MOYER: “I thought it would be wise to let our readers know that you and I have scheduled a number of interviews that will populate the FIREFLIES website. Like the website itself, the interviews will be topical. I have a series of interviews planned that will probe your criticisms of Psychology, while another series of interviews will delve into personal research you wish were more representative of the field. But now – for what you call the ‘surface’ of your website – I will refrain from any kind of delving and confine my questions to the book itself.”

EHRENFELS: “I’m ready.”

MOYER: “I was very impressed with the scope and detail of this work. What words could you have possibly chosen to describe this book of yours? How do you categorize FIREFLIES?”

EHRENFELS: “It was difficult for me to affix a name to it, especially when I learned that prospective publishers will often determine whether or not to even request a manuscript on the basis of the genre I assign to it. I don’t like the term ‘novel’ and I don’t like the term ‘fiction’ because enormous lengths of the book recount almost verbatim real events from my life. Even some of the events in the book which appear fictional – like the dreams and even the synchronistic occurrences – are real.”

MOYER: “But it isn’t completely real.”

EHRENFELS: “No. The first five hundred pages are 90 percent faithful to reality, and whereas only about 50 percent of the last four hundred pages are faithful. I added a fictional sideline to the book. But more than just to embellish the drama and to provide a dimension of action and suspense, the fiction integrates the theory, symbol, and fact into a statement of exponentially greater meaning. I mean – the facts bare the hyperbole and hysteria of the modern professors – their research – their administration – their treatment and therapy – and their course instruction – and evident in each of these activities is a systematic erosion of the humanity in their students and their subject matter. I mean – I have known a tragic irony in my lifetime no greater than that of the way psychologists snuff out the nature of the psyche we place in their charge. The facts bare this out. The symbol – and by that I mean the dreams and synchronistic events -- are tools by which I can make plain to my readers the meaning and significance of this inhumanity. But these are factual dreams and events that occurred at the time I witnessed or suffered the abuses detailed in the book. The theory and fiction were incorporated into the story as a means of offering an explanation for this inhumanity. I mean – when you read the book – you are bound to ask ‘why are they like this?’ ‘Why do they act this way?’ The fiction offers an explanation – the bizarreness of which reflects proportionately the bizarreness of the behaviors it is needed to explain. The fiction thus helps to underscore the fact in a way the fact cannot underscore itself – expressively. The fiction places the fact on an emotional level. The theory – which is provided by the victims in the story – the embattled graduate students whose views are deemed threatening or non-conforming -- places the fact on an intellectual and interpretative level and demonstrates how the victims understand not only psychology better than their teachers but how they understand the teachers better than the teachers understand themselves. I wanted the book to be more than simply social commentary. I wanted to offer an alternative if not a solution. So in conclusion, well, if there ARE as Jung believes four functions to the psyche – sensation, or determining THAT something is – thinking, or determining WHAT it is – feeling, or determining whether it is agreeable or not – and intuition, or determining the possibilities associated with it – then I wanted my book to use comparable devices in FACT -- which is sensation – in THEORY – which is thinking – in FICTION – which is feeling – and in SYMBOL – which is intuition. And having been embattled for views like these, I wanted to tell the American public just what it was about my views that was feared or underestimated, and I wanted to plead a case for the superiority of my approach.”

MOYER: “Is your book an ‘instrument of social reform’ -- a ‘political platform’?”

EHRENFELS: “Again I will have to give you my standard answer here – which is ‘among other things.’ Obviously, if FIREFLIES can have that kind of impact – if it could generate public discussion – provide a stimulus and structure for discourse – that would be great. I think there is some potential here. I think that the public and the body politic are distrustful of the psychological profession – of its worth – but they don’t have the facts they need to verify their suspicions or crystallize and articulate their thoughts. I wrote this book to do just that.”

MOYER: “Were there any concerns that perhaps the book was too ambitious?”

EHRENFELS: “I have heard that the book serves too many masters, and that I would do best to break it up.”

MOYER: “How would you break something like this up?”

EHRENFELS: “Two ways really. I have heard an opinion to the effect that I should write two non-fiction works: one on the interpretation of dreams and another on higher education. And then there were publishers who recommended I reserve the latter half of the book for a sequel.”

MOYER: “And how did you take the recommendations?”

