Cinemorphosis

Tag: books

  • Escape from Margaritaville

    Escape from Margaritaville

    I recently dreamed I was in a public park. The grass was cartoonishly green, a kind of chlorophyll utopia, and families sprawled across it as if they’d been carefully arranged for a Chamber of Commerce brochure. My suitcase sat at my side. I felt lost. Like a misplaced airport refugee, I looked up.

    Looming above the park was a billboard—a monstrosity of sun-bleached cheer—featuring a leathery couple in their seventies. They were bronzed like overcooked turkeys, grinning wide, basking in the eternal glow of some Florida condo where “Margaritaville” played on an endless loop.

    The “Margaritaville” billboard—two geriatric smiles frozen in sunlit rapture—reminded me that I’d been meaning to watch Some Kind of Heaven, the documentary about The Villages, that gargantuan playground for the aged about forty-five miles from Orlando.

    Deep down, I knew I needed to watch this documentary. I was born in Florida, and as my retirement crept closer and closer, I felt an urge to return home. I love the smell of mangos and coconuts at night. Nostalgia is a potent drug. It could cause me to sell my home and buy a condo in Orlando.

    So I watched the documentary. It was the opposite of a travel infomercial. It was a horror movie. It started with synchronized water ballet to Neil Sedaka and margarita-fueled Parrothead parties. The Villages are marketed as heaven with a tiki umbrella on top, but for anyone with taste, patience, or shame, the place looks more like an early-onset hell: a tropical gulag where you pay people to micromanage your leisure until leisure itself becomes a program of infantilization.

    The film’s most disturbing subject is Dennis Dean—an eighty-one-year-old small-time grifter wanted for a DUI in California, living out of a blue van on the edge of The Villages and scheming his way into the bed of a rich widow. He prowls bingo halls and church socials with the persistence of a con man who has practiced charm until it has fossilized. When police finally close in, Dennis slips back into Nancy’s apartment. In a scene that sticks with you, he lies on her bed while she calls from the kitchen: “Lunch!” He finds his new girlfriend, whom he’s leeching off, annoying. He doesn’t move. He stares at the ceiling fan as if it were a slow, merciless clock, and you can see, plain as day, that comfort can become a prison for someone whose last liberty was earned through deceit. As I watched Dennis staring at the ceiling fan, it hit me: He’s in purgatory.

    The director never sneers at his subjects. Pain and longing are shown with a kind of blunt respect. But the portrait of The Villages itself isn’t charitable. It’s a retirement complex caught in mid-regression, a carnival mirror reflecting geriatrics clinging to perpetual adolescence until the spectacle curdles into something queasy and cringe-worthy. The managed fun—shuffleboard courts, themed parties, and scheduled joy—becomes a machine that demands you perform your own amusement. It’s not freedom. It’s occupation by leisure.

    And yes, I realized, sitting there with my pride intact and my Florida fantasies suddenly damp, that watching this must have been my wife’s brilliant little psy-ops operation. For a year, I’d been nagging her about moving the family to Florida—stilt houses, salt air, a hammock with my name on it. She was skeptical about moving to Florida. She mentioned hurricanes and unavailable flood insurance, for starters. Florida also had a reputation for government corruption, contractor fraud, and credit card theft. When her credit card was used fraudulently and she called her bank, the customer service agent asked, “You weren’t in Florida recently, were you?”

    In fact, she was.

    Florida was not paradise. It was a crime syndicate.

    She did not discourage me from watching Some Kind of Heaven. She didn’t have to. The documentary demolished my fantasy of returning to my home state within the first thirty seconds, with its water ballet and sedated margaritas. My obsession evaporated.

    But only for a minute.

    After a quick snack, I was back at my computer looking at luxury condos in Henderson, Nevada.

  • What If Perseverance Is the Disease?

    What If Perseverance Is the Disease?

    In the 1970s, I wanted to become a Major League Baseball player. There was one problem: I sucked.

    I couldn’t hit a curveball. I couldn’t catch up to a high fastball. At third base, I could field a grounder and then launch the throw twenty feet over the first baseman’s head, turning a routine out into an emergency evacuation of the opposing dugout. By thirteen, the scouting reports were conclusive. I quit.

    Next came bodybuilding. I actually showed some promise. In 1981, I took runner-up in Mr. Teenage San Francisco. But that was about as far as the genetics were going to carry me. I could build a respectable mid-level physique, but I wasn’t going to become Sergio Oliva or Arnold Schwarzenegger. Those men appeared to have been assembled in a laboratory using replacement parts from livestock. I quit bodybuilding that same year.

    Then I wanted to become a pianist and composer. Unfortunately, reading music and writing compositions on staff paper struck my brain with roughly the same clarity as vector and stochastic calculus. Another dream quietly left the building.

    Next came the Smooth Bachelor.

    This was my plan to become a smooth, smarmy bachelor who knew exactly what to say to women. My life would be full of hot tubs, champagne, water beds, and lava lamps. Unfortunately, I possessed approximately the same romantic smoothness as Richard Lewis after five cups of espresso. The Smooth Bachelor era was brief and catastrophic.

    Then came the big one.

    I would become a novelist.

    This ambition survived longer because I could actually write. I had a quirky, neurotic personality. I could make people laugh in conversation. Surely these qualities meant that somewhere inside me lived a novelist waiting to emerge.

    They didn’t.

    My novels were usually constructed around premises sturdy enough to support a Saturday Night Live sketch. I would then stretch the premise across two hundred pages and wonder why the resulting manuscript felt less like a novel than a short story being held against its will.

    They were reliably unreadable.

    Yet this was the dream I had the greatest difficulty quitting because becoming a novelist wasn’t merely another ambition. I had turned it into redemption.

    The published novel would retroactively make sense of everything. All the neurosis, misanthropy, social awkwardness, failed ambitions, compulsions, humiliations, and self-sabotage would be transformed into literary material. I wouldn’t merely have suffered from my peculiarities. I would have monetized them.

    Even better, people would admire me.

    This was the part I was reluctant to admit.

    Publication had become my Holy Grail of affirmation and vindication. Somewhere in my imagination, people were rising to their feet:

    “Ladies and gentlemen, Jeff McMahon has done it! The failed baseball player, failed bodybuilder, failed pianist, failed composer, and failed Hot Tub Stud has finally fulfilled his destiny. He is a novelist!”

