The employees of Lumon in Severance don’t just clock in and out—they’re vivisected by a corporate lobotomy that splits their souls in two. Each character exists in a bifurcated purgatory, trapped in a fluorescent-lit purgatory where one version of themselves (the “innie”) never leaves the office, and the other (the “outie”) floats through life with no memory of work. This isn’t just workplace alienation—it’s mutterseelenallein in its purest form: the kind of bone-deep loneliness where even your own psyche ghosts you. These poor saps are so severed from continuity, connection, and selfhood that they may as well have been orphaned by their own existence. It’s not just alienation from the world—it’s abandonment by the very person you’re supposed to trust most: yourself.
Category: TV and Movies
-

Gogol’s The Overcoat and Kafka’s Metamorphosis Foreshadowed the Apple TV Hit Severance
Long before Severance turned corporate soul-splitting into Emmy bait, Nikolai Gogol’s The Overcoat quietly laid the groundwork for the genre of bureaucratic horror. Akaky Akakievich is the proto-Severed worker—his life split cleanly between a dead-eyed office existence and a home life that’s somehow even more depressing. Like the Lumon employees, Akaky finds solace not in human connection but in the numbing repetition of meaningless tasks—he copies documents with the same reverence others reserve for sacred texts. And when he finally dares to dream—by saving for a coat, not a promotion—his brief taste of identity is crushed under the weight of systemic cruelty. If Severance is about carving a clean boundary between work self and home self, The Overcoat is about never having had a self to begin with—just a threadbare shell, waiting for a little wool and meaning.
Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis, like Gogol’s The Overcoat, is an early blueprint for Severance—a corporate fever dream where identity disintegrates under the crushing weight of routine. Gregor Samsa wakes up as a giant insect, which is really just Kafka’s polite way of saying, “Congratulations, you’ve officially been dehumanized by your job.” Much like the Innies at Lumon, Gregor is trapped in a world where personal agency has been revoked and his worth is measured solely by productivity. His family, like a passive-aggressive middle manager, barely bats an eye as he spirals into irrelevance—because what matters isn’t who you are, but what you produce. Metamorphosis doesn’t just foreshadow Severance—it’s the spiritual prequel, complete with bug eyes, locked doors, and the existential dread of being rendered obsolete by the very system you once served.
-

The Great, on Hulu, is your TV Mount Everest
So, you’ve just finished watching the complete 3 seasons of The Great on Hulu, and now you’re a broken shell of a human being. This “anti-historical” comedy about Empress Catherine the Great, penned by the devilishly talented Tony McNamara, is hands-down the best thing you’ve ever seen on television. And now, you’re plunged into a depression so deep that not even Elle Fanning’s radiant smirk or Nicholas Hoult’s glorious, sociopathic wit can pull you out of it. Why? Because you know, deep in your soul, that you’ll never see a script with such biting humor, impeccable cadence, and penetrating insight again. Ever.
The Great is your TV Mount Everest, and the air up there is so thin that coming back down to the ground feels like an existential freefall. Desperate for solace, you decide to drown your sorrows in another “costume comedy,” because clearly, nothing soothes the soul like more ruffles and wigs.
Enter The Decameron on Netflix—a comedy about the bubonic plague in 14th Century Italy. Yes, someone thought it would be a good idea to wring laughs out of a pandemic that killed a third of Europe. And the shocking part? They actually pulled it off. You’re impressed. Sort of. But at the same time, let’s not kid ourselves—the writing is not even in the same universe as The Great. It’s like comparing a Michelin-starred meal to the tastiest TV dinner you’ve ever had. Sure, it’s good, but come on—it’s not The Great. But here’s the kicker: you can’t trust your judgment anymore. You’ve entered a full-blown Post-Masterpiece Meltdown. On one hand, you’re bending over backward to be generous toward The Decameron, because you know deep down it’s unfair to compare anything to the sheer brilliance of The Great. On the other hand, you’re haunted by the suspicion that your generosity might be blinding you to the show’s actual merits—or lack thereof. You’re like someone who’s just lost the love of their life and is now attempting to date again by swiping right on Tinder with tears streaming down their face.
