Category: culture

  • Breakfast Eschatology

    Breakfast Eschatology

    I no longer want to resolve my eschatological crisis.

    I don’t want to determine the nature of substitutionary atonement, theodicy, and eternity. I don’t want to debate whether hell is eternal, corrective, metaphorical, mistranslated, or the unfortunate product of several centuries of theologians getting overexcited. I’m tired of sifting through my epistemic crisis as though somewhere beneath a pile of Greek nouns I will finally uncover the laminated instruction sheet for the universe.

    I’ve also given up on perfection, physical, spiritual, and otherwise.

    What I really want is a good breakfast.

    Not breakfast at home. Home breakfast has its virtues, but it is essentially maintenance. Oatmeal. Yogurt. Berries. Protein. The nutritional equivalent of changing the oil.

    I want to go to a café.

    A good one.

    I want banana-nut French toast, buttermilk pancakes, poblano eggs Benedict, crisp potatoes, and a waitress approaching with a coffee pot before I’ve even noticed that my cup is half empty.

    More importantly, I want people. Lots of them.

    A true breakfast is communal. Certain movies become better when watched in a packed theater, where laughter moves through the audience like electricity. Breakfast works the same way.

    The lonely café is hell on earth.

    Three customers scattered across twenty empty tables. Fluorescent lights humming overhead. A laminated menu curling at the corners. Somewhere in the kitchen, a microwave beeps with the melancholy finality of a hospital monitor.

    Technically, breakfast is being served.

    Spiritually, the place is already closed.

    The packed café is another universe.

    You open the door and hear the glorious racket of human appetite. Forks strike plates. Coffee cups land on saucers. Children negotiate syrup distribution. Servers weave between tables carrying platters of eggs and potatoes. The room smells of coffee, butter, toasted bread, maple syrup, and potatoes surrendering magnificently to the griddle.

    Every table is occupied.

    A line waits outside.

    This is not merely a restaurant.

    This is evidence.

    I call it Breakfast Eschatology: the abandonment of speculation about ultimate salvation in favor of recognizing modest intimations of heaven in the communal celebration of a magnificent breakfast.

    For years, I have worried about the Last Things.

    What happens after death?

    What is the nature of original sin?

    What are the rigors of postmortem salvation? 

    What did the Greek word aiōnios mean before two thousand years of theology climbed onto its back?

    At some point, the soul develops theological indigestion.

    Enough.

    Bring me the poblano eggs Benedict.

  • Why I Need to Craft “Natty” Wring Prompts

    Why I Need to Craft “Natty” Wring Prompts

    About fifteen years ago, one of my students wrote a personal narrative about losing herself. She was in middle school. Her friends persuaded her to dress in extremely suggestive clothing with tons of makeup. In a revealing outfit that would have caused her mother to have a brain hemorrhage, she looked in the mirror and started crying. “I didn’t even recognize the girl staring back at me,” she wrote. “I wiped the makeup off, got back in my regular clothes, ran home, and cried in bed.” 

    I thought about that image as I started working on some writing prompts for the Fall Semester in which my eighteen-year-old college freshmen contrast writing with AI and writing “natty,” to use an expression that describes “natural” bodybuilders who don’t take performance-enhancing drugs. Generative AI can be a great writing tool, but it tends to overdo everything. Our writing becomes that crying overdone girl staring back at herself, or the bloated bodybuilder who is more cartoon than a celebration of the physique. In all of that generative AI, something gets lost. 

    Us. 

    We can hardly be blamed. Generative AI can feel like magic, taking a 300-word idea and blowing it up into a 2,000-word essay with vivid descriptions, highly stylized metaphors and witticisms, and Socratic rhetorical flourish. Eventually, we begin to believe we are the source of that 2,000-word essay. We flatter ourselves to our own detriment. We lose authenticity. We lose ourselves. We are that middle school girl staring into the mirror and not recognizing who’s looking back at us. 

    Using AI tools with my students for the last four years, I can say from personal experience that writing natty feels cleansing, like going off sugar-laden processed foods. Just as too much dessert causes diabetes of the body, too much generative AI causes diabetes of the mind and soul. We need to carve out natural writing spaces where we can connect with who we truly are before it’s too late. 

  • The TikTok Outlaws

    The TikTok Outlaws

    The streets of my town have been overrun by a new species of desperado: The TikTok Outlaw.

    He is thirteen years old, weighs perhaps 115 pounds, and rides an electric bicycle with the serene confidence of a Hell’s Angel who has recently discovered that nobody can touch him.

