Tag: writing

  • Good Enough or As Good as It Can Be?

    Good Enough or As Good as It Can Be?

    Left to my own devices, I would eat like a monk with low standards and no culinary imagination. If I were a bachelor living alone, my menu would consist of oatmeal, yogurt, bananas, protein shakes, and peanut butter, repeated with liturgical regularity until death or scurvy intervened. Meal preparation, in my ideal world, should require almost no preparation and even less cleanup. If I can eat standing over the kitchen sink and spare myself the burden of washing a plate, I consider that a small triumph of civilization.

    Marriage and children have prevented me from fully indulging this philosophy.

    Fortunately for my nutritional health—and unfortunately for my laziness—other people insist on actual meals.

    My instinct toward optimization, however, resurfaces elsewhere. When planning family outings, my ideal destination is always the closest one. The fewer miles on the odometer, the happier I become. Beach picnic? Wonderful—as long as the beach is practically in the backyard. Restaurant? Excellent—as long as I don’t have to cross two freeways to reach it.

    Vacation travel follows the same principle.

    Five hours on an airplane is my absolute ceiling. Beyond that, my claustrophobia stages a hostile takeover of my personality. I stop resembling a husband on holiday and begin resembling Cinderella’s forgotten stepbrother, slowly decomposing into a resentful pumpkin somewhere over the Pacific.

    Clearly, I possess a strong instinct toward efficiency.

    Yet I have gradually realized that some parts of life cannot survive this instinct.

    An essay should never be merely good enough. It should be rewritten until every sentence earns its place and every paragraph justifies its existence. Likewise, a composer may spend years reshaping a single piece until it finally matches the elusive musical vision that first appeared in the imagination. The original spark deserves nothing less.

    That realization has led me to think that human beings generally organize their lives around one of two competing philosophies.

    The first is Optimization Ethics.

    Optimization Ethics seeks to maximize efficiency, profit, and measurable return while eliminating effort that produces diminishing rewards. It asks a relentlessly practical question:

    How good does this need to be?

    The second is Maximalist Ethics.

    Maximalist Ethics begins from a completely different premise. It holds that excellence possesses intrinsic worth. The highest obligation is not to satisfy expectations but to produce the fullest, richest, and finest work one is capable of, even when no customer notices, no employer rewards it, and no spreadsheet can justify the additional effort.

    Its governing question is equally simple:

    How good can this become?

    I encountered perhaps the clearest illustration of these competing philosophies while watching Mike Holst’s YouTube channel, This Watch, That Watch. Discussing whether Grand Seiko deserves its reputation, Holst makes an observation that reaches far beyond horology:

    “The key difference between Rolex and Grand Seiko is that Rolex generally makes a watch that is as good as it needs to be for the price. Grand Seiko chooses to make a watch that is as good as it can be for the price.”

    That may be one of the most insightful business observations I’ve heard in years.

    Rolex asks, What level of excellence justifies a $15,000 watch?

    Grand Seiko asks, What is the finest watch we know how to build for $15,000?

    Those are not merely different manufacturing strategies.

    They are different moral imaginations.

    Rolex operates according to what I would call Adequacy Culture. Its goal is to satisfy expectations with extraordinary consistency while carefully managing costs, margins, and brand prestige. There is nothing inherently wrong with this approach. It has produced one of the most successful luxury companies in history.

    Grand Seiko, by contrast, embodies Abundance Culture.

    Its instinct is to give more than circumstances require—to lavish finishing on surfaces few owners will ever examine, to polish components hidden from casual view, to pursue refinements that accountants would probably classify as unnecessary and customers may never consciously notice.

    One philosophy asks, Have we done enough?

    The other asks, Have we done our best?

    That distinction extends far beyond watches.

    A teacher can prepare the lecture that fulfills contractual obligations or the lecture students will remember twenty years later.

    A physician can treat symptoms or relentlessly pursue the best possible outcome.

    A novelist can submit a manuscript that is publishable or continue revising until every page feels inevitable.

    A marriage can consist of meeting expectations or continually exceeding them.

    If you are about to spend ten or twenty thousand dollars on a watch, you must decide which philosophy you wish to reward. Would you rather buy from a company whose guiding question is, What do we have to do? Or from one whose guiding question is, What is the finest thing we know how to make?

