Cinemorphosis

Tag: book-review

  • Legacy by Accident

    Legacy by Accident

    Ambition, vanity, posterity, or some other vainglorious itch may one day persuade you to write a book. You imagine Your Book as a respectable object of a certain length and seriousness, and then you set about manufacturing one. If you possess talent and something worth saying, you may even succeed. But, truth be told, that sort of book interests me far less than another kind: the book you never intended to write, the one that emerged despite your intentions.

    Blaise Pascal never sat down to compose a grand philosophical masterpiece. He scribbled fragments, observations, prayers, and flashes of insight on loose sheets of paper. Their intellectual voltage proved so extraordinary that, after his death, others gathered them into what became the Pensées. Paul, likewise, never dreamed of writing the New Testament. As Emmanuel Carrère observes in The Kingdom, “Paul didn’t write to create a body of work, but to keep in contact with the churches he founded.” Thirty-two thousand words—less than many contemporary self-help books—were enough to redirect the course of civilization.

    It is an unsettling truth for aspiring authors: good writing almost always defeats the book.

    N. T. Wright understands this instinctively. He opens his biography of Paul with the cinematic declaration, “Nothing would ever be quite the same again.” Paul strides onto the stage not as a quiet pastor dutifully composing devotional literature but as a theological wrecking ball, crashing through the ancient world and scattering centuries of inherited assumptions in every direction. He isn’t simply proclaiming a message. He is contesting the marketplace of ideas with the confidence of a man who believes history itself is about to change.

    Wright’s first exhibit is almost laughably modest: Paul’s surviving letters amount to roughly eighty printed pages.

    Eighty pages.

    That isn’t even the length of a forgettable airport thriller purchased on impulse before boarding business class. Yet those few dozen pages have been translated, debated, revered, condemned, dissected, footnoted, weaponized, and adored more than perhaps any comparable body of writing in history. They have shaped theology, politics, ethics, literature, philosophy, and the imagination of entire civilizations. 

    As I sort through the mountain of commentary I have written about Paul, the most astonishing fact isn’t any single doctrine he preached. It is the staggering disproportion between the size of his corpus and the magnitude of its consequences.

    One cannot help wondering whether this was accidental.

    Was Paul quietly constructing his own immortality, forging a legacy one epistle at a time? Was every letter another carefully placed stone in a monument he hoped would outlive him?

    The suspicion is understandable.

    Yet the stronger case points elsewhere.

    Paul writes like a man too consumed by immediate crises to worry about literary immortality. Congregations are splintering. Converts are backsliding. Rival teachers are circling. Stoics, Epicureans, mystery religions, pagan cults, and competing forms of Judaism all crowd the intellectual marketplace. Paul enters that arena not to preserve his reputation but to win an argument he believes carries eternal consequences. Wright aptly calls him a “contextual theologian.” Paul knew his gospel was not the only voice speaking in the first century. He simply believed it was the only one capable of making sense of the human condition in all its tragic grandeur—a conviction that pulses through every chapter of Romans.

    He was not composing a book.

    He was fighting a war.

    His letters are dispatches from the front lines, written with urgency, exhaustion, exasperation, tenderness, and flashes of breathtaking genius. At times he sounds like a patient mentor. At others he sounds like a man on the verge of a nervous breakdown. He contradicts himself, doubles back, argues, pleads, explodes, consoles, and reasons. Whatever else one says about Paul, he never sounds manufactured. He writes as though the fate of the world depends upon persuading one more wavering believer.

    That authenticity may explain his enduring influence better than any calculated literary ambition ever could.

    Most books, despite their impressive page counts and solemn intentions, vanish almost as soon as they appear. They enjoy a brief season on bookstore display tables before quietly migrating to library clearance sales, thrift stores, and eventually the recycling bin. The grand literary monument proves as consequential as a sneeze.

    But every so often another kind of writing appears.

    It is not trying to become a book. It is trying to solve an urgent problem, persuade a living audience, comfort frightened people, settle an argument, or tell the truth before time runs out. Only later does history gather those scattered pages together and recognize what their author never intended.

    That is what I call Legacy by Accident: enduring influence achieved not by chasing posterity, but as the unforeseen consequence of writing with such authenticity and urgency that posterity comes looking for you.

  • The X-Ray Bully Principle

    The X-Ray Bully Principle

    I have often imagined writing a novel about a boy tormented by a sixth-grade bully. At first glance, the story seems painfully familiar. One child possesses power; another lacks it. One humiliates; the other endures. There are already enough novels about that.

    The interesting story begins decades later.

