatre scene.

And so arguably global. And you did a lot of work with Shunt and a lot of their work comes from an ensemble basis. Yeah. Although it often does use a director, but doesn't have to, and we can talk about how ensemble works differently, but often when you start, there isn't a written text. There might be one by the end.

So that's quite different from doing Shakespeare and you might not even start with some characters. But you might do, and I was looking at some clips 'cause I still remember, I don't actually remember the details very well, but I definitely remember the feeling of Dance Bear Dance.

Simon: Yeah.

Ben: [Cross talk: All the way back then. So I'd be interested in, did you—]

Simon: [See the one with me in—]

Ben: Yes. I think I saw it twice. I saw it in the arches. And your one with—

Simon: [Yeah.]

Ben: Yeah, because it was so extraordinary for the time. So I'm gonna let you talk a little bit maybe about your experience of that and then relate it back to making work.

So we just talked about Shakespeare and going through story and then into character and then performing. And then you've got this whole other way of working. And so with contrast, and obviously it's performing, but you start ensemble, you might not even start with much more than an idea or a character, and then you produce this other kind of work.

So why don't you talk about that?

Simon: That's the other thing I want to put the pin in. 'Cause for me there's, the really interesting journey for me was even before I was working with Shunt I knew Shunt through Gemma Brockis, who I knew at Cambridge. And towards our last years at Cambridge, we started working with a guy called Jeremy Hardingham.

So the journey for me is like at the end of my first year at Cambridge, I played Hamlet and I, and it was an amazing company. And then I watched and there it was an amazing company.

I thought I've played Hamlet. I'm gonna… unless there's touring or unless… a friend wants me in something… I don't really wanna act anymore. And Jeremy asked me to be in King Lear, and I said, I don't wanna do King Lear. And I saw his King Lear. And it wasn't like how I imagined, how I had imagined putting on Shakespeare before…

This was not about casting actors who have a really interesting take on the character and bringing them all together and telling the story. This was a completely different kind of piece of theatre, but it was complete, absolutely King Lear. And there were brilliant actors in it. But there were also performances that on their own might be seen as quite wooden, but weren't about people pretending to be that character.

And it was, excuse me, it was just a phenomenal room to be in. For three hours where this thing was happening. And then I started working with Jeremy. We did a thing, we did a version of A Midsummer Night's Dream, which I loved being in, and, but this type of theatre. And then I stayed, I've been making work with Gemma ever since, but this kind of theatre made me usefully self-conscious about just playing a character and what else an actor does in a company on stage.

And when I watched Shunt’s first show… watched Shunt’s second show, actually, The Ballad of Bobby Francois, which was quite a silent piece, quite a clown show. All the performances were great, but they were not really playing characters. And similarly, a lot of this devised stuff, immersive installation.

It wasn't about seeing someone play another character. It was just about someone interact with an audience. And I, and so I became… really, I saw that the thing I wanted to learn to do was absolutely just deal as myself in character with an audience, with a situation, but not present a character that was an interpretation of someone from a story.

And that's what went into when I did my, it's still my head, my solo sequel to the Shunt work, Jonah Non Grata. It wasn't about, I'm presenting my characterization of Jonah, it's about what is this person doing on stage? What are they trying to be? How are they interacting with an audience? It wasn't about me putting on a voice or doing stuff like that.

And in terms of the ensemble I made a piece with Gemma where I played two very different characters and that was an adaptation of, or inspired by, the book Invitation to a Beheading. And a lot of Shunt’s works are inspired by books. There's always some kind of text, but then you improvise scenes within the situations in those texts.

And I think normally when you're improvising it's normal anyway to improvise without actually coming up with a character. You're, it's about the situation and the back and the forth. And so I play two very different characters. I was a nervous lawyer and then a sort of weird surrealist alpha male executioner, but I used my own voice for that.

It was just, the situation was different. And the look was very different. If you put on a costume to be a person, you still need a mirror, otherwise you dunno what you're wearing. It might help you stand or move differently. But I, yeah, I have, I think I have at least those two strings to my bow, if that's the metaphor.

Like I can, like being present with other actors and with an audience in a space and interact with that. And also going away and finding a character and going, doing the whole Antony Sher thing, which I loved growing up. Seeing him draw the characters he was going to be and then transform into that.

I think the visual aspect is really important. And that, and also fun.

Ben: And how did you make decisions within the ensemble? So you're improvising, you're going back and forth, people are playing, however they're playing, all the scenes develop. How does a group of people then decide this is the most interesting way forward?

This is the best way forward. There is no way forward. Let's argue about this for a while. How do decisions within a rehearsal room start to form? Can you articulate that?

Simon: Yeah. Although I'm an associate artist, I would never be involved at the very beginning of a process. The time I would come on board, there would always be a set. The set is the text. What Lizzie designs. And the basic idea, which can change, that the collective has of the audience's journey through that space, or just within that space, is already in place and the text is already in place.

The one slight exception to this was Tropicana, where I came in mid-run. And so there was already a show there, but when I came in as the lift operator, I was allowed to rewrite my stuff. And that rewriting inspired other people like Hannah to rewrite their bits and yeah, I could work on everything I did and it was really useful to have a show in place and for me to be allowed to come in and go, oh, I think this might work, and do this.

And so there's always some kind of thing already there when I come into a Shunt show, and it really varies. It's always down to the wire, at least down to the wire.

And I think when I was first brought into Dance Bear Dance, it was as someone who, working with Gemma on Invitation to a Beheading, it was someone who had experience of coming up with text for a devised show.

Bobby Francois, there wasn't really much text, but because this was gonna be a council meeting, that this was gonna be a much more text-heavy show than they'd done before, which at least I think is one of the reasons I've been invited to come in as early as I did on it.

And I think one, definitely something I literally brought to the table in Shunt was an idea of how to create text that worked within an immersive environment that wasn't just like delivering a lecture, say. Like how you present information to an audience and give them the information to present audience back as well.

And you play games and one of the best bits about the devising process was just, oh, every hour go away, come up with something to present. And the presentations are so important. And when they were doing the cabaret, that was also people would present a thing, a scene.

Ben: Just make the work and see—

Simon: See where it goes.

Yes, it was very much that, yeah. That improv thing of just do it and then see.

Ben: I'm gonna try and pick up on quite a few things and we see where we go here. So I think it's really interesting. I guess it's always been within performance, but there's emphasis, first of all, on audience or audience experience.

And second of all, where the audience and the performer is within the space. And this idea that, and actually it's influenced my more recent work around the show starts immediately. Or in fact my last show, it even starts when you're not in the space, within the bar. Yeah. I'm speaking to people.

You're inviting them in, you are already telling them about what it is, and then you're invited and go through the space. And I've been very much more interested in how much the audience has agency within a space as opposed to in a very traditional, or some traditional, where the audience just sits and watches something and, or you go further back and they're always rowdy.

And I'm interested in how your line of work here thinks about having an audience pay attention, how you think about audience within space, and maybe you can do this with reference to your latest work or even some of the Shunt work, with how that works in terms of thinking about the audience where they're not simply a passive piece of the performance, but a more active piece.

Simon: Yeah. It's obviously about that, but I guess why I become, why I get antsy is I don't wanna start, as I hear often, suggesting that a passive audience is unengaged.

Ben: To do with attention.

Simon: [Not even that attention. Yeah.] No, I thought you said tension.

Ben: [No.]

Simon: All engagement, all art is about holding someone's attention and I think so much of it for me, in terms of doing immersive work, is you're doing this every night. For me, it's really about making the experience I'm going through night after night a proper experience, and that means different from the one before.

And so I was thinking about this on the way here, 'cause I'm thinking about making another, a second solo show finally after Jonah, and what I'd forgotten, one of the things I loved writing about it and when I took it to Edinburgh last year and all the things I was refining about it, but one thing I hadn't really, at least I don't remember acknowledging, is how it's so much a show about a performer in a space.

It's what I'm doing in a space. It's about a person in a space with an audience. And that, which sounds redundant, but I was really thinking about what to do next. I realized, oh, my problem is, I dunno the way in because sort of everything I wanted to play with about the idea of what it is to be, to go into a room and then have someone talk at you, was there in Jonah.

And so I'd be thinking about, oh, maybe the character of this new piece, we sit at a table, it'll be a date. And I'm like, but that's, so you're losing something. It's about the less I have to pretend, the better. Unless there're bits where I suddenly really do have to pretend. And that's a great bit.

So when, although the audience may never be conscious of this, when I'm in the whale and there's just a blue spotlight, there's loads of theatre happening in front of you. And I am covered in stuff, and I am playing a person in the belly of a whale. And that's, and I love it.

And that's something mystical going on, but I always thought a theatre's like a church and a church is set up a bit like an airplane and just all these spaces where an audience come in and that's the contract, and they understand the contract, and you can play with the contract, but that's also something I don't have to pretend.

Ben: Yeah.

Simon: That allows me to come in and be as alive as possible in front of them in this show. In the same way that with Shunt where we had these incredible play spaces designed by Lizzie, you could just come in and play that game in that space. What do you want to do in that space with those people? It was a huge inspiration.

And so I was, yeah. I think this was inspired by a bit of a documentary about Punchdrunk last night on Sky. And I've never seen a Punchdrunk show, but someone was saying about, oh, the audience coming in and they're in a space. But also that space has been designed, like yeah, that's just pretending.

I was like, I don't want to detract from their incredible work 'cause I've never seen it, but I was just like, just a set. You're just walking around a set. What's interesting about being either in a, sharing a space with someone and realizing that, oh, maybe if I do go to Edinburgh with a show, it should be in Edinburgh, it should be a promenade thing.

I do a lot of Jack the Ripper walks. And my friend Ben Whitehead, who came up with them, also came up with ghost bus tours. And I've worked at Phantom Peak and so much of my, so many of my day jobs are within a space. I relate to a very specific space. So Jonah was really good because it was people coming to listen to a man in a box.

Ben: And that's why the label immersive is slightly mislabeled in that sense.

Simon: It's why I think you can call it an immersive work even though it's an audience watching a person on stage. That's why I think it is an immersive piece, yes.

Ben: Oh, so I guess I was saying that for instance, the Jack the Ripper walk is immersive in a way that people might not think it's immersive.

Simon: Yeah. Yeah. But although, everyone knows you're walking around the streets.

I think if you say you don't use it as immersive theatre 'cause you haven't created the space, I think normally immersive suggests to me a creation of a space. And it's some form of installation.

Ben: And which isn't just a set.

Simon: No, it can't help but be a set.

But I think, I guess like I was watching the footage of Punchdrunk and they go, oh, you've walked into a fake bathroom. And it's that, how, it's this dreadful, 'cause I haven't seen the show, but it's like, how interesting is it ultimately to walk into a fake bathroom? And yet, and this is the thing I had to deal with.

I love theme parks. I love theme parks. Okay. And that's just walking around a very created environment.

Ben: Yeah. But they're very honest. It's if you are not pretending to be a bathroom, you're not, theme parks aren't pretending to be something other. So where if you get a very detailed piece of set, which is trying to be naturalistic, but somehow misses a thing, it then feels, oh, it's because you're not the very best fake person.

Simon: That's not the problem for me. Okay. 'Cause everyone makes mistakes. It's not about, it's about the intention.

Ben: I see. Okay.

Simon: I think if you're making a space from scratch, why make a space that already exists? Why? One of the reasons I love Disneyland. Does it exist? Walt Disney made a thing that doesn't exist.

Ben: Only exists. Yeah. Imagination on some points.

Simon: It's such a realization of his very specific idea of what is good, which you don't have to agree with at all, but it's absolutely… he lived there as it was being made.

Ben: Yeah. It's a real—

Simon: I get that. Here's Main Street, USA and here's, there's a steamboat and there's a mountain, and there's the world, and there's all of Africa in a boat. Although that came later, I think.

Ben: Yeah. And even more amazing. Maybe he's the only one who could make it.

Simon: Yeah, absolutely. Singularly, yeah. That's why David Hockney said he is the most important artist of the 20th century.

But it's a very singular vision of a space. And I also love walking around fake environments.

Ben: Yeah.

Simon: So I dunno what it was about that bit of the documentary. It's not just artifice, it's something else. I'm sure I'd find it huge fun to see one of their shows.

Ben: If it's not too controversial. I'm interested that you haven't been to a Punchdrunk.

