Blog

  • The Ascent of Paper Towel Man

    The Ascent of Paper Towel Man

    Last night, my subconscious staged a farce: I was back on my old college campus, nervously ordering textbooks for my freshman comp classes—because that’s how my brain parties at night. After hours in the academic underworld of ISBNs and course numbers, I stumbled home under a moonless sky only to be seized by a grim realization: I forgot to order a crucial book.

    Panic.

    In this emergency, I reached not for Xanax, but a dark green landline phone, the color of envy or perhaps bureaucratic despair. I called the English Chair. Except in dream logic, the English Chair was not the overworked academic I know—but Scott Galloway, the sarcastic podcaster and economics professor. 

    I told him he had to submit the textbook order by midnight.

    True to form, he lobbed verbal grenades at me. Taunts, jabs, snide remarks. His voice had that tone—the kind that leaves you wondering if you’re being insulted or inducted into a secret society of useful idiots.

    I said, “Don’t joke over the phone. Only mock me in person.”

    He replied, “Fine. Come over. I’m having a dinner party.”

    Naturally.

    So, in the witching hour, I opened my front door—expecting a miles-long slog up a mountain—and instead, in the way only dreams and luxury real estate can allow, I was already at Casa Galloway, perched perilously on stilts over a cliff like some Bond villain’s hideout with a podcast studio.

    He was charming in person—gregarious, warm, practically glowing with hospitality. He led me into a dimly lit dining room where guests laughed and angel hair pasta sat arranged like delicate tumbleweeds on silver trays. White sauce shimmered like divine lubrication.

    “Take as much as you like,” he said, arms open.

    I hesitated. Did he make enough? Should I pretend restraint for the optics? Was this a test of my caloric discipline?

    I took a tiny, tragic portion.

    He raised an eyebrow. I mumbled something about “leaving enough for everyone,” which seemed to impress him. He praised my selflessness, as if I’d just refused seconds at a famine relief banquet.

    After eating my guilt-ridden noodle clump and participating in some effervescent dinner chatter, I left and returned home to my modest flat at the bottom of the hill. But before I could nestle into my bed of neuroses, it hit me: Galloway might be short on paper towels after his soirée.

    And I had a Costco-sized case.

    I threw the rolls under my arm and charged up the mountain like a sentient Amazon Prime delivery. My quads flexed with purpose. I was the Paper Towel Man, delivering absorbency and justice. I swung the rolls from hand to hand like batons of competence.

    I found him on the front porch—a cliffside slab barely larger than a yoga mat, with a waterfall crashing nearby like some sort of capitalist Shangri-La.

    “I’ve brought reinforcements,” I said, brandishing the paper towels like sacred scrolls.

    He smiled, then warned me: “The last fifty feet are treacherous.”

    Of course they were. The final ascent required mountaineering skills I didn’t have—jagged rocks, sudden drops, the kind of climb you’d expect in a spiritual thriller set in Tibet.

    But I was determined. Galloway had ordered my textbook and served me pasta. Reciprocity was sacred. I would reach that porch if it killed me.

    And then I woke up. Standing in my kitchen. Brewing coffee. Scribbling this fever dream into a notebook, trying to decide if it meant anything—or just meant I shouldn’t eat carbs after 9 p.m.

  • The Gospel According to the CEO: Why Work Became Worship

    The Gospel According to the CEO: Why Work Became Worship


    Antonio García Martínez, author of Chaos Monkeys and veteran of the tech world, argues that many recent college graduates, adrift without a guiding philosophy or any grounding in the psychological architecture of religion, redirect their spiritual hunger toward the workplace. In particular, they latch onto tech companies as secular stand-ins for organized faith. These firms offer more than a paycheck—they offer a sense of belonging, higher purpose, and the illusion of transcendence.

    The tech campus becomes a modern monastery, where the faithful eat, sleep, exercise, and labor. With its cappuccino bars, Michelin-level cafeterias, on-site laundry, yoga studios, wellness centers, and libraries, the workplace becomes not just a job, but a lifestyle. Employees live in an upgraded dormitory fantasy—one where comfort masks control.

    At the heart of this corporate spirituality is the CEO, the charismatic founder who plays the role of messiah. Workers are fed lofty slogans about “changing the world” and “disrupting paradigms” while toiling for long hours in service of a vision that often benefits only the top brass. The leader isn’t just admired—he’s revered. The Kool-Aid is organic, gluten-free, and laced with grandiosity.