    I encounter these young road warriors everywhere. They drift into traffic at twenty miles an hour, wobbling in front of cars as though the double yellow line were merely a suggestion left over from a more uptight civilization. Sometimes they turn their heads toward the trapped motorist behind them and flash a triumphant grin.

    The message is unmistakable:

    We own you.

    And, maddeningly, they’re partly right.

    The genius of the TikTok Outlaw is that he has discovered weaponized vulnerability. He is tiny. I am driving several thousand pounds of steel. Under ordinary circumstances, this arrangement should make him cautious.

    Instead, it makes me cautious.

    He knows I will brake.

    He knows I will swerve.

    He knows that I possess insurance, a driver’s license, a conscience, a mortgage, a family, and an overwhelming desire not to spend the remainder of my life explaining why a seventh-grader became permanently embedded in the grille of my car.

    He possesses an e-bike.

    Advantage: seventh-grader.

    The more sophisticated TikTok Outlaws have apparently developed operational security. Some leave their phones behind so parents can’t track their whereabouts. When injuries occur, according to reports I’ve encountered, some have even tried using false names to keep Mom and Dad from discovering that the afternoon bicycle ride somehow concluded in an emergency room.

    This is no longer Leave It to Beaver.

    Wally isn’t asking permission to ride over to Lumpy Rutherford’s house.

    He’s establishing an alias.

    The police, meanwhile, face an unenviable problem. They can monitor social media for planned meetups in which groups of young riders converge on streets and intersections. A dozen e-bikes arrive. Traffic stops. Motorists fume. Phones emerge.

    And that’s the essential ingredient.

    The TikTok Outlaw doesn’t merely want to cause chaos.

    He wants content.

    Without the camera, blocking an intersection is adolescent stupidity. With the camera, it becomes a production.

    The riders are the stars.

    The motorists are unpaid extras.

    The police are villains.

    And the street itself has become a soundstage for the next twenty-second installment of Kids Giving It to the Man.

    This is what distinguishes the TikTok Outlaw from the juvenile delinquent of previous generations. Teenagers have always possessed an impressive capacity for idiocy. That isn’t new. Adolescence has never been famous for its risk-management department.

    What’s new is the audience.

    The idiot of 1978 could impress six friends.

    The idiot of 2026 can fantasize about impressing six million strangers.

    Social media has industrialized adolescent exhibitionism.

    Now public outrage isn’t necessarily punishment. It’s production value. An angry driver leaning on his horn improves the clip. A police officer arriving improves it further. A confrontation is better still.

    The more furious civilization becomes, the better the footage.

    Naturally, the police can intervene. They can issue citations, confiscate illegal vehicles where the law permits, contact parents, patrol gathering places, and disrupt planned meetups.

    But enforcement begins to resemble a man standing beneath Niagara Falls with a roll of Bounty.

    The numbers are too large.

    Another group appears.

    Another intersection becomes a stage.

    Another phone goes up.

    Meanwhile, ordinary motorists crawl through the spectacle with clenched jaws, aware of the exquisite asymmetry governing the encounter.

    We must behave responsibly.

    They don’t.

    That’s their power.

    Civilization depends upon millions of people voluntarily agreeing to certain boring propositions: red means stop, sidewalks are for pedestrians, roads have lanes, and deliberately terrifying strangers isn’t an acceptable recreational activity.

    The TikTok Outlaw discovers that these rules can be exploited precisely because most people still obey them.

    He swerves.

    You brake.

    He laughs.

    You grip the steering wheel.

    He has discovered one of the darker secrets of civilized life:

    The person with the least regard for consequences can temporarily become the person with the most power.

    Perhaps most of these kids will eventually grow out of it. Their frontal lobes will finish construction. Jobs, families, insurance premiums, and the accumulated humiliations of adulthood will perform their ancient civilizing work.

    One day, perhaps, today’s TikTok Outlaw will be forty-five years old, driving home after a long day at work.

    Then a thirteen-year-old on an electric bicycle will drift directly in front of his car, turn around, and grin.

    And somewhere deep inside the middle-aged driver’s soul, an ancient debt will finally come due.

  • The TV Series Best Medicine Is Cognitive Comfort Food

    The TV Series Best Medicine Is Cognitive Comfort Food

    The television series Best Medicine follows a neurotic, antisocial city doctor who relocates to a small coastal town in Maine and discovers, to his horror, other human beings. Gradually, the townspeople penetrate his emotional armor and teach him how to connect, belong, and presumably stop behaving like someone who regards casual conversation as an infectious disease.