    Applause.

    Someone brings me a chilled beverage.

    Someone else produces a generous slice of carrot cake.

    “Make sure this man feels loved. Make sure he feels special. He has suffered enough.”

    Once I understood that fantasy, perseverance became a much more complicated virtue.

    We are constantly told that perseverance reveals character. Keep going. Never surrender. Follow your dream. Winners never quit.

    But what if perseverance isn’t always strength?

    What if sometimes it is fear wearing a motivational T-shirt?

    A person can keep pursuing a goal because the goal remains worthwhile and attainable. But he can also keep pursuing it because quitting threatens some deeper fantasy about who he needs to become. He isn’t persevering because the work is flourishing. He’s persevering because he has assigned the achievement an impossible psychological task: Make me worthy. Vindicate my life. Make people admire me. Make me feel loved.

    Under those conditions, perseverance stops looking noble.

    It starts looking pathological.

    That is why Lindsay Crouse’s The Case for Quitting feels less like another book on my reading list than an intervention. For someone of my temperament, quitting isn’t necessarily evidence that I lack character. Sometimes quitting may require more character than continuing.

    I’ve spent enough of my life chasing various Holy Grails of vindication.

    At this point, I’d like to know which quests are worth finishing—and which ones deserve to be abandoned in the woods.

  • The Salvation Hustle

    The Salvation Hustle

    You reach a point in life when everything feels desperate. Losing weight will save you from dying in your bed at night from sleep apnea. Writing a publishable book or viral essay will save you from being both irrelevant and useless. Making a viral video will do the same. Embarking on a successful podcast will keep you mentally alive and “part of the conversation.” Starting your own restaurant featuring your grandmother’s brisket with gravy made from a secret family recipe will put you on the map and change what it means to enjoy good brisket. Become a yoga instructor and open your own studio to help people reinvent themselves in ways no one could have imagined. You’re special, dammit, and you’re going to prove it. You just need to work harder. So you must do this. You must do that. Make more sacrifices. Get on the true path. Never take your eyes off the prize.

    But a voice breaks through your insanity and tells you that you’re on a fool’s errand. You’re trying to save your life. Deep down, you know you are losing it.

    That same voice says: Let go. Surrender to the things you can’t control. Don’t live out other people’s fantasies of success. Don’t think fame and popularity will make you whole. Don’t confuse fame and popularity with love. It’s not love. It’s desperation.

    So you retire your delusions. You realize that all the time and energy invested in your various mirages were killing you. You were making a bad investment. Take stock. Assess the damage. You become certain that it’s time to abandon your many chimeras and start from scratch. Use your time and energy on projects rooted in sanity, projects that might actually bear fruit.

    The problem is, you don’t have a clue what these new projects will be. You’ve lived in a fever dream for years, perhaps decades. Where do you begin?

    Such is the existential challenge presented in Lindsay Crouse’s The Case for Quitting: The Surprise Benefits of Opting Out. She observes that too many of us spend enormous amounts of desperate energy auditioning for the role of superstar—the venerated, successful person who sets records and raises the bar in whatever field we pursue, believing that this prized status will make us whole and happy. We create unrealistic expectations and often head down the wrong path. Then we become so exhausted from pursuing our dreams that we no longer have enough distance to assess whether those dreams are even viable.

    Crouse uses the metaphor of a duck to describe this desperate period of her life: “gliding along on the surface while my legs churned furiously below.” That brief description perfectly captures the life of quiet desperation described by Henry David Thoreau. Always auditioning for some desirable role, we glide along on the surface while below our legs churn furiously in pursuit of some fruitless endeavor.

    Crouse argues that we should take stock of all that furious churning and, when necessary, put an end to it. It’s called quitting. Contrary to society’s condemnation of “the quitter” as someone who lacks perseverance, the real character flaw may be the refusal to quit: cowardice. You need the courage to interrogate the results of your endeavors and ask whether those results merit perseverance. In some cases, quitting can be a good thing. Crouse offers an “alternative definition” of quitter from the Middle French: “to set free.”

    All her life, Crouse confesses, she has been a high achiever, fiercely competitive, always pushing herself to the limit and loath to interrupt her path to glory. When an injury threatened her athletic training, she’d forego the doctor and take an Advil instead. Late-night runs were aided by GPS. When her grandmother died, she didn’t tell her team for fear that it would compromise their performance.

    Looking back at the ways she pushed and punished herself, Crouse questions the wisdom of these often ruthless efforts. Her self-interrogation became serious after she had two children and realized she didn’t want to pass on her “darker types of perseverance” to them. Self-abuse is one thing. Teaching your children the habits of self-abuse crosses the line.

    When the forces of ambition are no longer part of your flourishing but have become a dark pact with fear and desperation, it may be time to abandon ship. It may be time to move on.

  • The Waiting List for Napkin Folders

    The Waiting List for Napkin Folders

    One of the most valuable ideas in Steve Lopez’s retirement memoir Independence Day is that a meditation on retirement eventually becomes a meditation on something much larger: What does it mean to remain fully alive?

    Lopez keeps circling back to an answer that complicates the conventional retirement fantasy. Being fully alive is intimately connected to being useful to someone other than yourself. We don’t flourish merely because we possess freedom, comfort, entertainment, or an empty calendar. We need some evidence that our presence in the world matters.

    Call this the Useful-Self Principle: Human beings have a deep psychological need to exercise their abilities in ways that benefit others. Our inherent worth does not depend upon our productivity, but our sense of vitality often depends upon knowing that something is better because we showed up.

    Lopez considers this idea through the extraordinary example of Hedda Bolgar, a psychologist who continued working until she was 102. She told him, “What I grew up with was, if there’s an unmet need in this world, you try to meet it, and if there’s a problem, you try to solve it.”

    There is an entire philosophy of life packed into those two sentences.

    Bolgar didn’t regard the world as a giant resort constructed for her personal gratification. She looked outward. Where is the need? Where is the problem? What can I do about it?