Simon: They used to be too expensive.

Ben: Okay.

Simon: When I was watching the bit of the documentary going, why am I seeing the Punchdrunk show? And I think I would be too scared of not enjoying it.

Ben: And in some ways I think, maybe it's not quite fair to say, but I would say Punchdrunk… there's an argument saying some of Punchdrunk couldn't have existed without some of the stuff that Shunt and Shunt-adjacent work had done earlier.

Simon: So I have not seen it. I wouldn't say that. Because I think there's a huge creative crossover.

[Cross talk]

Simon: BAC was an incredible building and they were using it. And I think that's huge fun. And I think similarly when Shunt moved into underneath London Bridge, it's what do we do with this? And I think the approaches to space are very different. And the approaches, hard to put a show in a space.

Shunt made a clown installation. There's something very absurdist about it. And one of the great things about absurdism is it can be done quite cheaply because there's a slight post-apocalyptic sense of the comedy of scarcity.

Ben: On clowning. I had a very short clown question, which is, should a clown always say yes?

Simon: Oh yeah, that's a very interesting question, but it's not interesting because I feel I have to answer it. It's one of the things that put me off when I was in twenties, I was doing clown school.

I'm rediscovering Dylan Moran. I'm just rewatching Black Books. Dylan is a hugely negative figure. But also there's a real innocence to him when he falls in love.

Even if you're saying no, you're saying yes to no. Instantly you're developing it. But just to be given that lesson, because the very first time I heard that was a weekend workshop, that's such, it's such an important question, which is why it's an interesting one.

Yeah, because also like Jonah is like Hamlet was my investigation of refusing the call to adventure.

Ben: Yes.

Simon: And I did my English dissertation on the early work of Woody Allen, who again is like three films in a row about political assassination with a clown who doesn't want to go on with it.

Absolutely. Obviously a clown can refuse.

Ben: This other absurdist things… I was interested in your audio work, which I'm gonna come to as well as a kind of almost separate strand in how it feeds in. But before that, I was just gonna pick up on the BAC, the space, Shunt…

Because at the same time as that was happening and I'd been theatre blogging a little bit around there as well, there was an ongoing argument from a more traditional writing school which would put the writer first. So you have a writer first, a well-made script.

You get a director and actors and you put things on, versus an ensemble school, of which we touched on various ways that you could do that. I guess I was a theatre maker, but I wasn't doing it full time. I had a whole other job and still was making some bits of theatre.

I found that was a really exciting argument, which was played out in performances. It was played out over blogs. And I guess still to some degree plays out now. David Eldridge, who was from very much the writer school has got some great stuff on at the moment, but I'd be interested if you had any reflections on, did you feel that was an ongoing debate then, and how that fits into the liveliness of theatre now?

Simon: I think the only stakes of that debate really were that theatre critics were suddenly being sent to things that they had no experience of. I'm a theatre critic and though I'm watching this I don't know how to process the thing I'm watching because it's not, not the job I signed up for.

Ben: Interesting.

Simon: I'd already gone through that one. My experience of watching Jeremy's King Lear was like that. One of the things was also really great about that was because he was a student. He was a student who was not trying to be a journeyman director.

He was using the resources that we had to try something new and it killed and it completely transformed or broadened my idea of what doing a show could be. And it wasn't just an idea, it was the brilliance of the execution. It was that Jeremy was so good at that. And I think that's a hugely important part.

It wouldn't have happened if he wasn't so good at that.

Ben: Yeah.

Simon: Sometimes as we were talking about, you make the thing that doesn't exist. Often the best artists are artists who are good at something that doesn't exist. Some who are brilliant at something that doesn't exist.

And so they make the thing and then it exists.

Ben: And the critics didn't understand it at the time.

Simon: Yeah. Do you know Nicholas Craig, the Nigel Planer character?

Ben: A tiny bit.

Simon: There's the only credits to, is The Naked Actor show is such a perfect sort of snapshot of black box, him in different costumes doing things and some science fiction and some, but the point I'm getting at is someone brilliant will come along and do something completely new and people go, oh, there's this.

And then a whole bunch of people who don't really get it at all will come along and go, oh, now we're doing this. You go if you don't do it, if you don't get it. And that sort of theatre of the seventies and eighties, which has huge talents doing incredible stuff, but also the sense that quite a few directors were coming along.

In their twenties and going, oh, this is what theatre looks like now. An idea of what theatre should be is not theatre.

Ben: Yeah.

Simon: You can do whatever you like. That's the point. What is it you want to do? That to me is what theatre is.

I think what annoyed me and some of us in, was the idea that we were doing this because we couldn't do text.

Ben: Yes.

Simon: It was, no, we've done text. Yeah. We fucking kicked Shakespeare's ass and now we want to see what else we can do.

Ben: Yeah.

Simon: And it's not necessarily a transferable skill. We're coming back to that idea. The main attraction is that you're doing it night after night, so you're doing something slightly different.

Ben: Yeah.

Simon: And so I don't have that much experience of a long run of a play.

Ben: Yeah.

Simon: I really don't. And that's not 'cause I don't want to. And I don't want to get back to that but yeah, in the first half of my adulthood, it's been mainly devised work.

All very short runs, different things.

Ben: And maybe now be interesting to touch on your audio work. Do you think audio work is essentially your form of theatre as well? You don't necessarily have a set or a space, although you can definitely engage or have an audience pay attention. You don't necessarily get the feedback.

From that. Do you see it as a separate strand?

Simon: There's lots of stuff I'm not good at with voice work, but what I'm good at, I'm good at sight reading, and I'm good at making quick decisions that aren't dumb.

And I also really enjoy working with other people. So most of my voice work that people will know is in a sketch show, where you get to do a lot of voices and use characters very quickly. And it gets me, it allows me to mimic some old school kind of acting because a lot of John's sketches deal in old school genres.

But John's a brilliant performer, a brilliant writer, and everyone in the company's a brilliant performer, brilliant writer. So I'm very happy just sitting and listening. But that kind of work. And then the work I've been doing with Audible and with Big Finish, it's making quick decisions and letting them play out.

The thing that always, and also when I was doing John's show, that's the first sketch work I did. So I wasn't a sketch comedian and a bit like talking about devising, I didn't have a default persona that I could just bring to a sketch and that I didn't have a default voice, but both John and I had been writing for David Mitchell, Robert Webb, and David has a very clear default voice where you could just play it.

I didn't have that. And I certainly hear that in the first two series going I dunno what I am if I'm not playing a specific character. Oh I'm a little awkward about that. I can't remember what's going on and it's all quick decisions.

Ben: Is it just more natural?

Simon: It's just, that's natural. I'm very happy at pretending. I like that game. I like, it's the story, it's the storytelling thing. And I don't always make the right decisions.

There are jokes I don't get. Acting is reacting. You can't react in voice work.

Ben: Yeah.

Simon: I did occasionally. I went, oh, oh. But listening to people, the thing I enjoy a lot about acting you just don't do on the radio, but then you're reading a script, so you're not even looking at the other performer.

Your eyes are basically always on the words. But it's a really nice thing to come in and have recorded. But…It's at the far end of the pretending to be other people spectrum.

Ben: Yep. That's fair. And what do you find exciting or the other side challenging about performance today?

Maybe we could say London theatre performance, but you might have views globally or just about performing arts or culture in general?

Simon: You mean as an audience?

Ben: Either.

Simon: In terms of me watching stuff or?

Ben: Either watching or even doing, maybe in terms of doing actually, and I could frame it as a couple of thoughts I had is I had thought that maybe the pandemic might change things more than they have.

We've got back to a state where I don't think it's maybe changed that much. The little bits around, but that's interesting. I still think there's a big question mark on how we approach digital work. Although I think we're getting more, becoming more interesting still, I feel.

Simon: What do you mean by digital work?

Ben: So digital work is essentially, I'm thinking about digital work as digitizing live work or putting the digital—

Simon: Oh, I see.

Ben: Like video archiving or partly archiving or a little bit. So your YouTube or performing Shakespeare is a kind of form of digital work, right?

Simon: Yeah. .

Ben: Rather than just video cameraing,... So that's one element. Or you go the other way where I think Katie Mitchell's done more of this work, or there's been others around it, where you have much more digital within your live performance.

So using video and things, that's maybe one end of the spectrum of where digital could land. We'll see what these LLMs, AIs bring or not to the process. So I'm interested in what you find exciting, either from a performance view or indeed it could be on the other side in terms of watching, and also what you feel is challenging or boring or is we should really just do less of that and do more of something else.

Simon: I don't necessarily find anything as a performer exciting, otherwise I'd go and do it. Again, I was thinking on the walk here how much easier it was making a show like Jonah when I had so many friends and contemporaries who were also making works in small rooms and presenting me with options to copy or being inspired by.

And now I am, I'm seeking it. I'm still seeking out not beginning artists, but artists working in that space. And I'm really excited by their work. I've met a few people who are doing, yeah, just brilliant stuff in a way that brilliant stuff has always been brilliant.

But less that I can take away and go, oh, I wanna do that.

Ben: Yeah.

Simon: Which is one of the reasons I made Jonah was I wanted people to watch it and go, oh, I could do something like that. Yeah. That's another thing I like about the affordability of a piece of theatre.

And as an audience, like the last three big shows I've seen, two at the Globe and then one at the National, I've all really loved. I saw Pinocchio, I saw a fantastic Troilus and Cressida, which is not something I thought I would see. And then I sat at the front row for The Bacchae, which I think is the place to see it.

I know people have sat further back, had a very different experience of it, but everything that went into it seemed so engaged in what they were making and the idea that it should be fun, but that fun's not an embarrassing— that's made by people who get fun, made by people who seem to genuinely be able to have fun.

Ben: Fun, yes.

Simon: And communicate that, but that not be done incredibly intelligently and argumentatively as well. Yeah. Presenting an argument and that's a run of three of those is not something I'm used to.

Ben: Pretty good.

Simon: I really came away from Pinocchio thinking, yeah, everything's fine. People get it. Don't overthink it, but do think it, and have fun. And be fun and don't, yeah.

Fun's not a genre. Yeah. A lot of things are feelings that you genuinely want to inspire in people, and they're not, and then they're a genre. You can't fake it. It's working out what in the medium you have to fake and what in the medium you shouldn't fake. And I think I've never really had that much respect for criticism.

'Cause I always think it lets people get away with absolute murder.

Ben: We'll come to that when we do a little bit of overrated, underrated. But maybe the last one on this. Is those are recent pieces, which are all done well.

I was wondering if there are any particular pieces either that you've seen or maybe that you've been in, which have stayed with you in the sense that you come back to it from time to time. So actually Dance Bear Dance is one of those. I'm not saying I think about it every month, but I'd probably say once a year something comes along and reminds me of either the feeling of the piece or what it's, ah, this is something there.

There's a few other pieces for me and it might not even be theatre. It might not even be performance. It could be, I sometimes have it on visual work or words or things.

But I'd be interested if there is a piece of performance, either as an audience or as a performer, where maybe once a year or something it refloats back in your mind and go, oh yeah, this has influenced how I think about the world or art.

Simon: There are lots and I, but I can't, immediate, nothing immediately comes to mind.

But when I was, I had a brilliant PR for Jonah Non Grata, which is a 20-year-old show that I did at Edinburgh last year, and I had to write a lot of pieces about it. And so it was interesting to me at least going, what did inspire it? Where did that idea come from?

And so some of it was books by Alasdair Gray and Stan, and all the idea of Stanley Spencer and the idea of the importance of religious art, even as an atheist, just how handy that is dealing with old stories.

But if I think of when I was in Edinburgh I started watching a lot of rewatching, a lot of National Theatre of Brent, and I'll happily put forward that— do you know the National Theatre of Brent? Brent, Desmond Dingle, and then Jim Broadbent and up into Raymond Box.

And I was rewatching them going, oh no, this is really influential. Not even in a, it's a, they're a comedy, but also the lo-fi-ness. But the fact that within this joke, the human scale they gave to history, which is often missing from how history is talked about, was so genuinely pertinent and moving.

And I loved the cleanness of that idea and I loved just the clown-ness of it. And I loved, we are going to stage the biggest thing imaginable, but we don't have the resources. So it's not something I've seen live. But I watched a lot of television, Black Books.

