Cinemorphosis

Category: Confessions

  • Stop Chasing the Perfect Watch–It Doesn’t Exist

    Stop Chasing the Perfect Watch–It Doesn’t Exist

    I love the digital displays on my Casio G-Shock Frogman GWF-1000 and Casio G-Shock GW-7900. They tell me the time with blunt authority. No interpretation. No ceremony. Just numbers that land in the brain like a verdict.

    And yet, apparently, that isn’t enough.

    Somewhere along the way I developed a new appetite—no, let’s call it what it is, greed. I don’t just want clear numerals anymore. I want absurdly large numerals. I want wrist-mounted billboards. I want a wall clock strapped to my arm so I can read the time from across the room like a man who refuses to participate in subtlety.

    Naturally, the good people of G-Shock Nation pointed me toward the Casio G-Shock GW-9500 Mudman. The Mudman, they said, has the numbers. Big, bold, unapologetic digits that look like they were designed for someone who has lost patience with squinting.

    And they’re right—mostly.

    Mudman owners speak about their watch with a curious mix of affection and confession. They praise the size of the numerals, the rugged build, the sheer presence of the thing. Then, almost sheepishly, they admit that the display can blur at certain angles, that the duplex layering introduces a faint haze, that it’s not quite as clean as they’d like. They dock it a star. Four out of five.

    Then they shrug and say they love it anyway.

    That’s the part that matters.

    Because it raises a question most of us spend years avoiding: is there such a thing as a five-star watch?

    I’ve finally accepted the answer. There isn’t. There are only trade-offs you can tolerate without resentment.

    I’ve been chasing a very specific fantasy: huge numerals, high contrast, perfect viewing angles, and zero cognitive load. A watch that doesn’t need to be read so much as absorbed. A watch that behaves like a wall clock—instant, effortless, undeniable. What I’ve discovered is that watches can deliver three of those qualities with confidence. They just can’t deliver all four at once.

    My GW-7900 comes closest to frictionless clarity. Its display is stable, legible, and immediate. But the digits, while excellent, don’t quite scratch that billboard itch. The Mudman 9500 pushes in the opposite direction. It gives me the numbers—big, thick, impossible to ignore—but introduces a new problem: at certain angles, the display hesitates. Instead of receiving the time, I have to negotiate with it.

    Then there are the Pro Trek models, with their crisp, high-contrast STN displays. Technically superior. Visually disciplined. And yet, in their refinement, they lose that blunt, wall-clock immediacy. They are precise, but not emphatic.

    What fascinates me is how quickly Mudman owners make peace with imperfection. They acknowledge the flaws, subtract a star, and keep wearing the watch. That’s not compromise in the defeated sense. It’s acceptance. They’ve decided which imperfection they can live with, and they’ve moved on.

    That realization forced me to confront what I’m actually chasing. It isn’t a watch. It’s a state of mind—frictionless time perception. I want to glance at my wrist and have the time imposed on me without effort, hesitation, or ambiguity. But a wristwatch isn’t built for that ideal. It’s constrained by size, power, durability, and the stubborn limits of display technology. Something always gives.

    There is, to be fair, a strong case for the Mudman. Bigger numerals do make the time easier to read most of the time. Its toughness invites confidence. Its design has a certain muscular charisma. For many people, that combination outweighs the occasional moment of haze or glare.

    But I’ve had to admit something about myself: I value consistency over peak performance. A watch that is occasionally perfect but intermittently irritating will wear me down. I don’t want to negotiate with my watch. I want to glance and know.

    So the conclusion is both obvious and oddly liberating. There is no perfect watch. Once you accept that, the chase loses its urgency. You stop looking for the mythical five-star object and start making deliberate choices.

    The real question isn’t, “Which watch gets me closest to perfection?”

    It’s this: Which imperfection can I live with—and still enjoy checking the time a hundred times a day?

  • Watch Straps, Paradise, and the Return of Mother

    Watch Straps, Paradise, and the Return of Mother

    Last night I found myself standing on a hill in Hawaii, the kind of place real estate agents describe as “transcendent” and charge accordingly. Below me, the ocean moved with rehearsed elegance—waves rolling in like they had been coached for the occasion. A tech billionaire, naturally, had invited my family and me to his New Year’s Eve party. In dreams, invitations arrive without explanation and are accepted without skepticism.