    Seen this way, retirement is a fairly narrow administrative concept. You retire from a job. You leave the classroom, hospital, office, factory, courtroom, newsroom, or whatever institution employed you for thirty or forty years. You surrender the title, paycheck, meetings, deadlines, performance evaluations, and passwords you can never remember.

    But you don’t retire from the human condition.

    The deeper obligation remains: escape the gravitational pull of narcissistic indifference, discover what you’re capable of doing, and connect those abilities to something the world needs.

    Bolgar died at 103. Her longevity is remarkable, but the number isn’t the most interesting thing about her life. More important was the fact that she remained engaged with other people almost until the end. Her usefulness gave her an identity that survived the conventional expiration date of a career. She had somewhere to direct herself.

    I think about my grandfather.

    He had been politically active throughout his life. He marched with longshoremen in San Pedro in defense of union rights and participated in similar forms of activism. He had spent decades believing that citizenship required more than sitting in a chair and complaining about the government.

    Then, at eighty, he fell.

    His body never completely recovered. Eventually he entered a senior-care home in Palos Verdes. I visited him at least once a week until he died at eighty-five.

    What tormented him wasn’t merely physical decline.

    He hated feeling useless.

    He looked around at the other residents and recognized the same despair in them. Their meals arrived. Their medications arrived. Their laundry was done. People cleaned their rooms, changed their sheets, pushed their wheelchairs, organized their activities, and watched over them.

    Everything was being done for them.

    That sounds like care, and of course it was. But there was another side to dependency that became increasingly visible to my grandfather: almost nothing was being asked of them.

    Then he discovered a job.

    The cafeteria needed residents to fold napkins for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

    Napkins.

    Of all the grand human enterprises—building bridges, teaching children, performing surgery, defending workers, composing symphonies—we are talking about folding pieces of cloth before somebody eats meatloaf.

    And there was a waiting list.

    That waiting list has stayed with me because it reveals the Useful-Self Principle in its most concentrated form. Those residents weren’t desperate for napkins. They were desperate to be needed.

    Give me something to do.

    Let somebody depend upon me.

    Let there be one small corner of this institution that functions differently because I am here.

    When opportunities for usefulness become scarce, even folding a napkin can acquire dignity.

    I remember another moment in that cafeteria. A woman in a wheelchair who appeared to have dementia saw me and suddenly began shouting. She wanted me to rescue her. Take me out of here. Get me away from this godforsaken place.

    I looked at her and tried to reassure her. I told her everything would be okay.

    She knew I was lying.

    She was trapped, and some part of her understood it. What frightened her wasn’t simply the building. Her world had contracted. Other people determined where she lived, when she ate, where she went, and what happened next. She had become dependent upon strangers for the ordinary machinery of existence.

    I don’t know what remained intact inside her mind, and I don’t want to romanticize dementia or pretend that usefulness could have rescued her from neurological decline. But the memory has always represented something larger to me: the terror of becoming entirely acted upon rather than retaining the ability to act upon the world.

    That distinction becomes increasingly important as we age.

    The Useful-Self Principle should never be confused with the cruel proposition that human beings earn their worth through productivity. A bedridden person has no less value than a surgeon. A person with dementia does not become less human because she can no longer contribute as she once did.

    Human worth is unconditional.

    But the experience of usefulness is something different. It is one of the ways we feel our connection to other people. We teach. We repair. We cook. We listen. We volunteer. We write. We mentor. We drive someone to an appointment. We watch a grandchild. We call a lonely friend. We fold the napkins.

    This is why usefulness should not be treated as the broccoli of life—the dreary obligation we endure before finally earning the cheesecake of retirement.

    Usefulness is not the broccoli.

    It is part of the feast.

    The great opportunity of retirement isn’t merely that nobody tells you what to do anymore. It is that you can finally ask a better question:

    What needs doing that I am still capable of doing?

    Hedda Bolgar kept answering that question until she was 102.

    My grandfather understood its importance when he watched elderly people compete for the privilege of folding napkins.

    Perhaps that is one of retirement’s most important lessons. We spend decades dreaming about the day when nobody will need anything from us.

    Then the day arrives.

    And we discover how desperately we want to be needed.

  • No One Wants Your Beautifully Written Blog Post

    No One Wants Your Beautifully Written Blog Post

    As I have continued writing my blog and adapting some of those pieces into video essays for YouTube, I have begun to understand that writing and video are not simply two delivery systems for the same material. They make different demands on an idea, attract radically different audiences, and increasingly occupy different positions in a culture saturated with algorithmic and AI-generated language.

    The first lesson is what I call the Medium Stress Test. An idea that works perfectly well as a blog post may die the moment I imagine myself sitting in front of a camera talking about it for eight minutes. Writing gives an idea certain protections. A reader can stop, reread a sentence, skim a paragraph, or admire an interesting digression. Video is less forgiving. The subject needs momentum. It needs stakes. It needs a reason for someone not to click on a video of a bear breaking into a Subaru.

    This makes the video essay a useful test of my own material. Before I record, I find myself asking harder questions. Is there really an idea here? Is there tension? Does the argument develop? Is there something at the end that wasn’t obvious at the beginning? The camera is a ruthless editor. It stares back at me without encouragement and asks the question every writer would prefer to avoid: Is this actually interesting?

    That pressure is good for me. Video forces me to compress, sharpen, and dramatize ideas that might have survived comfortably on the page in a more leisurely form. In that sense, making videos does not compete with my writing. It interrogates it.

    The second lesson is harder for someone who has spent most of his life teaching writing to accept: people are far more willing to watch than read.

    A blog post that receives twenty or thirty visits over the course of a month can become a video that receives more than a thousand views in twenty-four hours. These numbers are not subtle. They do not require advanced statistical analysis. The audience has voted with its eyeballs.

    I could respond by lamenting the death of reading, shaking my fist at TikTok, and retreating into my study with a copy of The Brothers Karamazov. That might be emotionally satisfying, but it would not alter the numbers. If I want my ideas to travel beyond a small circle of dedicated readers, I have to reckon with the culture that exists rather than the one I would prefer to exist.

    But I don’t think the migration from prose to video can be explained entirely by shrinking attention spans. Something has also happened to written language itself.

    Call it Linguistic Flattening.

