Tag: books

  • The G-Shock Boys

    The G-Shock Boys

    For decades he devoted himself to mechanical dive watches.

    His collection consumed tens of thousands of dollars, countless evenings on watch forums, and enough YouTube viewing to qualify as graduate work in horology. Every purchase promised permanence. Every new bezel, movement, and dial texture whispered that contentment was only one more acquisition away.

    Then, almost by accident, he bought a humble resin Casio G-Shock with Multiband 6 and Tough Solar.

    Everything changed.

    For the first time in his adult life, he glanced at his wrist and saw not merely the time, but the correct time. Alongside it sat the date and the day of the week, all delivered with effortless certainty. No winding. No resetting. No wondering whether the movement had drifted six or seven seconds since breakfast.

    He had quietly crossed a border.

    He had left the Kingdom of Approximate Time and entered the Republic of Accurate Time.

    The conversion brought unexpected peace.

    It also brought guilt.

    He felt as though he had betrayed lifelong companions—the mechanical-watch enthusiasts with whom he had shared triumphs, disappointments, and endless debates about lume, bezel action, and the superiority of one Swiss caliber over another. His social-media tribe suddenly felt like an abandoned religion. He experienced disorientation, grief, and the peculiar emotional wreckage that accompanies every genuine conversion.

    Confused, he confided in a trusted colleague.

    The man listened patiently and nodded.

    “I think you’re ready,” he finally said.

    “Ready for what?”

    “The House of Resin.”

    Perched atop one of the hills in Palos Verdes stood a sprawling Mediterranean mansion known only among initiates as The House of Resin.

    It existed for one purpose: helping newly converted souls orient themselves to life inside Accurate Time.

    Desperate, our hero made the pilgrimage.

    The front door swung open to reveal a portly, smiling gentleman who bore an uncanny resemblance to Sebastian Cabot. His cheerful eyes suggested that nothing in the universe surprised him anymore.

    “Welcome,” he said warmly. “I’m Jaunty.”

    The living room resembled an English country house designed by Casio. Bach cello suites floated through magnificent loudspeakers. Delicate porcelain cups brimmed with tea. Crackers of suspiciously exceptional quality circulated on silver trays.

    Around the room sat a dozen men.

    Every one of them wore a G-Shock.

    Every one of them looked profoundly uncomfortable, like survivors of a shipwreck who had somehow washed ashore in paradise but still missed the sinking vessel.

    After the tea had been poured and the crackers consumed, Jaunty’s smile disappeared.

    His posture stiffened.

    His eyes narrowed.

    “The time for pleasantries has ended.”

    Silence swallowed the room.

    “You are here because you have awakened. You have escaped Approximate Time, but you are not yet free. Freedom demands sacrifice.”

    He paused.

    “The first step is simple.”

    Another pause.

    “You will sell every mechanical watch you own.”

    A collective gasp swept through the room.

    “You will donate the proceeds to organizations that feed the hungry. Research them carefully. Find those worthy of your trust.”

    His voice softened.

    “You cannot carry two kingdoms on one wrist.”

    No one argued.

    The command possessed the quiet authority of Scripture.

    Within days the watches were gone.

    The strange thing was not the loss.

    It was what followed.

    Every man felt lighter.

    Younger.

    More awake.

    Many developed an overwhelming urge to walk for hours. During those solitary journeys, decades of buying, selling, flipping, chasing limited editions, and refreshing dealer websites replayed in vivid detail.

    They watched themselves as though observing strangers.

    Marionettes dancing on strings they had never noticed.

    As realization deepened, their pace quickened.

    Many found themselves crying.

    Not polite tears.

    Not cinematic tears.

    The deep, involuntary tears that arrive when an illusion finally surrenders.

    They no longer cared who saw them.

    The tears required no apology.

    The following week they returned.

    Each told essentially the same story.

    Jaunty nodded.

    “Excellent.”

    Then his expression darkened.

    “Do not mistake liberation for completion.”

    He explained that exhilaration would eventually give way to doubt, loneliness, and nostalgia. Recovery always progressed that way.

    Then he introduced Step Two.

    “You will train.”

    The men looked puzzled.

    “You will exercise four days each week. Lift weights. Swing kettlebells. Practice yoga. Climb ropes. Do calisthenics. I do not care what discipline you choose. Your body has spent years transporting your obsession. It is now time for your obsession to transport your body.”

    One participant timidly raised his hand.

    “Ever since selling my watches I’ve been walking two hours every day.”

    The others nodded enthusiastically.

    “So have we.”

    Jaunty smiled kindly.

    “Those are not workouts.”

    “What are they?”

    “Exorcisms.”

    The room fell silent.

    “They are necessary.”

    “But they do not count.”

    Within days the men discovered the irresistible simplicity of a twenty-five-pound kettlebell and an online instructor promising complete physical transformation through twelve exercises performed in a continuous one-hour circuit.

    Every garage became a monastery.

    Every kettlebell became a sacrament.

    By the third week something extraordinary began happening.

    Crows appeared.

    One landed on a fence and clearly announced,

    “Casio.”

    Another cried,

    “G-Shock.”

    A third declared,

    “Solar.”

    When the men nervously described these encounters, Jaunty beamed.

    “Entirely normal,” he assured them.

    “The crows always come.”

    “What should we do?”

    “Feed them breadcrumbs.”

    By the fourth week, no one arrived wearing ordinary clothes.

    Their bodies had changed.