    Inside his mansion was a room devoted entirely to appetizers—a cathedral of small bites. I approached it with the zeal of a man who believes abundance is a moral right. Everything was sampled, nothing spared. Then I came upon a glass bowl filled with what appeared to be black licorice. I took a bite and immediately discovered I had made a categorical error. It wasn’t licorice. It was a bowl of rubber watch straps. I had, with full dental commitment, chewed into one of them like a lab animal testing the limits of its environment.

    The billionaire did not react. He stood in the next room, calmly painting a model holding yoga poses—his attention fixed, his world undisturbed. Either he hadn’t noticed, or he lived in a realm where a man biting into a watch strap barely registers as an event.

    Then my mother appeared.

    She has been gone for six years, but in the dream she returned without ceremony, as if death were a clerical error that had been quietly corrected. I greeted her with genuine joy and surprising composure, as though we had simply missed a few phone calls. She told me she was going for a swim. I said I’d join her later, the way one postpones something assumed to be indefinitely available.

    Time, as it does in dreams, rearranged itself. Someone came running to say she had cut her finger on coral. A doctor—there is always a doctor at these gatherings—offered to come with me, iodine and bandages in hand. But as we descended toward the water, word arrived that she had already been treated and had left for California.

    Meanwhile, I had waded into the ocean. The water was warm, enveloping, almost indulgent in its softness. It reached my chest and held me there, like something that preferred I not leave. Faced with the choice between urgency and comfort, I chose comfort. I stayed in the water. My mother, once again, slipped out of reach.

    What kind of dream arranges such a sequence? A billionaire’s excess, a son’s carelessness, a mother’s brief return and second departure. If I had to impose meaning, I’d say the ocean felt less like scenery and more like origin—a return to something pre-verbal, pre-ambition, pre-everything. Call it the womb, call it nature, call it a memory the body keeps when the mind forgets.

    But I hesitate to turn it into a sermon about mortality. Not every dream in one’s sixties needs to carry a funeral program in its back pocket. Perhaps it was about regeneration. Or the persistent illusion that what we lose might reappear long enough to test how we respond.

    I hope my dream was not some portent of mortality. But whatever the case, I’m glad the tech billionaire didn’t send security after me for leaving bite marks in one of his rubber watch straps. 

  • The Acrobats I Misjudged

    The Acrobats I Misjudged

    Sometime around 2018, I’d make the daily trek from the tennis courts to my office and pass the library lawn—a patch of campus that should have offered a quiet, pastoral glide into the workday. Instead, it hosted a recurring spectacle: half a dozen young men staging what can only be described as a low-budget Cirque du Campus. Shirtless or half-shirted, draped in genie pants or frayed denim cut-offs, they performed for an audience that did not exist. Their language was pure motion—flips that flirted with kung fu, kicks that negotiated with gravity, juggling routines that collapsed into chaos, and the occasional hacky sack circle, that ancient ritual of collegiate aimlessness.

    They were hungry—visibly, almost heroically so—for attention. Unfortunately, they possessed more appetite than assets. The enthusiasm was volcanic; the talent, less so. Their charm came in bursts, like a faulty engine. I found them unbearable. My morning walk, once a minor pastoral pleasure, was now hijacked by these blustering soltimbancos—performers without a stage, noise without necessity. I dismissed them with the easy confidence of a man certain he had outgrown foolishness.

    Today, I walked past that same lawn. Empty. Sunlit. Silent. The performance had ended without ceremony, as all such performances do. And I caught myself wondering—not with irritation, but with a strange, reluctant tenderness—what became of those boys.

    Because here is the inconvenient truth: youth is not a time for dignity. It is a sanctioned season of excess—of overreach, bad judgment, inflated self-regard, and public experiments in identity that collapse under their own absurdity. We try on personas the way they tried on those ridiculous pants: boldly, badly, and without permission. We embarrass ourselves in broad daylight and only later, with the benefit of distance, call it “growth.”

    So what changed? Not them. Me.

    Time performs a quiet surgery on the ego. It dulls the impulse to sneer and replaces it with something more complicated—recognition, perhaps, or even a flicker of respect. Those young men were not interrupting my peace; they were spending a currency I no longer possessed: the freedom to look ridiculous without apology.