Can you really trust your post-Great heart to judge anything properly? To make matters worse, The Decameron features the enigma that is Tanya Reynolds, an actress whose face is a bafflingly delightful conundrum—one moment goofy, the next serenely beautiful, as if she’s somehow tapped into a facial time machine that can travel between awkward adolescence and timeless beauty at will. Her intoxicating, elastic pulchritude is the final nail in the coffin of your short-circuited judgment. Your critical faculties, once sharp as a chef’s knife, now resemble a spoon trying to slice through steak. And you used to take pride in your TV criticism! Now you’re floundering in a sea of existential doubt, questioning everything—your taste, your standards, your very identity as a TV aficionado. So here you are, a once-confident critic, now reduced to a quivering mass of uncertainty, all because you stumbled upon Tony McNamara’s masterpiece, The Great. It’s like finding out you’ve been living in Plato’s cave all along, and now you’ve seen the light, you’re doomed to spend the rest of your days in the shadows, longing for the brilliance you can never unsee. Welcome to your new life in the Post-Masterpiece Meltdown. Enjoy the view—such as it is.
-

Adolescence: Joins The Pitt as a Triumph of Hyper-Realism
If you listen to The Watch with Chris Ryan and Andy Greenwald, you’ve probably heard the buzz: Netflix’s four-part series Adolescence isn’t just good—it’s the best thing on TV right now.
So, naturally, my wife and I sat down to see if it lived up to the hype. Spoiler alert: It does.
Without giving away essential plot points, let me put it this way: this isn’t just a crime procedural—it’s a ruthless autopsy of institutional failure. Each episode dissects a different system that was designed to impose order but instead collapses under the weight of human chaos.
- Episode 1: The Police Station – The series kicks off inside a sterile, fluorescent-lit hellscape, where well-meaning officers attempt to process and interrogate thirteen-year-old Jamie Miller, the boy accused of murdering a classmate. The problem? The system is dehumanizing. Jamie’s family is kept in the dark, procedural red tape trumps human empathy, and every interaction feels like a slow, grinding march toward inevitability. Jamie himself—angelic-faced, soft-spoken, seemingly incapable of violence—makes us question everything.
- Episode 2: The School – If you thought the police station was bad, welcome to Lord of the Flies with a morning bell. Detectives attempt to interview students, only to be met with a circus of chaos. The kids are feral, emotionally volatile, and wired for destruction. The teachers? Comically powerless. Every attempt at authority is met with blank stares, open defiance, or performative outrage.
- Episode 3: The Juvenile Facility – A bureaucratic nightmare masquerading as rehabilitation. Here, troubled teens are sorted into neat categories based on data and psych evaluations, as if behavior can be reduced to a spreadsheet. Therapists cycle through sterile, one-size-fits-all interventions, while administrators act like zookeepers who have given up. It’s depressing, absurd, and terrifyingly real.
- Episode 4: The Suburbs – The final episode shifts from institutions to family itself, portraying domestic life as its own kind of prison. Jamie’s father, a man drowning in wounded male ego, rules his home with simmering rage and a rigid belief in his own moral authority. His suburban world, meant to be safe and orderly, feels just as oppressive as the police station, the school, or the juvenile facility.
Hyper-Realism That Sticks With You
The series’ hyper-realistic approach reminds me of The Pitt—the brutally compelling Max series that drags you into the chaos of an ER with unflinching detail. Adolescence does the same thing for the crime procedural, pulling you so deep into its world that you almost feel suffocated by its bleak authenticity.
If you’re a fan of TV that rattles your nerves and forces you to stare into the abyss of systemic collapse, Adolescence is not to be missed.
- Episode 1: The Police Station – The series kicks off inside a sterile, fluorescent-lit hellscape, where well-meaning officers attempt to process and interrogate thirteen-year-old Jamie Miller, the boy accused of murdering a classmate. The problem? The system is dehumanizing. Jamie’s family is kept in the dark, procedural red tape trumps human empathy, and every interaction feels like a slow, grinding march toward inevitability. Jamie himself—angelic-faced, soft-spoken, seemingly incapable of violence—makes us question everything.
-

Deli Boys on Hulu is out; Adolescence on Netflix is in
A friend recommended Deli Boys on Hulu, a crime comedy about two Pakistani brothers who inherit their father’s underground empire, fronted by a chain of liquor stores. On paper, this should have been an instant win: the actors are likable, the absurdity flows in generous doses, the style is confident, and the episodes are short and snappy—like a cousin of Barry, one of my favorite comedies of the past decade.
