Cinemorphosis

Tag: retirement

  • Meet the Stranger Who Is About to Become You

    Meet the Stranger Who Is About to Become You

    You do not know who you will become when you retire.

    This is an irritating fact because retirement planning encourages the opposite assumption. You sit at your desk while still employed and confidently construct the future version of yourself. He will exercise four times a week. He will read difficult books. He will write every morning. He will travel. He will maintain friendships. He will practice Expansive Leisure and avoid the Retirement Larval State. He will be disciplined, curious, physically vigorous, socially engaged, and spiritually alert.

    This man sounds magnificent.

    Unfortunately, he does not exist.

    The person making these plans is still embedded in the structures that have defined him for forty years. He has a job, a title, colleagues, students, deadlines, routines, and an institution that tells him where to be and when to be there. He knows himself under these conditions and therefore assumes he will remain essentially the same person after the conditions disappear.

    Why would he?

    This is the Stranger-Self Principle: the person planning your retirement has never experienced retirement and therefore cannot reliably predict the behavior of the person who will actually live it.

    Working You and Retired You have never met.

    Working You wakes at five and imagines that Retired You will continue waking at five because this is simply the kind of disciplined fellow you are. Perhaps. Or perhaps Retired You will wake at seven-thirty, shuffle into the kitchen wearing Hawaiian tank tops and flip-flops, eat breakfast, inspect the internet, and conclude that the morning’s intellectual work should begin immediately after a brief restorative lie-down.

    Working You has no idea.

    Retirement removes too many variables for confident prediction. Your work-based social life disappears. Your professional identity weakens. The automatic encounters vanish. Nobody waits outside your office. Nobody expects you in a classroom. Nobody sends an email asking whether you can attend a meeting Thursday at two, thereby providing the unexpected pleasure of declining it.

    You have crossed the Rubicon. The old shore is behind you, and the maps become increasingly speculative.

    You can study other retirees, of course. You can read Steve Lopez’s personal retirement journey. You can consult psychologists, financial advisers, longevity experts, philosophers, theologians, and seventy-eight-year-old men with magnificent calves who walk six miles every morning. Everyone has a roadmap. Maintain purpose. Cultivate friendships. Exercise. Volunteer. Travel. Learn Italian. Join a pickleball league. Buy resistance bands.

    Excellent advice.

    Retired You may tell all of them to go to hell.

    Welcome to the Stranger-Self Principle. Retirement isn’t merely a new circumstance imposed upon an established personality. The circumstance may alter the personality itself. The man who spent forty years craving free time may discover that unlimited free time terrifies him. The introvert who dreamed of being left alone may discover that solitude loses some of its charm around the fourth consecutive Tuesday. The professor who swore he would never miss teaching may find himself constructing a syllabus for imaginary students at five in the morning.

    You don’t know.

    This uncertainty exposes an even more embarrassing human tendency: the Retrospective-Wisdom Principle. We improvise our way through life and afterward invent elegant explanations for what we have done.

    We prefer to imagine ourselves as architects following blueprints. In reality, much of the time we are raccoons trapped in a garage, knocking things over in the darkness until we accidentally find the pet door.

    Later, naturally, we write a book about our methodology.

    We take the accident, the compromise, the lucky encounter, the failure we survived, and the decision we made because every other option looked worse, and transform it into a Principle. Suddenly the crooked path becomes a journey. The improvisation becomes wisdom. The scar becomes evidence that we knew where we were going all along.

    I should be particularly suspicious of this tendency because I have spent considerable time naming retirement principles. I have principles for walking, principles for exercise, principles for leisure, principles for bureaucracy, principles for mortality, principles for maintaining vitality, and principles explaining why I need to get off my reinforced couch.

    At this rate, by the time I retire I will possess enough principles to govern Switzerland.

    What I will not possess is certainty.

    Perhaps that is the useful realization. Human beings know considerably less than they pretend to know, particularly about themselves. We construct identities, announce convictions, establish routines, and declare that we have finally figured things out. Then circumstances change and expose how much of our supposedly permanent character depended upon the scaffolding surrounding it.