Watching Black Books just 'cause I thought it was about time and every, everything Dylan Moran does, I don't, again, this isn't necessarily really, we talk about, I just go, oh yeah, that informed me so much.

Ben: I haven't re-watched it recently, but there's probably been a series that I've watched—

Simon: Even before Black Books, when he was doing, How Do You Want Me? Just his performance. This is, yeah, I think I saw it in Edinburgh. Yeah.

But that doesn't really… just when I'm, a lot of my writing for comedy, writing for Mitchell & Webb was inspired by the way Dylan Moran wrote. So there's one sketch about Queen Victoria that, where this is sort of David Mitchell rant, and I thought I wasn't intentionally writing a David Mitchell rant, but it was a Dylan Moran rant that David Mitchell then said, and that it sounded like a David Mitchell rant.

But again, so yeah, television is a huge influence and that's I guess why when I'm doing theatre I want, it's based on stuff that isn't screenable.

Ben: Yeah. Okay.

Simon: It's based on being with the audience.

Ben: Great. Let's do a little bit of overrated, underrated, and then into last couple of questions on current projects or any advice.

So I'm gonna say a short thing or word, and you can say whether you think it's an underrated thing or an overrated. I guess things can be correctly rated as well, whether we want more of or less of. So I'll start with one, which we touched on.

Simon: At what point in this should I say I'm absolutely against ratings?

Ben: At the—

Simon: Beginning.

Ben: We could say—

Simon: Because everyone likes different things. This would be underrated, I think, rating. I think I'm really, I don't think, I think in print, I think criticism has stakes with the employee. Yes. And so I don't necessarily trust that people who say they like stuff in print necessarily like stuff.

But I think outside the media, outside journalism, just outside, like in personal interactions, if someone likes something, they like it.

Ben: Yeah. Oh, I don't mean in terms of that sort of rating. So I'll see. So like whether we want something more of or less. So I would say reviews and criticism.

Simon: Right.

Ben: And you are saying we should probably have less of it.

Simon: No but we've now it's, but it's a zero. It's not a zero. I'm game, is it? No it's, no, I've, dear God, I got some amazing writeups from Jonah and genuinely amazing. Not, oh, I've won this prize, but oh, you got it.

Oh, and you taught me something about my show. So if you try, I, I don't just try to see the good in stuff in a kind of self-policing way. I try and see the good in stuff because why wouldn't you find good stuff? Like no, the only benefits your life to find the good in it. But I'll try to not, not answer the question.

Ben: Yeah. Yeah. And what about the Arts Council? Do you think we should have more of it or less of it?

Simon: I don't, I've never had interactions with the Arts Council. So neutral. Not even neutral. I don't understand. Maybe more. I'm very, I'm very, okay.

I've never, one of the reasons I've never applied to council funding—

Ben: Is a good thing.

Simon: State funding for lottery funding less. I think that's why I've never applied. I've always been [uneasy with] poor people gambling and funding me. And also I'm a very privileged person. I went to Cambridge. … I should be able to find a way to make a thing.

I get it. That, yeah, exactly….  I've don't think I've been around long enough to deserve a bit of that pot now. But I think  like with the blog and the lack of a financial incentive makes it much easier for me to do what I want.

Ben: …I've done the same, done a podcast, never gonna be commercial. My blog, actually, it is on Substack, but only because they email it out. Never gonna be commercial. My very early work, I did get some Arts Council money, but then I didn't have any money then.

Now I do have money. I wouldn't ever, I would never say never. But I don't foresee a path where I would take Arts Council money. And there's just an interesting, legitimate question about what level you do arts funding, particularly in this country where you wanna fund the NHS, you wanna fund education and things like that.

Simon: Yeah, there's so much money in this country. We do give money to take whatever money …that's my feeling about it's not what it was 25 years ago.

Ben: That's fair enough.

Simon: So have you seen what they're giving money to? If they wanna give something to you, take it.

Ben: Yeah. Okay. And the last one on this, influence of Netflix, do you think it's more influence, less influence? Do you think it's been a good thing, bad thing, or just a thing —

Simon: On what?

Ben: On writing and performance, culture stories, maybe broadly. So I guess there's one argument that it has brought more stories and more funding and maybe more global stories and more funding.

And then there is also a critical argument saying it has maybe narrowed us. It's also taken away attention from other forms. Arguably social media and things are the worst, but there is that sort of argument as well. And then there's in the middle.

Simon: I dunno. I need some actual stats. This is just vibes on what, yeah. Because like sometimes something can get an audience that's not taking away someone else's audience. It's not zero sum. It's like building an audience.

This is a non-answer, but one of the things that intrigues me is how just before the Me Too movement started, like two of my favourite shows on Netflix were Jessica Jones and Kimmy Schmidt, and there were all these massive narratives being made about a woman living in a nightmare world completely controlled by an evil man.

Oh, okay. Yeah. That and yeah, when I, that time, so that would've been 2016, I think, 2015, it was brilliant to see such huge narratives that then played out. And it is extraordinary that Netflix has no money. It just keeps spending more and more money, billions, companies…. I don't understand how that works.

… I still watch. I do stream more than I watch television, but I watch a lot of YouTube. I watch a lot of YouTube channels. Yeah.

Ben: You have a favourite?

Simon: Yeah, I have a few favourites. A few of my favourites don't exist anymore. They've gone on to, is it, and there's a real gender divide by who's stayed on YouTube and who's been driven off.

Theme parks. I love all theme park YouTube. Defunctland doesn't do much now but was an incredible channel. Jenny Nicholson was incredible.

Ben: Do you have a favourite theme park…?

Simon: Hm…

Ben: Every theme park is a great theme park.

Simon: Yeah. Not every, but I do just love theme parks, but Disney, Disneyland is absolutely my favourite. I went as a kid. I went at exactly the right time, right? It was a, for those who dunno, it was a futurist series of rides in the eighties where futurism was still really exciting.

There'd be underwater schools and you can go on, I think you can go on YouTube and see a version of this ride Horizons, which was as responsible as anything for me thinking about the future up until I realized what the future would actually be like and that you can't see underwater 'cause light doesn't travel, which is a huge disappointment.

And I don't, yeah. And so I follow, I really enjoy Red Letter Media. Again, it's really interesting to see people who have started off just putting stuff on YouTube and then have thrived very much within their own scale.

So these now middle-aged friends in, is it Milwaukee, getting together and watching terrible films and getting drunk and talking about them. That is, that, is that now a business model? Matt? Men? I love, I love.

And you couldn't have done that without all of that. Putting that on BBC One, there's no way. And Vlogbrothers, both John and Hank Green, I think, although, and it's a great— Hank videos are now more than five minutes long and I don't follow them so much, but the people who use— I was really interested where suddenly anyone could be a presenter, what they chose to preserve.

Ben: And it gives you a real slice of humanity. Even human flourishing I think is a form of human flourishing. Okay. Last couple of questions 'cause we're running up in time. So one is current projects. Any current projects that you are working on, current or future projects that you'd like to?

Simon: Yeah I'm going back to, I'm writing, am I? Yeah, no, this, I'm writing a book…  First I took to Edinburgh was the first three chapter adaptation of the first three chapters of a book, which at the time was the whole story. It was never meant to be the story. And then someone said, oh, that's the story. I went, oh yeah, it was, 'cause it's a sort of a hero's journey.

But now I realized, no, I wanted it to be a bigger, a proper, children's short novel. And so I'm now thinking about that and it involves thoughts about theatre and stories and lies and fantasy and, but it's also just, yeah, really fun to think about and occasionally write.

I won't make the self-appointed deadline for getting a draft done by the end of this month. But that's an unpaid project, but that's what I'm writing on.

And we're towards the end of January now, thinking about whether or not to go to Edinburgh with another show. I've got two in mind as starting points.

But now I'm thinking about venue and how important that is. That sort of completely, and it all starts with as you said, at what point does the audience start feeling like they're in the show?

Ben: Yeah.

Simon: And you, that, and I do, I want an audience to be excited and I want to maintain that feeling of excitement.

Ben: And you think that's 'cause it's something particular about an Edinburgh audience, or why wouldn't you do it in a London venue somewhere?

Simon: Because Edinburgh has, oh, just, oh, guess this. Oh. That's really, that's a really good question, 'cause that's how we're taught to think.

Fair. But also because you can win prizes, Edinburgh. Yeah. If you wanna go, oh, actually I'm a theatre maker. Yeah. I've got a class, that's where you, that's the deadline you set yourself. That's the best place to show new work.

Even though I've long weighed it in my mind and gone, I live in London. I don't need Edinburgh. But yeah it's different. Which just, it's just, you have to think now, am I gonna do Edinburgh? Yeah. I haven't done a big advert that can definitely pay for it, so probably not. And I'm just moving to a new flat. Financially it does take a bite.

Unless I do free fringe and I do something and that's another thing to think about. Who am I going up there with?

Ben: Just to say most people may not realize that the vast majority of Edinburgh shows don't make any, in fact lose money. Not only do they not make money, they will lose money from— Oh, do they?

Simon: Yeah. If you dunno that. Yes. Yeah.

Ben: Tens of thousands.

Simon: That sort of magnitude. Yeah. Yeah. I, yeah I lost 10,000 and that goes in your rent while you're up there because there's a lot of rent. And it goes on a producer if you have a producer and it goes on a PR if you have a PR, which is a good idea.

And what else? What else other things?

Ben: It depends on how many people you've gotta pay for actors and set and things.

Simon: If it's not just you. You have to pay for technicians, certainly. 

Ben: Okay. That sounds a great range of current projects. And then obviously audio work and other things running by.

Simon: That keeps coming up.

Ben: Do you have any advice for maybe wannabe creatives or you could have life advice in general? I guess you've had a portfolio career of different parts of creativity across everything. Have you reached a stage where you would offer any thoughts to others—

Simon:  Get out, see work you like, meet the people who make work that you like. Do stuff on purpose. That's harder and harder these days 'cause it is so easy.


Ben: Purpose is an intentional thing you're doing?

Simon: Yes. It's so easy. Because I have a lot of time off and I might just click the next thing on my algorithm and it's different to go, no, intentional, what do you actually want to do?

Watch something on purpose, not because you are in a position where you're watching things and you want to go, I could watch this next. But that's maybe something more for my generation. Maybe people deal with stuff easier.

My other advice is you can do anything. There are a lot of dialogues about, or conversations about what is it you can do. 

See what you can do. And that I've been very lucky to be surrounded by creatives who really do stuff that I never saw exist before. But even before that, I knew that was a common factor in a lot of stuff I loved was that it was stuff that was being done for the first time.

So I shouldn't imitate it. I would see who's doing stuff I've never seen before. I really like that. That seemed like an obvious idea once I'd seen it and work out what's going on there. … And have fun.

Ben: Yeah. That sounds amazing. Have fun, do things with purpose, make things which haven't existed before. Great set of advice. With that, Simon, thank you very much.

Simon: Thank you, Ben.

In Podcast, Arts, Theatre, Writing Tags theatre, immersive theatre, devised theatre, Shunt, Simon Kane, Shakespeare, John Finnemore, creativity

Julian Gough: Minecraft End Poem, Evolution of the Universe, being creative | Podcast

September 20, 2024 Ben Yeoh

Julian Gough is an award-winning writer and musician. We explore the breadth of his creative journey, from crafting the 'End Poem' in Minecraft to writing children's books and rock band experiences

We discuss his latest project 'The Egg and the Rock,' which investigates the universe's evolutionary complexity, paralleling biological evolution, and its implications on life, consciousness, and AI. 

This conversation extends to a critical reflection on current scientific approaches, the importance of interdisciplinary thinking and writing in public and creative processes. 

“…the universe does love us, and we are love, in a way. I think love is a kind of an interface with the universe. You can think of love as our interface with the universe. Love, if you are loving and loved, you're probably living correctly. The way in which you're aligned to the universe is good. It's a feedback mechanism."

Julian’s substack blog is here.

Summary contents, transcript and podcast links below. Video above or on YouTube.