    And so, to those lawn acrobats—wherever you’ve landed, whatever respectable disguises you now wear—I offer this: I hope life has been kind to you. I hope you found your footing, literal and otherwise.

    But for the sake of civilization, I must insist on one thing.

    Put a shirt on.

  • The Boxes She Carried

    The Boxes She Carried

    This afternoon I dozed off after an hour of cardio, the body spent, the mind drifting, when a memory surfaced from the early nineties with unnerving clarity. I was around thirty then, teaching composition in a university town carved out of the California desert—a place where the light felt harsh and permanent, as if it refused to let anything hide. A loose circle of us—lecturers, adjuncts, hopefuls—would gather for dinners now and then, clinging to one another for a sense of community. Among us was an art professor, a woman in her mid-fifties. She wore her age without apology: short gray hair, angular features, and eyes the color of oxidized copper—blue-green, arresting, a little distant.

    I hadn’t seen her in months, and then one afternoon, in a neighborhood a few miles from my apartment—I was walking to my car after dropping off a date—I saw her again. A couple of houses over, I saw her unloading boxes from her SUV. The image is fixed in my mind with painful precision. Her head was wrapped in a scarf. Her frame had narrowed to something almost architectural, all angles and shadows. She was moving the boxes to her rental house, each trip measured, as if gravity had grown heavier for her alone.

    I remember I had a choice. I could walk to my car and drive away or walk toward the art instructor. I felt she needed me. So I walked over and stopped her—almost abruptly—and insisted I take over. She didn’t resist. There was no polite demurral, no social choreography. She simply yielded, nodded once, and lowered herself onto a nearby bench. Then she sat there, hands folded loosely, staring straight ahead—not at me, not at the house, but somewhere beyond both, as if the horizon held something she alone could see.

    I carried the boxes inside, one after another, trying to fill the silence with small talk that dissolved the moment it left my mouth. She didn’t answer. Not out of rudeness, but because the effort seemed beyond her. The air around her felt thinned out, as if speech itself required too much oxygen.

    Only now, decades later, does the obvious land with force: those boxes were likely the contents of her office. She wasn’t just moving houses. She was being removed—from her work, her routines, the life she had constructed. And she was doing it alone.

    Had I understood that, I would have done more than carry boxes from curb to doorway. I would have met her at the beginning of the task, at the office, at the place where the real loss was happening. I would have recognized the moment for what it was: not an errand, but an ending.

    When the last box was inside, I don’t remember much of what I said. A brief hug, probably. A few inadequate words. Then I left, as people often do when they sense something too large for them to face directly.

    I believe she died not long after. What remains with me is not just her frailty, though that alone was striking, but the expression she wore as she sat on that bench—an expression that seemed to belong not only to her but to all of us. It carried a quiet indictment: of time, of indifference, of the way we move past one another without truly seeing.

    I take a small measure of comfort in the fact that I stopped, that I helped in the only way I knew how in that moment. But that comfort is thin. What lingers is the recognition of how little I understood, how quickly I settled for the minimum, how unprepared I was to meet her where she actually was.

    She sat there, silent, looking past everything in front of her. And that look—plaintive, unguarded, already halfway gone—is something I have never been able to set down.

  • The Man Who Collected Timepieces and Ignored Time

    The Man Who Collected Timepieces and Ignored Time

    For more than twenty years, I lived inside the watch hobby like a man living inside a museum—reverent, obsessive, and curiously uninterested in the exhibits’ stated purpose. I rotated Seiko divers, admired their dials like stained glass, felt their rotors hum like distant machinery—and barely cared what time it was. That’s the joke with teeth: the one function watches exist to perform was never the center of my fixation. I wasn’t tracking time. I was courting it. Romance, nostalgia, the giddy satisfaction of gears responding to my wrist’s movement—those were my currencies. Timekeeping was just the pretext.

    G-Shock, in that world, was vulgar. Too digital. Too close to the smartwatch species I distrust—the glowing, needy devices that feel less like tools and more like supervisors. A G-Shock belonged on a mannequin posed mid-adventure, not on a human being trying to convince himself he possessed taste.