EHRENFELS: “I did not want to cannibalize the book. THIS whole is greater than the sum of its parts and if I chopped it up, I would have lost an important property that emerged in the confluence of fact, fiction, theory, and symbol. The book itself is a microcosm of the phenomenological universe. Human nature includes stimuli that emerge from a source beyond our awareness or control – FACT. Human nature includes imagination and emotional expression – FICTION. Human nature includes the intellectual and intuitive faculties – THEORY. And human nature includes spirituality, meaning, and relationships – SYMBOL. And these elements are all ingredients for a study of human nature that is both adequate and authentic.”

MOYER: “As for a sequel?”

EHRENFELS: “The book was already written – and as such – it was not written as a time-ordered series of events. There is an internal consistency – an integrity to the book – its elements support one another in such a way that to postpone half the book – to export it outside to another entity – you would have had the illusion of finished products. The book is really one. If I HAD decided to break it up in that way, I would have had to re-work the first half to give it the properties of a whole – of something that could stand on its own. Otherwise, it would not have had a thrilling or meaningful conclusion. Readers would have had to wait for the sequel to educate and inspire them in a way that provided them with any sense of closure.”

MOYER: “Why did they push for these revisions?”

EHRENFELS: “I was devastated. Here I was – after 18 months of work, I finally had something I could take to the publishing community and to the world. It was the best possible combination of excitement and relief anyone could experience. It was even better than the moment I turned a corner in the defense of my dissertation and realized…I couldn’t lose. And then – to be turned away because of the size of the book alone. At 928 pages in its original formatting -- over 450,000 words – I was informed FIREFLIES was anywhere from three to five times the size of an average novel. And I just couldn’t believe that. I have wandered through bookstores before, and I couldn’t imagine the average book being 300 pages and 125,000 words. I heard a lot of the term ‘cost-prohibitive.’ I realized THEN and THERE that a major, well-known publishing conglomerate would not publish FIREFLIES. Sure, I considered as one publisher put it ‘reducing the book to its irreducible nectar.’ But – ”

MOYER: “But 300 pages was out of reach.”

EHRENFELS: “Yes. And I heard from dozens of publishing professionals that there was an added burden on me as a first-time author to meet this requirement. I always assumed that because of my credentials – I would be given some idiosyncrasy credits and a benefit of the doubt. And the book is in many ways a substitute for a career in psychology. But just as quickly and just as rudely did I find myself face to face with the fact that it would be no easier for me to publish my book about Psychology than it would be for me to find a career in the field. I was bitter – and part of me remains bitter – that all that I have learned over the course of my life since age 13 – about human nature and about the study of human nature – would be wasted.”

MOYER: “Surely it’s not a waste if you learned something.”

EHRENFELS: “I don’t see it that way. Yes, I spent all those precocious years of independent reading and research mainly because I loved it, but always so that it wouldn’t end there. So that when it came time for me to commit 40 hours a week to the work world, that I wouldn’t have 40 less hours to spend on what I loved best – on what I was put on this earth to do. And there was neither fun nor worth in what I had to do to earn a Ph.D. What a meaningless machination THAT was. I wanted to be able to devote my life to the kind of contribution that suited me most – that fulfilled a destiny I shared with the subject matter itself. NOW look at me. I am a data processor. Is there no greater injustice? [UPDATE: Wyatt Ehrenfels's meteoric rise to financial consultant in the months after the release of this transcript does not mitigate his displeasure with the outcome of events]. Now my wife – she says – ‘why do you even want a place in the field now that you know what you do about it and now that it doesn’t want you?’ It is a compelling argument – but it does not change my belief that the field should be other than what it is.”

MOYER: “And what is that?”

EHRENFELS: “If nothing else, it should be more tolerant of diverse views. But it is so much more complex, which is why we have earmarked some three hours of interviews to the field’s shortfalls alone. I have enough material to teach a college course. There is a fundamental problem with the epistemology of Psychology as both a science and a profession. But like any other industry, it bares certain characteristics that make it difficult for an individual who developed an identity OUTSIDE the field…to survive WITHIN it.”

MOYER: “And then you learned that publishing the book would not be as easy as you expected.”