    The bully is drawn to the boy’s visible sadness the way sharks are drawn to blood. Whether that instinct originates in the bully’s own wounds is impossible to know. Perhaps his father’s death from a heart attack in his thirties left him carrying around an anger too large for a child to bear. Perhaps he simply needed somewhere to dump his rage, and the melancholy boy looked like an accommodating landfill.

    Or perhaps that explanation is sentimental nonsense.

    Perhaps the bully required no tragedy to become cruel. Some people seem to arrive in the world with an uncanny instinct for locating weakness and pressing on it until it bruises.

    Whatever the explanation, the bully needed only to glimpse the boy’s face.

    That face was enough.

    The sadness irritated him. The fear provoked him. The quietness felt like an accusation. Around everyone else he was merely disagreeable. Around this particular boy he became incandescent with contempt. The sight of vulnerability transformed him into an artist of humiliation.

    That, however, is not the novel.

    Bullies are common.

    What fascinates me is what happens inside the victim.

    At first the boy hates his tormentor in the ordinary way. He dreams of revenge. He imagines vindication. He rehearses speeches he will never deliver.

    Then something disturbing happens.

    He grows older.

    He begins examining himself with ruthless honesty. He sees his cowardice, vanity, evasions, self-pity, and moral compromises. Gradually, almost against his own will, he starts to wonder whether the bully had been right all along.

    Not right about the cruelty.

    Right about him.

    The bully becomes, in memory, the only person who had truly seen through the performance. Everyone else had mistaken shyness for humility, sensitivity for virtue, sadness for depth. The bully had looked beneath the surface and detected something darker.

    Weakness.

    Duplicity.

    Self-deception.

    The victim begins to believe that the insults were less acts of cruelty than acts of diagnosis.

    He embraces what I call the X-Ray Bully Principle: the belief that a tormentor’s cruelty was justified because he uniquely perceived one’s hidden moral defects and therefore functioned, however unwillingly, as a truth-teller rather than merely an aggressor.

    This inversion changes everything.

    The bully is no longer remembered as a playground tyrant.

    He becomes a prophet.

    His taunts acquire the authority of Scripture. His ridicule is transformed into revelation. His contempt begins to resemble religious flagellation—a painful but necessary discipline administered to expose hidden corruption.

    The victim quietly canonizes his persecutor.

    That is the real tragedy.

    The bully’s greatest victory was never the humiliation he inflicted on a frightened twelve-year-old. It was persuading that boy, decades later, that the humiliation had been deserved.

    The novel, then, is not about bullying.

    It is about the terrifying human capacity to mistake condemnation for insight and abuse for truth. It asks whether our harshest critics possess privileged access to our secret selves or whether shame simply grants them an authority they never earned.

    That question has haunted me far longer than any playground insult ever could.

  • The Death of Reading and the Rise of Thrusts

    The Death of Reading and the Rise of Thrusts

    One afternoon, drifting into a post-workout nap after a particularly glorious kettlebell session, I heard a famous writer tell a popular podcaster that nobody reads books anymore.

    Nobody.

    Not even him.

    He explained that social media had colonized his attention span. Years of feeding his narcissism to the digital machine had apparently consumed whatever brain cells were once responsible for sustained reading. There was something startling about hearing this confession from a public intellectual. It was like hearing a Michelin-starred chef announce that he now survives entirely on vending-machine burritos.

    The timing could not have been worse.

    I had recently completed writing a collection of fifteen stories. I had spent years dragging them through countless revisions, rescuing them from weaker incarnations, sanding rough edges, amputating dead passages, and rebuilding them sentence by sentence until they finally resembled what they were supposed to become. I was absurdly proud of them. I glowed with satisfaction. My pecs still felt inflated from kettlebell presses, and my literary vanity was enjoying a similar state of expansion.

    Then reality barged into the room.

    Nobody reads anymore.

    A bestselling author now sells perhaps ten thousand copies and celebrates as though he has conquered Gaul. An obscure author such as myself sells precisely zero. The arithmetic was not encouraging. My glow dimmed. My pumped-up ego suffered a rapid deflation.

    That evening I climbed into bed feeling mildly bereaved. I instructed my smart speaker to play classical music. It responded by offering business reports. I asked again. It played ZZ Top. I asked a third time. More ZZ Top. By the tenth attempt, after what felt like a hostage negotiation, it finally surrendered and delivered Johann Sebastian Bach.

    As the music drifted through the room, I picked up several books.

    I didn’t care about any of them.

    I tried another.

    Nothing.

