Category: Anecdotes

Heroes and Nurses

Since I published my last post about being categorically excluded from the nursing program of the university I am applying to, I have had many people insist that I ought to hold my ground on this one, even going so far as filing a legal complaint if that’s what it takes. I should say upfront that I appreciate this support. I appreciate having family and friends that are willing to stand by me, and I appreciate having allies who are willing to defend the rights of those with medical issues. It is an immense comfort to have people like this in my corner.

That firmly stated, there are a few reasons why I’m not fighting this right now. The first is pragmatic: I haven’t gotten into this university yet. Obviously, I don’t want the first impression of a school I hope to be admitted into to be a lawsuit. Moreover, there is some question of standing. Sure, I could try to argue that the fact that I was deterred from applying by their online statements on account of my medical condition constitutes discrimination in and of itself, but without a lot more groundwork to establish my case, it’s not completely open and shut. This could still be worth it if I was terribly passionate about nursing as a life path, which brings me to my second primary reason.

I’m not sure whether nursing would be right for me. Now, to be clear, I stand by my earlier statement that nursing is a career I could definitely see myself in, and which I think represents a distinct opportunity for me. But the same thing is true of several other careers: I think I would also find fulfillment as a researcher, or a policy maker, or an advocate. Nursing is intriguing and promising, but not necessarily uniquely so.

But the more salient point, perhaps, is that the very activities which are dangerous to me specifically, the reasons why I am excluded from the training program, the things which I would have to be very careful to avoid in any career as a nurse for my own safety and that of others, are the very same things that I feel attracted to in nursing.

This requires some unpacking.

Through my childhood my mother has often told me stories of my great-grandfather. To hear all of the tales, nay, legends of this man portray him as a larger than life figure with values and deeds akin to a classical hero of a bygone era. As the story goes, my great grandfather, when he was young, was taken ill with rheumatic fever. Deathly ill, in fact, to a point where the doctors told his parents that he would not survive, and the best they could do was to make him comfortable in his final days.

So weak was he that each carriage and motorcar that passed on the normally busy street outside wracked him with pain. His parents, who were wealthy and influential enough to do so, had the local government close the street. He languished this was for more than a year. And then, against all odds and expectations, he got better. It wasn’t a full recovery, as he still bore the scars on his heart and lungs from the illness. But he survived.

He was able to return back to school, albeit at the same place where he had left off, which was by now a year behind. He not only closed this gap, but in the end, actually skipped a grade and graduated early (Sidenote: If ever I have held unrealistically high academic expectations for myself, or failed to cut myself enough slack with regards to my own handicaps, this is certainly part of the reason why). After graduating, he went on to study law.

When the Second World War reared its ugly head, my great grandfather wanted to volunteer. He wanted to, but couldn’t, because of his rheumatic fever. Still, he wanted to serve his country. So he reached out to his contacts, including a certain fellow lawyer name of Bill Donovan, who had just been tasked by President Roosevelt with forming the Office of Strategic Services, a wartime intelligence agency meant to bring all the various independent intelligence and codebreaking organizations of the armed services under one roof. General Donovan saw that my great-grandfather was given an exemption from the surgeon general in order to be appointed as an officer in the OSS.

I still don’t know exactly what my great grandfather did in the war. He was close enough to Donovan, who played a large enough role in the foundation of the modern CIA, that many of the files are still classified, or at least redacted. I know that he was awarded a variety of medals, including the Legion of Merit, the Order of the British Empire, and the Order of the White Elephant. Family lore contends that the British Secret Service gave him the code number 006 for his work during allied intelligence operations.

I know from public records, among many other fascinating tidbits, that he provided information that was used as evidence at the Nuremberg Trials. I have read declassified letters that show that he maintained a private correspondence with, among other figures, a certain Allan Dulles. And old digitized congressional records show that he was well-respected enough in his field that he was called for the defense counsel in hearings before the House Un-American Activities Committee, where his word as an intelligence officer was able to vindicate former colleagues who were being implicated by the testimony of a female CPUSA organizer and admitted NKVD asset.

The point is, my great grandfather was a hero. He moved among the giants of the era. He helped to bring down the Nazis (the bad guys), bring them to justice, and to defend the innocent. Although I have no conclusive evidence that he was ever, strictly speaking, in danger, since public records are few an far between, it stands to reason that receiving that many medals requires some kind of risk. He did all this despite having no business in the military because of his rheumatic fever. Despite being exempt from the draft, he felt compelled to do his bit, and he did so.