And yet, something felt off. Four episodes in, I kept turning to my wife and muttering, “I should love this. Why don’t I?”
Then it hit me: Deli Boys is Barry without the bite. It’s a second-generation clone—talented cast, crisp pacing, solid comic timing—but missing the animating spirit that made its influences great. Worse, it feels dated, an imitation of better shows rather than a fresh take on the crime-comedy genre. Without a real thematic core, it’s just another slick, highly-stylized caper that goes down easy but leaves no lasting impression.
So, with a mixture of relief and mild disappointment, my wife and I pulled the plug. Instead, we’re shifting gears to Adolescence on Netflix, a show critics are buzzing about—including The Watch podcast’s Chris Ryan and Andy Greenwald: a brutal four-part series about a thirteen-year-old accused of murdering a classmate. A tough watch, no doubt, but at least it promises substance beneath the style. And hey, it’s only four episodes—might as well see what all the fuss is about.
-

The Forgotten Song of Misfit Island: My Long, Bitter Feud with Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer
The most exhausting piece I have ever composed—the one that wrings my soul dry after playing its three relentless movements—is called “The Forgotten Song of Misfit Island.” This sonata, a labor of love and obsession spanning forty years, began as something else entirely: my childhood fury at the televised nightmare known as Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.
Like millions of children before me, I was supposed to cherish this 1964 Christmas special as a heartwarming tale of holiday spirit and triumphant underdogs. Instead, I watched it with horrified disbelief, my small, traumatized brain barely able to process the cruelty inflicted upon the most tragic figures in holiday television: the Misfit Toys.
These weren’t just defective playthings with minor quirks. They were abandoned children, exiled to an arctic hellscape, sentenced to a slow death on a barren glacier. They were ill-equipped for survival, dressed in flimsy rags with no food, no warmth, no shelter from the Abominable Snowman, a giant carnivorous beast stomping the ice sheets with the inevitability of fate itself. Who knows how long they had suffered? Years? Decades? An eternity? And for what crime? Simply being different. The authorities of Christmas had spoken: an ostrich-riding cowboy, a Charlie-in-the-Box, and a melancholy doll were abominations, unfit for the joys of holiday consumerism.
Defenders of Rudolph will no doubt remind me of the “joyous rescue” at the film’s climax, when Santa Claus swoops in to distribute the Misfit Toys to “good homes.” But let’s examine that so-called rescue. These toys, who had only survived through their deep bond and shared trauma, are now forcibly separated and flung into random households. Santa, in his infinite wisdom, has decided that what these emotionally shattered creatures need is total isolation from the only community that has ever accepted them.
Santa Claus, the supposed symbol of holiday cheer, is, in fact, an unapologetic tyrant—a man who exploits child labor, forces elves into unregulated factory work, and belittles an aspiring dentist for daring to dream beyond toy-making. My paleontologist friend, Dr. Zachary J. Rasgon, once pointed out another moment of unhinged brutality: the scene where Yukon Cornelius casually yanks out every tooth from the mouth of an endangered hominid—and we’re all supposed to be a-okay with that.
For over fifty years, this grim portrait of abuse and forced assimilation has been celebrated as a beloved Christmas tradition. And yet, I alone seem to recognize its horrors. I have made my case countless times, but the world continues to revere Rudolph as an “iconic” holiday classic. My protestations fall on deaf ears, branding me as something of a misfit myself.
And so, I have learned to let go of my rage. Or, at least, I have tried.
Turning Rage into Music
As a child, unable to rewrite history, I began rewriting Rudolph. I imagined the Misfit Toys as restless insomniacs, huddled together for warmth, singing a song to ease their suffering. It was a song born of necessity—a celestial hymn of comfort, a melody so powerful that it could momentarily trick them into believing they were loved.
But in my revised ending, their exile ends only to bring a new torment. Ripped away from each other and cast into separate homes, the toys struggle to recall the song that once gave them solace. They catch fragments of it in dreams, in whispers on the wind, but the full melody is lost to them. The song—the very essence of their shared survival—could only exist when they were together.
The only solution? A reunion.