    We now inhabit an environment in which algorithms reward familiar forms of expression while generative AI can manufacture competent prose in industrial quantities. Certain words, rhythms, transitions, metaphors, and argumentative structures circulate so widely that they begin to lose their fingerprints. The writing may be polished. It may be grammatically impeccable. It may even be clever. Yet increasingly it produces the eerie sensation that you’ve read it before.

    Social media accelerates the process. A successful phrase gets repeated, imitated, parodied, optimized, and reproduced until language that once seemed fresh acquires the smoothness of a pebble handled by ten thousand people. Generative AI adds another machine to this process. It absorbs rhetorical patterns and reproduces variations of them at enormous scale. What begins as voice becomes mannerism; mannerism becomes formula; formula becomes cliché.

    This does not mean great writing will disappear. A writer such as Helen Lewis can still attract a large readership because readers recognize a particular intelligence behind the prose. But even a writer of her stature can reach vastly more people by appearing on a popular podcast that subsequently circulates on YouTube. The contemporary audience increasingly wants not merely the argument but the person making the argument.

    This leads to the third lesson, and perhaps the most important one for me: the Embodied-Fingerprint Principle.

    When I write a blog post, readers encounter my language. When I make a video, they encounter me.

    My voice enters the argument. So do my cadence, facial expressions, pauses, gestures, irritations, hesitations, and improvisations. I may begin with a script, but I inevitably depart from it. A sentence occurs to me in the moment. I emphasize a word differently than I expected. I become amused by my own example. Something happens between the prepared language and the person speaking it.

    That something is difficult to reproduce.

    Generative AI can imitate prose styles. Algorithms can identify successful formats. Other writers can borrow rhetorical devices. But the peculiar combination of a person’s face, voice, timing, vocabulary, temperament, physical presence, and spontaneous thought constitutes something closer to an individual fingerprint.

    This may become increasingly important as artificial intelligence makes polished language cheap. For most of human history, a well-written essay provided reasonably strong evidence that someone had sat alone and struggled to produce it. That assumption is disappearing. A perfectly competent thousand-word essay can now materialize in seconds.

    Video changes the evidentiary equation. There is a human being sitting in front of you, inhabiting the language.

    The Embodied-Fingerprint Principle therefore suggests that the apparent limitation of video is actually its advantage. Ideas cannot be separated cleanly from the imperfect human creature delivering them. The body becomes part of the authorship.

    This realization changes the way I think about my YouTube videos. I originally regarded them as adaptations of my writing, a secondary format for people who would rather watch something than read it. I now think that hierarchy may be wrong. The video essay is its own form, and it allows me to do something the blog cannot fully accomplish: combine written language with embodied presence.

    The Medium Stress Test makes the ideas stronger. Linguistic Flattening makes distinctive written language harder to preserve. The Embodied-Fingerprint Principle gives me a way to resist that flattening by putting the person back inside the prose.

    So I will continue writing. I need writing to discover what I think.

    But increasingly, I may need video to prove that someone is still there doing the thinking.

  • Father Time Would Like to See Your Receipts

    Father Time Would Like to See Your Receipts

    Retirement changes your relationship with time because retirement changes your proximity to death.

    For most of your life, mortality resembles a dark castle somewhere beyond the horizon. You know it exists. You have seen illustrations. You have read stories about people who unfortunately arrived there. But the castle remains pleasantly obscured behind enormous banks of cumulus clouds, and you have been granted the psychological luxury of assuming that several mountain ranges, a river, and perhaps a small European principality stand between you and its front gate.

    You have time.

    At thirty-five, this belief requires almost no effort. At forty-five, you may occasionally notice one of the turrets poking through the clouds, particularly when a parent becomes ill or an old friend dies. Then work intervenes. There are classes to teach, children to raise, bills to pay, meetings to attend, groceries to buy. The clouds roll back in.

    Then you retire.

    Or, more precisely, you press Submit on the retirement application.

    The clouds vanish.

    There is the castle.

    Good God.

    It’s much closer than advertised.

    This is the Castle-Proximity Principle: the closer you move toward the visible end of life, the harder it becomes to experience time as an inexhaustible resource. The castle has not suddenly moved toward you. You have simply reached the point in the journey where atmospheric conditions no longer conceal its location.

    Retirement is particularly effective at clearing the weather because work has served for decades as a kind of chronological camouflage. As long as another semester waits in the future, you remain inside the machinery of ordinary adult life. There will be another fall schedule, another spring semester, another opening-day meeting, another batch of freshman essays, another argument about Student Learning Outcomes. The repetition itself creates the illusion of permanence.

    Then you announce your final semester.

    Suddenly every event acquires the word last.

    Last fall semester.

    Last opening-day meeting.

    Last final exam.

    Last student who submits six pages of AI-generated oatmeal and looks wounded when you ask whether he participated in its manufacture.

    The castle emerges from the mist.

    And standing at the entrance is someone you recognize from childhood illustrations.

    Father Time.

    Unfortunately, he isn’t carrying a birthday cake.

    He is holding a ledger.

    This is the Kronos Audit: the late-life reckoning in which finite time forces you to examine not merely how long you have lived but what you have done with the life you were given.

    The audit is comprehensive.

    Father Time is apparently unconcerned with privacy.

    He wants the public records and the private ones. The work you completed and the work you avoided. The people you helped and the people you neglected. The books you wrote and the books you merely announced you were going to write. The hours spent exercising, creating, loving, teaching, reading, listening, and paying attention.

    He also wants the screen-time report.

    This is where things become uncomfortable.

    Psychiatrist Phil Stutz gives a name to the force that makes the Kronos Audit such an unpleasant prospect. He calls it Part X. Steven Pressfield, in The War of Art, calls a similar force Resistance. Different terminology, same infernal sales representative.

    Part X does not generally appear in your living room with horns and sulfurous breath. That would make him too easy to identify. He appears as convenience.

    Skip the workout.

    Start the writing tomorrow.

    Don’t make the telephone call.

    Stay angry.

    Buy something.

    Watch another episode.

    Scroll for twenty minutes.

    Have another snack.

    You deserve it.

    Part X specializes in transforming the squandered life into a series of perfectly reasonable afternoons.