This theme has always had an impact on me. The idea of doing my bit has has a profound, even foundational effect on my philosophy, both in my sense of personal direction, and in my larger ideals of how I think society ought work. And this idea has always been a requirement of any career that I might pursue.

To my mind, the image of nursing, the part that I feel drawn to, is that image used by the World Health Organization, the Red Cross, and the various civil defence and military auxiliary organizations, of the selfless heroine who courageously breaks with her station as a prim and proper lady in order to provide aid and comfort to the boys at the front serving valiantly Over There while the flag is raised in the background to a rising crescendo of your patriotic music of choice. Or else, of the humanitarian volunteer working in a far flung outpost, diligently healing those huddled masses yearning to breath free as they flee conflict. Or possibly of the brave health workers in the neglected tropical regions, serving as humanity’s first and most critical line of defence against global pandemic.

Now, I recognize, at least consciously, that these images are, at best, outdated romanticized images that represent only the most photogenic, if the most intense, fractions of the real work being done by nurses; and at worst are crude, harmful stereotypes that only serve to exacerbate the image problem that has contributed to the global nurse shortage. The common denominator in all of these, is that they are somehow on the “front lines”; that they are nursing as a means to save the world, if not as an individual hero, then certainly as part of a global united front. They represent the most stereotypically heroic, most dangerous aspects of the profession, and, relevant to my case, the very portions which would be prohibitively dangerous to an immunocompromised person.

This raises some deep personal questions. Obviously, I want and intend to do my bit, whatever that may come to mean in my context. But with regards to nursing, am I drawn to it because it is a means to do my bit, or because it offers the means to fit a kind of stereotypical hero archetype that I cannot otherwise by virtue or my exclusion from the military, astronaut training, etc (and probably could not as a nurse for similar reasons)? And the more salient question: if we assume that the more glamorous (for sore lack of a better word) aspects of nursing are out of the question (and given the apparent roadblocks for me to even enter the training program, it certainly seems reasonable to assume that such restrictions will be compelled regardless of my personal attitudes towards the risks involved), am I still interested in pursuing the field?

This is a very difficult question for me to answer, and the various ways in which it can be construed and interpreted make this all the more difficult. For example, my answer to the question “Would you still take this job if you knew it wasn’t as glamorous day to day as it’s presented?” would be very different from my answer to the question “Would you still be satisfied knowing that you were not helping people as much as you could be with the training you have, because your disability was holding you back from contributing in the field?” The latter question also spawns more dilemmas, such as “When faced with an obstacle related to a disability, is it preferable to take a stand on principle, or to cut losses and try to work out a minimally painful solution, even if it means letting disability and discrimination slide by?” All big thematic questions. And if they were not so relevant, I might enjoy idly pondering them.

Secret of Adulthood

For the entirety of my life until quite recently I was utterly convinced of the idea that all “grown-ups”, by nature of their grownupness, had the whole world figured out. It seemed to me essentially up until the week of my eighteenth birthday that there was some intrinsic difference between so-called “children” and these “adults”, where the latter categorically knew something the former didn’t and never the other way around.

I was never quite positive what it was that gave adults this intrinsic knowledge of how the world worked. I assumed it was something covered in a particular school class, or perhaps the secret was contained within those late night broadcasts only over-eighteens were permitted to watch. Whatever it was, I was confident that by the time I reached that mystical age of eighteen, I too would have the world figured out. After all, how else would I be able to consider myself qualified for such important duties as voting, paying taxes, and jury duty.

While I am still open to the fact that one of these days I shall wake up in bed and find myself suddenly equipped with all the knowledge and skills necessary to make my way in the world, I am becoming increasingly convinced that this is, in fact, not how it works. Rather the growing body of evidence is pointing towards the conclusion that all of my intrinsic abilities, which in truth I do not feel have grown significantly since about six years old, are the only toolset with which I will ever be equipped to deal with the world.

This quite terrifying conclusion has been cemented by the relative ease (compared with what I might have imagined) of registering to vote. There was no IQ test, barely any cross-examination of my identity papers, and most shockingly, no SWAT team descending from the heavens to inform me that, no, sorry, there must’ve been some mistake because I can’t possibly be qualified to genuinely help decide the future of our country and the world at large.