In the version that played in my head for years, an older, wiser, and absurdly wealthy Rudolph, finally understanding the true cruelty of Santa’s decree, takes it upon himself to find and reunite the Misfit Toys. He brings them to a sprawling Tuscan villa, where they can feast under the warm Mediterranean sun and, at long last, remember the song in its full glory. The world hears their melody once more, and it becomes legendary—a song of defiance, resilience, and enduring love.
This imaginary song, the one that saved the Misfit Toys from oblivion, became the foundation for my most demanding piano composition. It took decades—forty years of reworking, revising, and searching for the perfect sequence of notes.
A Lifelong Symphony of Misfits
Even now, I cannot shake my affinity for misfits. My mind is overrun with them: Sidney the Elephant, Kermit the Frog, Tooter Turtle, Beaver Cleaver, Kwai Chang Caine (a.k.a. Grasshopper), Mr. Peabody, George of the Jungle, Milton the Monster. They, too, deserve their own melodies, their own compositions, their own forgotten songs.
Until I write those songs, I will imagine them all gathered together, sipping wine in that Tuscan vineyard, basking in the company of Rudolph and his long-lost misfit family. And in that imagined paradise, I, too, find a place to belong.
-

Gilded Cages and Bourbon Hangovers: The Tragicomedy of Southern Charm
Gilded Cages and Bourbon Hangovers: The Tragicomedy of Southern Charm
There’s an old saying: declaw a cat, and it can’t survive in the wild. But what happens when the cat doesn’t want to leave its velvet-cushioned cage? Welcome to Southern Charm, a reality show that parades a peculiar species—the overgrown man-child, trapped by privilege, mediocrity, and the reassuring hum of an ever-flowing bourbon decanter.
These men, ranging from their thirties to their fifties, are not so much participants in life as they are well-dressed relics, embalmed in their own vices. Work is an abstract concept, something dabbled in between brunches and boat parties. Women are recreational pastimes, sampled and discarded like seasonal cocktails. And the ultimate validation? The cooing, slurred approval of their doting mothers, who, in between vodka tonics, assure their progeny that they are, indeed, true Southern gentlemen.
But Southern Charm isn’t just about individual arrested development—it’s about a collective one. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the show’s occasional detours into the grotesque theater of old-money delusion. Take, for example, the time disgraced politician Thomas Ravenel dined with his father, Arthur, a former U.S. Representative. Over lunch, Arthur casually revealed his habit of quickly getting rid of five-dollar bills because Abraham Lincoln’s face still irks him. That’s right—Lincoln, the president who ended slavery, remains a personal affront to this withered artifact of the antebellum South.
If I had to sum up Southern Charm in a single word, it would be imprisonment. These men are locked in a gilded purgatory, shackled by tradition, vice, and a desperate fear of anything beyond their insular Charleston bubble. They know their world is suffocating, yet they can’t—or won’t—leave it. And that’s what makes Southern Charm such a mesmerizing trainwreck: watching these men wriggle and rationalize, making their slow-motion deal with the devil, one bourbon at a time.
-

Selling Out, Buying In: The Savage Brilliance of Matt LeBlanc in Episodes
Originally unleashed on Showtime in 2011, Episodes ran for five seasons of razor-sharp satire, skewering the soulless machinery of Hollywood with a precision so brutal it felt like watching a vivisection—if vivisections were hilarious. It remains one of my all-time favorite comedies, a savage yet oddly affectionate takedown of the industry’s relentless appetite for mediocrity.
The setup is fiendishly simple: Sean and Beverly Lincoln, a charmingly acerbic British writing duo, are lured to Los Angeles with promises of creative control and prestige. What they get instead is an artistic hostage situation. Their critically beloved, whip-smart series is promptly shoved through the Hollywood meat grinder, emerging as an insipid, laugh-tracked monstrosity. Worse, they are forced to resurrect the career of Matt LeBlanc, who plays a delightfully monstrous version of himself—a washed-up sitcom relic clinging to his former Friends glory.