    Retirement removes a considerable portion of that scaffolding.

    Then you meet the stranger underneath.

    Perhaps he will exercise, write, travel, cultivate friendships, and become Radiant Man. Perhaps he will spend three consecutive afternoons comparing laptops he doesn’t need while eating red grapes on a camping mattress installed permanently atop his couch.

    Probably both.

    So I am entering retirement without pretending that I possess the master plan. I have some useful principles. I have people I love. I have things I want to do. I can see occasional shards of light in the distance, and for now that is enough to establish a direction.

    The rest I will make up as I go along.

    Just like everybody else.

    Although I would prefer to make it up while driving a brand-new eggshell-white Honda Accord Hybrid.

    God knows I need excellent gas mileage for the two-mile expedition to Costco every other Wednesday.

  • Congratulations, Nobody Cares What You Used to Do

    Congratulations, Nobody Cares What You Used to Do

    Writing to Steve Lopez about the psychological hazards of retirement, fellow writer Jim Ricci identifies a loss that has nothing to do with money. Retirement doesn’t merely take away the paycheck, the office, and the deadlines. It takes away the intoxicating little introduction that once told strangers exactly how impressed they were supposed to be.

    Ricci had been a writer for a major newspaper. At a party, a restaurant, or some social gathering, he could meet a stranger and casually reveal what he did for a living. Immediately, the temperature changed. A newspaper writer! Interesting. What do you cover? Have I read your work? Tell me more. The profession arrived several seconds before the man himself, carrying a tray of prestige and handing out complimentary glasses.

    A successful career does this for you. “I’m a surgeon.” “I’m a professor.” “I’m an attorney.” “I’m a newspaper columnist.” The title performs advance work. Before you have demonstrated intelligence, wit, charm, judgment, or even basic conversational competence, your occupation has supplied evidence that you are somebody. You arrive pre-certified.

    This is one of the quieter narcotics of professional life: easy status.

    After forty years, you may barely notice you’re taking the drug. The dosage arrives automatically. Students call you Professor. Colleagues seek your opinion. Strangers hear what you do and make flattering assumptions. Your institution provides a recognizable brand, and you get to walk around inside its reflected glow while attributing most of the luminosity to yourself.

    Then you retire.

    “What do you do?”

    “I’m retired.”

    Ah.

    There is no follow-up question guaranteed.

    You have entered Credential Withdrawal Syndrome: the psychological discomfort that occurs when retirement removes the professional title that once supplied dependable doses of recognition, authority, curiosity, and status.

    The withdrawal can be brutal because the drug was so easy to obtain. You didn’t have to perform for it every morning. You merely had to remain employed. Your title traveled everywhere with you like a small publicist whispering into people’s ears: This man has accomplished things. Pay attention.

    Retirement fires the publicist.

    Now you’re on your own.

    You meet someone and no institution walks into the room ahead of you. No impressive title supplies instant cachet. You have to establish yourself through the raw materials of personality, intelligence, humor, curiosity, generosity, and whatever conversational powers remain after decades of professional life.

    This arrangement would be challenging enough at forty.

    At sixty-five, it feels like particularly cruel casting.

    You are being asked to perform without your professional costume at precisely the age when some of your equipment is beginning to show wear. Your memory may occasionally refuse to produce a noun. Your best anecdote may take three minutes longer than necessary because you have wandered into an explanatory cul-de-sac involving somebody named Bob. Meanwhile, the thirty-eight-year-old across the table has a fascinating career, excellent hair, and a future containing several decades more than yours.

    You may begin longing for the old introduction.

    This helps explain why some people remain at work long after the work itself has stopped nourishing them. They say they love the job. Perhaps they do. They say the institution needs them. Possibly. They say they still have something to contribute. Almost certainly.

    But Credential Withdrawal Syndrome suggests another possibility.

    They like being somebody.

    There is no shame in admitting this. Status feels good. Recognition feels good. Being sought after feels good. After spending decades acquiring professional authority, surrendering it can feel less like liberation than voluntary demotion.

    The danger comes when we confuse our dependence on status with devotion to work.