    This phenomenon has become cultural fodder, explored with increasing skepticism in shows like Silicon Valley, Severance, WeCrashed, The Dropout, and Devs. Documentaries such as The Inventor, WeWork: Or the Making and Breaking of a $47 Billion Unicorn, and Fyre: The Greatest Party That Never Happened expose the blend of megalomania, fraud, and collective delusion behind these so-called missions.

    What drives this mass suspension of disbelief? Part of the answer lies in what Derek Thompson calls “Workism”—the belief that one’s job is the core of one’s identity and life’s meaning. Combined with groupthink and CEO idolatry, Workism completes a trifecta of modern manipulation. In this new faith, the altar is a standing desk, and salvation is just one IPO away.

  • Too Good to Sip: My Toxic Romance with Coffee

    Too Good to Sip: My Toxic Romance with Coffee

    I should probably quit drinking coffee—not because it’s bad for me, but because it’s too good, like a lover who ruins you for everyone else.

    This revelation smacked me in the face after a visit to my in-laws in Prescott Valley. There, in the quiet altitude of Arizona suburbia, I encountered coffee nirvana via a Ninja coffee maker—a machine that makes my Keurig taste like it was brewed through a gym sock. The Ninja’s brew was hotter, stronger, bolder. It had the depth of a Russian novel and the intensity of a Quentin Tarantino monologue. I immediately bought one for myself, eager to elevate my mornings into spiritual events. And elevate them I did—too far.

    Now my life has become tragically front-loaded. The coffee is too exquisite. It’s an overachiever. Nothing that follows—emails, errands, workouts, social obligations—can match its rich, scalding glory. My day peaks at 7:12 a.m., and everything after is a slow descent into lukewarm mediocrity. My existence has become a parade of yawns between two cups of perfection.

    This isn’t living. It’s a caffeine cult. And I’m the high priest.

    So what am I to do? Only one solution remains: renounce coffee. Banish the beans. Crawl out of this roasted rut and reinvent myself as a man unshackled from the tyranny of joy. I will become someone who experiences life itself—not just life plus Arabica.

    Or so I’d like to believe. Because deep down, I know I’ll just replace one ritual with another. Like that British expat novelist who lives in Tunisia, the one with the butler who brings him tea and a giant slab of cake every afternoon. That’ll be me. Earl Grey at four, carrot cake on Monday, German chocolate on Tuesday, and so on. I’ll swap a vice, rename it “ritual,” and carry on.

    Coffee may be gone, but the cravings will simply find new costumes.

  • The Gospel of Iron: How Weightlifting Became My Religion

    The Gospel of Iron: How Weightlifting Became My Religion

    In 1974, at the age of thirteen, I began weightlifting under the guidance of Lou Kruk, my junior high P.E. teacher and Junior Olympic weightlifting coach. Lou wasn’t just teaching kids to hoist iron—he was shaping futures. He handed me a barbell and lit the fuse. Soon, I was consuming protein powders and flipping through Strength & Health and Muscle Builder, the gospel according to Bob Hoffman and Joe Weider.

    From garage gyms to commercial ones, from clunky bench presses to rusted barbells, I trained. I flirted briefly with gimmicks—a Bullworker here, a Power Yoga phase there—but nothing kept me grounded like the iron. Eventually, I found kettlebells: odd, compact, brutally effective. And fifty-one years later, I’m still at it. The protein, the lifting—they’re no longer habits; they’re rituals.

    I don’t work out to chase aesthetics or to stave off decay. I train because not training feels like suffocating. My routine gives shape to my days, the way grammar gives shape to language. Without it, life would collapse into chaos. I marvel at those who drift through their hours without structure, snacking at whim, binge-watching shows, darting between texts and chores like pinballs. A life without scaffolding feels not just unsatisfying—it feels dangerous.

    Sometimes I wonder: what if I’d never met Lou Kruk? What if weightlifting had never entered my life? Would I have found some other sacred structure to cling to, or would I have been swallowed by drift? Yes, I play piano. Yes, I write. But I’m no professional writer unless you count me as a “professional navel-gazer.” These activities are merely sidelines—dilettante pursuits. It’s the iron that makes me whole.

    Maybe weightlifting saved my life. Maybe it still does. I could psychoanalyze this, wax poetic about addiction to ritual and the fear of entropy. Or I could walk into the garage, chalk my hands, and get lost in goblet squats and Turkish Get-Ups until the world makes sense again. I think you already know what I’m going to choose.