LeBlanc, padding around in a haze of regret, is a masterclass in self-loathing charisma. He’s paunchier, jowlier, and carries the heavy-lidded exhaustion of a man who has realized, too late, that charm has an expiration date. The sad creases around his eyes whisper, How come the world doesn’t love me the way it used to? He’s a man-child accustomed to zero boundaries, collateral damage in his wake—including an estranged wife and an industry that has moved on. His interactions with the Lincolns are electric: he resents their moral standards, mocks their dignity, and yet, slowly, insidiously, starts craving their approval like a lost toddler looking for parental validation.
The Lincolns, meanwhile, aren’t just losing creative control—they’re losing themselves. Forced to dumb down their art while simultaneously parenting an emotionally stunted former sitcom star, they begin to absorb some of LeBlanc’s gleeful nihilism, just as he, in turn, starts to thaw under their reluctant affection. The show’s central tension becomes a delicious question: Who will corrupt whom first? By the end, they’ve all been irrevocably changed, bound by a bizarre, dysfunctional, and strangely touching camaraderie.
LeBlanc’s slow, grudging evolution is nothing short of a masterpiece. Stephen Mangan and Tamsin Greig, as Sean and Beverly, deliver a spectacular performance of unrelenting exasperation, their bewildered expressions a constant gauge of Hollywood’s never-ending barrage of crassness. The result is a show so brilliant, so deftly written, that watching it once wasn’t enough—I devoured it twice, only to appreciate it even more the second time around. Beneath its cynical wit and industry grotesquerie, Episodes is ultimately about the absurd yet undeniable bonds that form when people are forced to suffer together. And in that suffering, something close to love—however warped—takes shape.
-

Mr. Peabody Was My Role Model
In my early teens in the 1970s, I toured the waterbed revolution like a true believer. Friends, neighbors—everyone seemed to have one, and after test-driving these vinyl oceans, I became convinced that a waterbed would deliver me into a life of unimaginable luxury, decadent pleasure, and deep, undisturbed sleep. Reality had other plans.
I badgered my parents into buying me one, fully expecting a nirvana of relaxation. Instead, I got a glorified swamp. The temperature was either scalding lava or Arctic frost, the thin vinyl leaked like a punctured raft, and the whole thing smelled like a frog orgy in a Louisiana bayou. Worse, any movement triggered an equal and opposite reaction, as if I were engaged in battle with some unseen aquatic force.
The final insult? A biblical flood. One morning, my leaking disaster destroyed the floorboards, turning my bedroom into a post-hurricane FEMA zone. My dreams of floating into the future of sleep innovation had instead capsized, and I was left with the cold, hard truth: the quest for the ultimate bed would have to begin anew.
Of course, I couldn’t let this tragedy go undocumented. Some people move on—I, on the other hand, have a compulsion to turn every misadventure into a cautionary tale.
I blame my childhood TV habits. I was obsessed with The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle, particularly the history lessons from Mr. Peabody and Sherman. With their time-traveling escapades, they examined history through Mr. Peabody’s smug brilliance, making sense of human folly. I can picture them now, entering their time machine, visiting me as my waterbed catastrophe unfolds, and filing the entire debacle under “Lessons in Bad Decision-Making.”
For me, this is what writing is—a time machine, a way to travel through memory, make sense of chaos, and leave behind an indelible mark. It’s a compulsion, an illness, a disease.
Trying to understand this affliction, I turned to Anne Lamott for rehabilitation. Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life is mercifully free of false hope. A veteran of countless writing workshops, Lamott tells her students the truth: writing will not bring peace, joy, or serenity. Instead, their lives will be a mess—ruin, hysteria, bad skin, unsightly tics, financial catastrophe—but not peace of mind.
And yet, she urges them to embrace the suffering, because to suffer for writing is a privilege—a sign that they have “finally arrived.”
Translation: Writing isn’t a craft. It’s a storm you never escape from, a bad investment you refuse to cut loose, a waterbed that just won’t stop leaking—but you keep lying on it anyway.
To take up writing is to choose obsession—to engage with ideas, people, and the world with an intensity otherwise unattainable. The alternative? A life of flatline existence, tranquilized and convalescent, a kind of slow-motion death. Writing is a self-inflicted challenge, a constant state of creative warfare, but that’s the point. You’ve chosen a mission as high-stakes as Vikings raiding distant shores because you’re not content to sedate yourself with the comfort of a reliable, unchallenging routine.