    We’ve been here before. Northern Exposure built an entire world around the city doctor exiled among lovable eccentrics. Schitt’s Creek perfected the transformation of prickly outsiders through prolonged exposure to decent people. Best Medicine doesn’t pretend to have discovered a new continent. It arrives at a familiar resort, puts its suitcase on the bed, and settles in.

    Nor is it profound television.

    No one is going to teach a graduate seminar on its metaphysics. You don’t finish an episode and stare silently through the window while reconsidering the foundations of Western civilization. The characters are eccentric but lovable, the town is picturesque, the conflicts remain manageable, and a warm heart beats beneath the entire production.

    Naturally, I enjoy it.

    My wife and I can sit down together and enter this agreeable little Maine universe where damaged people are basically decent, neighbors care about one another, and the human condition can usually be repaired before bedtime.

    This is Cognitive Comfort Food: warm, undemanding entertainment consumed not because we’ve abandoned serious thought but because serious thought occasionally needs to shut up.

    The distinction matters.

    I know Best Medicine can be sentimental. The show knows it too. You can practically see the writers wheeling the emotional casserole into the oven. Here comes the lonely eccentric. Here comes the misunderstanding. Here comes the unexpected kindness. Give it forty-five minutes at 350 degrees and somebody will learn something about friendship.

    Fine.

    I’ll have seconds.

    Normally, sentimentality makes me suspicious. I can see the machinery. I can hear the violins warming up behind the curtain. I know when a television show is reaching into my chest and squeezing the designated emotion gland.

    But there are evenings when I don’t want to fight it.

    The real world has already done enough.

    To say that the world is nasty is hardly an insight. Human beings have been murdering, cheating, betraying, invading, exploiting, and humiliating one another since somebody first discovered that a rock could be used for something other than sitting.

    What has changed is our access to the spectacle.

    We now carry a global misery-delivery system in our pockets.

    War before breakfast. Political outrage with lunch. Murder during the afternoon. Environmental catastrophe before dinner. Then a few minutes of social-media lunacy before bed, just in case the nervous system had somehow retained a molecule of serenity.

    Scroll.

    Atrocity.

    Scroll.

    Corruption.

    Scroll.

    Some lunatic screaming into a camera from the driver’s seat of his car.

    Scroll.

    Civilization apparently ending again.

    Against this backdrop, Best Medicine begins to look less like escapism than neurological first aid.

    For an hour, nobody is trying to overthrow a government.

    Nobody is uploading a manifesto.

    Nobody is explaining why the apocalypse will arrive Thursday.

    Instead, a neurotic doctor is learning to tolerate his neighbors in coastal Maine.

    Perfect.

    Cognitive Comfort Food works because it asks very little from us. Serious art can be magnificent, but serious art is greedy. It wants attention. It wants interpretation. It wants us to confront ambiguity, suffering, mortality, moral compromise, unreliable narrators, fractured identities, and the terrifying possibility that the protagonist’s crisis is somehow our crisis.

    Sometimes I don’t want a crisis.

    Sometimes I want mashed potatoes.

    This doesn’t mean I’ve surrendered my standards. I haven’t decided that every television show should resemble a Hallmark movie in which a high-powered attorney returns to Vermont, saves the family Christmas-tree farm, and marries a carpenter named Luke.

    There is a difference between living on Cognitive Comfort Food and occasionally needing it.

    Nobody should eat cheesecake for every meal.

    But after chewing through the gristle of contemporary life all day, a little cheesecake isn’t evidence of moral collapse.

    Nor does watching an uncomplicated television show necessarily dumb us down. The opposite may occasionally be true. The brain needs recovery just as the body does. Nobody finishes a hard workout and announces that resting afterward represents a betrayal of physical fitness. Yet we sometimes imagine that an intelligent person should remain intellectually clenched from breakfast until bedtime.

    Read the difficult novel.

    Study the political crisis.

    Listen to the serious podcast.

    Watch the prestige drama about intergenerational trauma.

    Contemplate death.

    Repeat.

    Eventually the brain files a grievance.

    So my wife and I sit down and watch Best Medicine.

    We forgive its sentimentality.

    We forgive its lovable eccentrics.

    We forgive the suspiciously therapeutic properties of small-town Maine.

    Most importantly, we forgive ourselves for enjoying it.

    Tomorrow there will be plenty of time for difficult books, serious arguments, moral ambiguity, and the latest evidence that civilization is being operated by raccoons who have broken into the control room.