  • 00:33 The Creation and Impact of Minecraft's End Poem

  • 03:58 Julian's Rock Band Days

  • 07:14 Writing Children's Stories: Rabbit and Bear

  • 12:35 Julian's Writing Process

  • 16:34 The Goat Bubble: A Satirical Play

  • 20:06 Exploring the Universe's Evolution

  • 38:07 Building Complexity from Simplicity

  • 38:43 The Eternal Existence of Matter and Time

  • 41:21 The Fermi Paradox and Alien Life

  • 42:30 Darwinian Evolution of Universes

  • 43:53 The Role of Intelligent Life in the Universe

  • 47:35 Predicting the Early Universe with James Webb

  • 58:09 Writing in Public and Creative Processes

  • 01:07:50 The Egg and the Rock: An Evolutionary Analogy

  • 01:09:56 Advice for Future Thinkers and Creatives

Podcast links:

  • Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/3gJTSuo

  • Spotify: https://sptfy.com/benyeoh

  • Anchor: https://anchor.fm/benjamin-yeoh

  • All links:https://pod.link/1562738506


Transcript (part edited by AI so errors are possible)

Ben: Hey everyone, I'm super excited to be speaking to Julian Gough. Julian is an award winning writer and musician across many forms, including novels, children's stories, plays, and the like. He wrote the ending to Minecraft and is currently exploring ideas about how the universe has evolved on his sub stack, The Egg and the Rock, which you should check out.

Julian, welcome. 

Julian: Thank you, Ben, for that fantastically professional introduction. I feel like a complete human being. 


Ben: Which you are. So you wrote the end poem for the end of Minecraft. These lines have now been read by millions of people and include the line, And the universe said, I love you because you are love.

What do you make of so many fans taking these words to heart? What would you like people to take away? And maybe what does the poem mean to you today? 

Julian: Okay, my relationship to the end poem is complicated in that I don't feel I should take full credit for it. It's one of those strange pieces of writing where about halfway through writing it, I wrote it longhand.

They were first draft, longhand. And about halfway through, it felt like wasn't writing it anymore and this is a common experience for writers and musicians. Keith Richards says half the Rolling Stones songs, he just woke up and something just came straight through and he recorded it and fell asleep and he has no idea where it came from.

So it's, I'm not claiming anything special here, but halfway through I found myself not knowing what the next line would be. And I was watching the lines appear on the page. With great interest, because I thought, I actually do not know what's happening here. I don't know what's coming next.

I got into a really beautiful flow state, which doesn't happen very often in my writing. It happens sometimes. But this is a really clean version of it. It's wow, I have no idea what's coming out until I read this. And that was one of the lines, that line you quoted is one of the lines. And I had this reaction to the line where I thought, I don't think that line's true.

That shouldn't be in there. And I was going to strike it out because I thought that's too much. That's too, my experience of life is a lot of suffering. There's a lot of unnecessary suffering. I wasn't sure, does the universe love you? Are you made of love? I felt it was that it didn't match my direct experience.

So I was going to strike the line out. And I had this very strong feeling that something bigger than me didn't want that line knocked out. I got this very strong resistance to knocking out that line. And I thought, okay, whatever just wrote this through me wants that line left it. So I left the line in.

And then it became people's favorite line. People get it tattooed on. Like I've seen a bunch of people with that tattooed on. And that line really lands with people. And I get a lot of, I get a lot of messages from people who say that the end poem, especially the second half of the end poem, it was read out at their brother's funeral or something like, things like that, like very, it has, it's really meaningful to a lot of people. I, and since then, that's, I wrote that in 2011, since then I've changed my mind. I think the universe does love us, and we are love, in a way. I think love is a kind of an interface with the universe. I think You can think of love as our interface with the universe. Love, if you're, if you are loving and loved, you're probably living correctly.

You're, the way in which you're aligned to the universe is good. It's a feedback mechanism. And you can say that in purely evolutionary biological terms. Love is a great sign that you're interacting correctly with the universe. That's wonderful. 

Ben: And it strikes me also, we have this with a lot of creatives where one of your points is that sometimes the creative process, you're not quite sure where the inspiration is hitting you and it just comes out.

And like you say, a lot of artists have talked about that, but then also when it goes out into the world, it has a life of its own. So the audience and the readers actually bring maybe more importance to it and things that we didn't. Yeah. Initially think about the line and then it, it changes us.

It changes us back as well. Like you said, like the line actually resonated with so many people and you can realize that perhaps it was more important than you thought. You mentioned singing as well. And I know you were in a rock band like earlier, but what's most in this misunderstood about being in a rock band and singing and that part of your life?

Wow. 

Julian: Yeah, I was the frontman with the band. Were we a rock band? Were we a pop band? We used to argue about this all the time. Is this rock? Is this pop? What is this? I end up calling it lit pop. It was literary pop music. Man, what's not understood about it? I, if you're the frontman of a band, that's another job where you're not entirely just yourself.

I think you're incarnating Dionysus, you are Dionysus when you're fronting a band and the gig is going well and the audience are really into it. And so you have to represent all of their desires. So I think that's, I think that's, I think when I was being the front man, I was I felt I should be available to the fantasies of everybody, that you shouldn't be narrowly straight or narrowly gay or whatever you are in your private life, you should be unbounded.

You should be you're representing Bacchus or Dionysus, that may not have come across on stage, but you do end up with this very Powerful moments where again, something's moving through you. That's bigger than you and it's bigger than the crowd. And it's and you can get quite, people can get quite carried away.

I remember doing a gig, but then you snap back into being yourself. So that can be embarrassing. If it happens halfway through the gig, like suddenly you're 

Ben: Channeling a God, then you're mortal again. Yeah. 

Julian: And then you're mortal again. This happened. I remember one gig we did in London at the powerhouse, I think in London, which is a fun venue.

And we had done a very barking. Performance, two of our friends were dressed up in togas with laurel wreaths, handing out grapes to the crowd and it was very over the top. And I was wearing a, I was wearing a one piece cat suit, very tight. I think it was a woman's catsuit that I bought a lot of clothes from second hand shops.

And I think halfway through the gig, it was going really well, a woman in the front row unzipped me and reached into my catsuit and pulled out my genitals. And we just looked at each other, and I was like, do what you've got to do, but, whatever. Carnage and Barker's here, but this is slightly embarrassing for both of us, isn't it?

And she was like, looking up at me and going, I think I've gone too far. And she put everything back and sent me back up and we went on with the gig. So it was, so yeah, you get these moments where it's am I a god of excess or am I just a guy singing in a band who likes books? 

Ben: Yeah. Handling everything else which is going on.

It's almost like an emergent property of gigs or things like that. Emergent properties of a crowd. Something happens and it has to land on someone. 

Julian: Yeah. No, there's definitely emergent properties in crowds and anyway, gigs that have a similarity all around the world, no matter what, there's a type of music that's rhythmic that leads to a kind of, ah, exaltation in the audience.

That's it's really primal and really important and it's very strange if you're just a normal nerdy guy to Find yourself incarnating that, yeah. I thoroughly recommend fronting a band. 

Ben:  I was reading part of an essay you've done, and it had the phrase, I am not nice, friendly, and perfect.

No one we know is nice, friendly, and perfect. And I thought that was also a perfect segue to speaking about children's stories and Rabbit and Bear, which supposedly are written for. Five to eight year olds, but I've now read them all and I think everyone should read them and you had a I think the latest one was out just a few months ago.

So everyone should check them out. But how have you found it different exploring the stories of rabbit and a bear as opposed to works, which are only for adults or anything? Is there something special about children's stories? I guess from my point of view, I think at the moment.

Children's stories, which I think are everyone's stories are almost in a golden age in the sense that we have more diverse, more special stories, as well as perhaps more boring ones. But there's a lot of them coming out. I was interested in your line of children's stories work. 

Julian: Yeah I think we are probably in it, a golden age children's books, yeah. There's an awful lot of crap out there still, but there's a lot of very good stuff. I love writing children's. For children. I love it more than I probably expected to. I think It's incredibly difficult and enjoyable.

You've the constraints are really interesting. I love constraints because I'm a very chaotic person. I'm interested in everything. I like doing all kinds of different stuff. I very easily distracted. I really helps if I've got tight constraints to keep my. expression inside of a frame so that you end up with something that's useful and it just doesn't turn into 3, 000 unfinished things.

And there's huge constraints writing for five year olds, six year olds, seven year olds, because they've got a very limited vocabulary. And they've also got a very limited understanding of the world, but they're incredibly eager to learn new words and new concepts. They really want to know. They're hungry in a way that maybe adult audiences aren't. Adult audiences tend to be more jaded and also adult audiences are more set in their ways. They tend to, you're not really going to change the life of that many adult readers. You can really change the life of a child, especially if you solve one of their problems.

Like one of the, something I've done with the Rabbit and Bear books is I've tried with every book to solve a different problem that I might've had at that age that I wasn't able to solve at the time. It's a way of Writing these books is a way of sending a message back to me when I was like five or six or seven and saying This is how you maybe could how you can fix it But obviously I can't do that for me but I can do it for all these other kids that are the age I was then so it's a very nice process very Satisfying and especially when you get again messages from parents or from kids themselves because they'll dictate to their parents.

I'll get sent the email Saying the books really worked for them really landed with them and parents will often say like we use You Rabbit and bear to talk about, if my kid gets really angry we can, we know how, we have an angle on it now because we read this particular book or if my kid gets very upset by this particular kind of thing in the playground, like we have a, we go straight to rabbit and bear and we have a way of dealing with it now that we, cause, cause rabbit found a way to deal with it.

Yeah. I love it. It's very satisfying. 

Ben: Wow. A letter back to your five year old self. So what problem did you want to solve at five or six, which initially you couldn't, you 

Julian: You've got huge, you've got loads of problems when you're that age because it's better now. I think parents are better now at explaining the world to kids and explaining emotions to kids and things like that.

But you used to be just left to get on with it. Like when I was a kid, it's yeah, you've got problems. Everyone's got problems. I don't know. They wouldn't even necessarily notice you had problems. Yeah. A lot of it's emotional stuff and a lot of it's theory of mind stuff. A lot of it's explaining why other people do what they do because it's mysterious to you when you're a kid.

It's a parent or a teacher or someone in the playground is like really angry with you about something and you get into loads of trouble for something and you can't work out what you did. And it's really useful if you can have a story that explains sometimes it's not what you did.

It's sometimes it's something that's happening in their life or their head. Or their way of dealing with things, or they're overwhelmed, or whatever. So a lot of it's translating the kid's internal emotional life into something, into an explicit sort of story. The way they can see what's happening, played out, and then they can apply that to their own internal life.

Because the characters in the book really are aspects of ourselves. They're not, Rabbit and Bear are both aspects of me. Rabbit's knee on a normal day, bear's knee on a good day. But they're both aspects of me. So what you're doing is you're taking aspects of human psychology, putting them out as animals and watching them play it out in a forest.

And then you can take that story and put it right back into your own psychology, into your own life and go, Oh yeah, I'm being rabbit now. I really need bear to come in and give me a hand. Where's bear? I'm bear too, and it's, I think that's what's going on in those books a lot of the time.

There's a sort of Jungian, a bunch of archetypes fighting it out in the forest. 

Ben: They say sometimes it helps to have a a character in your head who advises you the other way. Like you say, Oh, I need some bear now. Let's bring him. Let's bring him out. Do you, have you come to a particular type of writing process then?

So I picked up earlier that sometimes you write longhand. So maybe you go from longhand then to computer or that. And do you, have bursts in the morning or evening or you've got a thousand and one things like you said and it seems also you quite can call them constricting forms because that almost opens more freedom up to do things because you're knowing what you're doing, whether that's a poem, play, children's story or the like.

Yeah, so I'm just interested. It seems to be there's a thousand and one writing processes or more, but how have you arrived to yours and what do you think about it? 

Julian: I am very chaotic, so I don't really have a set. process. I've, it's changed over the years. It used to involve a lot more writing longhand and then typing up.

Now I do a lot of editing longhand. Sometimes I write stuff longhand. I do still do a lot of stuff now though, straight onto the machine, which I actually don't think is the best way to do it. I've been experimenting lately with transcription with like dictating and talking. I'm always trying to find a new way to get.

First draft down, so I can, and then when the first draft is down, I often print out and edit by hand. I do a lot of hand editing. And if I'm really, if the structure's all over the place, I'll do a helicopter draft. I'll print out 30 pages and lay them out across the floor in a grid and just stand on a chair and look at it and mark bits in colored markers, like this character's here, this character's here, and then stand up and just try and get an overview of what the fuck's going on here.