  • The Cult of Cool: How Fashion Brands Turned Insecurity Into Gold

    The Cult of Cool: How Fashion Brands Turned Insecurity Into Gold

    Three documentaries—White Hot: The Rise & Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch, Brandy Hellville and the Cult of Fast Fashion, and Trainwreck: The Cult of American Apparel—reveal a sobering truth: some of the most iconic youth fashion brands haven’t just sold clothes; they’ve trafficked in identity, manipulated insecurity, and run full-scale psychological cons dressed up as marketing.

    These brands built empires on seductive illusions—creating tight-knit aspirational worlds where beauty, desirability, and social status were pre-packaged into a logo and sold at a premium. The catch? Entry required blind conformity to a narrow aesthetic, behavioral uniformity, and uncritical loyalty. This wasn’t fashion—it was Groupthink in skinny jeans. And behind it all pulsed the emotional engine of modern consumer culture: FOMO, the fear of being left out, unseen, unchosen.

    White Hot, reviewed by Ben Kenigsberg, focuses on Abercrombie’s marketing of “aspirational frattiness”—a euphemism for white exclusivity wrapped in khaki shorts and cologne. It was a smug, muscular nostalgia trip to a sanitized, all-white upper-class fantasy where thinness, wealth, and preppy arrogance were the unspoken requirements for membership.

    At the helm was CEO Mike Jeffries, a marketing savant whose obsession with aesthetic purity bordered on cultic. Under his reign, the company embraced racist T-shirts, discriminatory hiring practices, and a toxic definition of “cool.” His executive team mirrored his vision so fully they might as well have been in a bunker, smiling and nodding as the walls caught fire. Groupthink didn’t just enable the brand’s rise—it ensured its blindness to its own downfall.

    Why revisit Abercrombie now? Because its story is a pre-Instagram case study in the mechanics of cult marketing: how insecurity is mined, branded, and sold back to consumers at 400% markup. My students in the 90s already saw through the ruse—complaining the shirts fell apart in the armpits within a week. What mattered wasn’t the clothing but the illusion of status sewn into every threadbare seam.

    Ultimately, White Hot offers a rare glimpse of justice: a cool brand undone by its own arrogance, its aesthetic no longer aspirational but pitiful. The Abercrombie collapse isn’t just a business story—it’s a warning. When branding becomes religion and coolness becomes a weapon, consumers become disciples in a theology of self-erasure.

  • Camry vs. Accord: A Meditation on Spec Sheets, Obsession, and the Art of Manspreading

    Camry vs. Accord: A Meditation on Spec Sheets, Obsession, and the Art of Manspreading

    One of my favorite pastimes—oddly specific and strangely soothing—is watching YouTube comparison videos of the Toyota Camry vs. the Honda Accord. I’m not car shopping. I don’t need a car. I may never buy another car. But these videos are my digital comfort food. They’re as satisfying to me as fine wine is to a sommelier or apple pie tastings are to a pastry chef—only instead of tasting notes, I savor engine specs and torque curves.

    There’s something singular about the Camry-Accord rivalry. In the sedan world, these two are the Goliaths. It’s not just another car comparison. It’s the comparison. Watching these two go head-to-head year after year is like seeing the best Steelers team take on the peak Patriots in a Super Bowl that never ends. Everything else—BMW vs. Mercedes, Rolex vs. Omega—feels less pure. BMW and Mercedes aren’t in the same pricing tier. Rolex exists in a brand vacuum. And while coffee maker comparisons have their niche charm, they lack the existential gravity of Camry vs. Accord.

    No rivalry inspires more content—or more heated debate. YouTube is flooded with these matchups, and if you scan the view counts, it’s clear: Camry vs. Accord is the king of consumer showdowns. Reviewers comb over the details with forensic intensity—fuel economy, powertrain specs, road noise, trunk space, rear-seat legroom, infotainment ergonomics, ride comfort, styling. They break it down like seminary students parsing Greek New Testament syntax.

    But what really fascinates me is the comments section, where strangers proclaim their loyalty with righteous conviction. Owners justify their purchase with religious fervor, deploying cherry-picked data to reinforce their superiority. It’s a textbook case of post-purchase rationalization: that psychological reflex where we inflate the virtues of what we bought to feel smarter, savvier, and self-assured.

    One commenter might praise the Accord’s refined cabin and roomier interior—but add that its exterior is so bland, driving one is akin to living as an NPC. Another insists Camry’s superior sales figures are proof of its aesthetic and mechanical dominance. Some dismiss the Accord entirely, predicting its extinction in five years. Others proudly declare they’re on their fifth generation of the same car, with brand loyalty woven into the fabric of their identity. For these drivers, the car isn’t a tool—it’s family.