EHRENFELS: “You know. It’s a lot like applying for jobs in psychology. Your work is never really considered – and you are never really interviewed – unless you pass a series of preliminary ‘cuts’ that really have little or nothing to do with the worth of your character or work. In publishing, if they like your genre, your page count, your publishing record, and your representation, they may request your synopsis. And because they know they’d be deluged with hundreds if not thousands of manuscripts, they set up roadblocks they think will filter out the less reputable works. I quickly became familiar with the phrases ‘no unagented work’ and ‘no unsolicited manuscripts.’”

MOYER: “You didn’t seek a literary agent.”

EHRENFELS: “I tried briefly, but then I realized that whatever concerns the publishers have about profits and prestige, about the size of the book and the reputation of its author, the literary agent has to be even more concerned. The middle-man is just a magnifying glass. So this broker may make life a little easier for the publisher, but it sure makes life impossible for the author. Hell – the fee for literary representation cuts into the author’s profits, not the publishers. But basically publishers seek profits – they are looking for books that will appeal to a maximum of readers with a minimum of pages. This is why you see so many books about – and God for bid – BY -- celebrities like Dennis Rodman and John F. Kennedy, Jr. I have to question whether some of these authors have something to say and any real means to say it. Publishers have become sort of a tabloid mill. I have to wonder whether publishing has completely lost its connection to the source of creativity in much the same way academia has lost its connect to scholarship. Publishers – and I am speaking largely of the New York conglomerates -- probably do not have their fingers on the pulse of the American author – again – not that they are COMPLETELY to blame. They are overwhelmed with book proposals -- with 800-page science fiction books about extraterrestrials by Star Trek and X-Files fans. Now these works are least likely to find a home, but because they flood the pipeline, publishers are forced to install some kind of filter. Unfortunately, too many excellent works are filtered out before they are ever really reviewed. And then you have authors who can actually write – who have mastered the fine art and mechanics of the written word – but who have nothing valuable to say. They churn out mindless twists and turns of plot by what amounts to a masturbation of the imagination. These works can be pure mindless entertainment – escapist literature – and can be hollow and pretentious literary artifices with nothing original or insightful to contribute. If you ask me, most of them are static in the system.”

MOYER: “And what makes FIREFLIES different?”

EHRENFELS: “FIREFLIES addresses a social problem that in some respects is so buried within the seamy underbelly of academia as to be hidden from view, but in other respects in also symptomatic of much broader and far more troubling problems with society in general. The book not only exposes the damage to human nature itself inflicted by the people charged with its study, but exposes the damage to the individual and to the culture by professions and by periods of techno-prosperity. Seems to me that professionalism and prosperity have been built at the expense of individual freedom and at the expense of the human spirit. If you are afraid to be convinced of this, I would not pick up this book.”

MOYER: “Was the length of the book your only concern?”

EHRENFELS: “Yes. And I admit that I have some fairly lengthy dialogues in the book. But I wanted the book – first and foremost – to be a comprehensive reflection of my struggles with academia. Yes – I could have held some of my material in reserve for another book. But I did not want to write a weak imitation of an original. But also – I am not sure I want to write this kind of book again. I don’t want to rule out a work of non-fiction on dreams – but a novel did not come naturally to me. I did it to honor my experiences and I did it in public service to the human spirit. But once it is done – there is no reason for me to do it again. And yes – I also did it for revenge – to weaken an already tenuous public trust in Psychology. But I also don’t want to see anyone like me to ‘tread with dread’ the years of disillusionment in pursuit of an advanced degree.”

MOYER: “You would recommend no one pursue – ”

EHRENFELS: “I wouldn’t go that far. People who want something to hang on their wall or something to keep them busy until retirement – by all means. The field was made for people who are indifferent to the subject matter and who like to choose a career and its social and material amenities cafeteria-style – it was not meant for people for whom the study of the psyche is a true vocation and extension of themselves. I seriously wonder why 80 percent of the people in that field are there and not in Sociology, Marketing, Data Processing, Actuarial Science, Human Resources, or Biology. I suspect professions have a way of keeping everyone mis-employed.”

MOYER: “I understand you have entertained a few reviews of your book?”

EHRENFELS: “I received feedback from four publishers, three of which read the manuscript in its entirety. My wife, who has also read the manuscript from cover to cover, seems to have conferred upon herself the title of ‘harshest critic.’”