    Rolex has built one of the greatest brands in the world.

    Grand Seiko has built one of the greatest arguments for excellence.

    Those are not the same achievement. In the long run, they may not even belong to the same philosophy of life.

  • 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.

  • I Am a Citizen of Paradise

    I Am a Citizen of Paradise

    Last night after dinner, we were sitting at the kitchen table debating whether to try a new Thai ice cream shop at the mall when my wife informed me that I would first have to change my clothes.

    The tank top had to go.

    She explained that my tropical tank tops were perfectly acceptable within the privacy of our home, but exposing innocent members of the public to them was an entirely different matter.

    Then came the indictment.

    “You have a uniform,” she said.

    She was right.

    Twelve months a year I rotate through the same ensemble: a brightly colored tank top emblazoned with Miami or Maui, gym shorts, and flip-flops. It doesn’t matter whether the calendar says July or January. My wardrobe insists that I am perpetually fifty yards from a beach.

    I cannot dispute the charge.

    Somewhere along the way, this ceased being casual clothing and became an identity.

    I suspect my wardrobe reveals more about my aspirations than my fashion sense. For years I have fantasized about retirement, tropical climates, and that peculiar feeling of transcendence that overtakes me whenever I stand in a warm tropical rain. There is something about those moments—the humid air, the gentle rain, the lush vegetation—that dissolves the ordinary boundaries of time. Eternity no longer feels like a distant theological concept but like a change in the weather.

    Perhaps that is why I continue to dress as I do. Deep down, I am still that eight-year-old boy on Venado Court, pedaling his bicycle through a warm summer drizzle, convinced that the flashing blue lights on the distant horizon could only mean one thing: Christmas had somehow arrived in July. I am still chasing that impossible moment when the world briefly shimmered with enchantment and the ordinary became a gateway to paradise.

    Looking at my wardrobe through that lens, I realize I have been practicing what I call Paradise Cosplay: the habit of dressing as though one already inhabits the life one longs for, using clothing less as protection from the elements than as a costume for an imagined future.

    My shirts are less garments than promissory notes.

    Unfortunately, imagination has a way of flattering itself.

    The man I picture is a serene retiree strolling barefoot beneath palm trees, liberated from deadlines, meetings, and alarm clocks.

    The man reflected in the mirror looks more like a retired police sergeant or former offensive lineman wandering the suburbs after escaping from a backyard barbecue. The tank top clings with unwarranted confidence. The flip-flops slap against the pavement with all the elegance of a harbor seal. The overall effect suggests not “citizen of paradise” but “guy who might spend thirty minutes explaining the proper way to grill bratwurst.”

    My wardrobe, in other words, is less a triumph of sartorial judgment than a wearable wish-fulfillment fantasy.

    Still, I find it oddly comforting.

    Perhaps we all dress, at least in part, for the lives we hope to inhabit rather than the ones we actually possess. Some people wear power suits because they dream of becoming CEOs. Others wear designer labels because they aspire to glamour. I wear Miami across my chest because I long to believe that somewhere, just beyond the next chapter of life, warm rain is falling, palm trees are swaying, and retirement is finally waiting for me.

    I find a peculiar irony in all of this. I long for sacred time, for heaven breaking into ordinary life, yet the more intense that longing becomes, the tackier my wardrobe grows. I have fallen victim to Aspiration Kitsch: the phenomenon in which our deepest hopes become embodied in sentimental, commercial, and aesthetically questionable objects that are laughably inadequate substitutes for the realities they promise.

    A wiser man might have settled on something understated and elegant. He might have adopted the quiet sophistication of yoga attire and looked like someone who occasionally reads Rilke before meditation.

    Instead, I dress like a retired Parrot Head who has spent twenty years marinating in the food court of Margaritaville. I resemble one of those sunburned Floridians lounging on a pool float outside an Orlando condo, nursing a neon-blue cocktail the color of windshield washer fluid while Jimmy Buffett assures him that wasting away is a perfectly respectable retirement strategy.

    The contrast is almost theological.

    I yearn to inhabit a world of dignified enchantment, where warm tropical rain feels like a sacrament and eternity brushes against the present moment.