    Their old wardrobes no longer fit—not physically or psychologically.

    Athletic clothing had become their natural attire.

    Their wrists displayed beloved G-Shocks with the quiet confidence formerly reserved for Swiss luxury.

    Jaunty surveyed them with unmistakable satisfaction.

    “You have completed your initiation.”

    He dimmed the lights.

    “For your graduation…”

    “…I have prepared a film.”

    The title appeared.

    THE G-SHOCK BOYS

    Part documentary.

    Part infomercial.

    Part religious testimony.

    It chronicled every stage of their transformation—from obsessive collectors imprisoned by luxury to cheerful disciples liberated by resin, solar charging, and atomic time.

    Against every expectation, the film became a worldwide sensation.

    Clips flooded social media.

    Millions watched.

    Soon the men found themselves traveling the globe, not to discuss watches, but to explain the strange freedom that arrived only after they stopped believing that another purchase could save them.

    They still wore watches.

    They had simply stopped asking them to tell them who they were.

  • The Demon Lake and Heavenly Noodles

    The Demon Lake and Heavenly Noodles

    For the past two nights my subconscious has apparently dispensed with realism altogether and hired a surrealist screenwriter.

    The first dream began with an assignment that would have challenged even the most ambitious evolutionary biologist. I was ordered to travel millions of years into the past to locate one of my primordial ancestors—a prehistoric shark. Armed with nothing but a pair of pliers and inexplicable confidence, I extracted the shark’s razor-sharp teeth and painstakingly strung them into a necklace.

    This was no ordinary necklace.

    It had become my official faculty lanyard at the college where I teach.

    Somehow I lost it.

    The college president responded with the righteous fury usually reserved for embezzlement or plagiarism. She informed me that unless I journeyed back through evolutionary history, located the same prehistoric shark, and painstakingly reconstructed the necklace, I would be fired.

    The situation struck me as hopeless.

    How had I misplaced something so miraculous? How does one retrace one’s steps across millions of years? More importantly, how could anyone recreate a necklace that seemed less handcrafted than divinely manufactured? The shark’s teeth no longer felt like jewelry. They had become sacred relics, and I had managed to lose them somewhere between the Devonian Period and faculty parking.

    I awoke relieved that neither the necklace nor the disciplinary hearing had actually existed.

    Then came the following night.

    This time I found myself standing beside a dark lake surrounded by hundreds of people.

    Everyone issued the same warning.

    Do not disturb the water.

    A demon slept beneath the surface, they explained, and if awakened it would unleash unimaginable destruction upon us all.

    Unfortunately, I happened to be holding a very long stick.

    The human race has a long and distinguished history of ignoring good advice simply because the forbidden object happens to be within arm’s reach. Give Adam an apple, Pandora a box, or me a suspicious lake and an unnecessarily long pole, and curiosity will almost always defeat wisdom.

    Naturally, I stirred the water.

    The demon awoke.

    The earth shuddered. The air vibrated. Reality itself seemed to tremble as the creature announced its displeasure.

    People screamed.

    I was terrified.

    Yet there was one surprising consolation. I was frightened collectively rather than privately. Most of my nightmares isolate me inside my own panic, but this time hundreds of us shared the catastrophe. Terror, it turns out, becomes marginally more bearable when it has company.

    Eventually the demon grew bored with intimidating us and retreated once again into the depths.

    The dream then executed one of those abrupt transitions that only dreams consider perfectly logical.

    I stepped into an elevator.

    When the doors opened, I found myself in an ethereal kingdom devoted entirely to noodles.

    Not ordinary noodles.

    Transcendent noodles.

    Families, many of them from Taiwan, wandered the heavenly complex with unmistakable pride, as though civilization itself had culminated in this celestial noodle palace. They smiled with the quiet confidence of people who knew they possessed the finest cuisine in the universe.

    Hungry, I asked one family where I could find the noodle bar.

    Beaming, they pointed north.

    I confidently walked in precisely the direction that would ensure I never reached it.

    Instead, I became hopelessly lost, descended a spiral staircase, and somehow ended up asleep in the damp basement of a forgotten library.

    When I awoke inside the dream, I remembered the noodles.

    I was starving.

    Yet I had become too exhausted to climb back upstairs in search of them.

    So I settled for imagination.

    Unable to eat the heavenly noodles themselves, I pictured them so vividly that I convinced myself they might sustain me until I found the strength to move.

    Perhaps that final scene is the most revealing of all.

    Most of us spend our lives chasing some version of those heavenly noodles—peace, happiness, God, retirement, artistic achievement, perfect love, or simply the conviction that life has finally become what it was always meant to be. We receive directions. We begin confidently enough. Then we wander into the wrong corridor, descend a staircase we never intended to take, and wake up in the dusty basement of our own lives, too weary to continue.

    So we nourish ourselves with imagination until hope returns.

  • The Trapdoor Effect

    The Trapdoor Effect

    Alfred North Whitehead argued that religion arises from the desire to discover permanence in a transient world. Schopenhauer believed religion exists because we fear death. Tolstoy reached a more demanding conclusion. Death, he argued, forces us to make a choice: either surrender to despair or reshape our lives so that death cannot rob them of meaning. For Tolstoy, that reckoning culminated in religious conversion.

    Most of us encounter this reckoning in waves. There are seasons when mortality remains an abstraction, politely waiting its turn. Then there are moments when it barges through the front door and makes itself at home.