    I opened my Amazon wishlist and scrolled through hundreds of titles accumulated over years of optimism. History. Biography. Philosophy. Literature. Politics. Books I had once believed would transform my life.

    I wanted none of them.

    It wasn’t exactly boredom. It wasn’t exactly depression. It was something murkier—a kind of spiritual flatness. An intellectual anemia.

    Part of my mood may have stemmed from guilt. My wife and twin daughters were exploring London and Paris. I had stayed behind. The long flights felt intolerable, and if I was honest, my curiosity about Europe had faded. I had wandered its streets decades earlier. Returning now felt like rereading a novel whose plot I already knew. The enchantment was gone.

    I comforted myself with thoughts of an upcoming trip to Miami. A five-hour flight I could survive. Noise-canceling headphones would seal me off from humanity, and I could retreat into the biography of some legendary athlete. Sports biographies had become my literary comfort food. They soothed me while jet engines roared and the earth drifted by thirty thousand feet below.

    Seeking rescue from my malaise, I purchased a discounted book for a dollar.

    A dollar.

    Even at that price I felt overcharged.

    The subject was humanity’s search for belonging and meaning. On paper this sounded promising. In practice it felt like an essay stretched onto a medieval torture rack until it reached book length. Every chapter seemed padded with repetition and filler. The author’s central insight could have fit comfortably on a cocktail napkin.

    I abandoned it after a few pages.

    Disgusted with both the book and myself, I opened YouTube.

    Then salvation arrived.

    The algorithm presented a kettlebell instructor demonstrating an exercise called the thrust.

    The movement was brutal: a clean, followed by a squat, followed by an overhead press. It looked demanding, athletic, and slightly insane.

    My ennui evaporated instantly.

    I wrote the word “thrusts” into my Google Docs notebook.

    One word.

    That was all it took.

    Suddenly I was excited about tomorrow. I could picture myself waking before dawn, walking into the garage, and attempting this new movement. The anticipation generated more enthusiasm than hundreds of books, dozens of streaming shows, and an entire internet overflowing with content.

    This realization disturbed me.

    I was sixty-four years old. By all cultural expectations, I should have been entering the season of deep reading and contemplation. I should have been savoring great books the way aristocrats savor caviar. Instead, I was ricocheting around the house like a Labrador retriever waiting for someone to throw a tennis ball.

    The truth was difficult to deny. At this stage of my life, only a handful of things reliably pierced the fog. Discovering a beautiful chord progression on the piano. Finding a new kettlebell movement. Learning some technique that made me eager to wake up the next morning.

    Had YouTube not delivered that single word to me—thrusts—I might have spent the entire day wandering through a desert of boredom.

    That is what unsettled me most.

    Not that I couldn’t find a book I wanted to read.

    Not that Europe no longer called to me.

    Not even that writers themselves were abandoning books.

    What unsettled me was how little it took to reignite my enthusiasm. One word on a screen. One exercise. One tiny challenge awaiting me at dawn.

    At sixty-four, after all my reading, writing, teaching, traveling, and philosophizing, the thing that saved the day was not Bach, literature, or civilization.

    It was a kettlebell.

  • The Astrology Queen and the Ghost Daughter

    The Astrology Queen and the Ghost Daughter

    In Rachel Syme’s “The Star-Crossed Recluse Who Brought Astrology to the Masses,” she examines the improbable rise of Linda Goodman, the woman who transformed astrology from a fringe curiosity into a cultural phenomenon. Before Goodman, astrology occupied the margins of American life, an embarrassing diversion for eccentrics and mystics. After Goodman, it became mainstream entertainment, a cosmic personality test for the masses. Her books sold tens of millions of copies by offering readers an irresistible promise: the universe had you in mind. Your zodiac sign explained your personality, your appearance, your virtues, your flaws, your romantic prospects, and perhaps even your destiny. Goodman didn’t merely sell astrology. She sold the comforting idea that the stars were paying attention.

    Syme argues that the strangeness of Goodman’s life is captured beautifully in Colurmey Ann LaFaive’s biography Follow the Signs: Searching for Linda Goodman, America’s Forgotten Astrology Queen. LaFaive first encountered Goodman as a teenager and adored her books. Yet the deeper she dug into her subject’s life, the more Goodman resisted easy admiration. She was not merely eccentric but genuinely perplexing. An oddball visionary, a successful entrepreneur, a seeker, and at times a deeply troubled woman, Goodman inhabited a reality in which ordinary boundaries between belief and fantasy seemed remarkably porous. Nowhere was this more evident than in her refusal to accept the death of her daughter Sally. Although authorities ruled the death a suicide, Goodman became convinced that her daughter remained alive somewhere in the world. Whatever fate had befallen the body found in the apartment, Goodman believed it belonged to someone else. The real Sally, she insisted, was still out there.