    A seventy-year-old professor may tell himself that students desperately need his wisdom when what he desperately needs is to remain Professor. The executive cannot leave because the company still needs his leadership. The physician cannot stop practicing because medicine is his calling. The writer cannot put down the column because writing is who he is.

    Perhaps.

    Or perhaps nobody wants to surrender the little electrical charge that comes when a stranger asks, “What do you do?” and the answer still has pizzazz.

    Retirement eventually requires detoxification.

    The goal is not to replace one prestige dispenser with another. You don’t retire from being Professor and immediately begin constructing a second résumé designed to prove that Retired Professor remains a Force to Be Reckoned With. That is merely Credential Withdrawal Syndrome wearing resort casual.

    You have to tolerate becoming less impressive.

    That may be one of retirement’s more difficult forms of maturity: doing things because they are worth doing even when nobody applauds. Read without becoming an expert. Write without needing publication. Exercise without posting the workout. Help somebody who cannot advance your reputation. Spend time with your family. Travel. Walk. Learn. Make things. Become interested rather than interesting.

    Eventually, perhaps, the professional costume can remain hanging in the closet without your needing to put it back on.

    For decades, the title introduced you.

    Now you have to introduce yourself.

  • Congratulations on Your Retirement. Biology Has Hired You.

    Congratulations on Your Retirement. Biology Has Hired You.

    Steve Lopez has a retirement problem most people would envy: he likes his job.

    As a successful Los Angeles Times columnist, Lopez has spent decades doing work that supplies many of the things retirees are advised to find after they stop working. He meets interesting people. He has adventures. He learns constantly. He moves through one of the world’s great cities looking for stories and then gets paid to write about them. Work gives him stimulation, purpose, human contact, and the narcotic pleasure of seeing his name in print. Why retire from the life you’re hoping retirement will give you?

    Lopez wonders whether retirement makes any sense for someone already living something close to “the perfect life.” Why press the off switch while the machinery is still humming beautifully?

    So he consults his older friend and fellow writer Jim Ricci, who offers some sobering advice. If your finances permit it, Ricci suggests, there is an argument for retiring sooner rather than later. The reason is not that golf courses are filling up or cruise ships are leaving without you. It is that the Golden Years eventually hand you another job.

    The job is managing your decline.

    I call this the Decline-Management Principle: as the body and mind age, maintaining them requires increasing amounts of time, attention, discipline, and administrative labor. You may retire from your employer, but biology has already hired you for another position. You are now Director of Maintenance for an aging facility.

    At thirty, the facility largely ran itself. You could abuse it, neglect routine maintenance, stay up too late, eat garbage, skip exercise, and reasonably expect operations to resume the following morning. The building was new. The plumbing worked. The electrical system could withstand irresponsible loads.

    By sixty-five, the maintenance department has become considerably busier.

    A shoulder stops rotating properly. A prostate begins expanding its territorial ambitions. A foot starts burning for reasons nobody can satisfactorily explain. You walk into the kitchen and briefly forget why you went there. Suddenly the organism that once operated quietly in the background is generating work orders.

    And those work orders require a staff.

    Unfortunately, the staff is you.

    You schedule appointments. You exercise. You stretch. You rehabilitate injuries. You monitor medications. You improve your diet. You investigate sleep. You attend physical therapy. You undergo tests. You remember follow-up appointments for the tests you barely remember undergoing. You spend increasingly large portions of your life maintaining the equipment required to continue having a life.

    This is where the Decline-Management Principle becomes particularly cruel. You may continue working because you are healthy enough to work. Indeed, the Puritan machinery inside your skull may insist that stopping would be decadent. You’re still competent. You’re still productive. People still need you. Why should an able-bodied adult spend Tuesday morning exercising when he could be answering email?

    Because Tuesday morning exercise may now be part of your job.

    The older you become, the more dangerous it may be to treat self-maintenance as something you squeeze into whatever scraps of time remain after your “real work” is finished. Your real work has changed.