    My wardrobe keeps insisting that my highest spiritual aspiration is happy hour.

  • Christmas Lights in July

    Christmas Lights in July

    Venado Court in San Jose was my childhood Garden of Eden. Even now I can summon its atmosphere with embarrassing ease. Roses and honeysuckle drifted through the air alongside the unmistakable perfume of fabric softener escaping from open laundry rooms. Every front yard looked as though it had been groomed for a magazine cover, with dazzling flowerbeds and lawns so immaculate they bordered on moral instruction. My friends and I wandered this paradise clutching Matchboxes, Hot Wheels, and G.I. Joes as if they were sacred relics. Somewhere nearby, a transistor radio played the Beatles’ “Penny Lane,” giving the neighborhood its own soundtrack.

    Then came the summer of 1969.

    My friend Billy and I circled the court on our brand-new bicycles. The weather was impossibly beautiful—warm enough for shorts yet accompanied by a gentle drizzle. Rain in July felt less like weather than divine improvisation. The tiny drops landed on our faces with such tenderness that they stirred emotions we were too young to name. We rode through them in a state bordering on ecstasy.

    But the drizzle was merely the opening act.

    Across a distant field, we saw a flashing blue light.

    There could be only one explanation.

    Christmas.

    Not ordinary Christmas.

    Christmas in July.

    One of us shouted, “Christmas lights!”

    The other echoed it immediately, as though confirming a revelation.

    We stared at that flickering blue light with complete conviction. Somewhere beyond the field, impossible things were happening. Surely Christmas pies were cooling on windowsills. Presents were being opened. Eggnog was flowing despite the summer heat. Somewhere, a family had escaped the tyranny of the calendar and was celebrating the most magical day of the year whenever it pleased.

    The details scarcely mattered. What mattered was that we believed.

    Again and again we shouted, “Christmas lights!” like two ecstatic prophets announcing a miracle no one else had yet noticed.

    Looking back, I think Billy and I had fallen under what I call the Christmas Light Effect: the tendency of children to transform an ambiguous sensory stimulus into an overwhelming experience of wonder, allowing imagination to construct a reality far richer than the physical evidence deserves.

    Children are gloriously terrible empiricists. They see one flashing light and invent an entire civilization around it.

    That memory returned to me while reading Emmanuel Carrère’s account of his conversion through the Gospel of John.

    While Emmanuel attended a church reading, Father Xavier came to the familiar story of Peter and the other disciples returning to their fishing boats after Jesus’ death. A stranger appeared on the shore and instructed them to cast their nets on the right side of the boat. The nets came back so heavy with fish that they immediately recognized the stranger.

    It was the Lord.

    Then Carrère encountered a passage that appeared shortly after, one that struck him with the force of personal revelation.

    Jesus tells Peter that when he grows old, he will no longer dress himself. Others will lead him where he would rather not go.

    For most readers, the verse slips quietly past.

    For Carrère, it exploded.

    He heard it saying something altogether different:

    “Let yourself go. It is no longer you who leads.”

    He experienced what I think of as Vocational Gravity: the force exerted by a calling, an idea, or a divine command that gradually pulls a person away from the life he naturally prefers toward one he never would have chosen for himself.

    The attraction is strangely paradoxical.

    Surrender promises relief because the burden of self-authorship is lifted. Yet it also demands obedience. The force now directing your life has no obligation to respect your preferences. It will lead you into unfamiliar country, asking you to exchange comfort for transformation.

    Remarkably, Carrère realized that this was precisely what he wanted. He wanted to stop navigating by the small compass of his own desires. He wanted to be led somewhere beyond himself, even if the journey required walking directly toward the places he instinctively avoided.

    I cannot help wondering whether the Christmas Light Effect and Vocational Gravity are distant cousins.

    Perhaps both begin with the same interruption.

    Something flashes unexpectedly on the horizon.

    To everyone else it is merely another blue light.

    To you it is Christmas.

    Or God.

    Or your vocation.

    Or the beginning of a completely different life.

    Perhaps religion begins there—not with certainty, but with enchantment. A person catches sight of something that others dismiss as ordinary and cannot look away. Imagination awakens first, faith follows behind, and before long the old map of life no longer seems adequate. Comfort loses its authority. A new destination appears over the horizon.