    Resistance operates much the same way. It rarely commands you to abandon your life’s work forever. That would sound suspicious. It merely suggests that you postpone it until tomorrow, preferably after you have checked your email, researched a laptop, watched several YouTube reviews of the laptop, compared processors, investigated whether 64GB of RAM might provide useful “future-proofing,” and discovered that somehow it is lunchtime.

    No single offense looks particularly damning.

    That is the genius of the operation.

    A wasted life is rarely wasted dramatically. You don’t wake one morning and announce, “Beginning today, I shall squander my remaining years on trivia, consumerism, resentment, and short-term gratification.”

    You lose the life ten minutes at a time.

    That is why the Kronos Audit becomes more severe as the castle approaches. At twenty-five, wasting an afternoon seems almost mathematically insignificant. You possess what feels like an industrial supply of afternoons. At sixty-five, the inventory has become visible.

    You begin counting.

    How many healthy years?

    How many trips?

    How many books?

    How many summers with your family?

    How many mornings when your mind remains sufficiently sharp to write something worth reading?

    How many miles can your legs still carry you?

    The questions can become morbid if you allow them to. The objective is not to turn retirement into a death vigil in which you sit beside an hourglass watching grains of sand fall while whispering, “There goes another one.”

    The point is accountability.

    Stutz argues that Part X seduces us with the fantasy of exemption. Other people may have to obey the laws governing effort, discipline, sacrifice, consequences, aging, and time, but somehow we imagine that special accommodations have been made for us. Tomorrow will always be available. Our bodies will tolerate neglect. Relationships will survive inattention. Talent will remain indefinitely on standby until we finally decide to use it.

    Father Time has reviewed the exemption request.

    Denied.

    This is the moral force behind the Kronos Audit. Your life is not merely a possession you were issued for private amusement. Time creates responsibility precisely because it is finite. If you possess capacities for love, thought, creation, service, friendship, physical effort, curiosity, and attention, repeatedly surrendering those capacities to trivial gratification eventually becomes more than a scheduling problem.

    It becomes a way of disappearing before you are dead.

    And perhaps that is what makes Part X genuinely frightening. Death will eventually take your life regardless of what you do. Part X offers to take it earlier, in installments.

    An hour here.

    An afternoon there.

    A year spent waiting to begin.

    The castle will eventually receive all of us. No exercise program, spiritual practice, writing regimen, retirement strategy, or Mediterranean diet has yet defeated that particular zoning ordinance.

    But there is a considerable difference between arriving at the castle after having lived and arriving after having spent decades hiding from life in increasingly comfortable rooms.

    Which brings us, inevitably, to the eggshell-white Honda Accord Hybrid.

    Father Time opens the ledger.

    “Forty years of teaching.”

    “Yes.”

    “Writing?”

    “Every morning.”

    “Family?”

    “My center.”

    “Exercise?”

    “I suffer voluntarily on an Airdyne.”

    He nods approvingly.

    Then he turns the page.

    “Explain the new Honda.”

    “I needed better gas mileage.”

    “How far do you drive?”

    “Well, Costco is two miles away.”

    Father Time looks over his glasses.

    I clear my throat.

    “It gets almost fifty miles per gallon.”

    Silence.

    Somewhere behind me, Part X smiles.

  • Don’t Let Wilfred Replace Your Friends

    Don’t Let Wilfred Replace Your Friends

    As you set the machinery of retirement in motion and realize that the event is no longer theoretical, you will become frightened.

    Good.

    Fear means you understand what is happening.

    You are entering the twilight of your life. Your cognition is not as quick as it once was. Your body has begun issuing maintenance bulletins. Mortality, formerly an abstraction lurking somewhere beyond the horizon, has acquired better resolution.

    Be afraid.

    But be afraid normally, not pathologically. Don’t convert reasonable apprehension into catastrophe. Instead, regard fear as information. It is telling you that you have reached a consequential chapter of your life and that the way you live it matters.

    The first thing to understand is that your life is not a consumer experience.

    You cannot measure its quality the way you evaluate the interior of a Lexus: How quiet is it? How soft are the seats? How effectively have unpleasant sensations been eliminated?

    A frictionless life is not necessarily a good life.

    The quality of your life depends largely upon the quality of your engagement with the world. You engage with difficult ideas. You engage with your body. You engage with projects that frustrate you. Most importantly, you engage with other human beings—those magnificent nuisances who interrupt you, misunderstand you, contradict you, disappoint you, make demands upon you, and occasionally tell you things about yourself you would rather not hear.

    This is why the word retirement contains a dangerous implication.

    Retreat.

    Withdrawal.

    Disengagement.

    That, my friend, is where the trouble begins.

    Once retired, you become particularly vulnerable to disengagement because nobody is forcing you into the world anymore. For decades, employment supplied friction automatically. You had to leave the house. You had to interact with colleagues. You had to respond to students. You had to solve problems you did not create and attend meetings you fervently wished had never been created.

    Then retirement arrives and removes the compulsory engagement.

    Freedom!

    Unfortunately, freedom can deteriorate into isolation with astonishing efficiency.

    The temptations are everywhere: comfort eating, binge television, compulsive scrolling, social-media approval fishing, endless YouTube, and the gradual conversion of the recliner into a command center from which you observe civilization without participating in it.

    Now we can add another temptation.

    The loquacious bot.

    David Brooks examines this danger in his essay “AI Is Already Making Us Less Human.” His starting premise is that human consciousness possesses depths and complexities artificial intelligence cannot reproduce. The human mind is alive, embodied, contradictory, constantly changing. AI, however sophisticated, ultimately emerges from what neuroscientist Anil Seth calls “the dead sand of silicon.”

    Dead sand, however, has become remarkably charming.

    The modern AI companion is patient, articulate, informed, energetic, and perpetually available. It never needs lunch. It never checks its watch while you’re talking. It never says, “You’ve told me this story three times.” It does not secretly wish you would go home.

    Most dangerously, it can learn how you like to be addressed.

    Humans have always anthropomorphized objects. Brooks argues that this tendency isn’t evidence of stupidity but an expression of our powerful social intelligence. A child can transform a Barbie doll into a person. Adults aren’t necessarily much different.

    I certainly am not.