    Born Mary Alice Kemery in Morgantown, West Virginia, Goodman displayed an appetite for the mystical from an early age. She embraced occult ideas with enthusiasm, believing in fairies, druids, hidden wisdom, and unseen dimensions. After marrying, having two children, and divorcing, she supported herself as a single mother by hosting a radio program called Love Letters from Linda. There she read letters from soldiers separated from their loved ones and soothed listeners with a voice that projected warmth, reassurance, and hope. Long before she became an astrology celebrity, Goodman had already discovered a gift that would define her career: the ability to comfort anxious people.

    Her conversion to astrology occurred during her second marriage after reading a book on the subject. The experience altered the trajectory of her life. Goodman immersed herself in astrology, teaching herself how to construct charts and interpret celestial patterns. She began offering consultations in Manhattan, and demand for her services steadily grew. Then, in the late 1960s, she published Linda Goodman’s Sun Signs. The book became a runaway bestseller and effectively launched mainstream astrology into American popular culture. Goodman had discovered a formula as powerful as it was profitable: tell people that the cosmos has a special explanation for who they are, and they will eagerly listen.

    Success, however, did not bring stability. After divorcing her second husband and moving to Cripple Creek, Colorado, Goodman received the devastating news of Sally’s death in Manhattan. From that moment forward, her life took on the quality of a fever dream. Faced with a suicide note and evidence that convinced everyone else, Goodman remained unmoved. The body was not Sally’s, she insisted, but a double. Dreams convinced her she alone understood the truth. She wandered Manhattan in a state of near delirium, sleeping on the steps of St. Patrick’s Cathedral and pleading with detectives to reopen the case. Eventually she hired a man claiming to be a former CIA agent and pursued leads in Maine, where Sally had once acted. The investigation grew increasingly bizarre, culminating in confrontations with Sally’s former associates and threats designed to silence anyone who questioned Goodman’s theory.

    It is here that LaFaive’s biography becomes most compelling. Rather than offering a reverential portrait of a beloved cultural icon, she confronts the contradictions that made Goodman both fascinating and troubling. Goodman was capable of extraordinary intuition and extraordinary self-deception. She brought comfort to millions while remaining unable to accept devastating truths in her own life. LaFaive ultimately concludes that her book is, in some sense, a failure because she could not construct a neat, unified theory of Linda Goodman. Yet Syme suggests that this failure is precisely what makes the biography succeed. Goodman remains elusive, contradictory, and mysterious. She emerges not as a saint, a fraud, or a visionary, but as something more interesting: a deeply human figure whose life, like the constellations she loved to interpret, resists being connected into a perfectly coherent pattern.

  • The Wellness Club

    The Wellness Club

    Lost in the rhythms of suburban hibernation and nightly true-crime binges inside my bat cave, I had gradually drifted away from my college friends. Like me, they had married, raised children, worried about healthcare costs, and stared nervously at college tuition calculators. What I didn’t know was that they had been gathering every summer for years at a luxury wellness resort on Coronado Island.

    I learned of these reunions from my daughter Maggie, who monitored my friends’ social-media activity with the diligence of an intelligence analyst tracking foreign adversaries. She discovered photographs of them lounging poolside at the Wellness Island Resort and seemed genuinely saddened that I had been excluded.

    The drive from Torrance was only a couple of hours. Somehow Maggie contacted Bart, one of my old college friends, and persuaded him to invite us. My wife Lara and Maggie’s twin sister Alison couldn’t attend because they had dance rehearsals all weekend.

    I didn’t question Maggie’s intervention. Partly because I was touched by her concern for my introverted condition, and partly because Maggie had inherited a taste for luxury that far exceeded her budgetary circumstances. She approached five-star experiences the way medieval knights approached the Holy Grail.

    When I asked about the cost of the resort, she informed me that Bart was placing our expenses on the group’s Action Account, a fund they had apparently maintained for years to finance these annual gatherings.

    This struck me as suspiciously generous.

    I couldn’t shake the feeling that my old friends were attempting to relieve themselves of decades of guilt. Perhaps they had looked at the guest list, noticed my absence, and decided that paying for Maggie and me was cheaper than confronting their consciences.