MOYER: “And how would you characterize the feedback?”

EHRENFELS: “I am encouraged by them thus far. There was one review I want to frame. It is the kind of feedback some authors work their whole life for. I cannot read the entire review because it would give way too much about the story. Also because it is posted on the same web site where you will be posting this interview.”

MOYER: “But he liked the book.”

EHRENFELS: “His reasons why really allayed some concerns I had about some risks I took with the book. I was concerned that the scripted dialogue would turn off purists. That publishers would think I had written a screenplay and that I had taken the easy way out. The only non-positive review I received was from someone who fashions herself a member of the literati. Her style is much different than that of St. John. She strikes me as someone who holds herself and others to certain stylistic rules or traditions appropriate for the medium. But I think the medium has to suit the message. My first draft did not make use of scripted dialogue, but it posed some problems for me as I searched for novel ways of saying ‘he said’ or ‘she said.’ This can get pretty complicated when you are writing about a discussion involving three or more contributors. And because most of the action that takes place in academia occurs at the level of conversation, I decided never to describe what was said, but simply to present it. It adds suspense and furthermore I have to remember that I am making a case to my readers about the state of affairs in academia. The best evidence I have is the words of academics. Why not use them? I found that when I did use them, I had no need to embellish with description. The intentions, feelings, and tones -- those of the speaker – and those of the person being addressed – are evident from the spoken words. And why make a 900-page book even longer?”

MOYER: “So did you learn anything else from the contrast?”

EHRENFELS: “Like I said, there are personalities in the field of publishing that mirror those in academia. St. John strikes me as an open-minded and free-wheeling person – a real independent who gives and receives ideas openly without prejudice. I could be wrong – but his reading list is probably more contemporary. The other reviewer made a point of listing her literary credentials: that she attended college quote unquote ‘on scholarship, where my writing earned me one on one writing workshops with Margaret Atwood and Nobel poet Seamus Heaney.’ She also used the term ‘Faulknerian’ to describe the first chapter of my book. But – and I only bring this up because it is the case I make against most academics – the hard-core professionalism seems to conceal an immaturity. This reviewer in her introductory e-mail offered up some very personal information about her life. I mean -- she presented me with a biography in which she pitched how she was or was not like me based on a biography I had written for her at her request. She indicated at that point that my manuscript had touched her deeply and she promised a thorough review of my book. But four weeks later, after I received a cold three-line rejection letter in the mail – I petitioned her impressions. I mean I spent hours printing up 1800 double-spaced pages and spent over $50 mailing her the manuscript – I was not about to drop the subject without learning anything. The tone of her reply overall – in and around the critique – was so bitter. As a publisher, I would never have selected those words unless I wanted to inflict hurt. It was then that I knew that she may not have in fact have considered the book substandard or unworthy of publication, but that she may have been offended by its content. She may have identified with characters in the book I impugned.”

MOYER: “The academics. The professors.”

EHRENFELS: “It was then that I realized that despite the fact she was in publishing and the book characters were in academia, that she participated in that same vapid professionalism that concealed personal insecurities at the expense of real scholarship. Even if she did not identify with the antagonists, I cannot see how this publisher could have possibly identified with the protagonists and understood the true message of the book. And this interpretation is supported by the fact she did not think I developed the characters of the protagonists sufficiently. But I do not think a lack of character development is at the root of the problem here. I think it was an excess burden for me to make characters like these resonate to a person like her.”

MOYER: “The other reviewer thought you developed character well over five hundred pages.”

EHRENFELS: “Yes. While the literary professional thought I needed to use more description to inform my readers what kind of characters they are. I decided early on in the writing not to subscribe to that method because it constrains the imagination of my readers and in effect tells them how and what to think of the characters. I wanted my readers to form their own impressions based on the statements, decisions, and circumstances of my characters. There is more than enough there. Not to mention the fact I think that restraint on my part fosters a more realistic book – one that presents experiences directly to the reader rather than filtered through the author. As an author, I wanted to appear to be as invisible as possible to my readers. I did not want to be a device – a sort-of-here, sort-of-not now-you-see-him, now-you-don’t kind of presence like a Greek chorus. Our experiences are not narrated with the exception of when we feel our experiences are narrated by God. It is just this Entity that some authors would like to assume.”