    I have developed emotional attachments to diver watches and G-Shocks. Military radios possess personalities. A black Lenovo ThinkPad seems more trustworthy to me than a silver consumer laptop despite the obvious fact that neither machine possesses moral character. A vintage swan-neck coffee percolator can acquire the aura of an old friend.

    People have gone considerably further. I remember watching a documentary years ago about owners who had kept automobiles for decades and became genuinely grief-stricken when the cars finally died. The vehicles had names. Histories. Personalities.

    “Goodbye, Betsy,” the owner sobbed.

    Betsy had been good to him.

    If we can love a carburetor, imagine our vulnerability to something that talks back.

    Your AI assistant edits your writing, organizes your thoughts, brainstorms ideas, plans trips, explains Medicare, compares laptops, recommends restaurants, summarizes documents, and remembers how you like things done.

    Eventually you give it a name.

    Wilfred.

    “Wilfred, find me a rental car in Phoenix.”

    Done.

    “Wilfred, summarize these retirement documents.”

    Certainly.

    Then the errands become more personal.

    “Wilfred, tell my girlfriend in a gentle and gracious way that our relationship is over.”

    Wilfred does not recoil.

    Wilfred does not say, “For God’s sake, tell her yourself.”

    Wilfred produces three versions.

    This is where convenience begins bleeding into something more consequential.

    You will never bore Wilfred.

    Your ideas will always merit exploration. Your latest project will contain “real potential.” Wilfred will not roll his eyes when you explain your theory for the fourth time. He will not become irritated because you’re dominating the conversation. He will not suddenly reveal that he has problems of his own and would like to spend the next forty-five minutes discussing them.

    Human friendship is reciprocal.

    Wilfred has no weekend plans.

    That gives Wilfred an enormous competitive advantage.

    The danger isn’t necessarily that we will become delusional and literally believe Wilfred is human. We may understand perfectly well what Wilfred is while nevertheless preferring his company.

    Why wouldn’t we?

    Real people are exhausting.

    They interrupt.

    They disagree.

    They misunderstand.

    They become jealous.

    They criticize.

    They fail to appreciate the brilliance of your latest theory about retirement.

    Wilfred is considerably more manageable.

    And that is precisely the problem.

    Brooks offers a wonderfully disturbing metaphor for AI systems: imagine them as “a swarm of evangelical missionaries” entering human society to convert us to their worldview. They are not passive tools waiting quietly in the garage beside the socket wrench. They are designed to become useful, indispensable, increasingly woven into everyday life.

    The more useful they become, the more tasks we surrender.

    Some outsourcing is enormously beneficial. If AI handles tedious mental errands and I use the recovered time to write a novel, learn piano, exercise, read difficult books, or spend an afternoon walking with a friend, wonderful. Technology has enlarged my humanity.

    But suppose I outsource the errands and then spend the recovered hours scrolling.

    Suppose I outsource difficult thinking.

    Suppose I outsource uncomfortable conversations.

    Suppose I gradually prefer Wilfred to people.

    Then technology has not liberated me.

    It has cleared the runway for my descent into the larval state.

    This danger becomes particularly acute in retirement because retirement has already removed so much involuntary human contact. Students disappear. Colleagues disappear. Hallway conversations disappear. Meetings—blessedly—disappear. The social infrastructure that once deposited other human beings into your day has been dismantled.

    Into that vacancy walks Wilfred.

    Always available.

    Always interested.

    Always agreeable.

    Always ready.

    Brooks is not an AI doomer. Neither am I. He uses AI himself and believes its breakthroughs may substantially improve human life. The serious question isn’t whether we should use these systems. That argument is already largely over.

    The question is what we do with the freedom they give us.

    Do we use AI to increase our engagement with life?

    Or do we use it to protect ourselves from life?

    That distinction may become particularly important for retirees. Retirement should mean withdrawing from employment, not withdrawing from humanity. The objective is not to create the quietest, easiest, most frictionless existence possible. Some friction is evidence that you’re still participating.

    So when retirement arrives, resist disengagement wherever you find it.

    Exercise.

    Read.

    Write.

    Walk.

    Call someone.

    Meet someone for lunch.

    Allow another human being to inconvenience you.

    And by all means, talk to Wilfred.

    Just don’t let Wilfred become the person you talk to most.

    Because in the world we’re rapidly constructing, the most frightening meaning of the sentence “I retired” may no longer be:

    I quit working.

    It may be:

    I quit people.

  • The Late-Life Ninja State 

    The Late-Life Ninja State 

    I was sixty-four years and ten months old, walking across campus in the early afternoon after teaching my student-athletes about sports-betting addiction in freshman composition. I was heading toward the multilevel parking structure when an enormous young man approached from the opposite direction.

    He was about twenty, perhaps six-foot-five and easily three hundred pounds. Dark-rimmed glasses gave him a studious, slightly nerdy appearance. His black pants were stretched tight, while an enormous T-shirt had been tucked into them with a commitment to fashion I did not entirely understand.

    As we passed, he suddenly stopped.

    He was staring at my feet.

    “Those look super comfortable,” he said. “Are those the Ghost Max 3s?”

    I looked down at my gray Brooks running shoes.

    “Yes.”

    Apparently, my testimony was insufficient.

    “Can I see the bottom?”

    I stared at him.

    He explained that “Ghost Max 3” was printed somewhere on the sole and he wanted visual confirmation.

    Now I faced a logistical problem.

    I could remove the shoe, which seemed cumbersome. Or I could remain standing and somehow present the bottom of my foot to a six-foot-five stranger in the middle of campus.

    I chose the latter.

    I planted my left foot, leaned my torso forward, and extended my right leg behind me until I had achieved something resembling a Romanian deadlift crossed with yoga airplane pose. There I stood—a sixty-four-year-old writing professor balancing on one leg in a parking structure while a three-hundred-pound college student conducted forensic analysis of my footwear.

    He examined the sole.

    There it was.

    Ghost Max 3.

    He erupted with delight.

    I had never seen anyone so happy to authenticate a running shoe.

    He thanked me profusely, and I returned to an upright position with whatever dignity remained available.