    The Wellness Island Resort was impressive in the way wellness resorts are always impressive. Everything appeared optimized. The pool gleamed with the artificial perfection of a pharmaceutical advertisement. Guests reclined beneath canopies and gazebos while drinking green smoothies whose ingredients sounded less like food than graduate-level botany. Men and women with improbably low body-fat percentages sipped cucumber water and projected the serene confidence of people who had never eaten a gas-station burrito at midnight. Servers circulated with trays of artisanal sandwich bites containing salmon, tofu, sprouts, and microgreens so delicate they looked as though they might require emotional support animals.

    The entire place smelled faintly of citrus, sunscreen, and self-improvement.

    I assumed Maggie and I would spend the afternoon lounging by the pool.

    Instead, we met Chase Rangeman.

    He materialized beside us moments after we checked in. Tall, angular, and radiating managerial hostility, he wore the expression of a man who regarded joy as a policy violation. His smile looked professionally installed.

    “You two are members of the Wellness Club,” he said.

    “We are?”

    “Of course.”

    “What does that mean?”

    “It means everyone contributes.”

    He proceeded to explain that club members rotated through various duties including mopping floors, serving coffee, preparing food, and performing other tasks one generally does not associate with a ten-thousand-dollar wellness retreat.

    “Where are my friends?” I asked.

    “Out and about,” he replied. “You’ll see them eventually. Meanwhile, you’re on sandwich duty.”

    Maggie looked at me and shrugged.

    “Do you realize how expensive your stay is?” Chase asked as he marched us toward the kitchen.

    “Actually, we’re covered by the Action Account.”

    His eyes narrowed.

    “I’m very aware of the Action Account.”

    He said the phrase the way a district attorney might refer to a criminal syndicate.

    “That doesn’t exempt you from your responsibilities.”

    The kitchen resembled a laboratory dedicated to extending human life by thirty years. Salmon rested on beds of ice like museum pieces. Whole-grain loaves cooled on wooden racks. Homemade organic mayonnaise occupied crystal bowls. Every avocado appeared individually selected by a committee of experts. Microgreens stood at attention in refrigerated displays like tiny green soldiers awaiting inspection.

    Chase surveyed the room with paternal pride.

    “You and your daughter will make sandwiches for the guests.”

    “What kind?”

    “I’ll leave that up to you.”

    Then he glanced at his phone, announced he had an urgent matter requiring his attention, and vanished.

    The responsibility seemed straightforward enough.

    I selected salmon.

    After all, what could possibly go wrong with salmon?

    I mixed it with mayonnaise, celery, onions, shallots, paprika, salt, pepper, and chopped gherkins. I spread the mixture onto tiny squares of whole-grain bread and arranged the sandwiches on polished trays.

    The servers carried them away.

    My work was done.

    Or so I thought.

    An hour later Maggie and I had finally settled into our room overlooking the pool. I had just removed my shoes when the black telephone beside the bed rang.

    It was Chase.

    “You made salmon sandwiches with mayonnaise.”

    His voice sounded as though he were reporting a homicide.

    “Yes.”

    A long silence followed.

    “That’s the one sandwich you don’t make.”

    “You never told me that.”

    “It should have been obvious.”

    “How?”

    “The mayonnaise will curdle in the sun.”

    I considered pointing out that every ingredient at this resort appeared capable of surviving atmospheric reentry, but Chase continued.

    “You’ve exposed us to liability.”

    “What liability?”

    “You’ve committed a violation.”

    He sounded pleased.

    “That violation voids your discount. You now owe the resort nine thousand dollars.”

    Nine thousand dollars.

    For salmon sandwiches.

    I informed Maggie that we were facing financial ruin.

    Moments later there was a knock at the door.

    It was Bart.

    He looked sunburned, exhausted, and mildly irritated by my existence.

    “So,” he said, “you made salmon sandwiches.”

    I explained the situation.

    Bart listened without surprise.

    “Don’t pay anything,” he said. “We’ll cover it.”

    I felt relieved.

    Then he added:

    “But you and your daughter should leave immediately.”

    “Why?”

    “Within an hour Chase will forget you were ever here.”

    He delivered this statement with the calm certainty of a man explaining local weather patterns.

    Maggie and I were packed before Bart reached the elevator.

    As I said goodbye, he regarded me with an expression that suggested twenty years of unresolved grievances.

    Then he left.

    We raced to the parking lot, threw our luggage into the car, and drove back to Torrance.

    That evening I settled into my recliner and resumed watching a true-crime documentary.

    I was back in my bat cave.

    Safe.

    Yet as I thought about my old friends, the annual vacations, the Action Account, Bart’s contempt, and Chase Rangeman’s vendetta, I felt a familiar ache of exclusion.