    Ignore the shoulder because you’re busy, and the shoulder may deteriorate. Stop exercising because deadlines have accumulated, and strength disappears. Neglect sleep because work demands your attention, and the following day becomes harder. Put off medical appointments because the semester is hectic, and a manageable problem gets another six months to become an interesting problem.

    The irony is exquisite. You keep working because you are healthy, consume the time required to maintain that health, and eventually damage the very condition that allowed you to keep working.

    Then you retire because your health has declined.

    Congratulations. You saved retirement for precisely the moment when you are least equipped to enjoy it.

    This complicates the moral mythology surrounding work. We tend to admire the person who keeps going. He works until seventy, seventy-five, perhaps eighty. Look at him! Still at it! Still productive! Still contributing! Nobody looks at the same man spending ninety minutes every morning walking, lifting weights, preparing decent food, maintaining friendships, and attending medical appointments and says, “There goes a magnificent work ethic.”

    Perhaps we should.

    The Decline-Management Principle does not mean surrendering to deterioration or turning retirement into an eight-hour daily inspection of your blood pressure. Quite the opposite. The purpose of managing decline is to resist it—to preserve strength, mobility, cognition, independence, relationships, and whatever portion of vitality remains available to you.

    Nor does it mean everyone should retire at sixty-five. Lopez’s dilemma is real. Meaningful work can itself protect against decline by supplying purpose, stimulation, structure, and social contact. Walking away from work you love simply because the calendar says you are old enough to retire would be its own kind of stupidity.

    But eventually the allocation of time changes. The question is no longer merely, “Can I still do my job?”

    Of course you can.

    The more useful question is: “What job needs me most now?”

    For forty years, the answer may have been your career.

    Then biology slides a new folder across the desk.

    Inside are your joints, muscles, brain, sleep, friendships, mobility, and remaining healthy years.

    Welcome to your new position.

    There is no pension.

  • Your Pension Is Safe, Provided You Know the Secret Handshake 

    Your Pension Is Safe, Provided You Know the Secret Handshake 

    Do not assume that when you apply for retirement there are bureaucratic safeguards protecting your money. There are no guardrails, no kindly pension shepherd watching over your flock, no government employee in Sacramento studying your file at midnight and whispering, “We’d better make sure this fellow gets every dollar he earned.” You have entered the Wild West. Think of yourself as a rancher guarding a herd from rustlers, wolves, coyotes, and anyone else who has noticed that cattle are valuable and ranchers occasionally fall asleep.

    Consider what happens when you spend seven years working at a university covered by CalPERS and then move to a college covered by CalSTRS. A reasonable person might assume that your retirement benefits would somehow follow you. After all, you are still you. You have merely changed employers. Both pension systems operate in California. Computers exist. Databases exist. The state knows your Social Security number, your salary, your address, your employment history, and probably what you had for breakfast. Surely CalPERS and CalSTRS can figure out that the person who worked at the university is the same person who now works at the college.

    That assumption reveals a touching faith in civilization.

    Your CalPERS pension remains in CalPERS. Your CalSTRS pension accumulates separately in CalSTRS. The two systems do not simply merge because doing so would be convenient for you. Convenience, after all, is the natural enemy of bureaucracy. Efficiency eliminates procedures. Eliminated procedures eliminate departments. Eliminated departments eliminate jobs. Bureaucracies therefore possess an evolutionary interest in complexity.

    Call this the Bureaucratic Self-Preservation Principle: the tendency of administrative systems to resist simplification because every eliminated procedure, redundant department, and overlapping jurisdiction diminishes the bureaucracy’s reason for existing. Efficiency solves problems. Bureaucracy survives by administering them.

    Unfortunately, the Bureaucratic Self-Preservation Principle is not aligned with your quest for a smooth retirement. It is a noose around your neck.

    You discover this when you finally decide to retire and learn that your two pension systems must be coordinated according to something called reciprocity and concurrent retirement. At first, the rules can leave you with the impression that you must notify CalPERS and CalSTRS at precisely the same atomic second or a trapdoor will open beneath your pension, the government will seize your house, and you will spend your golden years living beneath an overpass eating beans from a can.