    The first time that happened to me was in 2004 with the death of football legend Reggie White. He had been born only a month after I was. At forty-three, he died from a cardiac arrhythmia related to sleep apnea. His death shook me, but I eventually regained my footing.

    Then came Lance Reddick.

    His death in 2023 hit me with far greater force. Reddick was sixty—my age. On screen he projected effortless authority. He played towering, intimidating police officers, wore a Tag Heuer as Chief Irvin Irving in Bosch, and somehow combined physical power with artistic refinement as an accomplished jazz pianist. He seemed built to endure. Seeing a man who embodied such strength simply vanish was profoundly disorienting. Nearly every day for the past three years, his death has crossed my mind.

    As if that weren’t enough, Facebook has become an obituary page for my adolescence.

    High school classmates—people who were posting vacation photos, political opinions, and pictures of their grandchildren only weeks earlier—suddenly reappear as memorial tributes. Healthy faces become framed portraits. Birthday wishes become eulogies. A life that looked perfectly ordinary on Tuesday has become a remembrance by Friday.

    The algorithm has quietly become an undertaker.

    Against that backdrop, my own routines begin to feel faintly absurd.

    There I am on my exercise bike, obsessed with burning exactly seven hundred calories in under an hour. I calculate how many grams of omega-3 a can of salmon will contribute to lunch. I debate whether next week’s garage workout should include walking lunges with twenty-pound kettlebells. I fine-tune my health strategy with the seriousness of a NASA engineer.

    And yet another part of me whispers that I am merely organizing deck chairs above a collapsing floor.

    At times I feel consumed by what I call The Trapdoor Effect: the unsettling awareness that beneath the routines of ordinary life—planning meals, exercising, paying bills, booking vacations, arguing over cholesterol, buying retirement clothes—lies an invisible trapdoor that may open without warning. We behave as though the future belongs to us, when in fact we possess nothing more than a reasonable expectation that tomorrow will resemble today.

    That expectation is comforting.

    It is also, perhaps, life’s most necessary illusion.

  • The Reader I Lost, the Listener I Became

    The Reader I Lost, the Listener I Became

    In terms of reading endurance, I am another casualty of the internet.

    In my early twenties, I devoured two books a week with the discipline of a bodybuilder consuming protein to build muscle. Reading was not a hobby. It was nourishment. My brain felt perpetually hungry, and books were the only food that satisfied it. I read because I was curious. I read because I wanted to flee stupidity. Most of all, I read because life felt incomplete unless I had one foot planted in a parallel literary universe. To be deprived of that universe was to feel vaguely cheated by existence itself.

    Then the internet arrived.

    It did not destroy my appetite for ideas. It fragmented it.

    My attention was gradually colonized by factoids, clickbait, social media surveillance, and articles designed less to illuminate than to be skimmed and forgotten. None of these distractions seemed particularly dangerous on their own. Together, however, they accomplished what no enemy of books had managed before: they quietly atrophied my reading muscle.

    I still read, but my reading is now compromised. In the morning, I work through essays with a cup of coffee, forcing myself to stay engaged by taking notes and writing brief summaries or critiques. At night, I can usually manage another thirty minutes of essays or short fiction before my concentration begins to fray.

    That is a far cry from the reader I once was.

    Yet my longing for that parallel literary universe never disappeared.

    It merely changed mediums.

    Today I spend at least two hours a day listening to audiobooks. I listen before dawn, during workouts, while driving, and sometimes while drifting into an afternoon nap. My library ranges from early Christian history to sports biographies, novels, philosophical polemics, memoirs, and books on health and fitness.

    Although I mourn the loss of my youthful reading stamina, I have discovered an unexpected compensation.

    In many cases, I understand books more deeply by listening to them than by reading them.

    Take Emmanuel Carrère’s Kingdom. I have read the novel obsessively four separate times. Yet hearing it performed through Audible has transformed the experience. I am no longer merely reading about Paul and Luke as they wrestle with believers and skeptics across Greece, Syria, and Israel. I feel as though I am accompanying them. Scenes unfold with cinematic immediacy. Conversations breathe. Sentences I somehow overlooked through four careful readings suddenly reveal themselves with startling clarity. Listening has not diminished the book. It has enlarged it.

    Part of this pleasure may lie deep within our evolutionary inheritance. Human beings spent thousands of years listening to storytellers, poets, prophets, and orators before most people ever encountered literature on a printed page. Perhaps the spoken voice still reaches something ancient within us.

    Another explanation is what I call the Auditory Immersion Principle: the paradox in which a listener comprehends and emotionally inhabits a book more fully through sustained listening than through silent reading because the uninterrupted flow of the narrator’s voice prevents skimming, distraction, and premature judgment. A skilled narrator refuses to let my restless internet brain dart ahead or wander elsewhere. I surrender to the current of the story instead of constantly trying to steer it.

    That discovery has filled me with renewed excitement for books I have postponed for years.

    Near the top of my Audible wish list is Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables, a novel Emmanuel Carrère has said transformed his life as a child. I have no doubt that listening to it will transport me into one of literature’s great enchanted worlds. I expect to emerge from it not merely informed but changed.

    The anticipation is almost intoxicating. It feels as though pleasures this profound ought to be reserved for another realm, not made available through a pair of headphones during a morning walk.

    Perhaps that sounds like hyperbole.

    Then again, perhaps that is simply the enduring power of great literature.

    The internet may have weakened my capacity to sit for hours turning pages, but it has not extinguished my desire to inhabit extraordinary books. If anything, audiobooks have reminded me that literature has always been larger than ink on paper. Long before stories were read in silence, they were spoken aloud, carried by the human voice from one soul to another.