    Tonight, I’ll take the mashed potatoes.

    The brain needs comfort food too.

    Sometimes that’s the best medicine of all.

  • Autobiographical Time Lag

    Autobiographical Time Lag

    I am obsessed with accurate watches. I own radio-controlled G-Shocks that communicate with atomic clocks in the middle of the night, correcting themselves so that I don’t have to endure the indignity of being three seconds late to nowhere. I put them near windows to improve reception, check whether they synchronized overnight, and derive absurd satisfaction from knowing that the watch on my wrist agrees with official time down to the second.

    Yet I’ve recently discovered an embarrassing irony: while my watches keep nearly perfect time, the clock inside my head is hopelessly slow. Ask me how long I’ve been teaching, lifting weights, trying to write books, or engaging in any of my other lifelong enterprises, and I routinely misplace entire decades. My G-Shock may be off by half a second. My autobiographical clock is off by twenty years.

    This discrepancy recently surfaced in a dream about my friend Adam, whom I’ve known since 1998, when he took my college writing class. Adam went on to build a successful career in advertising and branding, married, had a daughter, and now works from home. Perhaps because of his professional expertise, my dreaming mind decided that Adam was precisely the man to stage an intervention.

    With my retirement approaching, he apparently concluded that my malfunctioning internal clock required professional attention. He took me to an office specializing in something I didn’t know existed: the rebranding of human beings.

    I was immediately suspicious.

    “Rebranding” is one of those words that makes me reach instinctively for my wallet. I imagined consultants with expensive eyeglasses explaining that retirement represented an exciting opportunity to “reimagine my personal narrative” while helping me establish an Instagram presence in which I would pose beside cappuccinos and announce that sixty-five was the new forty-five.

    No thanks.

    But the woman assigned to me wasn’t like that.

    She was maternal, down-to-earth, dressed in jeans and a football jersey. No power suit. No TED Talk headset. No laminated diagram explaining My Journey. She had the reassuring manner of someone who might help you change a tire and then send you home with a casserole.

    She explained that retirement required more than leaving my job.

    I had to reinvent myself.

    Worse, I had to rebrand myself.

    I prepared to resist, but something about her practical manner disarmed me. Fine. Ask your questions.

    She began with the basics.

    How old was I?

    How many years had I been teaching?

    How long had I been trying to write novels?

    How many years had I been trying to lose weight?

    How long had I been lifting weights?

    Easy questions.

    Except I got nearly every answer wrong.

    Not slightly wrong.

    I was shaving decades off my life.

    “How long have you been teaching writing?”

    “About twenty years.”

    She looked at her records.

    “Forty.”

    Oh.

    Next question.

    “How long have you been lifting weights?”

    “Forty years.”

    Another glance at the paperwork.

    “Fifty-four.”

    Excuse me?

    Apparently I had begun lifting weights sometime during the Nixon administration and simply neglected to update my internal records.

    The interrogation continued.

    Every number I produced was suspiciously flattering. Years disappeared from my career. Decades vanished from my ambitions. Entire geological periods evaporated from my biography.

    I had apparently been cooking the chronological books.

    That’s when I realized I suffered from Autobiographical Time Lag: the discrepancy between one’s actual age and the age assumed by one’s interior sense of self.

    I know how old I am.

    Of course I do.

    But apparently some deeper part of my brain does not.

    That brain maintains a fraudulent set of books in which everything happened twenty years ago. I’ve been teaching for twenty years. I’ve been lifting for forty. I’ve been struggling with my weight for a while. I’ve been trying to become a writer for a reasonable amount of time.

    Then the auditor from the Department of Time arrives.

    Forty years.

    Fifty-four years.

    Decades.

    Decades.

    More decades.

    The horror of aging is partly numerical. You don’t experience yourself as a stack of calendar pages. Consciousness feels continuous. The thirteen-year-old who picked up his first weights doesn’t seem like some extinct ancestor whose bones were recently discovered beneath a shopping mall.

    He’s me.

    I can still feel him in there.

    So my brain performs an enormous act of biographical compression. It takes fifty-four years of lifting weights and somehow files them under “I’ve been doing this for a long time.”

    But fifty-four years isn’t a long time.

    It’s a civilization.

    I’ve been lifting weights longer than many of the people I work with have been alive. Presidents have come and gone. The Soviet Union collapsed. The Internet appeared. Phones became computers. Artificial intelligence began helping me write essays about how old I am.

    And through all of it, apparently, I’ve been doing curls.