Oh, I can see from here, now I can see the structure's rolling up. Shuffle the pages and cut bits out. And it's very messy. I'm a terribly messy writer. I think huge number of drafts. 

Ben: And do you write in short bursts, long bursts, or just varies? It's constrained by having a five year old ?

Julian: whenever I can, a lot of the time I do my best work in the morning and I do my best work when I switch off the internet and I often don't switch off the internet and I just wrestle with that every single day. But if, my best work is if I get up in the morning, drop Arlo into kindergarten and then either into the office, I rent a little office or I come home. At the moment I'm working on the balcony at home because I get sunshine and it's nice. And I do a couple of hours in the morning with the internet off and that's ideal.

And then do slightly less taxing stuff in the afternoon and rewriting, catch up on notes. I'm not 

Ben: a morning writer, but I definitely write. Best when I switch off the internet and actually I turn it off everything and all of that. And even actually have to make sure like phone or messages don't ping me as well.

So that's somewhere else because otherwise you get pinged.


Julian: I don’t have notifications on anything. I don't let anything ping. I don't think anything I own pings.  And I use freedom as an internet blocker to switch it off. But then I'm constantly fiddling around with that.

And then sometimes I have to do something in the morning and I have to unblock all my internet blocks because they're, I can't, I need to go online for that period. And it's yeah, my first, the first novel I wrote I was such a procrastinator. I set myself a target of writing two hours a day, five days a week.

So all I have to do is 10 hours. Of actual writing. But if I, if I looked out the window for 10 minutes and wasn't even thinking about writing, I'd stop the clock. If I, went off and made coffee and had biscuits, I'd stop the clock. So it had to be actual to write. But I would relentlessly through writing that book, I would get to midnight and I hadn't started.

I was a student then, I was young then, I wasn't a student, but I was a young guy in a band and I was writing a novel in my spare time. And so at midnight I would go out to a cafe Java's in Galway and start writing, and I'd get two hours solid work done by 4am, because then, because I had baby breaks then as well, I'd be like done, and and then they closed at 4am and I'd go home and go to bed.

having got my two hours done, but I would put it off all day. I'm unbelievably bad at procrastinating. I'm just a terrible procrastinator and there's loads of resistance and yet I love writing. Go figure. I don't know. Yeah. 

Ben: I see. It's probably helpful for marinating in your brain, but yeah, getting over that energy hump to actually write the thing.

Yeah, it's a, there's a technique and trial in itself. You've written a play about a goat and investment bubbles and investment hedge fund managers satire, so why a play and why tackle the financial crisis and all of the issues around it? 

Julian: It, it started, that started as a short story.

Okay. That started as I was reading the newspaper and I saw an interview, it was an article in the independent many years ago. And it was an interview with The guy who was in charge of air traffic control for

Somaliland, which is part of the former Somalia, and he was in, I think, Ethiopia, running air traffic control because it was too dangerous to have the air traffic control run from Somaliland, and He was recounting a story during the interview of how the guy, the airport manager in Hargeisa, which is the capital of Somaliland, had contacted him to say a local guy his goat had been killed on the runway by one of the UN planes landing.

And and he was going to pay the guy twice the price of a goat in compensation because that was the tradition in, in, Somaliland. And the. Air traffic control guy said, you do not do that if you cannot do that. Because if you do, if you pay twice the price of a goat for a dead goat on your runway, you've created a market for dead goats on your runway, everyone's gonna be driving goats onto your runway because that's the quickest way to make the price of two goats.

So he didn't do it, but I read that article, I thought, oh my God, what if he did do it? How out of hand could this get, so in the story I wrote, he does pay out the price of two goats. But the guy I have with the dead goat at the start is a, I have in my story is an economist. He's an economist who's been displaced by civil war.

All he has left is one three legged goat. And he thinks, what can I do with this? He drives the goat onto the runway. It gets killed by a UN plane. He goes to the air, Airport manager gets the price of two goats, buys two goats in the market, comes back the next day, drives them onto the runway, they get killed.

He goes, gets the price of four goats, buys four goats. But then people start to notice what he's doing and they all start to drive their goats onto the runway. And so you get this goat bubble and then the price of goats starts to go up in the market. Because now there's more demand for goats, and then, and then the, they get they negotiate with the airport manager to index link the price the compensation price of the goats to the new price of the goat market.

And then eventually they're running out of, then eventually the UN has to start flying in goats to finance the goat compensation. So now the UN are in the circuit supplying goats to the goat market so that they, to make profit to pay the compensation. And it gets out of hand and eventually there's too many goats on the runway.

for this to work. So they start going to virtual goats and you end up with this virtual goat bubble and then the financial institutions start to realize that goats in Somaliland are the biggest, are the fastest rising asset price in the world. So they all get involved and you get this, all the big Western banking, private equity, everybody gets involved and it becomes this So it's a satire of of financial crisis, but it was I I gave it to my agent and she really, it was, at the time it was Pat Kavanagh, and she really liked it.

She said, where should we place this though? It's very technical, it's very esoteric. I was like, send it to the Financial Times. I said, try The Economist and The Financial Times. And she said, you know they don't publish short stories, Julian. I said, they'll publish this one. And she sent it to The Financial Times and they published it.

It was the first short story they'd ever published it. They published it in their Christmas issue. 

Ben: Ah, excellent. Also your description of the complex system of goat bubbles. Although I guess it isn't that complex. This remind me of thinking about, Evolution and the like, and there's a good segue into your ideas about the universe.

You're writing about the universe and essentially how you think it may have evolved from lesser universes. So some ideas which are around, but you really picked up on this. So how did you come to that? And why do you think our current universe may well have evolved from lesser universes? 

Julian: Okay. I think if you look at my entire career that I've thought about this recently, I think there's a sort of common thread, which is I want to see reality more clearly with the children's books. I'm trying to help children see reality more clearly so that they have a better understanding of their world so that they can navigate it better.

And I think it's been true for all of the art I've made. And the ultimate version of that is seeing the universe more clearly, I think. I've always been interested in the universe as a thing, and I've always been slightly dissatisfied with the way we talk about the universe, the language we use.

It's always described in this very, reductionist materialist way. The standard language about talking, when you talk about the universe is, you're going to it's very likely the language you use to talk about particle physics. It's as though you can explain the entire universe just using the terms out of particle physics.

And I don't think you, you can, you can't there's too many emergent things happening. There's too much, there's too much complexity emerging. And the way that complexity emerges, as I, thought about this and read about it and pondered over the years just seems seem to me after a while to be awfully like the kind of developmental process in an evolved organism.

It's very step by step. It's very, okay, let's describe the primal problem that interested me here. This universe starts out at the Big Bang as a, maybe a singularity, and it expands into a cloud of incredibly hot, dense gas. Completely undifferentiated. No structure. And over time, step by step, it builds out galaxies planetary systems, orbiting stars, those planetary systems that we know from our own direct experience can then complexify up into something that contains life, which can then generate a biosphere that is stable over tremendous periods of time that can then generate life.

Intelligent life forms like you and me, and then we can generate technological a sort of technosphere that, so we're supported from one side by a biosphere and the other side by a technosphere that we've actually built. And we're now talking to each other in abstract language, using technology in a biosphere that can maintain itself for billions of years.

supplied by energy from an external source that is homeostatic, dynamic, out of equilibrium. And we're made out of 90 something elements, stable elements, that have been in turn built and assembled over about three rounds of star formation and distributed out of the bottom of an incredible gravity well by supernova explosions to make the next round of stars, to make the next round of stars so that you can build complex planetary systems out of these 90 something elements.

That looks like a developmental process. That, that does not look like ran. Random, right? And if a universe has, the standard view of our universe is that it has random arbitrary characteristics. It's a one shot universe. We know there's one universe. It's a one shot universe. It's, all of its characteristics are random and arbitrary.

There's no meaning to any of them. And a random arbitrary one shot universe doesn't do what our universe does. It doesn't self complexify to this extraordinary extent. And it, it seemed to me like this looks like it's been fine tuned and the only mechanism we've ever heard of that can fine tune parameters to give you this kind of self complexifying developmental outcome is evolution.

And it seemed to me like the universe evolved and this is something I then at that point I googled and thought has anyone else been Discussing this thinking about this and discovered that like Lee Smolin, the theoretical physicist, had put forward a pretty excellent mechanism for how that might even happen, almost 30 years, 30, 30 years ago now. And I read up on that. And as I got into that, I realized, holy shit, the idea of an evolved universe has not been explored for purely sociological reasons, not scientific reasons. It's completely in the knowledge shadow. There isn't anyone to take responsibility for it. Like imagine you today, it was definitively proved, let's say that our universe.

was an, had evolved from earlier universes that have fine tuned the basic parameters of matter so that it self complexifies. Who's in charge of the research program on that? The cosmologists know nothing about evolutionary theory, so they don't, they're not going to feel qualified to deal with it. The evolutionary theorists don't even know about this theory, mostly, and they know nothing about cosmology, so they don't know how to apply there.

There's literally no faculty on earth qualified to explore this theory. So I ended up for the last decade, exploring the living shit out of this theory. And I've realized that for a while, you can actually make predictions with it. There's the implications of this theory have not been explored to an astonishing extent.

The guy that thought it up is brilliant. He's he's a theoretical physicist, but he's a theoretical physicist. He didn't even understand the implications of his own theory because they play out through evolutionary mechanisms that he had to. A simple basic understanding of, but not a profound understanding.

So a couple of years ago, the should I expand on what's like Smolin's theory is first? 

Ben: We can get to the theory also, I think we'll cross black holes, aliens and the like, but I was going to maybe take one step back. What you said about the societal. Aspect there's a sort of almost history of ideas about why this has come to place because I think you make the point really well and you've written in one of your sub stacks essentially around how Galileo for really good reasons thought, you know what, I'm going to have to couch everything I do in the language of numbers because the church can't attack me with the language of numbers.

And I just saw, one of my mates. Get, doofed by trying to encroach on the church's and church's terms. And I thought also this echoed some of our history of writing in the novel or in the fiction. So today, not quite, but a majority of what we write is in this kind of style of where we think it's quite close to our reality, right?

You have a story that go around, you have a holiday romance and type like that. Yes. Yes. And if. If you're, if you throw in something which seems too fantastical, we go, Oh, that can't be true. We disregard that story. So stories actually, not all of them cause we have magic realism and the like, but quite a narrow amount.

We read now a lot of non fiction, because we go, oh my god, could that really have happened? And it turns out that life is now more fantastical than a lot of our novels, and our novels, there's an argument about the split of why the novel happened, (Tristram Shandy) versus or not, but there's quite a small amount exploring fantastical ideas, and we do have it.

Children's books, fantasy, science fiction, magic realism. But it's actually quite a narrow domain versus the classical novel today, which is a little bit like quote unquote, real life. And we're allowed just one fantastical thing to happen because if you do more than that, the reader suddenly thinks, Oh, that can't be like real life.

And I just thought thinking about that is like the novel has tried to do the same thing that Galileo did, which was like, Oh, we somehow think it's safer to conform to this for all of these societal reasons. So in the history of ideas, I thought when I thought about that, it's and that completely explains why these ideas are under explored and could potentially well, definitely underrated and could potentially be right.

And I thought that was a key insight for almost the human explanation. For why this hasn't been explored before we even get on to the fact that actually the ideas could well have strong merit on themselves. And is that, have I thought about it correctly in terms of your thinking about the history of ideas and why we've ended up in this place?

Julian: Yeah that's basically, I think, in the introductions of the book, I talk about how Galileo, his founding principle was the truth about the universe is mathematical and the language of science is mathematics, and I'm certain that it was partly because Bruno had just got burnt to death for speculating wildly about other stars being other suns and having other planets and other people on, living things on them that had souls and, that, that was one of the reasons, there were other reasons, but that was one of the main reasons he got burnt to death in the, in, in the public square after being tortured by the Inquisition in Rome.

And Bruno had applied for the same job that Galileo had nine years later, when after the years of trial, when he was, when Bruno was executed, they were, they overlapped, a lot. So Galileo did not want to extract the meaning from the data. He just wanted to stack up the data.

He was just going to do a mathematical science, purely mathematical descriptions of reality, nothing about the meaning, right? He's leaving all that to the church, but that leaves out huge areas of truth that are really important. There's, there are truths in, Carl Jung, there are truths in the Buddha, there are truths in transcendental direct experiences, there are truths in the way Aretha Franklin sings, that are not captured mathematically, and, but are nonetheless true and useful.