    In an age that fragments our attention into thousands of disposable moments, that ancient experience may be more necessary than ever.

  • I’m a Radio Man Trapped in a YouTube Video

    I’m a Radio Man Trapped in a YouTube Video

    On the final episode of The Gist, Mike Pesca—who is leaving to assume an executive role at a still-undisclosed institution—lamented the passing of an older form of media. He spoke about the intimacy of hearing a voice without being forced to watch it. A voice enters your home stripped of spectacle. It asks for attention rather than demanding it. It does not require jump cuts, dramatic lighting, animated captions, exaggerated facial expressions, or an algorithm trained to hijack your dopamine receptors. Pesca admitted that one reason he was ending The Gist was simple: he no longer wished to compete in the circus.

    He spoke warmly of Julia Turner, whose Culture Gabfest has also come to an end. He noted that Marc Maron has little interest in becoming another video personality. Although Pesca didn’t mention them, Jesse Singal and Katie Herzog of Blocked and Reported have similarly resisted reshaping their podcast into a YouTube product. Pesca observed that the retirement of Maron, the disappearance of Culture Gabfest, and the end of The Gist signal “the end of an era.”

    Listening to him, I realized I have been mourning that era for some time.

    Shortly afterward, David Greene closed an episode of Left, Right & Center by announcing the retirement of NPR’s Don Gonyea. Another unforgettable voice was disappearing from my daily life. I found myself oddly saddened. I wasn’t losing a face. I was losing a companion. Don Gonyea will be missed. So will Marc Maron. So will Mike Pesca. 

    It finally dawned on me while listening to Mike Pesca’s farewell episode of The Gist: I spent fifteen years making YouTube videos, but I was never really a YouTuber. I was a radio man trapped inside a YouTube video.

    I have never formed a deep attachment to YouTubers or Instagram personalities. I connect with voices. I grew up in the age of radio, when a voice carried enough authority to build an audience and enough warmth to become part of a family’s routine. I still remember the oversized preset buttons on my parents’ turquoise Chrysler Newport as Dionne Warwick asked if we knew the way to San Jose and The 5th Dimension floated “Up, Up and Away” through the speakers. In the 1970s, my mother’s Panasonic RF-1080 seemed permanently tuned to KGO 810 AM. Jim Eason, Jim Dunbar, and Ron Owens narrated our days with such consistency that they became as essential to the household as breakfast. When we visited my grandparents in Los Angeles, Michael Jackson drifted through the house while conversations about politics, books, and current events unfolded around him. Living among ideas was not an extracurricular activity. It was simply what adults did.

    Some of my happiest childhood memories involve nothing more than lying on a couch or sitting on the porch while an AM radio broadcaster called a baseball game. Those voices carried me into a dream world more comforting than the one outside my front door. Even now, I suspect that paradise sounds less like angels singing than a baseball announcer calmly describing a lazy fly ball to center field.

    When podcasts emerged in the early 2010s, they felt like radio reborn. I loved the voices. I loved the predictability. A good podcast possessed architecture. It opened with one segment, moved naturally into another, and arrived at a satisfying conclusion. As a writing instructor whose life revolves around lesson plans, outlines, and coherent arguments, I appreciated that structure. A podcast respected the listener’s attention instead of treating it as prey.

    Video rarely shows the same respect.

    Too often, it reshapes personalities into algorithmic caricatures. Everyone speaks with theatrical urgency. Every thumbnail depicts someone whose eyes appear to have witnessed the Second Coming or an alien invasion. Every headline promises that everything you believe has just been DESTROYED. Outrage has become less an emotion than a production budget.

    The internet has perfected a new facial expression: the clickbait gasp. Apparently, no thought is complete until someone opens his mouth wide enough to swallow the thumbnail.

    I find the entire performance exhausting.

    When I think back to watching The Dick Cavett Show as a ten-year-old, I remember almost nothing about the visuals. I remember Cavett’s voice—curious, literate, skeptical, and wonderfully patient. He made intelligence sound inviting rather than performative. Listening to him, I wanted to inhabit a world where thoughtful people spoke in complete sentences, entertained competing ideas, and considered nuance a virtue instead of a liability. Perhaps Cavett planted the seeds of elitism in me. If a conversation lacked subtlety, I assumed it lacked seriousness.

    Reflecting on Pesca’s farewell forced me to confront my own fifteen years on YouTube.

    Technically, I have always been hopeless. More than once I filmed a watch review so badly that the watch itself remained stubbornly out of focus while the comments section delighted in informing me of my incompetence. As YouTube evolved into an increasingly polished medium—with cinematic lighting, drone footage, elaborate editing, and graphics worthy of cable television—I never evolved with it.

    Nor, I eventually realized, did I want to.

    My interest gradually shifted away from close-up glamour shots of luxury watches and endless “State of the Collection” videos. I became more interested in why we chase possessions than in the possessions themselves. My videos became essays disguised as watch content. The algorithm, understandably, was unimpressed.

    Recently I noticed that six weeks had passed since I uploaded a video.

    I am not abandoning the channel. But I have become suspicious of speaking merely because the algorithm demands another upload. I have no desire to become someone who mistakes constant broadcasting for having something worth saying. Every new video should earn its existence. It should contribute something I have not already said. It should reflect genuine conviction rather than anxiety about disappearing.