    Ultimately, this rivalry isn’t really about cars. It’s about identity, tribalism, and the human need to choose a side and be right. It’s a Dr. Seussian fable in metallic paint: one team wears Honda badges, the other wears Toyota, and both believe their side represents reason, taste, and truth.

    For those of us with no appetite for political tribalism, this is our outlet. Camry vs. Accord is safer ground—less polarizing than politics, but don’t tell that to a diehard on either side. Watch how they argue: calmly, firmly, methodically—as if their livelihood depends on selecting the superior midsize sedan. They approach the debate with the solemnity of theologians discussing substitutionary atonement or post-mortem salvation.

    And me? I’m both relaxed and riveted. The debate calms my nerves and sharpens my focus. For a glorious hour, as I parse suspension tuning and rear-seat headroom, my worries dissolve. My thoughts narrow into something blissful. I study the specs like they’re verses from Leviticus. And in that deep focus, my anxiety lifts.

    Then it hits me: I don’t actually want the car—I want the focus. The Camry and Accord are just proxies for obsession. They’re placeholders in the temple of hyper-attention. Some people do yoga. I watch two middle-aged men compare infotainment systems like Cold War arms inspectors.

    And I do this with full self-awareness. I said earlier I might never buy another car. That wasn’t entirely true. My wife owns a 2014 silver Honda Accord Sport. I drive a 2018 gunmetal gray Accord Sport. We’re a two-Accord household. When it comes to car-buying, I’m conservative by nature—and what’s more conservative than buying a Camry or an Accord?

    I’m nearly certain our next car—whether hers or mine—will be one of the two. Likely an Accord, given that I’m six feet tall, 230 pounds, claustrophobic, and deeply committed to driver’s seat manspreading. The Accord gives me room to sprawl. The Camry? Not so much. I know this because, during a San Francisco vacation, an Uber driver picked us up in a brand-new Camry. It looked sleek from the curb, but once inside I felt like I was strapped into a fetal position. The experience ruined the car for me.

    And yet, I want to love the Camry. I really do. In my ideal life, my driveway would have both: the Camry and the Accord parked side by side like yin and yang. One the smooth operator, the other the sensible sibling. Their competition makes each better. Their rivalry sustains them both—and keeps me obsessively circling the rabbit hole.

    Because in the end, the Camry vs. Accord battle isn’t just about choosing a car. It’s about longing for clarity in a world of noise. It’s about choosing sides, rationalizing decisions, and pretending—for a few hours on YouTube—that the world makes sense if you can just pick the right sedan.

  • Dancing with Predators: The Myth and Madness of Ocean Ramsey

    Dancing with Predators: The Myth and Madness of Ocean Ramsey

    The Shark Whisperer, a Netflix documentary about the striking and fearless Ocean Ramsey, follows her as she glides through open water with tiger sharks and even Great Whites. Ramsey doesn’t just swim with these apex predators—she bonds with them, believing her connection will help rebrand sharks as sentient, misunderstood beings worthy of conservation, not fear.

    Her mission is both mesmerizing and deeply unsettling.

    There’s no denying her courage. Her grace underwater and near-superhuman lung capacity—she can hold her breath for over six minutes—allow her to move in the sea like one of its native creatures. She believes this makes the sharks see her not as prey, but as a fellow traveler. And maybe they do. For now.

    But I can’t shake the unease. Her physical gifts may grant her a temporary immunity, but it feels like borrowed time. There’s a streak of fatalism in her interviews—a recurring idea that a life fully lived is more valuable than a long one. She speaks openly of her depression. It’s hard not to wonder whether her deep emotional affinity for sharks is also a kind of escape, a seductive alternative to human connection or terrestrial stability. Her quest for intimacy with creatures that could kill her seems less like education and more like myth-making.

    Still, her life is extraordinary. A viral sensation and oceanic daredevil, Ramsey rides the backs of sea monsters with a kind of pagan grace. The documentary captures her power and beauty, her magnetism, and her commitment—but it also sidesteps the emotional terrain that might explain why she keeps going back into the water, again and again, as if trying to disappear into something wilder and more dangerous than life on land.