And we've had this weird flip over the last few centuries where What started out as a vow of humility, science is a limited construct that will just give you mathematical truths about reality. There are many other truths that are more important, that used to be left to the church has flipped to science is the church.

Mathematical descriptions of reality are the only real, valid, important descriptions of reality and everything else is underneath that in importance. And that's a complete reversal of what was like, intended at the birth of science, 

Ben: What's your what's your reading then about this possible theory of the universe and I guess bringing in your humanities and view.

I had a really simplistic take when reading yours and skimming the small and with, you had black holes and a singularity and you have the big bang and a singularity and hey presto, that seems quite a big coincidence. And then let's see where we go from there. But there was a lot of things in that.

So how are you thinking about it? And maybe you can also roll in because from that you have got predictions like you've, Mention and we now have all of these structures and the things that we're seeing from the web telescope Which are going lo and behold they don't fit in our what is it called the standard model of the universe?

I think that's what physicists have said. Oh and physicists have always said the standard model does not explain everything It's just what we have and the web telescope is going. Yeah, and look at all of these structures which are not Explainable without that, but it seems that the theory you're exploring, seems to have some of that.

What's your view? 

Julian: First little point though. I think they used, there was a long period of time where the artists extracted the meaning from the data that the scientists provided. I thought that was a very healthy ecosystem. The, galvanism was just, was it.

was demonstrated by a scientist who was putting electricity through frog's muscles and the dead frog's muscles and they were twitching it. And this was witnessed by, Mary Shelley probably saw it. If she didn't, her brother definitely did. And then she writes Frankenstein. Frankenstein is the artistic extraction of the meaning from the data of the early electrical experiments.

And you, and Jules Verne sends men to the moon and invents submarines and does all this stuff, extracting the meaning from a lot of the technological and scientific data around him at the time. You had people fly around the world in hot air balloons and you've got, he's doing, he's extracting the meaning from the data.

H. G. Wells was doing the same. Heinlein was doing the same in the golden age of science fiction in America. You had, Asimov and Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke. Arthur C. Clarke was not just a science fiction writer, he predicted geostationary orbiting satellites, in a paper he wrote in 1849 or 40 something.

And I think we've, the, as science has got more and more specialized, Writers have retreated from trying to understand science and extract the meaning from it. And they have gone to where you're talking about, where they're doing a lot of gritty realism and a lot of realistic accounts of normal human lives and not really going big. Because it's hard to follow. It's really difficult to follow modern science. It's become a whole bunch of subs, subspecialities with privatized jargons that, and they don't even understand each other. That's one very interesting thing. And I definitely found that talking to a range of scientists about these theories.

They really don't even understand each other. So it's totally fragmented and there's no one synthesizing it because all of the most interesting truths tend to come from taking an idea from one field and applying it to another field where it has wonderful application that nobody's. And there's hardly anyone doing that.

So I think that's my role in this. So going back to the black holes thing John Wheeler had this great American physicist, had this interesting idea that there was, we had two problems in our universe that involves singularities and you described it well, that like one is black holes. Mass energy collapses to a point and vanishes from our universe, and one is the Big Bang.

It's a singularity where mass energy appears from nowhere and expands into a universe. And John Wheeler said, what if they're the same thing just seen from different sites? What if a black hole in a parent universe punches down to a singularity, bounces and forms a big bang in a child universe? Forms a child universe?

That gave you a me a way for universes to reproduce. He thought maybe the child universes have randomly different basic parameters of matter, randomly different laws of physics here. And that might be an explanation for why you have this crazy, complicated, strange universe that we're in, which seems bizarrely unlikely.

random. It's not a great explanation because you're just throwing lots of random universes at a problem trying to get something really sophisticated. But one of his students was Lee Smolin. And Lee Smolin realized, because he was reading some evolutionary theory at the time, he was reading Stephen Jay Gould and Lin Manuel Margulis he realized, wait a minute, if the child universe, If the basic parameters of matter in the child universe, which means like the mass of the electron, the speed of light, the the strong nuclear force, these various little things that make up the basics of our universe.

If they varied, not randomly and completely, Wheeler suggested, but if they just varied slightly, you would get inheritance. And you would get Darwinian evolution of the universes. It just, it's automatic, because if the child universe has its basic parameters of matter vary slightly, that will make it either more likely or less likely to produce more or less black holes.

Which means it will make it more or less reproductively successful. And so the ones that are more reproductively successful will have more offspring. They will be tending in that direction. So some of those will have even more offspring, some will have less, but you'll end up with a, you'll end up with a kind of branching, an evolutionary branching where the number of universes in existence gets dominated by highly reproductively successful universes.

You can get runaway reproductive success because the thing about universes is they're not. They're not in competition for resources. Each one is its own space time. Each one is it. Each one is both organism and environment. So You know, there are limits to biological offspring because they're born into a constrained environment as they, and they fight for resources and, hippopotamus that has 3 million baby hippopotami does not end up being reproductively successful because you can't feed 3 million.

Hypopotamite in that little bit of wherever it was, wherever they were born. But you can have three, three million offspring as a universe and they're all new universes. They're not in competition. You can do that. And universes are essentially flat. Like the mass energy and the gravitational energy in universe net out to zero in our universe.

So you can make them for free. It's not like they get smaller every time. It's not if you make a million babies, they're a million times smaller than the babies you would make if you only make one baby. They can all, because they net out to zero, they could all be full scale, full size universes.

So you can get runaway reproductive success. And our universe, if you count the number of black holes in it, and they've done a recent assessment of that, you have to guess slightly, because, but if you work out the number of stars, the right mass and how long they live and all that, you can work out the number of black holes.

And there's 40 quintillion black holes in our universe. So if black holes are reproductive success, we're pretty reproductively successful universe 40 quintillion already. 

Ben: And does the net zero equilibrium explanation give a hint at the where the singularity comes from, because it strikes me you have potentially a chicken and egg problem around I could see how it starts off black hole singularity evolution and that explosion.

But do you still need the sublime to, to explain the origin of the singularity, even if it might be a net zero construct? 

Julian: I think you don't. I think one of the reasons I really love an evolutionary theory is. You can just, you don't have a starting problem. You don't have a, where did it come from problem?

If you explain our complex universe like ours by invoking your God or something, now you've invoked an even more complex entity. Where did that come from? Cause you've got Gaul's law kicks in here. Gaul's law states that any complex working system evolved from a simple working system. You can't start with an incredibly complex system.

You can't start by building Concord. You have to. Build the Wright Brothers plane out of bicycle parts that flies a hundred yards. You start with that, and you iterate and iterate, and eventually you get Kongol, but you can't start with Kongol. You can't start with a human being. You can start with a protozoic, you can start with some kind of metabolic process happening in mud that eventually gets a membrane and turns into a protozoic, creature.

And prokaryotic bacterium or whatever, and then eventually you get eukaryotes and so on. And you can get your way to human beings. Which are complex working systems, but you have to start with a simple working system, and I think the same thing applies to universes. The, for me, one of the beauties of this is the starting point is there was always something.

There was always something, and it was unbelievably simple. It was as simple as it gets. There was ur matter, right? There weren't 96 elements doing all kinds of complicated things. There was just something that is, as simple as you can imagine, simpler than a hydrogen atom. And all it, all you needed to do is to split in two at some point, collapse into two things.

Some of, if you've got something. And time, and therefore change, eventually, because you've got an infinite amount of time, some it shuffles, it collapses, it falls to, to some point where it collapses into two things. And now you've got two things. And if one of them is more successful than the other at collapsing into things, you've got evolution, right?

And eventually you get to this more complicated version down the line. 

Ben: So I can see from simple, we'll build more complex Your first one of your statements within that was essentially saying that you don't need, I don't think we quite have the language for it essentially, but we don't need a time before because you don't need this time before.

Yeah. The simple, whatever you want to call it Oh, Matt, because we don't have the language for it. It just probably the simplest thing you can imagine just was. And from that, everything can flow. 

Julian: Yeah. There was always something existing in time. There was always something, and there was always time inside our space, time bubble.

Starts at zero for us because space time itself starts at the singularity, but it's emerging from the space time of the parent universe. There was space time in the parent universe as it collapses to a point and then bounces to form our space time. So there was space time in that universe. That universe was born from a point that came out of a parent universe.

There was space time in that universe. There's always time, there's always something. But it gets more complicated as it goes on. In the same way, there was always, at a different scale, there was always matter on Earth. There was always 96 elements in a puzzle. There's a worm puddle, a billion years ago, and you, as you start to get separation and differential reproductive success, you get evolution and it gets fucking complicated really fast.

And I think the same thing happens with universes. And we're in a pretty, relatively complicated universe. There are probably more complicated universes. And ours may well be. There are less complicated universes. And we're spawning more. Let's assume we're mediocre. Let's assume we're mediocre.

And we're spawning more. And we're spawning enormous numbers of universes that are related to ours, that will be variations on ours, yes. Yes. And 

Ben: there's the fact that we don't seem to have detected any alien life as yet. Yeah. Does that have any, I guess some people call this the Fermi paradox, and I believe the scientists actually think that it is actually likely there is alien life out there.

But we lack the technology slash the scale slash haven't been around for long enough. There's a civilization that could detect this thing with like maybe a couple of decades and you need to go a billion years or so to do that. But is this a challenge or evidence for either way? Or actually it's just neutral because we simply don't know on the alien question.

You can make predictions based 

Julian: on theory. So the if this is going to evolve, if our universe is, I should actually walk you through this. The version of the theory I've ended up with in more detail, it's the one that makes predictions. Yes. And it also plays into what we're talking about here.

So the short answer to your question is the theory says there should be a lot of life in this universe. Life should pop up again and again on multiple worlds, probably a lot on icy moons will also sometimes on exposed worlds like ours. Okay. Wherever there's a lot of water and an energy source, you're probably going to get some sort of life form eventually.

But okay, I'll walk you through the theory. So that Smollett, let's go back to Smollett. He predicted That you would get Darwinian evolution of universes and that would ultimately fine tune the basic parameters of matter to optimize for black hole production. That was his version of the theory, right? So our universe has a lot of black holes and that was where the theory stood when he started it out. One reason by the way that didn't get any traction at the time is it's not a full version of the theory. It's been expanded. But he published it in the Journal of Classical and Quantum Gravity, which is read by 200 people, all of whom are really interested in quantum gravity and have no interest in evolutionary theories. And don't know anything about them. So it was, and this was before the internet, so I rang the, I talked to the, I emailed the editors of that journal recently just to double check everything, and yeah, they said yeah, we didn't go online for another six years after that paper. So no one can access it, right?

It's in, on paper, in a few libraries. And it's being read by nobody outside of quantum, the quantum gravity fields. It, it got, it, so it, by the time people hear about it, they're not even reading the original paper, they're just hearing a cartoon version of it that a friend mentioned.

And it just didn't gain traction, and it was dismissed by other physicists. Using arguments that actually don't hold up, but Smolin didn't know that because he doesn't know enough about evolution. Okay but one question that comes out of this is, if the universe evolved, and this is a developmental process that's been fine tuned by evolution, why is there intelligent life in it?

Intelligent life is a very odd, complex, energy intensive thing to generate, and it clearly, this universe puts a lot of energy into doing this. Why? How does that benefit universes, reproductions? If the universe is the, the unit of selection is the thing that's reproducing, what's, why would it generate intelligent life?

What's happening there? And a few people Clement Vidal John Smart Louis Crane Michael E. Price, a few people have they're mathematicians and philosophers and so on, systems theorists dug into that. And they came up with an idea, which I think is definitely true. And. Smallin doesn't like, he thinks it's too science fictional, but okay.

Which is, intelligent lifeforms, they will, they use energy. And they're going to try and optimize their energy use, right? Everybody does. Every creature, no matter how great or small, will try to get the most energy out of the environment they can with the least effort. So we see with ourselves, we've, we used our muscles.

As a power first, then we used animal fossils. Then we used burning wood, burning coal, oil, gas. Now we're using nuclear fission. We're trying to unlock nuclear fusion, and what you're doing is you're pushing up the energy efficiency slope. All of those are more efficient than the previous ones. You're getting more energy for less, out of less matter each time.