    Perhaps that standard is impossibly high.

    Or perhaps it is simply what growing older feels like.

    I am sixty-four now. The older I become, the less interested I am in producing content and the more interested I am in producing thought. The algorithm rewards frequency. Age rewards discrimination.

    If I have learned anything from listening to voices like Mike Pesca, Don Gonyea, Dick Cavett, Jim Dunbar, and Marc Maron, it is that the medium was never the point. The point was never to command attention. It was to deserve it.

    Maybe that is the real end of the era—not the disappearance of podcasts, but the fading belief that a single thoughtful voice, speaking without spectacle, is enough.

    I hope it still is.

  • The Hairball Apocalypse and the Courage to Snake a Drain

    The Hairball Apocalypse and the Courage to Snake a Drain

    Hair buildup in the shower drain has clogged the primary bathroom about half a dozen times over the past twenty-four years. The warning signs never change. Murky, fetid water begins rising inside the marble shower basin, and with it rises my imagination. Within seconds I have diagnosed tree roots invading the pipes, a collapsed main sewer line, catastrophic plumbing failure, and the financial ruin that surely follows.

    Reality is considerably less cinematic.

    We’re talking about hair.

    I have called plumbers in the past. This time I decided to become one—or at least impersonate one.

    I borrowed my neighbor’s hand-held auger and spent the evening crouched over the shower, sweating through my shirt while my knees protested every minute on the tile floor. The auger finally broke through the clog. Victory. I turned on the shower, watched the water disappear, and congratulated myself.

    Two minutes later the water was pooling again.

    Apparently, I had not defeated the enemy. I had merely tunneled through it.

    So I waited for the water to drain, fed the auger back into the pipe, cranked again, and tried another test. This time the shower remained clear for nearly three minutes before surrendering once more to the same soggy defeat.

    The diagnosis had become obvious.

    I needed to go deeper.

    My neighbor owns a drill-powered auger, but when I borrowed the manual one around seven o’clock the previous evening, he answered the door wearing a bathrobe and dripping wet after climbing out of his hot tub. It seemed an inappropriate moment to ask for a plumbing tutorial. Some acts of neighborliness should have limits.

    Today I’ll borrow the powered version.

    Better yet, I have already bought my own. I ordered a RIDGID Power Spin, which works either by hand or by attaching it to my DeWalt drill. The hand crank removes, the drill locks onto the drive shaft, and suddenly I possess a machine whose existence I was blissfully unaware of forty-eight hours ago.

    The RIDGID arrives in a couple of days.

    Now I have to learn how to use the thing.

    This matters for reasons that extend well beyond one clogged shower.

    In principle, I should not have to pay someone hundreds of dollars to spin an auger down a drain. In principle, I should not become helpless every time a clog predictably appears after business hours, on a weekend, or during a holiday. In principle, I should understand that knowledge and self-reliance are among the most effective antidotes to anxiety.

    The clog itself was never the real problem.

    My ignorance was.

    There are, it seems to me, two kinds of homeowners. The first sees a wad of wet hair, sighs, reaches for the proper tool, and solves the problem before dinner.

    The second sees the identical clump of hair and imagines collapsing sewer lines, excavators in the front yard, and a plumbing invoice large enough to require grief counseling.

    I have spent too much of my life belonging to the second category.

    My goal is to graduate into the first.

    So I will arm myself with knowledge, a RIDGID Power Spin, and the quiet confidence that comes from knowing the difference between a plumbing emergency and a hair clump masquerading as one.

    Of course, I also bought plumber’s gloves, work goggles, knee pads, and heavy-duty coveralls.

    I only hope they transform me into a competent handyman.

    Otherwise, I have merely assembled an exceptionally convincing handyman costume.

  • When Reading Lost to the Dopamine Feed

    When Reading Lost to the Dopamine Feed

    Rose Horowitch’s essay The End of Reading Is Here,” published in The Atlantic, chronicles more than the decline of reading. It examines the kind of mind that flourishes after reading has surrendered. Citing data from the National Endowment for the Arts, she notes that fewer than half of American adults read any kind of book in 2022. Only 38 percent read a novel or short story. By 2023, a mere 16 percent reported reading for pleasure.

    What filled the vacuum? Gambling.

    Nearly 60 percent of Americans now gamble. We have traded one form of anticipation for another. Instead of turning pages in search of revelation, we pull slot-machine levers and refresh sports-betting apps in pursuit of dopamine.

    Even the books that survive have changed. Sentences are shorter. Syntax is simpler. Apparently, asking readers to navigate a few dependent clauses before arriving at the independent clause is now considered an unreasonable burden. The modern sentence has become a microwave dinner: engineered for speed, stripped of complexity, and consumed with minimal effort.

    The same contraction has reshaped our news diet. Long-form reporting that patiently excavates facts has given way to sixty-second video clips engineered for maximum stimulation. The reward is immediate. The understanding is shallow. It requires no political science degree to imagine what happens to a democracy when its citizens lose both the patience and the habit of sustained attention.

    Horowitch argues that this decline in reading parallels a decline in critical thinking itself. Increasing numbers of adults struggle to comprehend what they read, distinguish evidence from assertion, or draw reasonable conclusions. If adulthood once implied literacy, then America is drifting toward a peculiar form of cultural infantilization—a nation increasingly vulnerable to demagogues, conspiracy peddlers, and professional grifters eager to convert intellectual laziness into political capital.

    The greatest irony is that Americans have never consumed more words.