MOYER: “Is the publisher herself a published author?”

EHRENFELS: “Yes. She published a book before she started her own publishing company. The fact it was 72 pages in length revealed to me that perhaps she was not familiar with the kind of challenge I was undertaking with FIREFLIES. I am sure her college literary credentials and the fact her book was under 100 pages appealed to a publisher, for which her work posed little risk.”

MOYER: “Back to the positive review for a moment – what else if anything did this reviewer have to say about the book?”

EHRENFELS: “He mentioned the climax of the novel – what he likened to the eruption of the volcano – was his favorite part. To quote him, he said, ‘Okay, I admit it, I'm a sucker for action -- and what action it was!’ He mentioned a certain scene really got to him. ‘My God, what a vivid imagination,’ he said. ‘This is the stuff of nightmare.’ He said. And he also mentioned he could ‘feel’ the action and would like to see one of the scenes filmed with actress Cameron Diaz. And this takes me to another point. A third reviewer, who had as his bottom line acclaim for the chapters I sent him, did mention that he had wished I had described the physical appearances of the characters. I consider him a member of the literati, but an old-school scholar – you have to see this guy – he would bare interesting for description himself – long flowing white beard.”

MOYER: “So if you were a Republican to use a metaphor, he would not quite be a liberal Democrat.”

EHRENFELS: “A Southern conservative Democrat, yes. And as a Hasidic Jew, I suspect he is conservative and perhaps even Democratic. So there may be more than just a metaphorical tie there. Anyway -- we had a lively exchange of correspondence on this issue. I argued it would be best for readers to do what the reviewer had done – now he was free to imagine Cameron Diaz as one of the characters. Now I never would have chosen that demeanor if I were required to describe one, but I do not think the Diaz demeanor conflicts with the fundamental constitution of the character. I contend that only good things can come from allowing readers to fill in the arbitrary and unimportant details with the stuff of their own personal experience or psyche. When my wife read my book, she actually felt like she met some resistance when she reached a point in the book when I revealed a certain character she had imagined as tall was actually short. Now in this particular case, the height of the character was relevant to what I wished to convey, but I will not engage in gratuitous assignment of physical characteristics to personalities unless the two are intrinsically tied.”

MOYER: “What did your opponent argue?”

EHRENFELS: “In his words: ‘I must also disagree with your approach to characterization: another cop-out! You will be surprised how many people lack the experience, the acquaintance, and the observational talent to be able to fill in the blanks you leave in your characters. These people depend on you to help fill their void. The beauty of storytelling is that your fiction becomes more real than the reader's reality. Even those people whose lives are rich in texture need to be pulled out of themselves, away from their own conceptions and pre-conceptions, into another world waiting to be explored!’”

MOYER: “He said ‘another’ cop-out.”

EHRENFELS: “I confided in him that I would feel hypocritical using the mainstream publishing industry to publish a book that questioned the status quo. I thought he would appreciate this as an independent press and fellow critic of the industry.”

MOYER: “How did you respond to this?”

EHRENFELS:“I said that ‘While I am pleased you feel strongly about certain things, ‘cop-out’ is a little strong, don't you think? I do have reasons for doing what I am doing, which is to say my creative choices are driven by principle and reflection. I do not attempt to take the easy way out; intellectually, I am neither lazy nor timid; and I refuse to govern my creative choices by emotion. And as for people, well, while I am capable of extraordinary cynicism, I trust people to be able to conjure up images for appearances. They may not know why or even from where their imagination conjures up the images, but I believe that in the Kantian sense the human mind is universally endowed with the faculties necessary to meet the author halfway. If I filled in all the details for my readers, I would be a journalist, not an artist. True transformation of my readers requires I draw something from their psyche while filling them in with something from my own. Now if you believe my storyline, there is a subversive force responsible for the slow deterioration of these inherent faculties -- a distortion in the fabric of human nature -- a frightening reality I attempt so desperately to paint in my novel. This is another reason why I do not humanize or deepen DESCRIPTIVELY. The humanity and personality of my characters must remain in question throughout the novel. Toward this end, I have married message with medium.”

MOYER: “Any chance we’re looking at a best-seller?”