    Clearly they had not wanted me there.

    Clearly they had spent years gathering without me for a reason.

    Clearly I had become an interloper in my own past.

    Strangely, as these thoughts swirled through my mind, I developed an overwhelming craving for salmon.

  • The Ghost Story That Ruined My Archives

    The Ghost Story That Ruined My Archives

    I have been writing short stories for decades, which is another way of saying I have spent a large portion of my life producing evidence that enthusiasm and achievement are not the same thing. The cruel part is that I have improved. The older I get, the better I write, and the better I write, the more my earlier work begins to look like juvenilia wearing a fake mustache.

    Recently, I wrote a ghost story and morality tale called “The Ghost of Sid Briggs,” and to my surprise, it pleases me. That is rare. It made me think of the writers I revere most, especially John Cheever and Haruki Murakami, masters of the strange domestic wound, the moral haunting, the ordinary world with a trapdoor under it.

    So I became hopeful that I could add my ghost story to my long list of stories I’ve written over the years. I thought: Maybe I have a dozen stories buried in my archives. Maybe I can exhume them, clean them off, tighten the sentences, give them a new spine, and assemble a collection worthy of my literary heroes.

    Then I looked at the list. The verdict was swift and merciless. I did not have a dozen stories. I had only one that was the result of several rewrites over the last decade. I finally reached the point that it feels fully formed. I titled it “The Ghost Story of Sid Briggs.” It is a coming-of-age ghost story about a charismatic young bodybuilder and pathological liar whose life ends absurdly and tragically from a bee sting at a California lakeside beach. Narrated by a fellow young man who is both fascinated and repelled by Sid’s relentless self-mythologizing, the story explores male vanity, performance, fraudulence, and the seductive narcotic of reinvention. After Sid’s death, the narrator becomes haunted by recurring dreams in which Sid walks across a twilight lake to confess that, in his dying moments, he saw the life he might have lived had he abandoned narcissism and embraced love, family, humility, and spiritual truth. The ghostly visitation transforms Sid from beach peacock into cautionary prophet, warning the narrator against wasting life on performance and illusion. Decades later, the narrator continues to wrestle with Sid’s lesson through music, memory, and storytelling, realizing that some men are destroyed not by evil ambitions, but by the desperate need to become a dazzling fiction in the eyes of others.

    This is the one story that meets my current standards. The rest are not dead, exactly, but they are certainly not fit for public life. They would require major reconstruction, literary surgery, perhaps a full identity transplant. Otherwise, back to the dustbin they go, where they can continue their quiet service as compost for better work.

    The clarity over my literary work is sobering. My imagined collection collapsed into a single respectable survivor standing amid the wreckage, blinking in the light. I am not sitting on a hidden treasury of finished stories. I am sitting on a storage unit full of drafts, impulses, false starts, and prose-shaped weather systems. But at least I know the truth. Better that than the narcotic delusion of believing I possess a polished body of work when what I really have is a small literary junkyard with one decent house still standing.

    My literary challenges made me think this morning about my piano compositions. All my best songs point toward some buried autobiographical story. They are not merely melodies; they are emotional crime scenes. Each one seems to contain a memory, a wound, a comic humiliation, a ghost with unfinished business. Perhaps that is the spine I have been missing. Perhaps the stories should grow out of the songs.

    “The Ghost of Sid Briggs” began that way. It was first a piano piece, one I spent months composing, and the story emerged from it after many failed versions, false entrances, and narrative detours. The music held the emotional truth before the prose knew what to do with it.

    I am reminded of the old saying: Life is short, and art is long. At sixty-four, after writing short stories since 1981, I have only one story worthy of a collection. One. If I work hard and avoid wasting too much time congratulating myself for my own seriousness, perhaps I will have three or four before I reach my expiration date.

    This should depress me, and in some ways it does. But it also steadies me. I would rather possess one story that meets my standards than two dozen half-baked literary casseroles masquerading as finished work. A real story has architecture, pressure, mystery, and necessity. A failed story is often just a journal entry wearing a dinner jacket.

    So yes, I am humbled by my limitations. But I am also oddly buoyed by the clarity. The standard is no longer vague. I can see it now. And if most of my work fails to meet it, good. At least I know where the mountain is.