  • College Essay Prompt: The Grift of Belonging—How Fashion Brands Exploit FOMO and Groupthink to Sell Identity

    College Essay Prompt: The Grift of Belonging—How Fashion Brands Exploit FOMO and Groupthink to Sell Identity

    In the documentaries Brandy Hellville and the Cult of Fast Fashion (Max), Trainwreck: The Cult of American Apparel (Max), and White Hot: The Rise and Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch (Netflix), we are offered more than a look behind the clothing racks. These films expose how youth fashion brands operate less like retailers and more like grifters, running elaborate psychological cons built on seduction, social pressure, and identity manipulation.

    These brands don’t just sell clothes—they sell belonging, and they weaponize insecurity to do it. Their marketing creates an aspirational world that is carefully curated, hyper-exclusionary, and emotionally intoxicating. Entry into that world requires conformity to a narrow ideal—of beauty, behavior, and belief. At the heart of this system are two powerful social forces: FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) and Groupthink.

    While FOMO drives individual consumers to chase relevance and inclusion, Groupthink fuels collective complicity, where employees, customers, and even bystanders suppress doubt, overlook harm, and internalize toxic norms in order to remain inside the circle. Together, these forces create an ecosystem of manipulation where criticism is taboo, difference is erased, and buying in—literally and figuratively—feels like survival.


    Your Task:

    Write a 1,700-word argumentative essay analyzing how Brandy Melville, American Apparel, and Abercrombie & Fitch function as grifters—leveraging FOMO and Groupthink to manufacture desire, manipulate behavior, and enforce social conformity through branding.


    In Your Essay, Consider the Following Questions:

    • How do these brands construct seductive, high-stakes visions of coolness, youth, and exclusivity?
    • In what ways does FOMO—the fear of exclusion—serve as a psychological lever to draw people in and keep them engaged?
    • How does Groupthink operate in these brand environments? How are dissent, difference, or skepticism suppressed in favor of uniformity and loyalty?
    • How do these companies manipulate the illusion of “insider” status—through curated aesthetics, handpicked employees, or social media echo chambers?
    • What grift-like techniques (seduction, manufactured scarcity, social engineering, moral fog) are used to keep both employees and consumers compliant?
    • How do the documentaries use tone, visuals, interviews, and editing to critique—or subtly romanticize—these systems of control?

    Essay Requirements:

    1. Central Argument
    Craft a strong, focused thesis that shows how these fashion brands use FOMO and Groupthink to control image, behavior, and consumption under the guise of self-expression and community.

    2. Comparative Analysis
    Engage with all three documentaries. Look for recurring themes, techniques, and cultural patterns across the case studies.

    3. Use of Specific Evidence
    Draw on key moments from the documentaries—interviews, visual motifs, narrative arcs, and branding materials. Don’t summarize. Analyze.

    4. Secondary Sources
    Incorporate at least two secondary sources (academic articles, media theory, psychology, or cultural criticism) that deepen your understanding of FOMO, Groupthink, manipulation, or consumer identity.

    5. Citations
    Use MLA format consistently for in-text citations and your Works Cited page.


    Bonus Thought-Starters (Optional for Conclusion):

    • Are these brands unusual outliers—or simply more transparent about how capitalism shapes identity?
    • How does Groupthink evolve in online spaces where fashion trends are algorithmically enforced?

    Is it possible to create a fashion culture built on inclusion, authenticity, and critical thinking—or is grift the cost of staying “relevant”?

  • Watch Ownership Is a Letdown; Research Is the High

    Watch Ownership Is a Letdown; Research Is the High

    One of my favorite pastimes is watching YouTube comparison videos of the Toyota Camry vs. the Honda Accord. I’m not shopping for a car. I don’t need a car. I may never buy another car. 

    But these videos? They soothe the savage beast inside of me. They go down like a smooth bourbon, with notes of ABS braking and a smoky finish of fuel economy.

    While others go to YouTube to meditate or do yoga, I fall into the hypnotic cadence of two grown men comparing rear-seat legroom and infotainment systems with the solemnity of Cold War negotiators. 

    I’m riveted. Parsing the pros and cons of these two sedans gives me a focus so intense it borders on religious ecstasy. I study engine specs like they’re verses from Leviticus. My concentration sharpens, my anxiety fades. I am, for a brief and blissful moment, free.

    And then it hits me: I don’t want the car. I want the focus. The Camry and Accord are just placeholders in the temple of obsession.

    This revelation sheds light on my watch obsession. It helps me realize that acquiring a watch in most cases is a bitter letdown. A $3,000 watch on the wrist is like a Tinder date at Denny’s: out of place and super embarrassing. 

    I’ve worn $5,000 watches while taking my daughters to YogurtLand and I’ve said to myself, “Dude, you’ve lost the plot.”