The ultimate end of that in our universe is, The production of small black holes, because if you can, if you drop matter into small black holes, you can actually get, if you can extract up to 42 percent of the mass as energy, which is way more efficient than fusion. Fusion you can extract 0. 7%. Of the mass as energy.

Fission, fission reactions, you splitting atoms, you can get 0. 1 percent of the mass out as energy. So by far the most efficient thing is dropping energy into a black hole. And if you can make small black holes technologically, manufacture them as energy and use them as energy sources, that's gonna, you're gonna do that.

That's the ultimate, that's where technological species will end up automatically. It doesn't matter what they think they're here for, that's what they're going to end up doing. I think that was the most interesting thing. And that's About two and a half cuts, right? You need two and a half cats.

Yes, you do. The cat is the, sadly, the cat has become the unit of the unit of energy for, the battery to drop into black holes. But you can, I think you can power all of Norway for a year with, is it two and a half black cats? dropped into a black hole. Yeah. So any universe that just randomly exploring the possibility space of matter generated intelligent life, technological life, they would then be able to manipulate the matter of that universe into making small black holes in a way that nature couldn't.

Nature on its own can't make small black holes. It can make star sized ones. And we know it can make supermassive black holes. It can't make really small ones. But if intelligent life does that, then that universe is going to be colossally more reproductively successful than one that doesn't produce intelligent life.

So intelligent life will be conserved. Once it's popped up once, it will be conserved. It will be very successful. And then, as generations go by, the basic parameters of matter will fine tune to make it more and more easy for life to develop until you get this kind of universe we're in now, which where it pops up pretty easily on this planet and develops into complexity pretty easily.

Other predictions. Okay, so that's where the theory was at when I got involved. And I've met Clement and John and people since then they've emailed me smaller than that. But then the James Webb was coming up the James Webb Space Telescope is NASA's latest space telescope, and it's a really revolutionary breakthrough because It's super cooled down to very close to absolute zero so that it can detect really difficult to detect infrared light from the very early universe because if you after the Big Bang, the light from the first billion years after the Big Bang has been stretched so much by the expansion of the universe.

As it's passed through the expanding universe, that its wavelength has dropped right down into the infrared. All the visible light from there is now right down into the infrared. And that means we can't see it on earth because we did, we radiate in the infrared. Everything radiates in the infrared. Our telescopes radiate way more in the infrared.

You can't pick up the light. So we've got, had literally no data from the very beginning of the universe up until the James Webb Space Telescope. So I thought as this was coming up two years ago, I thought, hang on, if this theory is correct. And if this universe did evolve. I should be able to make predictions about what the James Webb Space Telescope will see that are better than what the mainstream are predicting.

I should be more, I should be able to get a more accurate picture of the early universe. And that would be fucking fantastic for the theory, if I was right, if I was wrong, it'd be incredibly hideously embarrassing. And I would have to slink away and abandon investigating this, but it was a great natural experiment.

So I thought through the implications of the theory from scratch. Okay. And to understand the successful prediction I make, you've got to, you've got to realize. Or you've got to know that every galaxy we look at, all the spiral galaxies we look at and so on they seem to have a supermassive black hole at their center.

They all have a supermassive black hole at their center. You can tell that because the stars near it are going whizzing around something invisible really fast that obviously has a tremendous amount of gravity. So we know there's a supermassive black hole there. And some of these supermassive black holes have masses that are millions of times the mass of our sun.

Some of them have masses that are. Billions of times the massive. So they're really huge. Now a black hole is a point where Mass, mass energy has collapsed to a density that even light can't escape from it. Nothing can escape from it. It's gone from our universe. No information can come back out of the black hole.

But these supermassive black holes are immense. And they're at the center of all the galaxies. Now, the classic theory for how they came to be was that lots of stellar mass black holes, lots of, because when a star gets to the end of its life and uses up all its fuel, there's no longer radiation pushing out against gravity.

It runs out of fuel, the radiation pushing out against gravity that stops it collapsing is gone. The star collapses under its own gravity. And if they're much bigger than if they're, Five times, eight times bigger than our sun. If they're much bigger than our sun, they will keep collapsing until they form a black hole.

They just, they'll collapse to the point where even light can't escape. So that's how most black holes are formed. That's the, those are the black holes that Lee Smolin was talking about. They're stellar mass black holes. They're the mass of a sun, a star. Several times the mass of our sun, but they're the mass of a star, big star.

The old theory was lots of those must somehow come together to eventually form a much bigger black hole that pulls in a lot more matter and gas and therefore it eventually grows to be a supermassive black hole. It was a bottom up process where they slowly assemble from very small star mass black holes. Here's a consequence, here's an implication of the evolutionary theory, which I've never, I never had, I, which nobody had, scene, because nobody's fucking thinking about this. Nobody's thinking. Ten people are thinking about this, and they're thinking about it from their own specialized areas, right? The earliest, most, the earliest, most primitive universes if they reproduce through black holes, would have pr reproduced through really big, simple, direct collapse black holes. direct collapsed supermassive black holes. The simple matter that they were made out of would crunch down to form a really big black hole, because they're not producing very many black holes, so a lot of mass will go into each one.

If you divide a universe by five, you end up with really big black Oh, supermassive black holes. If you divide it by trillions, the way we do in ours, because we form trillions of stars, you end up with lots of very small stardust black holes, right? So the early ones were direct collapse supermassive black holes.

We have supermassive black holes in this universe at the center of every galaxy. If it's inevitable, if it's an evolved universe the way that those direct supermassive black holes were, are produced will be conserved from the earliest universes. They will be direct collapse supermassive black holes, right?

They won't be put together from a complicated process involving stars going through a whole load of processes and then eventually they collapse and then they all stick together and eventually they make a supermassive black hole. No, if we have supermassive black holes, they're almost certainly the mechanism that produced them is going to be direct collapse and it's going to be conserved. My theory was, what we should see in the very early universe is a wave of direct collapse supermassive black hole formation. By direct collapse I mean they don't form stars first and then burn out and then collapse. They just go. You're going to see direct collapse, supermassive black hole formation.

And after that, you're going to see star formation and galaxy formation. And here the early universe is incredibly smooth. The gas is really smooth. Okay. It's actually hard for cosmologists to work out how you get star formation in the early universe because it's so smooth. What you need are density areas to nucleate out little, you need seeds of gravity to nucleate out stars.

And you don't really have that in the early universe. It's super, super smooth. It's not optimized for star formation. So my argument was, it's gonna be optimized for supermassive black hole formation because huge areas will collapse. And as huge areas collapse, they don't nucleate out into stars and form lots and lots of stars because it's too smooth.

They form a supermassive black hole. And that supermassive black hole then optimizes conditions for star formation. That supermassive black hole, matter will fall into it, gas will fall into it will heat up and give out. Absolutely tons of energy as it does. All the brightest things in our universe are matter falling into black holes, quasars, they're all matter falling into black holes.

That supermassive black hole, as the energy falls into it, they, what they, what happens is they get really hot and they generate huge relativistic jets of matter shooting charged particles shooting up at the north and south magnetic pole of the spinning supermassive black hole.

Supermassive black holes have enormous magnetic fields and they jet these. Particle jets at close to light speed. They accelerate and close to light speed north and south. We know this from looking at quasars in the more recent galaxy. In more recent universe, in closer galaxies, we know this happens.

Those radiat radiation jets, these, those jets are charged particles shock the surrounding gas. And those shock shockwaves nucleate out. They shockwaves are density waves. They nucleate out star formation. So what I predicted you would see is a super massive of black holes rapidly generating. Spiral galaxies and so forth around the supermassive black hole nucleating out tons of stars.

So you would see rapid early galaxy formation around an ex a pre a supermassive black hole which precedes the galaxy formation. And the galaxy forms around the supermassive black hole rapidly and early. That's what, so you can get compact early galaxies. Built around supermassive black holes, dominated by their supermassive black holes.

That's exactly what you're seeing with James Webb. And it wasn't predicted by anyone else. Now, I want to give credit to one group of scientists, Priya Natarajan in Yale, and a few other scientists had done work on direct collapse supermassive black holes, and they knew they were theoretically possible.

And I drew, when I was making my predictions, I referenced their work and drew on their work, because I knew that direct collapse supermassive black holes were theoretically possible in our universe. But I was saying, they're not just, they're not just theoretically possible, there's going to be almost a phase transition in the early universe where, pretty much all the supermassive black holes we see today will all pretty much form first and then generate the galaxies around themselves.

And it's what we're seeing. 

Ben: That's amazing. I don't know enough to know if there might be alternative theories, but the fact that this theory, your interpretation of it, predicted this in advance, and then we saw it, seems pretty amazing. Pretty strong evidence for me, particularly at the very least that this is an underexplored idea that more people need to think about.

Julian: It’s always possible I'm wrong but it's always possible I'm wrong, but this is very strong evidence. There's something seriously worth exploring here. 

Ben: And that actually more cross, Disciplinary thinking, probably from non mathematician quantum people, or mathematician quantum people need to go and think about evolutionary or other ideas around that complexity.

It does strike me, this might be completely left field, but I don't know whether there's our current thinking around consciousness, or the fact that we don't understand that much about consciousness, have anything to say about this. 

Julian: Okay I'm leaving consciousness out of my book because it makes it a whole other book, a whole other book, a whole other ten  books.

But yeah clearly an evolved universe that generates conscious entities like you and me. And the listeners, I assume the listeners are conscious of it if they fall asleep. You're gonna have some very weird dreams, you're gonna have some very weird dreams. Universe that generates, builds out through a very complex multi step process.

Conscious entities like us is a very weird universe and frankly I'm out of my depth when I, when it starts, when we start to think about what the implications are for consciousness in in, in evolved universes. I have my thoughts and theories, but they, but I'm, that, that's me. When I do those, I'm starting to move into a kind of a transcendent realm of direct personal experience of the universe that would freak out the the kind of materialist reductionist that I want to talk to in, in this book.

It does definitely have huge implications for consciousness in the universe. It does huge implications. I, again, there was consciousness in the previous universes that generated our universe. 

Ben: I know. I would also say like we, humanity itself knows so little about this consciousness thing.

I spoken to some people who think have got to potentially some sort of enlightenment states, those who've taken sort of mushroom type stuff, or even neuroscientists who've just said, look, what we understand about consciousness. is very little. All of this stuff is really very weird, which is what you get.

So it's really interesting around that. But you're writing this work you're writing it in public on your sub stack and, it's coming through and there'll be there'll be a book as well. So I'm interested in how you're finding writing in public and also, you know that mixes up with personal story as well so how you're finding that and maybe how perhaps readers or listeners can interact and help evolve your theory or thinking but I guess this writing in public is a In some ways, there's a relatively new creative phenomena.

Obviously we've always had like serials and stuff, but the fact that people can comment in, with a newsletter format and then next week there might be another newsletter which interacts with it. I guess it's an offshoot of blogs. 

There seems to be a creative a growing creative outlet for that and also explores ideas like this.

So I'd be interested in, in, in how you think, how you've been finding it and and how people can help. 

Julian: Yeah I think new technologies always generate new art forms and I'm, one way of putting what I'm doing is, or phrasing what I'm doing is I'm writing the book in public. Another way of putting it is I'm, there's a, there's an art, I'm exploring an art form, which is.

Which you can call writing a book in public. So I use the Substack platform to do the, I've got a custom domain for it now because, for various reasons but I'm basically using Substack and it's, writing it in public is, has been fantastic. I you end up meeting people that you wouldn't meet otherwise, you end up in conversations you wouldn't have otherwise.

The Substack version of the book is re, is a really important version of the book. There will be a print book at the end of all this But I think they're both vitally important. The subsec isn't just a means to, to, to the end of the book. It's also a thing in its own right. And, there's a lot of material on the subsec that won't end up in the book, because, the book has to be tight and focused and go in this, beginning to end tell you the story.

Whereas I can ramble around the place and explore little various offshoots of the ideas. 

Ben: Have you thought of making a kind of GPT version of the book? Tyler Cowen did one on greatest economist of all time or something like that, Goat which was a much more entertaining way of actually engaging with the book and actually exploring it deeper than simply reading the text I felt for that.

I am thinking about doing something like that. Yeah. 