    This is not technically true.

    It merely feels true.

    What you have actually encountered is the exquisite bureaucratic pas de deux known as the Laws of Reciprocity and Concurrence. Because you have benefits in both CalPERS and CalSTRS, you cannot simply retire, an act you may have naively imagined consisted of ceasing to work. You must coordinate your departure with two enormous pension systems that have developed different terminology for related arrangements. CalPERS speaks of reciprocity. CalSTRS speaks of concurrent retirement. Each maintains its own applications, regulations, representatives, websites, definitions, deadlines, and little administrative tripwires hidden beneath the leaves.

    Yet somehow you must make these two bureaucratic kingdoms acknowledge that the same human being is retiring from both.

    The safest approach is generally to coordinate the effective retirement dates, ordinarily using the same retirement date, although CalSTRS permits different dates under certain circumstances if you perform no creditable service between them. Apparently even the date on which you stop working requires interpretive scholarship.

    The penalty for getting this wrong is not necessarily that a tactical unit of pension officers arrives before dawn, kicks down your front door, and confiscates your retirement, although by this stage of the process you may find such a scenario psychologically plausible. The actual danger is less cinematic and therefore more frightening: you may lose financial advantages available through proper coordination, including potentially favorable treatment of your final compensation. After decades of accumulating pension benefits, you arrive at a point where an incorrectly chosen date or misunderstood rule can affect money you expected to receive for the rest of your life.

    Call this the Reciprocity Paradox: two retirement systems agree to recognize each other, provided you possess sufficient administrative competence to make them recognize each other.

    And here is the part nobody explains when you begin dreaming about retirement. No sheriff rides onto your ranch to announce the Reciprocity Paradox. No pension guardian appears at your door with a checklist and says, “I noticed you worked under two retirement systems. Before you file anything, we need to talk.” You have to discover the danger yourself, preferably before you make the mistake the rules were apparently designed to punish.

    This is one of the central lessons of retirement: the closer you get to never working again, the more terrified you become of making a clerical error.

    So put on your hat and climb onto your horse. You are the cowboy on the pension frontier. Take out your binoculars and scan the horizon. Look for predators. Look for contradictions. Look for deadlines. Look for the form that generates another form. Look for the rule buried on page forty-seven of a PDF that contradicts what you thought you read on the website. Count your cattle. Mend your fences. Check them again.

    You’re on your own, my friend.

    Welcome to retirement.

  • The El Capitan Principle of Retirement

    The El Capitan Principle of Retirement

    Think of retirement as a solo climb up El Capitan. At first, the whole enterprise feels exhilarating. You have studied the route, checked your finances, calculated your pension, announced your plans, and begun climbing toward that glorious summit called Freedom. The office is shrinking beneath you. Meetings are disappearing into the mist. Somewhere far below, people are discussing Student Learning Outcomes without you.

    Then, halfway up the granite wall, a gust of doubt hits you.

    What the hell are you doing here?

    You cling to the rock and suddenly reconsider the entire project. Retirement was a terrible idea. You were meant to work forever. Work gives you structure, identity, colleagues, purpose, deadlines, and a reason to put on pants before noon. Perhaps employment is the machinery keeping you alive. Remove it and the gears stop turning. Six months after retirement, they will find you sitting in a recliner at eleven in the morning watching a documentary about airport baggage systems while eating low-fat cottage cheese directly from the container.

    Turn around.

    Save yourself.

    Go back to work.

    Then you make the mistake of looking down.

    The people below are specks. You have already told everyone you’re retiring. You have calculated your revenue streams. You have contacted CalSTRS and CalPERS. You have enrolled in Medicare Part A. You have begun arranging your health insurance. You have started describing ordinary events as “my last fall semester,” “my last opening-day meeting,” and “my last year of grading freshman essays.” You have spent so much time filling out retirement paperwork that returning to work would require filling out paperwork to recover from the paperwork you completed in order to stop working.

    You realize that descending may now be more dangerous than continuing upward.

    Call this the El Capitan Principle: the point in retirement when continuing toward the summit terrifies you, but you have climbed too far to descend safely.