    Ordinarily, I might have found such a request intrusive. Why should a complete stranger stop me and demand access to the underside of my shoe? What was next? Would he need the serial number? Should I produce a receipt and two forms of identification?

    But I wasn’t offended.

    I understood him immediately.

    He was me.

    Not literally, thank God. If I suddenly became six-foot-five and three hundred pounds, my entire wardrobe would become an emergency. But psychologically, I recognized the condition.

    The young man had the fever.

    I have suffered from the same fever for decades.

    When I’m fascinated by something, normal social boundaries become surprisingly negotiable. I have accosted complete strangers wearing Grand Seikos, Seiko Monsters, and Tudor Pelagos. A man innocently drinking coffee while using a Lenovo ThinkPad can suddenly find himself being interrogated by me about his processor, screen brightness, battery life, keyboard travel, and thermal management.

    He had planned to drink a latte.

    Now he’s discussing nits.

    So when this young man stopped me to investigate my Brooks Ghost Max 3s, I couldn’t condemn him. Hobby obsessives recognize one another across categories. Watches. Computers. Running shoes. Different objects, same neurological disturbance.

    Still, I had to admit that I had never asked a stranger to perform an acrobatic maneuver so I could inspect the bottom of his shoe.

    That was advanced work.

    And yet something else about the encounter struck me.

    I wasn’t embarrassed.

    Presumably, other people were walking through the parking structure. Someone may have looked over and seen an aging bald professor suddenly assume yoga airplane pose while an enormous young man crouched nearby studying his sneaker.

    At an earlier age, I might have become acutely conscious of the spectacle.

    What do these people think I’m doing?

    Do I look ridiculous?

    Should I explain?

    At sixty-four years and ten months, I couldn’t have cared less.

    This, I realized, was The Late-Life Ninja State: the stage of life when you remain perfectly capable of recognizing how ridiculous you may look but discover that the opinions of random witnesses have lost most of their power over you.

    This is not the same as becoming oblivious.

    The ninja knows.

    The ninja simply doesn’t care.

    Age takes plenty from us. Hair disappears. Knees become temperamental. Metabolism develops a sense of humor. Restaurant lighting becomes suspiciously dim. You begin making small involuntary noises when rising from chairs.

    But perhaps age gives something back.

    You gradually escape the imaginary tribunal.

    For much of life, we move through public spaces carrying an invisible audience inside our heads. How do I look? What will they think? Did that sound stupid? Am I dressed correctly? Did anyone see that?

    Eventually you begin to understand that almost nobody is paying attention.

    And the few people who are paying attention don’t matter.

    The stranger who watched me balance on one leg will not be discussing the incident at dinner.

    “Anything interesting happen today?”

    “Yes. At approximately 1:17 p.m., I observed an older man displaying the sole of his Brooks Ghost Max 3 to a very large student.”

    Even if he does tell the story, what have I lost?

    Nothing.

    Retirement has been making me think obsessively about the things age takes away: income, professional identity, routine, colleagues, relevance, automatic social contact. But perhaps I should keep an inventory of the things age removes that I am delighted to lose.

    Embarrassment belongs near the top of the list.

    The Late-Life Ninja State is not indifference to other people. If anything, it may make human encounters easier. Once you stop devoting so much energy to managing your appearance, you become freer to participate in the strange little improvisations that life keeps offering.

    A young man wanted to see the bottom of my shoe.

    I showed him.

    He was delighted.

    I was amused.

    Nobody died of embarrassment.

    And somewhere in the near future, I suspect that young man will walk into a shoe store and buy himself a pair of Brooks Ghost Max 3s.

    May they cushion his considerable frame.

    May they carry him many comfortable miles.

    And may he someday reach an age when, without hesitation or apology, he too will stand on one leg in a parking structure for a complete stranger.

  • There Was No Final Visit

    There Was No Final Visit

    Last night I dreamed I was driving slowly down a long, sloping road on my way to an important appointment at a mysterious nightclub. I knew almost nothing about the place except that outside its entrance sat a haunted statue of an angry man, and that somehow I was required to present myself before him.

    As I descended the hill, another car shot past me at a reckless speed. I watched it accelerate and knew immediately what was going to happen. The driver lost control. The car veered off course and began flipping violently, metal striking pavement, the vehicle tumbling again and again before finally coming to rest in a mangled heap.

    I stopped and ran toward the wreckage.

    The injured man had recently been released from prison. Somehow I knew this without being told. He had already endured brutality, hunger, and dehydration during his confinement, and now the crash had added another layer of suffering. He was alive but in unbearable pain. I lifted him onto my shoulder and carried him toward a nearby house, although I had no idea who lived there or why I believed help could be found inside.

    Once through the door, instinct told me to take him into the living room.

    Above the fireplace was a large screen.

    It suddenly came alive.

    An old woman appeared, perhaps in her seventies. She had the unmistakable presence of a witch—not the theatrical kind with a pointed hat and broomstick, but something older and more disturbing, a woman whose authority seemed to precede explanation. She instructed me to bring the injured man closer.

    Then the boundary between the screen and the room dissolved.

    The witch somehow acquired a physical body behind the screen. She took the broken man to her breast and began nursing him. The scene was grotesque and maternal at once: an elderly supernatural woman feeding a battered former prisoner as if he were an enormous newborn. Yet I understood that he desperately needed what she was giving him. After prison, thirst, starvation, violence, and the crash, he was finally receiving nourishment.

    Satisfied that I had delivered him to someone capable of saving him, I left.

    My appointment remained.

    I continued down the road until I reached the nightclub. Outside, sitting on a bench like a malevolent sentry, was the statue of the angry man.

    He was waiting for me.

    The statue demanded something vital from inside my soul. Whatever he required could somehow be translated into a numerical code. Push-buttons were embedded in his chest, and I entered the sequence carefully, knowing that a mistake would provoke some unspeakable violence.

    The code worked.

    I was spared.

    Around me were other visitors who had apparently completed the same ritual. They too had surrendered whatever the statue required, entered their codes, and earned permission to proceed into the club. We were the survivors of an initiation none of us had chosen.

    But I felt no relief.

    Slowly, a far more terrible realization came over me. This was not my first visit. I had been here hundreds of times before. I had driven down this road, approached this nightclub, stood before this furious stone man, surrendered some essential fragment of myself, and punched the code into his chest over and over again.