Julian: Cause also I have this, I use Roam and Scrivener to do my, I put all my rough stuff into Roam and then, which is a kind of a graph tool for connecting data and all kinds of. Texts in all kinds of interesting ways. I think and I, and then I bring stuff across into Scrivener and I make a more formal post or chapter in Scrivener over multiple drafts and then something goes up on the subset, but there's a huge amount of information left behind, it's also quite interesting.

So what I'd like to do is throw all of the material, all the Rome stuff, all the subset stuff into, yeah, into a bucket and to have a, Have an AI be able to answer questions from that huge bucket of information, which is way bigger than we'll end up in the book. Yeah. I would like that. Yeah. Yeah. I might talk to you about that if much about how best to do it.

Ben: I think the cost of doing it was going to drop dramatically and actually will be really interesting. 

Julian: The number of tokens, yeah, it's dropped a huge amount.

Ben: That little thing about AI as we've entered into the conversation, also strikes me as hearing what you've said about being more efficient and energy and where evolutionary processes go.

And I guess some who speculate around AI think AI heads to its own singularity as well, but just reflecting what you've said, it seems to me that this could simply be an energy efficiency type thing, which you don't necessarily need to get to a singularity for. But have you had any speculations on how your thinking has been impacted by what we're talking about?

By the technology that we're seeing in AI agents. 

Julian: I think, okay, in an evolutionary universe that there are implications I think for our future as humans and our future And are the future of our technologies. I think it's all one thing. It's all one thing like human beings. It's just in the design of a human being to feel that they're separate from the universe and they're separate from everything else because you need a an ego.

You need a sense of self. You're just you're this membrane bound isolated thing. To function and to survive, and that's fine. But we're not membrane bound isolated things. Oxygen is flowing through us. Carbon dioxide is flowing out of us where food is flowing through is flowing out. The cells are replacing themselves all the time.

We're completely social creatures and isolated human being dies. We are completely in social relationship to others, and we're completely in relationship to our technologies and we're all part, and the technologies are changing the biosphere and the biosphere is pushing back against the technologies and we need to find a kind of an equal.

Not a dynamic out of equilibrium balance as we move forward into the future that where we can maintain ourselves, the aspects of ourselves that we like. And so I think we are going to, we are going to merge with our technologies to a huge extent, and AI is going to be part of that.

But I don't think, I don't think AI's, in a way, I don't think AI's are as separate from us as we tend to think of them. AI's so far, large language models in particular, they're really the collective unconscious made manifest. They're only, all they have are the thoughts of millions of people encoded and then linked.

They're just the collective mind of humanity, they're not separate from us in, in a lot of ways. And I think as we move forward, we'll find that we're, our relationship to AIs will become very symbiotic over time. I don't think one has to annihilate the other or replace the other. I've clearly limits to biological development that we're constrained by the fact that we are this biological memory and there aren't similar constraints on aspects of AI because you can throw more compute at it.

You can do, you can change the software. You can, there's a lot more but ultimately I think we, we are both. It's part of the development of our universe, both the biological and the technological. And you're never going to just have a purely technological universe. It doesn't, I don't think it quite makes sense to have a purely technological universe.

I think there's a role for we're, I think we measure, I think we measure, I think we're important we're not going to have a purely biological future. It's going to be highly technologically mediated. What that does is expands out what we're going to be able to do then is explore the possibility space for this universe to explore the possibility space for matter in this universe.

There's a lot of rocks floating around the asteroid belt that were just. Be having a lot more fun if we were turning them into weird disco globes full of dancing semi human, offspring that, that are maximizing for techno happiness, that would be great. And there can be a monastic asteroid conversion somewhere else where people can just pray all day to their specific God and there's going to be another asteroid somewhere else where people just do maths.

Thanks. With their AI friends constantly, and we can massively expand the possibility space for consciousness and life and matter itself over the next, next few centuries. I've never heard that expressed by AI doing it. 

Ben: I've never heard it expressed like that, but I think it's plausible.

I spoke to someone not podcast who essentially had grown up deaf and now can hear. And she has a very different relationship technology because the technology is part of her. I said, this is one way of doing it, which might be like a 3PO (Star Wars), but also how she interacts, how she speaks to technology.

Isn't quite like a person, but it's beyond is beyond the pet say. So I know it's a whole other, but it's like, why would you treat something where you can? It's completely, profoundly changed your interaction with the world. You're dependent on it and you have this sort of symbiotic relationship.

She jokes about the fact that, she is part cyborg and what does that mean? And it's actually completely plausible, completely great for all entities. Imaginable. Yeah. 

Julian: Yeah. I think that is very plausible. Yeah. And she's a vision of the future and the future isn't scary when you meet it.

It's like someone who used to be deaf and now isn't, and it has a beautiful relationship with the technology that helps her become fully what she is capable of becoming. And we can be in that, we can be in a beautiful relationship to our technologies. 

Ben: Yeah, great. So any couple couple of closing questions then would be any other current projects that you're working on?

It seems like you have a thousand and one things to do, but Substack is obviously an important one. You had the children's book this year. Anything else on your mind and you combining it or anything else you'd like to highlight? 

Julian: My various publishers want me to write more children's books, but I want to finish the I want to finish The Egg and the Rock.

I want to do this book first. That's what I want to do next. And I want to do it on Substack in public and I want to talk to people about it and get ideas. Please, if you're listening to this and this interests you at all. Go to TheEggInTheRock. com subscribe to it and comment and answer the emails and I read everything, I don't necessarily answer everything because sometimes I'm overwhelmed, but I do read everything, and the feedback from readers has been unbelievably helpful to the book, unbelievably helpful, because I don't, I, and you don't have to be a, some kind of, expert in a particular domain here to be really helpful here, but it's wonderful to have someone say you haven't explained what a black hole is, and I don't really get it.

Or to have someone say, I literally can't tell the difference between a galaxy and an asteroid, please explain it. I don't know what people don't know until they tell me. So it's really improving the book to have people give you feedback, yeah. 

Ben: And I didn't pick up, why is it called The Egg and the Rock? 

Julian: It's the analogy I'm using at the beginning of the book, I'll send you chapter one and it will explain it, that the the, at the beginning, I talk about an egg, which the egg developed into my son, Arlo, the fertilized egg that developed into my son, Arlo. And I talk about a rock, which is the rock of Cashel, where my family were buried.

It's a big limestone rock sticking up out of the ground in in Tipperary. And I talk about the fact that they contain exactly the same atoms, they all contain, carbon and hydrogen and oxygen, calcium. And yet they, you watch them over the next few years, that egg becomes my son Arlo, a very complicated little individual running around, and the rock just sits there and decays slightly over time.

And what's the difference? The difference is the egg has an evolutionary history. The egg has an evolutionary history that has fine tuned it so it undergoes a developmental process, the energy flowing through it is organizing it. But the rock does not have an evolutionary history. The energy that flows through it is disorganizing.

It's not organized. And my question is, when you look at our universe, going from the Big Bang and a hot ball of gas to this here now, Does it behave like an egg or a rock? And the answer seems pretty clear to me. It's behaving much more like an egg than a rock. It's getting more complex and there's more structured order emerging over time.

Energy is being, channeled so as to enable complexification over time in a way that is far more like an egg than a rock. And if that's the case, you have to explain why. And I think the only possible explanation is an evolutionary one. The only explanation we've ever come up with for entities that behave in that way is an evolutionary explanation that there were earlier, more primitive ones that couldn't complexify that much, but they've, They fine tuned and fine tuned iterated, and the feedback comes through reproductive success that the offspring that will, if the increased complexity leads to increased reproductive success, it's, it is conserved.

You get to this kind of universe and then, yeah, and that's why the egg and the rock. So which is it? Is this an egg or a rock? Are we living inside an egg or a rock? 

Ben: Great. Okay. And then final question is, do you have any advice for people? Maybe this might be life advice, those who want to be creatives or explore this thing or we've talked a little bit about the importance of being creative.

Into, in, across disciplines, how to live a kind of a life well lived. But any closing thoughts on advice for listeners? 

Julian: Wow. I don't I'm, you are all, everyone's on their own journey and their own path, and I've had a very idiosyncratic and strange life, so I'm not sure if my, the advice.

That I can think of would be generalizable but I do think there's a specialization across everything that has had tremendous benefits, but there haven't, there aren't enough people putting it all together again. So if you think you can, if you think that there's some field you're involved in has missed something really big, that everybody has missed it because you have some information from somewhere else.

You're probably right. It's what you might not be right, but you there's a better chance than you think that you're right. Whole fields go wrong and nobody notices. So I think, try and put things back together because at the moment we're in a very fragmented era, and there's wonderful ideas lying all over the place that are in the wrong box, and they need to just being taken over to here where they were doing even more good at that.

And I think that people are doing that. We have an unbelievable number of PhDs in hyper specialized subjects, and we've got hardly anyone step, standing back and putting it all together. All the real, all the interdisciplinary stuff that people actually do, it's mostly bullshit. Like they'll have three meetings a year and they'll talk to each other and go, that's weird.

There isn't nearly enough putting it all together again. That's not really probably useful to most people, 

Ben: I don't know. I didn't hear about that. If you see an idea or a thing, which you think is in the wrong box or suspect it might be in the wrong box, go in, go and find it, drag it out into the light or put it into a different place.

That seems to me like a great idea. 

Julian: Yeah. I think we're moving into a golden age where science can be more, I think science that we need, I really want to pin some theses to a door here. I think we need a reformation in science. Science needs a reformation. Science has hit the end of a reductionist, materialist road, and its wheels are really spinning in the mud at this point in a lot of areas.

And it really needs input from people that aren't just reductionist materialists. 'cause reductionism is a phenomenal tool. It's the best tool we've ever come up with for uncovering certain kinds of data, certain kinds of truth. But at the scale of the universe, it breaks down. Reductionism will not explain the universe to you and it will not explain an entire society to you, and it will not explain the entirety of a human heart to you.

And, we need a reformation in science and there's, I'm trying to do it. Adam Mostriani, who has a subset called experimental history is trying to do it. There's a bunch of people, Matt Clancy's trying to do it. There's a bunch of people out there trying to help science realize that it's reached the end of a particular kind of problem.

way of doing things and we thank it and we're very grateful and we will continue doing reductionist material science forever because it's an unbelievably great tool but it's not enough for some of the problems we're facing right now and some of the mysteries we're trying to solve. Yeah and it strikes me It's a reformation in science.


Ben:

If I listen to a lot of cutting edge scientists on neuroscience, physicists, Nobel Prize winning speeches Oh, neuroscience is a really bad case of this, yeah. They always talk about we, the frontier, we need something more like this. But it's but we don't understand it. Yeah, it's 

Julian: unbelievable how many Nobel Prize winners in their speech will say, Reductionism isn't enough.

We are drowning in data, but we don't have knowledge. We're drowning in information, but we don't have wisdom. Some equivalent of that line has been said again and again by Nobel Prize winners. They all know there's a crisis. And they don't know how to get out of it, and it's, the trouble is the escape won't happen from inside the field, I think, at this point.

This is why I'm happily doing this from outside the field. I'm I think I have to disrupt it from outside. There's no point in me trying to get a paper into the Journal of Classical and Quantum Gravity that will be ignored for 30 years. That hasn't worked. It has to be disrupted from the outside.

And the problem there is most people who want to disrupt science and think they have a big idea that's better than the current idea are wrong. Most people are wrong. Most people, there is, the Dunning Kruger effect is real. A lot of people don't know what they don't know. But there are certain areas where the scientists themselves are not going to be able to find the solution to the problem because the problem crosses too many boundaries.

The boundaries of science are in the wrong place for understanding the universe. That's a big problem. That's a big problem. 

Ben: That sounds excellent. My takeaway is Try and go beyond the data or sideways to the data to the meaning or to the something else. Go to the meaning, 

Julian: But hang on to the data.

Don't deny the data to make your crazy theory true. Your crazy theory has to map onto the data. That's the difficult, that you've got to, you've got to just, you've got to hang on to the incredibly important data we do have. And then find the meaning in it. Yeah. 

Ben: That makes a lot of sense.

So on that note, Julian, thank you very much. 

Julian: Thanks. Thanks, man. That was a very enjoyable conversation.

In Life, Arts, Podcast, Writing, Theatre Tags Julian Gough, Minecraft, Universe, creativity, writing, physics, Creativity
Follow me on LinkedIN
Contact/Support