    This is not courage. Courage would imply that you have conquered your fear. You haven’t conquered anything. You are hanging from a granite wall wondering whether your career was actually a life-support system and whether removing it will cause your internal organs to shut down in alphabetical order.

    But the choice has changed.

    Earlier, you were deciding whether to retire. Now you are retiring.

    So you tighten your grip, stop looking down, and continue climbing.

    The summit awaits.

  • Crossing the Retirement Rubicon Means You Cannot Go Back

    Crossing the Retirement Rubicon Means You Cannot Go Back

    Once I had done my due diligence and concluded that I was emotionally and financially ready to retire, I began telling people: my wife, my children, friends, family, colleagues. This seemed like a straightforward administrative matter. I had made a decision. Now I was informing the relevant parties.

    I was wrong.

    I had stumbled upon what I call the Performative Retirement Principle: announcing your retirement does not merely describe a future event. It begins the event. The word itself changes your status. Before you say it, you are a person thinking about retirement. You can entertain the idea, examine pension statements, run calculations, meet with financial advisers, and imagine leisurely Tuesday mornings without fundamentally altering your identity. Retirement remains hypothetical, one possibility among many.

    Then you say it.

    Retirement.

    The effect is surprisingly close to Billy Batson screaming “SHAZAM!” One moment he is an ordinary boy; the next, lightning strikes and he occupies a different body. Retirement lacks the cape and thunderbolt, unfortunately, but the metaphysical principle is much the same. You utter the word and undergo a transformation.

    You are no longer merely a professor. You are a professor who is retiring.

    This distinction sounds trivial until you experience it. Once the announcement has been made, retirement begins colonizing your consciousness. Meetings acquire a strange archaeological quality. You sit through discussions of assessment procedures and curriculum revisions with the detached fascination of someone touring the ruins of Pompeii. Colleagues complain about problems that once irritated you, and you realize with a small electrical thrill that many of these problems will soon belong entirely to them.

    Someone starts explaining a new administrative initiative scheduled to roll out three years from now, and you experience the exquisite pleasure of realizing that this particular catastrophe will occur without you.

    The Performative Retirement Principle changes your relationship not only to work but to time. The future, once an enormous warehouse into which you casually tossed plans, begins to acquire walls. You have entered the strange territory of countdowns: last fall semester, last spring semester, last opening-day meeting, last committee assignment, last student who submits a 1,700-word essay consisting largely of AI-generated fog and then looks wounded when you suggest that perhaps he should participate in the writing of it.

    But the transformation is not entirely pleasurable.

    I first uttered the word retirement on August 26, 2026, and almost immediately felt older.

    Nothing had physically changed. My cells had not received an email from Human Resources. My knees did not buckle. My hair did not turn white during lunch. Yet something had shifted. By announcing retirement, I had publicly acknowledged a fact that had previously remained pleasantly abstract: my career had an ending.

    More disturbing, so did everything else.

    That is the hidden power of the word. Retirement appears to be about employment, but underneath it lurks mortality. When you are thirty-five, changing jobs suggests expansion. When you are sixty-five, leaving your career carries a different resonance. Nobody has to say anything. The arithmetic is sitting quietly in the room.

    My world suddenly felt smaller.

    The sensation reminded me of a scene from Battlestar Galactica in which a traitor is sealed behind glass before being expelled through an airlock. She pleads. The others watch. The machinery proceeds with terrible calm. Nobody is screaming. Nobody needs to. The transparent barrier has already divided the universe into two populations: those remaining aboard the ship and the person who is leaving it.

    A ritual exile.

    Aging can feel like that.

    The younger people remain inside the warm spacecraft of seemingly endless tomorrows. They discuss five-year plans, career pivots, promotions, new houses, new babies, new projects. Their futures stretch before them like an interstate disappearing into desert sunlight. You remember inhabiting that world. Indeed, some stubborn portion of your consciousness still believes you belong there.

    Then the glass descends.

    Not because anyone dislikes you. Not because society has declared you useless. The barrier is more unsettling precisely because nobody installed it. Time did.