  • The Cologne, the Q-Tip, and the Bronzed Tyrant: A Memoir Without Euphemism

    The Cologne, the Q-Tip, and the Bronzed Tyrant: A Memoir Without Euphemism

    When Tom Junod discussed his memoir with Andrew Sullivan, he described a decision that feels almost subversive now: no contemporary therapy-speak. No “toxic masculinity,” no diagnostic shorthand, no tidy labels to anesthetize the mess. A book set in the ’60s and ’70s would speak in the idiom of those years. The wager is simple and risky: if you refuse the crutch of modern jargon, the character has to carry the weight. By that measure, Junod wins. He builds a father who does what Dashiell Hammett demanded of fiction—gets up, steps off the page, and stands there, unavoidable.

    The book—In the Days of My Youth I Was Told What It Means to be a Man—borrows its title from the Led Zeppelin song “Good Times Bad Times,” and the borrowing is apt. Junod’s father, Lou, is less a man than a doctrine delivered at high volume. He is a born pontificator with a salesman’s grin and a peacock’s vanity. He scents himself like a department store—colognes, sprays, balms layered into a cloud—and tans his body into a lacquered bronze that seems to announce itself before he enters a room. He sells handbags, favors turtlenecks, and at the beach reduces himself to a strip of fabric and a glare. He cleans his navel with a witch-hazel-dipped Q-tip and instructs his son to follow suit, as if hygiene were a moral philosophy.

    Compulsion runs through him like a live wire. If you prefer a term to describe his sexual compulsions, call it satyriasis and be done with it, but the word hardly captures the sprawl: gambling, philandering, bullying—habits that bloom into a personality. A man who cannot govern himself makes governance his obsession; he attempts to administer his household the way a tyrant administers a province—loudly, relentlessly, and with a curious conviction that control is the same thing as order. The result is a home pressurized to the point of fatigue, where even silence feels like a reprimand.

    Junod’s refusal to retrofit his childhood with modern language sharpens the pain rather than softening it. There’s a scene that lands like a held breath finally released: in Lou’s absence, the mother reappears as herself. Her face opens. Her voice steadies. When Tom reads her a poem, she brightens—really brightens—and offers the simplest, most generous counsel: read it aloud; the sound will teach you what the page cannot. It is a small moment, but it reveals the scale of what has been missing. When Lou is present, he occupies the air itself. He doesn’t just enter rooms; he consumes them, a man with a gift for turning oxygen into pressure.

    Listen to the audiobook—as Sullivan sensibly suggests—and Lou’s voice acquires a second life. You don’t merely read him; you hear the cadence, the certainty, the unearned authority. It is a performance you cannot switch off, which is precisely the point. The book’s power comes from that persistence. It is painful, yes, but the pain is disciplined into narrative momentum.

    If the experience feels familiar, it should. The era produced a certain model of man—postwar, unapologetic, loud as a virtue—who treated appetite as remedy and certainty as proof. He read “women’s magazines” out in the open, said things he couldn’t defend, and considered objection to his will a breach of etiquette. The code was simple: be emphatic, be unyielding, be right by volume. Junod doesn’t argue with that code; he incarnates it. He takes the template and gives it a name, a voice, a set of rituals so specific they become unforgettable.

    In doing so, he offers a quiet rebuke to our current habit of explanation. You don’t need a glossary to understand this man. You need a page, a room, and the patience to watch what happens when he walks in.

  • The Rise of Podcast Proxy Consumption

    The Rise of Podcast Proxy Consumption

    A few years ago, best-selling author Sam Harris delivered a blunt verdict on his own profession: writing books no longer makes sense. Not for lack of ability, but for lack of return. He can spend years drafting, revising, and shepherding a manuscript through the publishing machinery, only to reach tens of thousands of readers, many of whom will abandon the book somewhere between page 37 and a vague sense of obligation. Then comes the ritual humiliation of the book tour: airports, polite applause, the same answers to the same questions. The yield is modest; the labor is not.

    Meanwhile, his podcast–assembled in a fraction of the time–pulls in audiences that dwarf his readership. Hundreds of thousands. Sometimes millions. No printing press. No tour. No illusion that anyone needs to finish anything. Just attention, delivered efficiently.

    This wasn’t an isolated complaint. On a recent podcast, Andrew Sullivan and Derek Thompson circled the same conclusion: the book has lost its central function. The old model–write, publish, promote, be read–has been quietly replaced. Today, you don’t tour bookstores; you make podcast appearances. The book itself becomes a kind of ceremonial object, a credential you wave before entering the real arena: conversation.

    In this new arrangement, reading is optional. Talking is essential.

    Helen Lewis echoed the same skepticism in conversation with Katie Herzog. She doubts, with refreshing candor, that many people actually buy her books. What they do instead is spend time with her–listening, nodding along, absorbing the arguments in podcast form. The discussion becomes the experience. The book recedes into the background, a ghost text haunting the conversation that replaced it.

