Let’s be reborn —
in a mutual Nirvana
of disagreement.
And agreement.

Let’s share souls —
like pancakes.

With — like Chilly Willy the Penguin would say:

“More butter, more syrup.
Plenty of butter, plenty of syrup.”

The best episode of life.

Joy.
And disappointment.

Like Viagra.

Its originality – the mixing of profanity, absurd imagery, and political polemic – is a strength for the rightaudience. But it may be “too dangerous” for conventional publishing (the sexualcontent and profanity are quite extreme) except via contests/anthologiestailored to risky work. Overall, the piece is very original (agenre-bender essay), with limited mainstream saleability but strong potentialas a standout contest entry or special-issue essay.

Living Dangerously i s highly original but also polarizing. Its offbeat,hybrid form would likely struggle in mainstream literary journals that favor polished traditional essays. However, its bracing voice and topicality(data/privacy) give it a niche appeal. Such an essay could attract attention incontest-driven or academic venues that celebrate experimentalnonfiction.

Havas’s voice combines several literary strains. The immediacy and profanityrecall Chuck Palahniuk’s transgressive essays and narratives (e.g. FightClub), where shock and repetition (“School records, fuck!”[2])unsettle the reader. The gonzo-agitprop energy is reminiscent of HunterS. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing, though here the druggy ramble isreplaced by a technology-fueled paranoia. Like Thompson, Havas breaks thefourth wall and throws rules to the wind. The piece’s experimental form anderotic grotesquery also echo Kathy Acker’s work – both writers thrive ontaboo (

Havas writes for the ear as much as the page, forging manifestos that are meant to be spoken, felt, and acted upon.

Juan Gabriel Havas is a writer and thinker exploring the fault line where technology, consciousness, and power meet. His work blends poetic realism with digital philosophy to examine how DATA reshapes desire, identity, and governance.

Tone-wise, the essay is irreverent, urgent and even conspiratorial. Its attitude is cynical and outraged – reminiscent of gonzo journalism or punk polemic.

The voice is at once mocking and prophetic, exhorting the reader to realize how their very existence is tracked and catalogued.