    We read texts, emails, Slack messages, Instagram captions, TikTok comments, headlines, notifications, and endless streams of digital debris. Never has so much language been processed to produce so little contemplation. We are drowning in words while starving for thought.

    That is why Horowitch describes America as becoming postliterate—not because language has disappeared, but because sustained reading has. Literacy once demanded immersion. Postliteracy rewards interruption.

    Nor has this transformation stabilized. It is accelerating. Each generation spends less time reading books and more time marinating its attention inside algorithmically curated feeds. Television, for all its faults, never possessed this power. During the television era, people still disappeared into novels on weekends and carried paperbacks to the beach. TV occupied a room. Smartphones occupy consciousness itself. They transformed distraction from an activity into a permanent habitat.

    I have watched this transformation from a privileged vantage point. For nearly forty years, I have taught college writing.

    The curriculum my colleagues and I teach today would have been almost unrecognizable when I began. We rarely assign long books. Many instructors assign none at all. My freshman composition course still requires one short classic, Frederick Douglass’ Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. My critical thinking course assigns no books whatsoever. Instead, students read essays from The Atlantic, The New Yorker, and The New York Times. I upload the readings into Canvas, then spend class breaking them into digestible segments through Google Slides. Each slide contains roughly one hundred words followed by a discussion question that forces students to wrestle with the author’s reasoning one piece at a time.

    Some critics insist that professors should simply assign longer books and demand compliance. That fantasy evaporates the moment it encounters reality. Students vote with their enrollment. Assign too much reading, and many will either avoid the course altogether or quietly migrate to instructors who require less. Consumer demand has entered higher education whether professors approve or not. As students’ habits change, curriculum follows. The postliterate marketplace shapes the classroom long before faculty meetings do.

    Yet calling ours a “postliterate society” risks flattening important distinctions.

    My students are mostly between eighteen and twenty years old. Yes, they grew up on TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram. Yes, many arrive having read remarkably few books. But they are also intellectually curious. They enjoy argumentation. They respond viscerally to sharp prose, elegant rhetoric, and clever turns of phrase. They relish exposing logical fallacies and dismantling weak arguments. Once you capture their attention, they often surprise you with the sophistication of their thinking.

    They are not representative of America at large.

    A first-generation college student eager to transform his life occupies a different intellectual universe than an adult who never pursued higher education, works a dead-end job, and spends every evening numbing himself with algorithmic entertainment. Both may read fewer books than previous generations, but their relationship to knowledge is hardly the same. There is no single postliteracy. There are many varieties of it.

    Technology rewires us from the inside out. I can measure the changes in my own brain. At sixty-four, I find myself fighting distractions that barely existed thirty years ago. My attention requires more vigilance than it once did. The temptation to surrender to endless scrolling is no respecter of age, education, or profession. Digital gravity pulls on all of us.

    There is no reversing this transformation. The toothpaste is out of the tube. The smartphone is not going away. Artificial intelligence is not going away. Algorithmic media is not going away. We are not marching back to 1975 carrying hardcovers beneath our arms.

    That reality, however, should make us suspicious of sweeping declarations about postliteracy. Horowitch rightly identifies genuine losses: diminished attention spans, weaker reading comprehension, and shrinking tolerance for intellectual complexity. But we have also developed new literacies. We decode memes, navigate digital ecosystems, detect online irony, understand platform cultures, and learn new technologies with astonishing speed. Our cognitive landscape has not simply shrunk. It has been reorganized.

    Whether that reorganization represents progress remains an open question.

    I doubt we will someday revolt against TikTok and rediscover Tolstoy en masse. The fantasy of 90 percent of Americans reading one hundred books a year belongs somewhere between nostalgia and science fiction.

    Still, I hesitate to declare the reading life permanently dead.

    Human beings possess an appetite that algorithms cannot completely satisfy. Endless novelty eventually becomes monotonous. Constant stimulation eventually feels empty. Even the most dedicated scroller occasionally hungers for something with weight, texture, and permanence—an idea worth wrestling with rather than merely reacting to.

    Curiosity has survived every technological revolution humanity has endured. It survived radio. It survived television. It may yet survive TikTok.

    The reading brain has been wounded.

    I am not convinced it is beyond recovery.

  • The Woman Who Blew Up Her Neighborhood

    The Woman Who Blew Up Her Neighborhood

      The algorithms at Hulu and Netflix have learned one undeniable fact about me: I am powerless to resist true crime. Every evening they present another descent into human depravity, as if politely asking, Would you like to witness civilization unravel once more? More often than not, I oblige. Among the many stories they have served me, one from Netflix’s Worst Neighbor Ever has lingered in my mind. The episode, “Midwest Meltdown,” begins not with a monster but with a woman who once fit comfortably into her small-town community. Moncy Shirley was a respected nurse in Richmond Hill, Indiana, living what appeared to be an ordinary life. Then came divorce. Her husband left, and it was as though she resolved to reclaim a youth she believed had been stolen from her. She plunged into a whirlwind of dating, flaunted her sexual adventures with startling indiscretion, and cultivated an image built on expensive cars, cosmetic surgery, and perpetual reinvention. Her neighbors had admired the earlier Moncy—the dependable wife and community member whose values resembled their own. The new Moncy seemed intoxicated by exhibitionism. One neighbor, disturbed by Moncy’s increasingly explicit stories, decided she no longer wanted her daughter exposed to such influences. It was not merely the promiscuity that alienated people; it was the sense that Moncy had begun treating every social norm as an obstacle to be mocked.