    And yet, sometime around 2010, the Frogman GWF-1000 slipped past my defenses. That asymmetrical case had a crooked charisma, like a boxer with a broken nose who still wins fights. I’d think about it, then shut it down with the usual litany: plastic, digital, not my tribe. I repeated those lines for years, the way a man repeats vows he secretly hopes to break.

    About a month ago, something in me stopped negotiating. The impulse didn’t arrive politely; it landed like a fever. I ordered the Frogman from Japan and watched it crawl through customs as if it were being interrogated for treason. Three weeks later, it showed up. I strapped it on.

    And there it was—presence. Not the polished, self-conscious presence of a luxury diver, but a blunt, physical authority. It didn’t ask for admiration. It assumed compliance.

    Then came the real disruption: Tough Solar and Multiband-6. Set it and forget it—except you don’t forget it, because it quietly corrects you. The watch syncs itself to atomic time, and suddenly you are no longer negotiating with approximation. You are pinned to reality. No drift, no romance, no mechanical shrug. Just accuracy, arriving nightly like a silent auditor.

    I didn’t expect the psychological effect. Being anchored to exact time produced a strange calm, the way a well-balanced diet makes you realize how erratic you’ve been eating. My mechanical divers—beautiful, expensive, lovingly chosen—never gave me that. They gave me narrative. The Frogman gave me certainty.

    The numbers didn’t help the old regime either. Five hundred dollars for the Frogman. A little over a hundred for the GW-7900 Rescue. Both delivered the same atomic truth. Meanwhile, my divers sat there—two, three times the price—offering charm, yes, but also drift, maintenance, and the faint suspicion that I’d been paying for the idea of precision rather than precision itself.

    Before I start sounding like a late-night infomercial for resin and radio signals, I need to detour—briefly, and deliberately—to a song that used to haunt my teenage gym sessions: “You Light Up My Life” by Debby Boone. It would float through the speakers while I benched and curled, all syrup and sentiment, and it filled me with such irritation that I lifted harder just to drown it out. The song wasn’t just bad; it was suffocating in its insistence on emotional purity.

    This matters because the watch hobby is full of that same conversion energy. The language of revelation. The before-and-after testimony. And men, in particular, are suckers for it.

    We don’t adopt hobbies; we convert to them. We don’t adjust our diets; we declare them. We don’t experiment; we renounce and rebuild. One week it’s mechanical purity, the next it’s quartz precision, then solar enlightenment. Each shift arrives with the force of a Damascus-road epiphany, complete with blind spots and overconfidence.

    I know this pattern because I’ve lived it—in watches, in fitness, in every arena where identity can be strapped on, laced up, or swallowed. Men love absolutes. We love the feeling of total overhaul. We love the idea of the metamorphosis so much we may have a figurine on our desk: Thing or Megatron–icons of brute conversion. We mistake intensity for clarity and call it transformation.

    So when I talk about G-Shock, I have to keep one hand on the brake. Because “being anchored to Real Time” has the flavor of conversion, and conversion is intoxicating. It makes you want to declare the past obsolete and the present definitive. It turns a purchase into a philosophy.

    And yet—facts remain stubborn. I’m typing this wearing the GW-7900 Rescue. Tomorrow will be the Frogman. The next day, back to the Rescue. The mechanicals sit in their box a few feet away, arranged with care, untouched—like last year’s tax documents: important, preserved, and no longer consulted.

    That doesn’t make G-Shock a religion. It makes it a correction. Whether I treat it as one or the other will determine whether this is clarity—or just another episode in a long history of well-dressed delusion.

  • How Not to Cut Out 400 Calories and Then Eat Them Back

    How Not to Cut Out 400 Calories and Then Eat Them Back

    Eleven months ago in Miami, I took stock of myself at 242 pounds and didn’t like the verdict. Back home, I pushed the number down to 230—respectable, if not heroic—then, as these things go, it drifted upward with quiet persistence. I stopped weighing myself for four months, which is another way of saying I chose not to know. When my brother asked for the number, I guessed: “238.” The next afternoon, post-workout, the scale confirmed it with irritating accuracy. I was 238 on the nose. I know my body. It keeps receipts.