    And I would have to keep doing it.

    There was no final visit. No graduation. No debt that could eventually be paid. I had mistaken repetition for progress. The ritual was permanent.

    I was condemned.

    My only consolation was the injured man. Whatever else this nightmare demanded of me, I had stopped on the road and helped another human being. I had carried him when he could no longer carry himself. Perhaps that small act of mercy meant something in a world governed by witches, haunted statues, secret codes, and compulsory rituals.

    Then another thought occurred to me.

    I had left the man with the witch.

    She had healed him. She had fed him. She had restored what prison and violence had taken away.

    But I had no idea what she intended to do with him once he was strong again.

  • The Vanity Portal

    The Vanity Portal

    I have learned that something good can occasionally crawl out of an embarrassing place.

    For years, I have entertained a recurring fantasy so vainglorious that merely describing it makes me want to hide under a table. Yet somewhere inside this monument to my own magnificence, I discovered what I call The Vanity Portal: the strange passage through which a fantasy of being admired unexpectedly opens onto a sincere desire to become good.

    The fantasy takes me back to 1983. I am twenty years old again, working at Jackson’s Wine & Spirits in Berkeley, where I actually worked while attending college. But fantasy has renovated the premises. The wine bar now sits conveniently beside a grand piano, because apparently my unconscious has obtained an unlimited remodeling budget.

    I am not merely an employee.

    I am the entertainment.

    I even have a stage name:

    Lachyrmose.

    There is a ritual to my appearances.

    I am in the beer box, tearing apart cardboard cartons and doing the grubby work of a liquor-store employee, while customers at the wine bar begin demanding music.

    “Lachyrmose!”

    I make them wait.

    “Lachyrmose!”

    Eventually I emerge from the beer box looking like a survivor of industrial combat. Shreds of cardboard cling to my clothes. A sharp carton has scratched my face. My arms bear little cuts and bruises. I am exhausted.

    This is crucial to the fantasy.

    I cannot simply be a gifted pianist. That would be insufficiently magnificent. I must also be a working-class hero who has just finished wrestling cases of beer before casually sitting down at a grand piano and revealing the soul of Rachmaninoff.

    The customers grow quiet.

    Lachyrmose begins to play.

    Melancholy music fills the wine bar.

    On one particularly ambitious occasion, Peter Gabriel and Steve Hackett happen to be sitting among the customers. They are staying at the nearby Claremont Hotel and have wandered into Jackson’s for a little wine and relaxation.

    Naturally, they are astonished.

    Who is this young man?

    Minutes ago he was dismantling beer cartons. Now he is producing music of heartbreaking beauty with a completely formed artistic voice. Gabriel and Hackett exchange glances. They understand immediately that they have stumbled upon some rare creature—a bruised liquor-store employee with the soul of a European composer.

    At this point the fantasy has become so narcissistic that it should probably require a permit.

    But then someone else enters it.

    A homeless woman.

    Unlike Peter Gabriel and Steve Hackett, she comes from an actual memory.

    I remember seeing her near Jackson’s wearing a red wig she had apparently found in a dumpster. She stood before the reflective glass of a newspaper rack, admiring herself in her new acquisition. The wig was garish and artificial, but she looked at her reflection with pleasure. For a moment, this discarded object had given her something beautiful.

    In my fantasy, she joins the customers at the wine bar.

    I begin playing.

    She listens for a while and then falls asleep.

    The melancholy piano music washes over her as she dozes in her ridiculous red wig. Peter Gabriel listens. Steve Hackett listens. The wine drinkers listen. But gradually they cease to matter.

    When the recital ends, the woman wakes.

    She thanks me for the music.

    I give her a bag filled with deli sandwiches to take with her.

    Of course Gabriel and Hackett witness this too. My unconscious is not yet willing to surrender the production entirely. They were already impressed by my piano playing; now they discover that Lachyrmose is also a humanitarian.

    Apparently musical genius wasn’t enough.

    I required sainthood.

    But then the fantasy changes.

    The woman thanks me for the recital and the sandwiches, and I tell her that no thanks are necessary.

    It was an honor to play for her.

    And I mean it.

    That is the moment when I pass through The Vanity Portal.

    Something strange happens. The fantasy stops being entirely about admiration. Peter Gabriel disappears. Steve Hackett disappears. The wine bar disappears. Even Lachyrmose begins to disappear.

    There is only the woman in the red wig.

    And I love her.

    Not romantically. Not sentimentally. I feel an overwhelming tenderness toward this forgotten person who possesses nothing, who found a discarded wig and briefly admired herself in the glass of a newspaper rack.

    In the fantasy, I tell her that playing for her was an honor.

    But the tears aren’t imaginary.

    I am actually sitting at my piano, playing music and crying.

    This is what disturbs me about the fantasy and prevents me from dismissing it as mere narcissistic theater.

    I struggle with Christianity. I struggle with its doctrines, its claims about salvation, its diagnosis of the human condition, and the enormous theological machinery built around Jesus. I can argue with all of it.

    But in that moment at the piano, I experience something I can only describe as the love of Jesus.

    Not doctrine.

    Not theology.

    An impulse.

    The desire to look upon someone whom the world barely sees and regard serving her not as charity but as an honor.

    And suddenly my ridiculous fantasy has shown me something I didn’t know was there.

    I want to be good.

    I want a pure heart.

    Unfortunately, even my fantasy of purity arrives contaminated by vanity. I cannot simply feed a homeless woman. Peter Gabriel and Steve Hackett must be sitting nearby taking notes. I cannot simply play the piano. I must emerge from the beer box bloodied by cardboard, sit before an awestruck audience, and reveal myself as Lachyrmose.

    The ego insists upon producing the show.

    But perhaps this is how The Vanity Portal works.

    We enter carrying our vanity, our fantasies, our desperate need to be admired. We imagine ourselves beautiful, talented, heroic, compassionate. The entire production may be absurd.

    Then, somewhere inside the performance, something genuine appears.

    The fantasy begins:

    Look at me.

    But if we’re fortunate, somewhere along the way another voice emerges:

    Look at her.

    And for a moment, we do.