    Most people keep riding.

    A few turn their bicycles toward the mysterious blue light. And once they do, they discover that the real miracle was never waiting in the distant field.

    It was the willingness to believe there might be something there worth finding.

  • The Things We Cannot Live Without

    The Things We Cannot Live Without

    As an adolescent, Emmanuel Carrère was unhappy, but he remained buoyant because he believed in the two assets he trusted above all others: his intellect and his identity as a writer. Intelligence served as his life raft. Irony gave him distance from despair. Even misery becomes manageable when you can narrate it with style.

    That strategy collapsed when he turned thirty.

    The faculties that had once sustained him simply stopped working. He could no longer marshal his intelligence against himself. Reflecting on that period, he writes, “I could no longer write, I didn’t know how to love, I knew I wasn’t particularly likable. Just being me became literally unbearable.”

    He had reached what might be called a collapse of competence: the moment when the qualities that once anchored your identity—talent, discipline, intelligence, status, creativity, charm—suddenly fail to hold your weight. The scaffolding of the self buckles. You are forced to search for an entirely different foundation because the old one has become a condemned building.

    When Carrère confessed his misery to his godmother Jacqueline, he expected sympathy. Instead, she was delighted.

    As a devout Catholic, she believed despair was not a catastrophe but a prerequisite. Only when a person finally recognizes that his life has become an uninhabitable ruin is he prepared to hear the Gospel. Pride must first exhaust itself.

    She placed a New Testament in his hands and instructed him to read it without trying to be “too intelligent.”

    That advice carries a sly paradox. Intelligence, the very faculty Carrère had relied upon for survival, had become the obstacle. Jacqueline was asking him to stop treating the Bible as a puzzle to master and instead allow it to master him.

    During that same summer of 1990, Jacqueline introduced Emmanuel to her other godson, Hervé. The two men gradually became close friends.

    Hervé was, by temperament, a philosopher disguised as a journalist. Though professionally successful, he was perpetually haunted by questions that most people manage to outrun. Why are we here? What is life for? Is there some purpose behind our existence, or are we simply decorating a cosmic waiting room until the lights go out?

    Watching Hervé, Carrère concludes that humanity divides rather neatly into two camps.

    The first group rarely loses sleep over metaphysical questions. They pursue promotions, vacations, romance, gossip, consumer pleasures, status games, and the endless sport of comparing themselves to everyone else. Their calendars stay full enough to prevent existential reflection from getting a word in edgewise.

    The second group cannot escape those questions. They are pursued by them like debt collectors. They read philosophy and religion not because such books are fashionable but because they are desperate. They are trying to determine whether existence contains an author or merely an audience.

    Looking back years later, Carrère recognizes that Hervé’s spiritual curiosity had been quietly cultivated by Jacqueline, who gently nudged him toward Christianity. Their religious journeys eventually diverged, but their friendship endured.

    For decades they have gathered regularly in the Swiss village of Le Levron, spending time together in a chalet that Carrère calls his querencia.

    The Spanish word comes from bullfighting. A querencia is the part of the arena where the bull instinctively retreats because it feels secure there. It is the place from which the animal regains its strength before reentering the fight.

    For Carrère, the metaphor is perfect. He arrives troubled and leaves restored.

    Everyone should have a reliable querencia.

    Mine, during the 1970s, was Walt’s Gym, a converted chicken coop perfumed with ancient sweat, rust, and enough menthol muscle ointment to fumigate a county. Men joyfully abused their bodies in pursuit of impossible physiques while punctuating every set with gossip, insults, bad jokes, and elaborate storytelling. It was less a fitness center than a monastery dedicated to testosterone and nonsense. The barbells built muscle. The banter built men.

    Then the corporate gyms arrived.

    The chicken coop gave way to chrome, televisions, smoothie bars, biometric scanners, and motivational slogans printed by people who had clearly never deadlifted anything heavier than a marketing proposal. By 2005 I had had enough. I quit.

    For the past twenty years my querencia has been my garage.