    The same distortion applies to teaching. Forty years sounds preposterous. Surely I haven’t been standing in front of college writing classes for four decades.

    But I have.

    I’ve taught through chalkboards, dry-erase boards, overhead projectors, PowerPoint, Canvas, online instruction, Zoom, and artificial intelligence. At this point I’m less a professor than a sedimentary record of educational technology.

    The woman in the football jersey understood something I didn’t.

    Before I could reinvent myself for retirement, I had to locate myself accurately on the map of chronological time.

    I couldn’t begin the next chapter while pretending I was halfway through the previous one.

    That, I realized, was the purpose of the strange rebranding office. They weren’t going to manufacture some shiny post-retirement identity for me. They weren’t going to turn me into Professor 2.0, complete with a podcast, personal logo, and inspirational LinkedIn posts about embracing change.

    They were performing an intervention.

    The first step wasn’t reinvention.

    It was arithmetic.

    I kept giving the woman the age of the man I felt myself to be.

    She kept giving me the age of the man who actually existed.

    And the numbers refused to negotiate.

    Perhaps that’s the strangest thing about getting older. The calendar ages with perfect accuracy, but my autobiographical clock is running slow.

  • The Sandwich Test

    The Sandwich Test

    Late in my sixty-fourth year, I had a dream about getting old.

    Not dying. Not disease. Not falling down the stairs and being discovered three days later by a concerned Amazon driver. The dream was about something that frightens me more: remaining perfectly alive while becoming increasingly incompatible with the world.

    I was still a college writing professor, but the college had metastasized into an enormous city. I had offices scattered across campus, although “office” was a generous term. Some of my offices were hidden inside caves. Others were buried beneath rocks. Apparently, I had been teaching composition continuously through the Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic eras.

    I was no longer Professor McMahon.

    I was Ancient Man.

    Students and faculty tolerated me with the peculiar tenderness people reserve for very old dogs and malfunctioning appliances they don’t quite have the heart to throw away. I was still technically employed. I still had classes to teach. I simply never made it to them.

    I was too busy looking for lunch.

    Eventually I wandered into a campus café and ordered a sandwich. Then came the moment that crystallized the entire dream.

    I didn’t know how to pay.

    Everyone else apparently understood the electronic payment system. There were screens, phones, apps, codes, invisible financial transmissions humming through the atmosphere. I stood before the cashier with the helpless expression of a Cro-Magnon man encountering an Apple Store.

    Finally, I opened my wallet.

    Inside, instead of dollar bills, was a wad of turkey cold cuts.

    This was my money.

    I handed the cashier several slices.

    She stared at them.

    Then she stared at me.

    For a moment, I could see her weighing her options: call security, summon a social worker, or simply accept that the ancient professor had reached the stage of life when deli meat constituted legal tender.

    She chose mercy.

    Suppressing her laughter, she accepted my turkey and made me a sandwich while her coworkers turned away so I wouldn’t see them shaking.

    This was The Sandwich Test: the moment when an ordinary transaction reveals that the world has quietly changed its operating system without consulting you.

    Every generation eventually takes it.

    One day you are a fully competent adult who understands how civilization works. Then you encounter a parking meter, QR code, authentication app, digital wallet, restaurant kiosk, or some other technological improvement designed to make life “easier,” and discover that apparently everyone received instructions except you.

    The young person behind the counter looks at you sympathetically.

    You reach for your wallet.

    Turkey.

    The humiliation goes deeper than technological incompetence. The Sandwich Test tells you that your currency—literal and metaphorical—is losing value.

    I had survived chalkboards, dry-erase boards, overhead projectors, PowerPoint, online teaching, Canvas, Zoom, and artificial intelligence. This longevity gave me a certain prestige. People regarded me as one might regard a giant sequoia: ancient, impressive, and probably best left exactly where he is.

    At one point I encountered Florida A&M’s magnificent Marching 100 moving across campus. I followed them.

    Their music filled me with heavenly bliss. I wasn’t supposed to interfere with their rehearsal, but nobody threw me out. Ancient Man had privileges. If an elderly professor who had apparently been teaching since the Paleozoic wanted to trail behind the marching band, you let him.

    This was the contradiction of old age. I was ridiculous but venerable, obsolete but durable, invisible but somehow legendary. People humored me precisely because I had survived long enough to become an artifact.

    Yet I didn’t feel honored.

    I felt lonely.

    I thought of the larval souls of Hades, those spectral inhabitants of the underworld who retained consciousness without fully participating in life. That was the real terror of the dream: not that my body had failed but that the world had moved several feet away from me. I could still see it, hear it, walk through it.