    You tap the glass.

    Hello? I’m still here.

    And you are. You may be healthy, energetic, curious, productive, perhaps more intellectually alive than you were twenty years earlier. Yet you have glimpsed something the younger travelers cannot fully see because youth requires a certain optical illusion. They know intellectually that life is finite, just as they know Saturn has rings. The information is accurate but emotionally remote.

    Retirement brings the horizon closer.

    For a moment, you may want to take the word back. Perhaps you announced it too soon. Perhaps you should have kept retirement locked inside your head for another six months, privately admiring it like contraband. You might imagine stuffing the genie back into the bottle.

    Too late, my friend.

    You said it.

    The word has entered circulation. Your wife knows. Your children know. Your colleagues know. Your friends know. Somewhere, forms are being completed. Social Security has your name, telephone number, address, and enough numerical information to reconstruct you after a plane crash. The bureaucratic machinery has begun to turn.

    More important, you know.

    That is the irreversible part.

    The Performative Retirement Principle therefore contains both liberation and terror. Saying the word frees you from the illusion that your career must continue indefinitely, but it also strips away another illusion: that time itself is indefinitely renewable.

    You have crossed the Retirement Rubicon.

    There is dignity, however, in refusing to spend the rest of the journey clawing at the glass. The shrinking horizon can clarify as much as it frightens. When time appears limitless, it is easy to squander enormous quantities of it accumulating objects, nursing grievances, winning arguments nobody remembers, and worrying about matters that will eventually seem as consequential as the seating arrangement at a faculty meeting in 1997.

    A finite horizon imposes editorial discipline.

    What stays?

    Family. Friendship. Reading. Writing. Teaching what remains worth teaching. Making things. Helping younger people without pretending they particularly want your wisdom. Paying attention. Remaining curious. Being useful.

    Perhaps that is the final stage of the Performative Retirement Principle. At first, saying “I am retiring” feels like announcing your departure from the world. Gradually, however, you realize that you are departing only from one arrangement of the world.

    The cockpit of youth is sealed. No reentry.

    Fine.

    There are other rooms on the ship.

  • From Lecture Hall to Checkout Line: A Better Second Act

    From Lecture Hall to Checkout Line: A Better Second Act

    Over the past several years, I’ve watched a pattern unfold. A colleague retires, disappears for a while, and then—two years later—reappears in the writing center as a volunteer. On paper, it looks noble. In person, it looks something else.

    They don’t return with ease or quiet confidence. They return looking unsettled—eyes fixed forward, posture stiff, like deer caught in headlights that never turn off. I’ve seen them alone on the writing lounge couch, staring straight ahead, as if waiting for something that never quite arrives. The impression is hard to shake: retirement didn’t liberate them; it hollowed something out. And so they came back to the place where their sense of worth once had structure and witnesses.

    Students, however, are not sentimental. They don’t greet these returnees as beloved elders. They approach them the way one approaches a last option—politely, cautiously, and only when necessary. The exchange feels inverted. Instead of giving value, the retiree seems to be extracting it: a little affirmation, a little proof of continued relevance, a small ration of being needed.

    The idea of volunteering after retirement sounds admirable in theory. In practice, it reminds me of Lot’s wife—turning back, unable to release the past, even when the mandate is to move forward.

    And I say all this with some unease, because I’m about fifteen months away from retirement myself. My job has kept my mind engaged for decades—lectures, lesson plans, essays, the constant friction of thinking. I can’t pretend I’m immune to the same forces that seem to have pulled my colleagues back: the slow creep of isolation, the loss of structure, the quiet erosion of purpose. Sloth and complacency don’t arrive dramatically; they seep in.

    Still, I’m fairly certain of one thing: I won’t be returning as a volunteer tutor. I see too much of Lot’s wife in that gesture and not enough of a forward-facing project that justifies it.

    There’s also the matter of audience. Students gravitate toward youth. My own teen daughters regard “Boomers” like me with a mix of mild embarrassment and occasional alarm, as if we are well-meaning but out of date. I’m not eager to test that perception in a room where attention is already scarce.