      Then came Mark Leonard, a man whose appearance alone seemed to advertise bad decisions. With frosted blond hair, puka-shell necklaces, and the slick confidence of a carnival swindler, Leonard looked less like a trustworthy neighbor than someone who would sell counterfeit watches from the trunk of a car. The documentary patiently assembles his résumé of deception: woman after woman manipulated, savings siphoned away, trust converted into profit. Leonard did not simply enter the neighborhood; he infected it. Moncy, meanwhile, withdrew further from longtime friends while publicly displaying her romance with theatrical defiance. The couple’s conspicuous affection on the front porch felt less like love than a declaration that ordinary standards of decency no longer applied to them. Their message seemed unmistakable: our freedom is none of your business.

      That illusion exploded—literally—on the night of November 10, 2012. Moncy’s home became the epicenter of a blast so violent that it leveled neighboring houses and transformed a quiet subdivision into what aerial footage resembled after a military strike. Investigators from the ATF quickly concluded this was no accidental gas leak. Evidence pointed instead to meticulous planning: removed gas valves, a microwave modified as a delayed ignition device, and a conspiracy involving Moncy, Mark Leonard, and his brother to stage a fire for a $300,000 insurance payout. Their greed weaponized an entire neighborhood. Two innocent people died. Dozens suffered injuries. Families lost homes that had taken decades to build. One chilling detail captures the moral inversion at the heart of the crime: Moncy carefully arranged for someone to care for her cat before the explosion while displaying astonishing indifference toward the hundreds of human beings living just beyond her property line.

      Listening to the survivors, I was struck not only by their grief but by their bewilderment. They had welcomed Moncy into their community, befriended her, trusted her, and watched her transform into someone willing to sacrifice their lives for money and fantasy. Many eventually left Richmond Hill, unable to bear living among the memories of that night. Moncy received a fifty-year prison sentence. Mark Leonard was sentenced to life and died in prison in 2018. Yet the moral force of the story reaches beyond criminal justice. “Midwest Meltdown” is ultimately about what happens when freedom is severed from responsibility. Moncy came to believe that happiness meant satisfying every appetite, flaunting every impulse, and treating other people as incidental to her own self-expression. The residents of Richmond Hill understood freedom differently—as something inseparable from loyalty, trust, and mutual obligation. That contrast explains why the explosion feels larger than an insurance scam. It is the physical manifestation of a moral philosophy in which the self becomes the highest authority and the community is reduced to collateral damage. The lesson is difficult but indispensable: our lives are not private playgrounds. They are bound to the lives of others, and the choices we make inevitably either strengthen the communities that sustain us or, as in Richmond Hill, leave them in ruins.

    1. My Friend Leo and the Mystery of the Good Life

      My Friend Leo and the Mystery of the Good Life

      One of my deepest regrets is that I spent too much of my youth believing my life belonged entirely to me. My guiding assumption was simple: no one would tell me how to live. My purpose was to maximize my own pleasure, satisfy my own desires, and remain largely indifferent to everyone else’s concerns. It was the moral logic of consumer culture: pursue your happiness, avoid breaking the law, pay your bills, and you’ve fulfilled your obligations.

      I eventually discovered that this philosophy is far less harmless than it appears.

      A life organized around self-indulgence inevitably spills over onto other people. It makes us impatient with inconvenience, dismissive of others’ needs, and blind to the quiet opportunities for generosity that present themselves every day. We become the center of our own private universe, with everyone else relegated to supporting characters. The damage is often subtle rather than spectacular, but it is damage nonetheless. A narcissistic life does not merely impoverish the self; it leaves everyone around it slightly diminished as well.

      Selfishness is easy because it is our default setting. Left to our own devices, we naturally drift toward comfort, appetite, vanity, and self-justification. That is one reason I find myself drawn to the moral traditions of Judaism and Christianity. Both insist upon a profoundly counterintuitive claim: your life is not your possession. It is a gift entrusted to you for the benefit of others. Meaning is discovered not by gratifying every impulse but by cultivating goodness, practicing service, and accepting the humbling truth that fulfillment arrives only after the ego relinquishes its throne. Paradoxically, by surrendering yourself, you find yourself. By enthroning yourself, you begin the slow process I have elsewhere called Gollumification—the gradual shrinking of the soul under the weight of its own appetites.

      Yet I cannot persuade myself that religion is the only path to such a life.

      Over the years I have known people whose moral seriousness seems almost entirely independent of religious belief. One of my students, originally from Hungary, was raised by atheist parents. Nevertheless, they instilled in their daughter a remarkable sense of integrity, discipline, humility, and social responsibility. She carries herself with a maturity that cannot be reduced either to religious doctrine or to secular ideology. Her character suggests that moral formation can emerge from devoted parents who treat virtue not as theology but as a way of life.

      Then there is my friend Leo, whom I have known for twenty-five years. To my knowledge, he is not religious, yet he embodies many of the virtues that religious traditions hold up as ideals. He loves his wife deeply. He delights in his three children. He never misses one of their games or school events, not out of obligation but because he genuinely wants to be there. He works tirelessly, not to accumulate status or luxury, but to give his family security and opportunity. He does not complain. He does not seem enslaved by addiction or restless consumption. He possesses an enthusiasm for ordinary life that feels almost inexhaustible.