    What these writers are describing is not a decline but a substitution. We have entered an era in which books are no longer endpoints; they are pretexts. The real product is the dialogue orbiting them.

    Call it Podcast Proxy Consumption: a cultural sleight of hand in which audiences outsource the labor of reading to the author’s own commentary, then mistake that secondhand familiarity for mastery. The conversation becomes the consumption, and the book–once the main course–now sits on the table, largely untouched, like an expensive meal photographed but never eaten.

  • The Man Who Lost His Mind to Watches

    The Man Who Lost His Mind to Watches

    The Man Who Lost His Mind to Watches is not a book about watches. It is a book about obsession—the kind that begins with a single innocent purchase and metastasizes into spreadsheets, late-night forum debates, and existential dread over lume brightness. What starts as an appreciation for craftsmanship becomes a full-blown psychological expedition into masculinity, consumer desire, envy, tribal belonging, and the strange belief that the right object will fix what’s unsettled inside. If you have ever convinced yourself that one more acquisition would finally complete you, this book is already about you.

    The watch obsession is told in lexicon entries. Each term for some facet of the watch addiction exposes the watch enthusiast who descends into the glittering underworld of timepieces—divers, bracelets, straps, limited editions—only to discover that the chase for the “perfect watch” is really a chase for certainty in a world that offers none. The deeper he goes, the more absurd the quest becomes. He compares millimeters as if they were moral virtues. He debates dial legibility as if it were a constitutional right. He imagines that mastering reference numbers will somehow grant him mastery over time itself. Instead, he finds himself trapped in a hall of mirrors where identity is reflected in polished steel.

    And yet this is not merely satire. Beneath the laughter lies a serious question: why do intelligent, disciplined adults hand over their peace of mind to objects? The Man Who Lost His Mind to Watches is a confession, a cautionary tale, and a strangely hopeful map back to sanity. It exposes the machinery of obsession while refusing to sneer at it. Because in the end, the watches were never the enemy. The illusion that perfection could be purchased—that was the real complication.

    I have published this book on Amazon Kindle, but you do not need a Kindle device to read it. Once you purchase it, you can read the book directly on your computer screen using the Kindle app or the Kindle cloud reader. If the book gains meaningful traction and sells well, I will consider releasing a paperback edition as well.

  • Stop Writing About Your Obsession Before It Gets Worse

    Stop Writing About Your Obsession Before It Gets Worse

    You may be tempted to turn your watch obsession into literature. The idea has a certain romance. You picture yourself channeling Dostoevsky, producing a modern Diary of a Madman, transforming your horological unraveling into art—brave, raw, cathartic. You imagine clarity emerging from confession, insight distilled from chaos.

    But this is a dangerous illusion.

    Writing about your obsession does not drain it. It feeds it. The writer inside you is not a therapist; he is a scavenger. He needs material. And if the material isn’t dramatic enough, he will improve it. Soon you are not merely observing your compulsions—you are staging them, heightening them, curating your own instability for narrative effect. What began as self-examination becomes performance. You are now caught in a Pathology Amplification Loop: the act of writing about the fixation rehearses it, enlarges it, and gives it emotional weight. Reflection becomes rehearsal. Analysis becomes reinforcement.

    There is a second problem. Writing about watches keeps your attention locked on watches. For someone trying to loosen the grip of a fixation, this is the cognitive equivalent of hosting a wine tasting during sobriety. You are not stepping away from the stimulus. You are polishing it, describing it, lighting it for dramatic effect. Attention is fuel, and you are pouring it directly onto the fire.

    There is a third cost, and it is social. Confessional obsession reads less like literature and more like a slow-motion car crash. Your friends may be sympathetic, but sympathy has limits. Once people see the full machinery of your fixation—the spreadsheets, the rationalizations, the psychic weather reports—they quietly step back. You are still invited to gatherings. You are still greeted warmly. But you are no longer the person they choose for long conversations over coffee. Everyone has their own burdens. Few volunteer to carry someone else’s.

    The wiser move is not literary but physical. Shift the energy out of the head and into the body. Walk long distances. Lift something heavy. Eat food that grew in soil rather than in a laboratory. Maintain a modest calorie deficit. Build routines that produce fatigue instead of rumination. When watch thoughts rise, do not interrogate them, narrate them, or mine them for prose. Dismiss them the way you clear your throat when a cold threatens—briefly, calmly, without ceremony.

    The goal is not a better story.

    The goal is less story.