Yes, you can walk away, consume food, entertainment, and dopamine-rich distractions, and let your mind dissolve into cultural sludge. But the price of that escape is worse than the struggle—an existence marked by vapidity, emptiness, and a soul-draining sense of futility.
I was reminded of this during a conversation with a Trader Joe’s cashier about her twenty-four-year-old daughter. At nineteen, the girl dropped out of college during COVID and never returned. Now she works at a dispensary, detached and listless, selling products to customers just as zoned out as she is. A perfect circle of disengagement.
Writing is the opposite: an act of defiance against entropy—a way to make discoveries, clarify the chaos, and refine that clarity into a persona and a voice that matters. Once you get a taste of this life, there is no going back.
Lamott puts it best: writing is like milking a cow—”the milk is so rich and delicious, and the cow is so glad you did it.” Her goal is not just to teach writing but to make sure that once you’ve milked the cow, you’ll never want to stop.
I never wanted to stop. Writing isn’t the problem—staying in my lane is.
I don’t want to burden my wife, friends, or unsuspecting literary agents with yet another unreadable novel, churned out from a delusional obsession, an addiction, a brain warp induced by too many readings of A Confederacy of Dunces. Some might say I should write for therapy, keep a journal for mental hygiene, treating my office like a literary spa where I purge the toxins from my overactive brain.
That’s not how I operate.
Writing only feels real if I imagine other people reading it. To write only for myself feels repulsive, deranged—what philosophers call solipsism, where the self becomes the only reality. If I’m the only audience, then I might as well be shouting into a void, a lunatic locked in a room, talking to no one but his own reflection.
And yet, there’s something almost hopeful in my need for an audience. Strip away the ego factor, and what remains is connection—the belief that words should travel, that they should land inside someone else’s head and stir something awake. For all my curmudgeonly tendencies, I’m no misanthrope. In my darkest moments, I still believe that deep human connections—through writing, music, and art—prove that we haven’t entirely given up on each other.
I think of George Carlin, who, for all his nihilistic rants, never hid in a cave. He famously said that being born is like getting a front-row ticket to the freak show—but instead of watching in silence, he grabbed a mic and talked about it for hours.
I can’t write for no one. The thrill of writing is imagining that someone, somewhere, is reading.
Last night, I listened to Dvořák’s Sixth Symphony on the radio, and it felt electric. Had I streamed it alone, the experience would have been diminished—background noise rather than something shared. Knowing that thousands of others were listening at the same moment made the music more alive, more urgent.
I can’t tell if this compulsion to share my stories is a normal human impulse or the delusion of a narcissist. I want people to know about my misadventures, my catastrophes, my brief flirtations with transcendence. I want people to see history the way I saw it, the way I lived it. I believe in marking things down for posterity, but I also suspect that if I don’t immortalize my past in print, it might evaporate into the void like it never happened at all.
Lurking beneath all this is a deeper fear—that something essential to our humanity is slipping away. So I climb into Mr. Peabody’s time machine and set the dial to the summers of 1975 through 1979, when my family and a small army of friends made the annual pilgrimage to Pt. Reyes Beach. Johnson’s Oyster Farm was our temple, and its truck beds overflowed with what seemed like an infinite supply of oysters. From noon to sunset, we ate like gods in exile—barbecued oysters drowning in garlic butter and Tabasco, bottomless baskets of garlic bread, and colossal slabs of moist chocolate cake.
Ignoring the ominous great white shark warnings, we punctuated our feasting with reckless dives into the waves, emerging from the ocean with our pecs glistening in the sunlight, ready for another round of oysters. In the summer of ’78, I decided not to ride home with my parents. Instead, I hitched a ride in the back of a stranger’s truck, surrounded by a ragtag group of new acquaintances—full-bellied, sun-dazed, and staring up at the stars with our glazed lizard eyes, swapping wild stories like ancient mariners.
And here’s the thing: nobody took a single picture. There were no selfies, no curated posts to induce FOMO, no frantic attempts to manufacture nostalgia in real time. We were too deep inside the moment to think about how it might look on a screen later. Today, we don’t experience moments—we package them for consumption.
And maybe that’s why I can’t not write about it. I can’t store my stories in some damp, echoing cave, streaming them to an audience of one. I need them broadcasted, carried on the airwaves, felt in real time by others.
My disease is incurable.