    There I swing kettlebells, flood my brain with an hour’s worth of endorphins, keep company with favorite podcasters, and temporarily escape the increasingly exhausting experience of being myself. I enter carrying the accumulated static of the world. I leave feeling that someone has quietly reset my nervous system.

    I envy Carrère because his querencia involves another human being.

    Mine is solitary.

    There was a time when it wasn’t.

    During the late 1980s a group of us played basketball at a Berkeley community center before heading out for dinner. Those evenings stitched together a sense of belonging that no amount of solitary reflection could duplicate.

    Later, after moving from the Bay Area to the California desert for my first teaching job, loneliness became my regular companion. Once each week I would spend two-hour marathons on the telephone with old friends. By the end my ear literally hurt from holding the receiver.

    Those conversations nourished me in ways I didn’t fully appreciate at the time. Someone had willingly given me two hours of his life. That simple fact quietly testified that I mattered.

    Then phone conversations disappeared in the early 2000s.

    Texting replaced talking. Social media replaced lingering conversation. We became experts at remaining connected while carefully avoiding communion.

    So today my querencia is almost entirely solitary.

    Yet I continue to experience what I think of as the Querencia Effect: the restorative power of a place, ritual, or recurring practice that allows someone to arrive emotionally depleted and leave psychologically renewed. It is the sanctuary where a fractured self is quietly reassembled before returning to the arena.

    Still, I worry.

    As I approach sixty-five, my refuge depends almost entirely upon a body that grows older every year. One day it may no longer tolerate sixty-minute kettlebell sessions or long rides that leave me happily awash in endorphins.

    I think of a bodybuilder I once read in a muscle magazine. His ambition was beautifully uncomplicated. He wanted only one thing from God: the privilege of lifting weights for as long as he remained alive.

    Then I think of Ronnie Coleman.

    No professional bodybuilder punished himself more ferociously. His reward has been dozens of back surgeries and chronic pain that would persuade most people never to enter another gym.

    Yet there he is, sometimes maneuvering through the weight room in a wheelchair because, pain or no pain, he still needs to touch the iron.

    Some dependencies are pathological.

    Others are redemptive.

    The difficulty is that the line between them often becomes visible only after it has been crossed.

    Years ago I had a colleague who was, in his own eccentric way, a genius. He ignored lesson plans, dismissed required evaluations with cheerful contempt, wore the same uniform of white T-shirt and blue jeans, and simply walked into class and talked. Students adored him. Passing me on campus, he would grin and greet me with a sarcastic profanity, as though the world’s absurdity deserved nothing more sophisticated.

    I attended his retirement party in 2004.

    A few years later I learned he had taken his own life.

    Cannabis had become his querencia. When a medical diagnosis made it impossible for him to continue using it, the refuge disappeared. Without it, life became intolerable. His wife found him dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

    That story has haunted me for years because it exposes an uncomfortable truth.

    We eventually become dependent upon the very things that rescue us.

    If tomorrow my body informed me that I could never exercise again, I don’t believe I would follow my colleague’s path.

    The first reason is simple: I love my wife and daughters more than I love my own comfort. The collateral damage would be unforgivable.

    The second reason is considerably less noble.

    I am a coward.

    Cowardice, on occasion, has surprising moral utility. It keeps a person from making irreversible decisions during temporary despair.

    Besides, the last thing I want is to arrive before God having chosen the emergency exit, only to be asked why I abandoned the arena before the fight was over. There are many questions I would like to avoid on Judgment Day.

    That is certainly one of them.

  • The Man Who Wanted to Defeat His Therapist

    The Man Who Wanted to Defeat His Therapist

    In Lives Other Than My Own, Emmanuel Carrère recounts seeking treatment from the celebrated psychoanalyst François Roustang. Roustang refused to take him as a patient. His reason was devastating in its simplicity: Carrère, he believed, was not interested in getting better. He was interested in tripping up the therapist.

    Imagine arriving at the office of a renowned psychoanalyst desperate for relief from some nameless psychic misery, only to be told that your real ambition is to make your therapist look like a fool.

    It is a remarkable diagnosis.

    Carrère’s impulse, Roustang concluded, was not to surrender to therapy but to convert it into a duel. Every session would become an opportunity to expose the therapist’s blind spots, frustrate his methods, and demonstrate that no one—not even a celebrated analyst—could penetrate his defenses. The goal was not healing but victory.