    How did I get here with expensive watches that I wear when I’m buying pretzels and diet soda at Target?

    And then I realize. The same drive to focus on Camry-Accord comparisons is the same drive that makes me do “timepiece research.”  Watching my fellow timepiece obsessives drool over bezels and lume shots is the real high. That’s what lights me up. That’s what gets the adrenaline surging through my veins. 

    I’ve spent years confusing consumer acquisition with personal transformation. Getting this thing or that thing will change me inside. I want to be courageous, dignified, courteous, disciplined, fit, and healthy. A watch can’t redeem me. It can’t make me whole. It can’t make me the person I wish I were. Not once have I ever put a new watch on my wrist, gave my wife a wrist shot, and said, “Look, honey, I’ve achieved a metamorphosis.”

    She’ll just look at me and say, “Dude, clean the leaves out of the rain gutters.”

    The material thing in my hands is a letdown because what I really want is the chase and the intense focus. The glorious plunge down a rabbit hole lined with brushed stainless steel and leather-wrapped dashboards. My consumerism isn’t about consumption—it’s about cultivating a state of intense obsession that drowns out the shrieking absurdity of modern life.

    So no more mistaking adrenaline for fulfillment. No more clicking “Buy Now” hoping for transcendence in a shipping box. 

    I’ll keep researching. That’s my Prozac. That’s my monastery. 

    But buying something has proven to be a fool’s errand. And if doing so-called research inflames my consumer appetites, then I should probably put my foot on the brakes when it comes to the research because it can be a prelude to making a purchase I don’t want to make.

    Let me give you an analogy. Let’s say you’re back in high school and you’re at the high school dance, but your girlfriend isn’t there because she’s on a ski trip. While bored at the dance, your ex shows up. She looks more beautiful than you remember her. She approaches you and asks you to dance. “Nothing will happen,” she says. “It will be completely innocent.” You dance with her and something happens. 

    That’s what watch research is like. You tell yourself the research is innocent. You’re just reading forums. Watching a video or two. Maybe checking inventory. 

    But then you wake up and you’re shopping at Target with a $5,000 watch on your wrist and you feel both embarrassed and ashamed.

    Doing research on watches is like having that dance with your ex-girlfriend: Something is going to happen. And it’s not going to be pretty. 

    Have a wonderful day, everyone. Don’t forget to smash that Like button of your soul.

  • If Cormac McCarthy Wrote a Movie Treatment for The Beatles’ “The Long and Winding Road.” 

    If Cormac McCarthy Wrote a Movie Treatment for The Beatles’ “The Long and Winding Road.” 

    FADE IN:

    A road. It winds through the wastes like a serpent that forgot its own name. Cracked earth on either side. Fence posts like grave markers. Vultures in the sky, circling nothing in particular, just keeping warm. A man walks it. His boots are flayed open. His eyes are sunburned. His soul is a blister dragging itself behind him.

    His name is Lyle. Or maybe Thomas. The script never says. Doesn’t matter. He’s every man who ever wrote a love letter in blood and mailed it into the void.

    He is looking for her. She has no name, just a shape in the distance, a memory braided from perfume and last words. She left him. Maybe twice. Maybe more. He kept the door open. She never knocked.

    The road has been long. Winding. Bleak. It led him through dead towns and ghost motels. Once he stayed in a place where the concierge was a buzzard and the minibar held only regret.

    He speaks not. The road speaks for him. It says:

    Every fool must follow something. You picked hope. Bad draw.

    Flashbacks flicker: A woman, face soft as moonlight, eyes like unpaid debt. She tells him she’s leaving. He says he’ll wait. She laughs. That’s the last thing she gives him. Her laughter. Acid-bright and final.

    Along the road he meets others—pilgrims of delusion.

    One man rides a shopping cart filled with old love songs on cassette.

    One woman sews wedding dresses for brides that never were.

    One child sells maps to places that no longer exist.

    They all walk. They all believe the road leads somewhere. It don’t.

    Eventually, Lyle comes upon a house at the end of the road. It is the house. Her house. Or what’s left of it. The windows are boarded. The door is gone. Inside, just dust, a broken phonograph, and a bird trapped in the chimney, fluttering against the soot.

    He kneels.

    Not to pray. To listen.

    There’s no music. No answer. Only wind. And the bird’s soft thump, thump, thump.

    He lies down. The road curls around him like a noose.

    FADE TO BLACK.

    The final line scrolls in silence:

    Love didn’t leave. It just stopped answering the door.