    I’d like to get to 220. Not as fantasy, but as a controlled descent. The obvious move—cut my yogurt and protein powder snack—promises a clean 400-calorie reduction. The problem is just as obvious: hunger is not a passive participant. Remove those calories in the afternoon and they return at dinner, louder and less negotiable. You don’t eliminate the calories; you relocate them.

    So the adjustment has to be surgical, not theatrical. I’ll drop the whey protein from the yogurt—about 200 calories—while keeping the yogurt itself to hold the line on satiety. Then I’ll remove the hemp seeds from my morning buckwheat groats or oatmeal—another 200 calories quietly erased. No grand gestures, no hunger theatrics. Just subtraction where it won’t provoke a rebellion later.

    That’s a 400-calorie deficit without inviting a 7 p.m. mutiny. Add a weekly weigh-in—not daily obsession, just regular accountability—and the trajectory should correct itself. Not dramatic. Not heroic. But reliable, which is the only quality that matters over time.

  • Pedaling Through the Voice That Says Quit

    Pedaling Through the Voice That Says Quit

    Ninety percent of the time, the Schwinn Airdyne—known in honest circles as the Misery Machine—treats me like a competent operator. I settle into a rhythm and burn roughly 730 calories an hour, sometimes pushing past 800 over a 51–58 minute stretch. It’s hard work, but it feels governed, almost cooperative. The Rate Select hovers around 52, climbs to 58 when I press it, and rewards effort with visible progress. Numbers rise, and with them, morale.

    Then there is the other ten percent—the mutiny.

    You know it immediately. The first minute betrays you. The legs feel like they’ve been filled with wet cement. The lungs are slow to negotiate. The machine, once a willing accomplice, turns indifferent. No matter how much you push, the Rate Select stalls in the high 40s, as if it has quietly downgraded your status. Today was one of those days. Fifty-eight minutes of negotiation yielded 601 calories—an 18 percent deficit from my usual output. I clawed my way past 600 not out of strength, but out of stubborn bookkeeping: at least I could claim I burned off breakfast.

    The real struggle, of course, isn’t physical. It’s narrative. When the numbers climb, the mind becomes a cheerleader—faster, harder, more. But when they sag, a different voice takes the microphone. You’re finished. You’ve lost it. This is a young man’s game, and you’re trespassing. The body tires, but the mind drafts a eulogy.

    That’s the moment that matters. Not the calories, not the pace, but the argument. Today, I didn’t win cleanly, but I held the line. I kept pedaling. I refused the early exit. Six hundred calories is not a triumph, but it is a refusal to collapse.

    These lag days arrive like monthly audits. They expose the fault lines—the impatience, the vanity, the dependence on numbers for validation. The task is not to dominate the machine, but to manage the voice that wants to quit. The reasonable adult has to step in, take the whining child by the shoulders, and say: Not today.

  • The Cruel Question Every Writer Must Answer

    The Cruel Question Every Writer Must Answer

    When you pitch a book, the publisher asks a question that feels less like business and more like interrogation: Why must this exist? Why this book, now, and not another? What justifies its presence in a world already swollen with print? The question has teeth. It strips away the soft fog of aspiration and leaves you standing with nothing but purpose—or the absence of it.

    A book is not a monument to your desire to “be published.” It is not your name in lights, your moment on the marquee. That impulse—vanity dressed as vocation—is the surest path to creative mediocrity. Purpose is the only defense. Without it, the work collapses under its own self-importance.

    The same cross-examination applies to everything else we produce. A blog post, a video, a channel—why does it exist? To collect attention? To be applauded by a tribe? To monetize a persona? To assemble the vague scaffolding of a “brand”? These are not answers; they are evasions.

    What, then, is my brand? Nothing coherent. I wander. I collect. I react. I move through the culture like a flâneur with a notebook, jotting down whatever strikes the nerves—ideas, trends, obsessions—and trying to distill some fragment of meaning from the debris. This is not a brand. It is a habit of attention. It resists consolidation. It refuses to become a product.

    I did write a book recently—a real one, nearly seventy thousand words. But even that resisted form. It wasn’t a narrative or an argument so much as a catalog of compulsions about watch enthusiasts: short, sharp definitions of obsessive behavior. A lexicon of affliction. Did it need to exist? I can argue that it did. The market delivered a quieter verdict. A few dozen copies moved. Meanwhile, a fifteen-minute video built from the same material drew thousands. The idea survived in video form. The book format did not.