    On the surface, this sounds clever.

    In reality, it is the psychology of a frightened child.

    The patient who must always outwit the therapist is not displaying superior intelligence. He is displaying superior evasiveness. His greatest fear is not failure but surrender. If he can reduce the therapist to exasperation, then he never has to confront the far more terrifying possibility that someone might actually understand him.

    For that reason, Roustang’s refusal seems puzzling.

    Surely this was exactly the patient he ought to have accepted.

    Instead, he sent him away.

    One imagines that Carrère experienced a brief flash of triumph. The contest had ended before it began, and somehow he had won. Another therapist defeated. Another authority figure frustrated. Another confirmation that no one could reach him.

    What exquisite misery.

    But Roustang had anticipated the move.

    His refusal was not surrender. It was strategy.

    He later told Carrère that if he was so determined to remain miserable, he had only two honest options: end his life or begin living.

    With that brutal simplicity, Roustang shattered the entire game.

    There was no argument to refute, no interpretation to ridicule, no therapeutic jargon to dismantle. There remained only a stark moral choice. Continue worshiping misery or abandon it.

    Suddenly Carrère’s obstinacy no longer looked rebellious.

    It looked juvenile.

    The performance he had mistaken for intellectual sophistication was revealed as the defensive posture of an anxious ego terrified of vulnerability. His endless resistance ceased to resemble strength. It resembled Gollum clutching the Ring while congratulating himself on his independence.

    Roustang’s words proved bracing rather than cruel. Carrère gradually emerged from his depression and eventually found the strength to write My Life as a Russian Novel, the book that, in his words, pulled him “from the abyss.”

    His story clarifies a distinction our culture often blurs: the difference between being childish and being childlike.

    The childish person is governed by wounded pride. He is obstinate, theatrical, self-absorbed, forever digging trenches around his private kingdom of resentment. He mistakes defiance for courage and isolation for authenticity. Like Gollum, he clings to the very thing that is poisoning him while insisting it is his greatest treasure.

    The childlike person possesses the opposite spirit. He is open rather than defensive, curious rather than suspicious, grateful rather than entitled. He greets the world with wonder instead of grievance. He resembles Adam before the first bite of the apple, when innocence had not yet curdled into self-justification.

    Perhaps that is the hidden kinship between therapy and religion.

    Neither exists merely to make us feel better.

    Both seek to expose the childish ego that mistakes stubbornness for strength and self-protection for freedom. Both ask us to relinquish the exhausting performance of being unconquerable. Both invite us to recover something we once possessed before fear, vanity, and self-deception took root.

    The task, in the end, is not to become more sophisticated.

    It is to become less like Gollum.

  • My First Apocalypse

    My First Apocalypse

    Struggling with a persistent and indefinable mental malaise, Emmanuel Carrère eventually found relief when his psychiatrist prescribed an antipsychotic medication advertised as a treatment for “erroneous beliefs.” The phrase amused him. It sounded less like a pharmaceutical claim than a diagnosis of the human condition. If his life had been governed by erroneous beliefs, perhaps the drug was aimed less at his brain than at his philosophy.

    As a hormone-soaked adolescent, I suffered from my own spectacular assortment of erroneous beliefs.

    One of the most consequential arrived courtesy of Paul Ehrlich’s bestselling The Population Bomb. The book convinced me that civilization stood on the brink of collapse. Humanity would soon drown beneath its own numbers. Famine, drought, and social chaos were not distant possibilities but tomorrow’s weather forecast.

    Under those circumstances, dating struck me as a curious misuse of time.

    Why cultivate romance when the planet was preparing for its own obituary?

    Why ask a girl to the movies when we would soon be rationing freeze-dried food aboard lunar colonies, assuming we survived long enough to board the shuttle?

    My imagination raced well beyond Ehrlich’s predictions. In my private apocalypse there would be no health clubs, no squat racks, no barbells, and, worst of all, no gravity worthy of serious resistance training. Without a gym and a steady supply of protein, my hard-earned physique would evaporate. I pictured myself shrinking into the shape of a tomato balanced precariously atop four toothpicks. The image horrified me with an intensity wildly disproportionate to the fate of civilization itself.