    I just couldn’t quite enter it.

    Then I woke up.

    My muscles were sore from the previous day’s kettlebell workout. I lay there contemplating Ancient Man, wandering through geological time with his useless wallet stuffed with lunch meat.

    Then I got out of bed and headed for the exercise bike.

    The larval state could wait another day.

  • Damascus Syndrome

    Damascus Syndrome

    Many years ago, my wife explained something about men that has stayed with me: we are suckers for violent conversions.

    She grew up in a church where people regularly stood before the congregation and delivered their testimonies. These were rarely modest affairs. Nobody announced that over several years he had gradually become less selfish and slightly easier to live with. That would hardly justify taking the microphone.

    No, there had to be an abyss.

    The man had been drinking, drugging, fighting, fornicating, worshipping money, driving ninety miles an hour toward eternal damnation—and then, at 3:17 one Tuesday morning, Jesus grabbed the steering wheel.

    My wife would roll her eyes.

    She suspected that some of these testimonies contained less piety than theater. Ostensibly, the man was glorifying God. Curiously, however, God had given him forty-five minutes of stage time to explain what an exceptionally fascinating sinner he had been.

    Call it Damascus Syndrome: the male longing for a catastrophic encounter that divides life into a disgraced Before and a redeemed After.

    Men seem particularly susceptible to it. We don’t want gradual improvement. We don’t want to become five percent more patient every year. We want an earthquake. We want the old self dragged from the wreckage and a new self emerging through the smoke.

    In other words, we want an origin story.

    Before Peter Parker gets bitten by the spider and Bruce Wayne enters the Batcave, Saul of Tarsus is riding toward Damascus with murder in his heart.

    Saul isn’t searching for truth. He believes he already owns it. He has his convictions, his mission, his enemies. Then comes the light.

    A vision. A voice.

    Suddenly the man who knows exactly where he is going cannot see the road.

    Saul is left blind, helpless, and disoriented. For three days he sits in darkness while a greater darkness collapses inside him. His old identity has suffered an internal earthquake. The load-bearing walls have cracked. The building has been condemned.

    Then a stranger arrives claiming to have been sent by the Lord.

    More unsettling still, Saul will become Paul.

    This new identity feels less like self-actualization than an eviction notice. Saul wants his old certainties back. His old mission. His old enemies. He doesn’t want transformation. He wants things returned to factory settings.

    But Damascus doesn’t negotiate.

    The light has hijacked his life.

    This is the part of the story that fascinates me and makes my wife suspicious. Men love the idea that somewhere out there awaits an event sufficiently violent to blast through the accumulated concrete of the false self. We don’t merely want to change. We want to be struck down, preferably with witnesses.

    A quiet epiphany while loading the dishwasher lacks production value.

    Damascus Syndrome demands thunder.

    Emmanuel Carrère captures the deeper paradox of Paul’s conversion in The Kingdom: “Paul was no longer himself; he was finally himself.”

    That sentence overturns our comforting modern idea of authenticity. We usually imagine the authentic self as something we express: Follow your instincts. Find your voice. Be true to yourself. Peel away society’s expectations until the magnificent original You finally appears.

    Damascus proposes something considerably more terrifying.

    What if the self you are determined to express is precisely the self that has to go?

    What if your deepest identity lies underneath the personality, convictions, ambitions, resentments, appetites, and certainties you have spent decades defending?

    Then becoming yourself requires losing yourself.

    This possibility gives Damascus Syndrome its genuine spiritual power. It also gives men an irresistible opportunity for grandiosity. After all, once you’ve been annihilated and reborn, somebody needs to hear about it.

    Preferably everybody.

    Preferably in hardcover.

    My wife remains skeptical. She has heard too many testimonies, watched too many men turn repentance into performance art, seen too many ordinary psychological crises inflated into The Dark Night of the Soul: My Journey from Darkness into Light.

    Perhaps she has a point.

    Maybe men can’t tolerate the thought that maturity might happen quietly—that becoming a better person could involve thousands of small corrections made without applause, lightning bolts, blindness, voices from heaven, or a publishing contract.

    We want Damascus.

    We want the spider bite.

    We want the Batcave.

    We want our old identity blown to pieces so that we can stagger from the crater transformed, finally ourselves, with one additional blessing from God:

    a hell of a story.