    This is the final insult: even if you can construct an airtight case for a book’s existence, the audience may still decline to care. You can formulate the perfect product—nutrient-rich, elegantly packaged—but if no one consumes it, it sits on the shelf like expensive dog food no dog will eat. And its silence asks the only question that matters, the one you thought you had already answered:

    Why does this exist?

  • When Writing Stops You From Lying to Yourself

    When Writing Stops You From Lying to Yourself

    Kafka called writing a form of prayer. Not as piety, but as precision. Prayer, properly understood, is the act of stepping out of ordinary time—the noisy, transactional churn—and entering a space where attention is no longer scattered but gathered. Writing does the same. It refuses the chaos of profane time and insists, however briefly, on the discipline of the sacred.

    The sacred is not mystical fog. It is clarity stripped of dopamine. It is the quiet room where you examine the state of your own soul without distraction or performance. It is where you test whether your words can survive contact with your actions. It demands humility because it exposes how often they don’t. And it offers a kind of nourishment the chronophage—the great time-eating machine—cannot provide, because it cannot be consumed passively. It must be earned.

    To live thoughtfully is to move between two worlds: the sacred and the profane. You cannot remain in either one. You must descend into the ordinary—work, errands, obligations—but carry with you the standards forged in that quieter space. Otherwise, the sacred becomes theater, and the profane becomes drift.

    So the question arrives, unwelcome but necessary: Do my actions align with my ideals? No. Not yet.

    If they did, my life would contract, not expand. I would eat with intention—three meals, no grazing—and call the absence of snacks what it is: a fast, not a deprivation. I would step away from the digital carnival that thrives on FOMO, because I know its rewards are counterfeit—brief spikes followed by longer, duller lows.

    I would stop buying watches. I already own more than I can meaningfully wear. Two G-Shocks tell perfect time. The rest sit like artifacts of former appetites. Rotation is not variety; it is indecision dressed as sophistication.

    And I would reconsider what I make. If my videos exist to chase attention, to measure my worth in clicks and spikes of approval, then they are extensions of the same problem. The medium is different; the mechanism is identical. But if a video can carry an idea forward—if it can clarify rather than agitate—then it earns its place.

    Writing, then, is not an escape. It is a reckoning. It is the act of bringing the sacred into contact with the profane and asking, without flinching, whether they agree. Most days, they don’t. The work is to narrow that distance.

  • Life Inside the Chronophage

    Life Inside the Chronophage

    You can still read, technically. The eyes move. The words register. But something essential has thinned out. Years inside the chronophage—the great time-eating machine—have rewired the circuitry. You no longer take in ideas; you absorb fragments. You skim life the way you skim a feed. You prefer voices at 1.25 speed, ideas pre-chewed, narratives delivered in twelve-minute installments with thumbnails that promise revelation and deliver stimulation.

    You know what it is. The Internet is not a library—it’s a galactic food court, a neon sprawl of drive-through kiosks serving intellectual fast food. Ninety-nine percent of it is forgettable at best, corrosive at worst. You try to manage your intake. You play the piano. You lift weights. You show up for your family. You perform the rituals of a grounded life. But the residue remains. The machine has had its way with you.

    And then comes the quieter poison: self-pity. No one reads anymore, you tell yourself. Everyone is grazing from the same algorithmic trough. You feel stranded, a refugee from a literate past. You invoke the phrase “post-literate society” not as analysis but as lament. And yet, the only reason you can even diagnose the condition is because you remember something else—an earlier version of attention, slower, deeper, less contaminated. You carry that memory like a fading photograph and call it protection.

    You came across a word last week: chronophage—a system that feeds on your time while convincing you it is nourishing you. It fits too well. The system is not broken; it is functioning perfectly. Its purpose is to consume time, and it does so with industrial efficiency. In the attention economy, attention is not honored—it is harvested. Your mind is not engaged; it is extracted from. There is no mercy in this design. The only consolation is a thin, uneasy solidarity: your mind is not uniquely damaged. It is simply part of a mass casualty you are lucid enough to witness.