    Most teenagers worry about acne.

    I worried about post-apocalyptic muscle atrophy.

    Love became a luxury for people foolish enough to believe there would still be a future. Courtship seemed almost irresponsible. Civilization was ending, and I had more pressing concerns than holding hands at the mall.

    Looking back, I marvel not at how mistaken I was but at how eagerly the adolescent mind embraces catastrophe. Young people are naturally drawn to grand narratives. Some expect salvation. Others anticipate doom. Both stories offer the same seductive promise: that ordinary life is about to be interrupted by something world-altering.

    In my case, the world never ended.

    The apocalypse quietly expired.

    My erroneous beliefs, however, proved far more resilient than Paul Ehrlich’s predictions.

  • When Sore Calves Meant Salvation

    When Sore Calves Meant Salvation

    Emmanuel Carrère writes that in 1990 he was “touched by grace.” For the next three years he attended Mass every day, immersed himself in the Gospel of John, and filled some twenty notebooks with commentaries. Looking back, he remembers remarkably little of that period and has made no effort to recover it. His amnesia suggests that grace, at least in its fanatical form, can be exhausting enough to become something one prefers to leave buried.

    I underwent my own conversion in 1976.

    I was touched not by grace but by the bodybuilding bug.

    Like every true conversion, it demanded far more than outward behavior. It required a new vocabulary, new authorities, new rituals, and a new vision of salvation. My sacred texts were Iron Man, Strength & Health, Muscle Builder, and MuscleMag International. My saints were Ron Teufel, Frank Zane, Robbie Robinson, Mike Mentzer, and Tom Platz. Their routines were studied with the seriousness medieval monks reserved for Augustine.

    Every afternoon I retreated to my father’s office and sat before his IBM Selectric typewriter. Carrère filled notebooks with reflections on John’s Gospel. I filled page after page with workouts.

    The process bordered on liturgical.

    KSFX drifted through the room, playing the O’Jays, the Four Tops, Earth, Wind & Fire, and the Miracles while I stared at the page like a theologian confronting an elusive doctrine. I would type a routine, scrutinize it, decide that my split routine lacked perfection, tear it from the machine, crumple it into a ball, and begin again. Sets became sentences. Repetitions became revisions. Every workout was a rough draft of the body I believed I was destined to become.

    What I sought was not merely a better pump.

    I was searching for the Platonic Workout, the one perfect arrangement of exercises that would lift me beyond ordinary muscular development into something approaching spiritual transcendence.

    It was absurd.

    It was also glorious.

    The ritual calmed me, excited me, and filled me with hope all at once. Every newly typed workout promised that next week, finally, I would become the person I had imagined myself to be.

    The conversion had other liturgical requirements.

    On more than one occasion I composed these workouts wearing nothing but a Speedo because it somehow placed me in the proper state of mind. Serious theological work demanded proper vestments.

    One afternoon, after an hour of merciless calf raises, I sat typing when I noticed that my calves were exquisitely tender to the touch. The soreness delighted me.

    My mother walked into the office.

    “Dinner’s ready,” she said. Then she paused.

    “Why are you so happy?”

    I reached down and squeezed my calf.

    “My calves,” I said. “They’re sore.”

    She looked puzzled.

    “Why does that make you happy?”

    I smiled with the serene certainty of a man who had glimpsed the kingdom.

    “They’re growing, Mom.”

    A pause.

    “They’re growing.”

  • The X-Ray Bully Principle

    The X-Ray Bully Principle

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

    The interesting story begins decades later.

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

    Or perhaps that explanation is sentimental nonsense.

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

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

    That face was enough.

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

    That, however, is not the novel.

    Bullies are common.

    What fascinates me is what happens inside the victim.

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

    Then something disturbing happens.

    He grows older.

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

    Not right about the cruelty.

    Right about him.

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

    Weakness.

    Duplicity.

    Self-deception.

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

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

    This inversion changes everything.

    The bully is no longer remembered as a playground tyrant.

    He becomes a prophet.

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

    The victim quietly canonizes his persecutor.

    That is the real tragedy.

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

    The novel, then, is not about bullying.

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

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