  • Your Inner Thirteen-Year-Old Still Sits on the Thrown

    Your Inner Thirteen-Year-Old Still Sits on the Thrown

    Grown men like to pretend they have escaped adolescence. They acquire careers, mortgages, spouses, children, retirement accounts, cholesterol numbers, and opinions about property taxes. They learn to discuss interest rates without giggling. They attend funerals. They replace water heaters. They become, by every outward measure, adults.

    And yet somewhere inside the sixty-something man sits a thirteen-year-old boy whose hormones have just detonated.

    The boy remembers when the world fizzed like a glass of Alka-Seltzer. He remembers Eva Gabor floating onto Match Game, Adrienne Barbeau on Maude, Dahlia Lavi in Catlow, Jennifer O’Neill in Summer of ’42, Ursula Andress in Dr. No, Nancy Archer and Honey Parker in Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, and Mary Ann and Ginger on Gilligan’s Island. These women did not merely appear on television or movie screens. They altered atmospheric pressure. They made the furniture hum. They turned an ordinary Tuesday night into an annunciation.

    Half a century later, the man remembers them with an intensity he finds embarrassing.

    He should be past all this. Good God, he is in his sixties. He has accomplishments. He has experience. He has endured loss, raised children, paid bills, navigated marriage, watched his parents age, and contemplated his own mortality. Surely all this should have transformed him into that mythical creature known as the Mature Man.

    And to some extent it has.

    But not enough.

    Because deep inside him, untouched by the decades, the thirteen-year-old remains seated on his throne.

    Call it Adolescent Apotheosis: the elevation of one’s adolescent self into the supreme version of the self, the golden incarnation against which every subsequent stage of life seems slightly fraudulent. The boy is not merely remembered. He has been canonized.

    At first the man assumes this is nostalgia. But nostalgia doesn’t explain the voltage.

    Neither does sex.

    Certainly sex is involved. Let us not insult the evidence. The thirteen-year-old did not admire Adrienne Barbeau because of her comic timing.

    But what he really worships is the consciousness he possessed when he first saw these women. At thirteen, desire had arrived before disappointment had acquired tenure. The future stretched before him like an enormous amusement park whose gates had just opened. Anything might happen.

    The women became icons of this state. Eva Gabor, Jennifer O’Neill, Honey Parker, Mary Ann, Ginger, Adrienne Barbeau—stained-glass saints in the Church of Infinite Possibility.

    This is why seeing their photographs decades later can produce such disproportionate emotion. He isn’t merely looking at Adrienne Barbeau.

    He is looking through her.

    On the other side is himself at thirteen: absurd, frightened, libidinous, hopeful, ignorant, unfinished—and magnificently alive.

    The sixty-something man possesses things the boy could not imagine: maturity, competence, money, domesticity, fatherhood, knowledge. He should regard these as victories.

    And he does.

    Sort of.

    That is his shame.

    Because none of them make the world fizz.

    Sometimes he suspects that everything after adolescence has been an elaborate diplomatic mission conducted on the boy’s behalf. The adult travels through the world collecting experiences, possessions, accomplishments, and relationships, periodically returning to the palace to report his findings.

    The boy listens politely.

    “Very impressive,” he says.

    “Now tell me about Honey Parker.”

  • The Happiness Performance Principle

    The Happiness Performance Principle

    Before long I began to notice a curious couple on Facebook.

    Every single day they appeared together, smiling with such unwavering enthusiasm that they seemed less like two human beings than the official mascots of matrimonial bliss. Their grins possessed the tensile strength of industrial adhesives. Their faces radiated enough saccharine cheerfulness to put the greeting-card industry out of business. Every photograph announced the same message:

    Look how happy we are.

    A few years ago, I barely noticed them.

    Now I brace myself.

    Their daily appearances have become as predictable as sunrise and almost as obligatory. Every scroll through Facebook feels like waiting for a television commercial whose dialogue you already know by heart.

    I want to be fair to them.

    For all I know, they are generous friends, devoted parents, faithful spouses, and decent human beings. I would hate to commit the very sin social media encourages: reducing an entire person to a single online habit.

    Yet habits have consequences.

    When someone repeatedly performs happiness before an audience, the performance eventually overwhelms the happiness itself.

    The smiles stop looking spontaneous.

    They begin looking contractual.

    What once appeared joyful gradually acquires the unsettling atmosphere of a hostage video filmed inside a Pottery Barn catalog.

    The more insistently they proclaim their happiness, the more I find myself wondering what invisible anxiety demands such relentless reassurance.

    That reaction says as much about the audience as it does about the performers.