    If pride is a vice, it’s at least an honest one here. My read on younger students, combined with my own instincts, tells me that the writing center would not be my best second act.

    There may be other roles. I’ve entertained, half-seriously, the idea of working part-time at my local Trader Joe’s. I know the staff. I could use the income for health insurance. And I have a skill set that would actually translate: I can talk to people, keep a line moving, and bag groceries without turning it into a philosophical crisis. There’s dignity in that—perhaps more than in hovering around a former life, waiting to be needed.

    One thing I do know: wherever I land, I don’t intend to sit there staring into the middle distance, hoping someone will give me back a version of myself I’ve already lived.

  • Exit Stage Left: A Teacher’s Final Act

    Exit Stage Left: A Teacher’s Final Act

    I’m fewer than four semesters away from retirement—June 2027, the final curtain—and I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t scared. For nearly forty years I’ve worn the armor of a college classroom persona: bigger, bolder, more disciplined than the fragile, fumbling man who hides inside. Teaching gave me a stage and a referee’s whistle. Without it, who am I? Just the broken man-child without a supervisor, left to his own devices.

    During the pandemic, when colleagues were clawing to get out, I puffed out my chest and declared I was born ready for retirement. I pictured myself a disciplined Renaissance man: mornings at the piano, afternoons writing, evenings lifting kettlebells in the garage, book in hand before bed. A gilded schedule, as though I were independently wealthy. Now those boasts feel like hot air. Structure is one thing. The man animating that structure is another. In the classroom, the stakes were high: thirty pairs of eyes asking, Are you boring? Do you know what you’re talking about? The pressure kept me sharp, funny, and, occasionally, wise. No one lets you coast when you’re trapped under fluorescent lights for two hours with judgmental twenty-year-olds.

    Bitter irony: I’m leaving just as I finally got it right. It took me decades to balance theater with approachability, to drop the drill-sergeant persona that once scared students into silence, to actually build a classroom where people learned and laughed. Now I can scaffold essays like an architect and coax timid students into crafting arguments brick by brick. And just as the machinery is humming, I’m stepping offstage. Melancholy doesn’t begin to cover it.

    And then retirement makes you pay with loads of endless paperwork. Work forms that warn you that you cannot rescind your decision. Medicare forms with their cryptic alphabet soup (A, B, C, D), switching to my wife’s insurance, navigating private plans that read like IKEA instructions translated from Martian. I’ve joked I’d rather do faculty assessment reports than wrestle with retirement forms, and I meant it.

    Meanwhile, time itself heckles me. I’ll be sixty-four in six weeks. At my cousin’s seventy-fifth birthday, the guests—all seventysomethings—mingled like ghosts of futures to come. One cousin, seventy-eight, told me that old age makes you invisible. You still occupy space, but people’s eyes skip over you, as if you’re furniture. Old age is rude like that: the world resents you for hogging resources after your best years are spent. You should apologize for existing. Step aside, old man.

    So here I am, staring down a three-headed monster: paperwork, invisibility, and the slow evaporation of the job that kept me sane. What’s the plan? At six years old, I invented a companion—James, my imaginary friend. I’d knock on the apartment wall and tell my parents James wanted to play. They laughed, which only confirmed that James and I were onto something.

    Now, on the cusp of retirement, I feel his absence. Because when I think of retirement, I think of loneliness, and when I think of loneliness, I think of Gollum—squatting in the cave, muttering “precious” as he caresses the ring. Only for me, the ring isn’t a piece of jewelry. It’s youth. Precious, lost youth. I stroke it with nostalgia and curse it with bitterness. How dare people treat me like I’m invisible, when old age has taught me more than their Google searches ever will? And yet—I know this bitterness is the opposite of wisdom.

    So maybe I do need James back. But not the sweet, knock-on-the-wall James of childhood. I need James 2.0: a drill-sergeant life coach who will slap me across the face and bark: Stop whining. You’ve got love. You’ve got lights on in the house. You’re walking into retirement with more than most people ever dream of. Be grateful. And don’t you dare let this next chapter kick your ass.