      What impresses me most is that Leo never performs his goodness. He does not advertise his virtues, lecture others about morality, or congratulate himself for living well. His life is his argument. Watching him, I often have the impression that decency is simply woven into the fabric of his character. He seems to have found the narrow road almost instinctively, without theology serving as his guide. That reality leaves me genuinely puzzled. If the narrow road can be discovered apart from religion, then the relationship between faith and virtue is more mysterious than I once believed. Leo remains one of the strongest arguments against any simplistic claim that morality depends entirely upon religious belief.

      I am not built the way Leo appears to be. My own temperament is far more susceptible to vanity, distraction, and what I call Gollumification. Left unexamined, I drift toward self-absorption with alarming ease. That is why spiritual questions continue to exert such power over me. They are not abstract philosophical puzzles but practical necessities. I need habits, disciplines, and ideas that continually pull me away from myself. Perhaps if my instincts naturally inclined toward generosity, as Leo’s seem to, religion would occupy far less space in my imagination. But because I know the creature I am capable of becoming, I cannot stop asking whether there exists a truer way to live than the one my default setting so eagerly proposes.

    2. A Hundred Calories, Elaine Pagels, and Dvořák

      A Hundred Calories, Elaine Pagels, and Dvořák

      Yesterday I came within one hundred calories of eating only three meals.

      Around 7:30 in the evening, I made my daughter a bowl of oatmeal with protein powder, sliced peaches, banana, and vanilla unsweetened soy milk. She lost interest before she finished. Three lonely tablespoons remained in the bowl.

      As I carried it to the sink, a familiar voice appeared.

      “Don’t let perfectly good food go to waste.”

      Naturally, I obeyed.

      I polished off the leftovers before rinsing the bowl, thereby adding roughly one hundred unnecessary calories to my day under the noble banner of environmental stewardship.

      It’s remarkable how virtue always volunteers to represent appetite in court.

      Oddly enough, I didn’t feel especially guilty. One hundred calories is hardly the nutritional equivalent of robbing a bank.

      Later that evening, while my wife visited with friends, I watched Perfect Days. It is one of those rare films that quietly restores your faith in ordinary goodness. Its protagonist cleans public toilets with such humility and grace that he makes most ambitious people seem spiritually impoverished.

      The film’s generous silences reminded me of La Strada. Both movies revolve around souls so guileless they expose the vulgarity of everyone around them. As I watched Perfect Days, I kept thinking, This has the same moral weather as La Strada.

      Yesterday also taught me three lessons.

      The first concerns hunger.

      Going five or six hours between lunch and dinner is uncomfortable.

      That’s all.

      It isn’t torture.

      It isn’t a crisis.

      It isn’t an emergency requiring immediate intervention by almonds, protein bars, or peanut butter.

      It’s simply a mild inconvenience.

      Seeing it stripped of melodrama made me realize something about myself. If I insist on pampering every small discomfort, I’ll never accomplish anything worthwhile. I have no trouble punishing myself on the Airdyne or during a hard kettlebell workout. Physical exertion doesn’t intimidate me.

      Resisting the urge to snack?

      That turns out to be the harder discipline.

      And that’s precisely why I need to practice it.

      The goal is straightforward: 230 pounds down to 210.

      No heroics.

      Just consistency.

      The second lesson concerned reading.

      Or rather, the uncomfortable realization that I haven’t really been reading.

      Twice I “read” Elaine Pagels’ Why Religion? on my Kindle.

      Now I’m listening to the audiobook.

      The difference is almost embarrassing.

      The audiobook has revealed a memoir that is moving, intellectually rich, and deeply humane. I feel as though I’m absorbing ten times more than I ever did with the Kindle. My earlier readings now strike me less as acts of reading than as acts of turning pages while my mind wandered off to inspect some unrelated shiny object.

      Apparently my eyes were reading.

      My brain had clocked out.

      The only way I genuinely read on a Kindle is as a form of critical study. I sit at my desktop with the Kindle open on one monitor and Google Docs on the other. I take notes, write commentary, formulate questions, and argue with the author. That’s reading.

      Collapsing into bed with a Kindle at night turns out to be something else entirely.

      I’m beginning to suspect that bedtime belongs to printed books or audiobooks, while the Kindle belongs at my desk, where it can be interrogated rather than merely glanced at.

      Ironically, as I write this, another possibility occurs to me. Perhaps a split-screen setup on my laptop—with the Kindle on one side and Google Docs on the other—would recreate that same active engagement away from my desktop.

      That idea sounds far better now than it did five minutes ago.

      The third lesson came courtesy of Dvořák.

      Ever since buying a Marshall Stanmore III for the bedroom, I’ve fallen even more deeply in love with classical music. Last night I typed Dvořák’s name into the SiriusXM search bar, and the app rewarded me with an endless procession of Eastern European composers.

      The sound pouring out of that speaker is breathtaking.

      Rich.

      Warm.

      Expansive.

      The music doesn’t merely occupy the room.

      It ennobles it.

      In fact, it may be sabotaging my Kindle reading. Faced with music that beautiful, why would I pay attention to the printed page? The orchestra wins every time.

      Then bedtime arrives.

      I reach for the power button.

      And a strange thought enters my mind.

      Turning off music this beautiful feels almost morally questionable.

      Surely another symphony wouldn’t hurt.

      Perhaps just one more movement.

      This is, I admit, the most luxurious problem I’ve ever had.

      I won’t lose sleep over it.

      If my greatest dilemma is choosing between Dvořák and Elaine Pagels before bed, I have wandered into the safest corner of the First World.