    Human beings possess surprisingly sensitive authenticity detectors. We do not expect perpetual happiness because we have never met anyone who actually lives that way. Real marriages contain grocery lists, bad moods, unpaid bills, stomach flu, arguments over thermostats, and long stretches of ordinary Tuesdays. They breathe.

    Curated happiness does not.

    It smiles.

    Constantly.

    The phenomenon illustrates what I call The Happiness Performance Principle: the tendency for repeated public displays of happiness to become progressively less convincing, eventually suggesting the insecurity they were meant to conceal.

    This does not mean the couple is secretly miserable.

    It means the performance has become louder than the reality.

    Paradoxically, genuine happiness rarely feels compelled to advertise itself. It is too busy living. It has no quarterly reporting requirements. It does not wake each morning asking, How can we reassure strangers that our marriage remains delightful?

    Incessant documentation changes the nature of the experience itself. The camera quietly becomes a third partner in the relationship. Every lunch, vacation, anniversary, sunset, and coffee date begins asking the same question:

    “Should we post this?”

    At that moment, life subtly shifts from being lived to being curated.

    The relationship acquires a marketing department.

    I sometimes wonder whether the saddest consequence of social media is not that it encourages vanity, but that it gradually replaces identity with performance. Careers disappear. Hobbies fade. Conversations are forgotten. Complexity evaporates.

    People become remembered for one repetitive act.

    This couple may have built remarkable lives. They may have overcome hardships I know nothing about. They may possess virtues worthy of admiration.

    Yet I suspect that to hundreds of acquaintances they have become something far smaller.

    They are simply the couple that always posts.

    That strikes me as a peculiar tragedy.

    A lifetime compressed into an algorithmic reflex.

    Not because they smile too much.

    But because somewhere along the way, their happiness stopped looking like a gift and started resembling a job.

  • The Character Paradox

    The Character Paradox

    If you believe that human beings are capable of genuine self-improvement, Jeffrey Rosen’s The Pursuit of Happiness is an excellent place to begin. On its opening page, Rosen quotes the Renaissance physician Paracelsus: “Even as man imagines himself to be, such he is, and he is also that which he imagines.”

    Most of us imagine ourselves becoming happier. That is hardly surprising. The more revealing question is what kind of life we imagine will make us happy.

    A little philosophy quickly dispels the fantasy that happiness can be built from immediate gratification. Pleasure is fleeting. Appetite is insatiable. Every indulgence briefly satisfies only to awaken the desire for another. The great philosophical tradition proposes a different path. Happiness is not something we consume. It is something we become.

    Rosen traces this tradition through Benjamin Franklin and ultimately back to Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations. There, Cicero argues that the soul must be “tranquilized by restraint and consistency.” The happy person is neither consumed by fear nor driven by restless ambition. He is not perpetually distressed, intoxicated by meaningless excitement, or enslaved by craving. He possesses something rarer: inner equilibrium. His happiness rests not upon favorable circumstances but upon a well-ordered character.

    Rosen summarizes the idea with admirable clarity. The pursuit of virtue is about being good, not feeling good. Feelings are unstable companions. Character endures. America’s Founders therefore understood the pursuit of happiness as a lifelong effort to cultivate virtue by using reason to govern destructive emotions, improve oneself, and become more capable of serving others.

    The argument is compelling.

    It also raises an unsettling question.

    Can moral character actually be cultivated, or is philosophy merely watering seeds that were already planted?

    Over the years I have spoken with many people whose childhoods were marked by neglect, abuse, or abandonment. A few told me they made a solemn vow that their own children would never endure what they had suffered. Their painful upbringing became a moral education. They transformed misery into compassion.

    Others traveled a different road.

    Their adult lives became faithful reproductions of the homes that had wounded them. Chaos produced more chaos. Addiction generated more addiction. Cruelty echoed across another generation.

    Why?

    Why does one person convert suffering into wisdom while another converts it into repetition?

    Were different choices responsible?

    Or were deeper differences already present long before those choices appeared?

    Perhaps character truly is destiny.

    But if so, where does character come from?

    Is it patiently built through discipline, habit, and moral instruction?

    Or does moral instruction simply awaken something that was already waiting to be awakened?

    I sometimes wonder whether the very act of picking up Rosen’s The Pursuit of Happiness hints at an answer. Perhaps people do not seek goodness by accident. Perhaps they are drawn toward it because some quiet part of them already recognizes its voice.

    That possibility reveals what I call The Character Paradox: the enduring question of whether moral character is principally cultivated through disciplined choice or gradually revealed by the dispositions already present within us.