Despite being nominally an adult, I still have this habit of basically assuming that every other adult still knows something I don’t. So when, for example, my brother gets into the car to drive to Florida without sunglasses and wearing wool clothing, I broadly assume that he is aware of all these issues, and has some plan to combat them. It is then frustrating when he realizes later that he left his sunglasses on the counter and asks to borrow my backup pair.

This habit also makes it annoyingly easy to believe that anyone acting with confidence must have some grounds for acting so. While I have come to accept that I am merely faking this whole adulthood thing, it is a whole other matter entirely to convince myself that not only am I flying by the seat of my pants, but so is everyone else.

There has been one minor silver lining in this otherwise terrifying revelation. Namely, it is the realization that, with no intrinsic confidence to distinguish those who genuinely know what they’re doing from those who haven’t the foggiest clue, nine times out of ten one can get away with whatever one desires provided one can act sufficiently confident while doing so. That is to say that with few exceptions, it is fairly easy to convince others that you know better than they do what needs to be done.

Overall, while I wish it were true that adulthood brought with it some intrinsic wisdom of how to make it in the world, I also recognize that, this not being the case, I should at least try to work on my ability to look like I know what I’m doing. Because that is the secret of adulthood. It is all an act, and how you act determines whether people treat you as a know-nothing little boy or a wise young man.

Thanksgivings

So Australia, where I did most of my growing up, doesn’t have a thanksgiving holiday. Not even like Canada, where it’s on a different day. Arbor Day was a bigger deal at my school than American thanksgiving. My family tried to celebrate, but between school schedules that didn’t recognize our traditions, time differences that made watching the Macy’s parade and football game on the day impossible, and a general lack of turkey and pumpkin pie in stores, the effect was that we didn’t really have thanksgiving in the same way it is portrayed.

This is also at least part of the reason that I have none of the compunctions of my neighbors about commencing Christmas decorations, nor wearing holiday apparel. as soon as the leaves start to change in September. Thanksgiving is barely a real holiday, and Halloween was something people barely decorated for, so neither of those things acted as boundaries for the celebration of Christmas, which in contrast to the other two, was heavily celebrated and became an integral part of my cultural identity.

As a result, I don’t trace our thanksgiving traditions back hundreds of years, up the family tree through my mother’s side to our ancestor who signed the Mayflower Compact, and whose name has been passed down through the ages to my brother. Rather, I trace our traditions back less than a decade to my first year in American public school, when my teacher made out class go through a number of stereotypical traditions like making paper turkeys by tracing our hands, and writing down things we were thankful for. Hence: what I’m thankful for this year.

First, as always, I am thankful to be alive. This sounds tacky and cheap, I know, so let me clarify. I am thankful to be alive despite my body which does not keep itself alive. I am thankful to have been lucky enough to have beaten the odds for another year. I am acutely aware that things could have quite easily gone the other way.

Perhaps it is a sad reflection that my greatest joy of this year is to have merely gotten through it. Maybe. But I cannot change the facts of my situation. I cannot change the odds I face. I can only celebrate overcoming them. This victory of staying alive is the one on which all others depend. I could not have other triumphs, let alone celebrate and be thankful for them without first being sufficiently not-dead to achieve and enjoy them.

I’m thankful to be done with school. I’m glad to have it behind me. While it would be disingenuous to say that high school represented the darkest period in my life; partly because it is too soon to say, but mostly because those top few spots are generally dominated by the times I nearly died, was in the ICU, etcetera; there can be no denying that I hated high school. Not just the actual building, or having to go there; I hated my life as a high school student. I didn’t quite realize the depths of by unhappiness until I was done, and realized that I actually didn’t hate my life as a default. So I am thankful to be done and over with that.

I am thankful that I have the resources to write and take care of myself without also having to struggle to pay for the things I need to live. I am immensely thankful that I am able to sequester myself and treat my illnesses without having to think about what I am missing. In other words, I am thankful for being able to be unable to work. I am thankful that I have enough money, power, and privilege to stand up for myself, and to have others stand up for me. I am aware that I am lucky not only to be alive, but I to have access to a standard of care that makes my life worth living. I know that this is an advantage that is far from universal, even in my own country. I cannot really apologize for this, as, without these advantages, it is quite likely that I would be dead, or in such constant agony and anguish that I would wish I was. I am thankful that I am neither of those things.

I am thankful that these days, I am mostly on the giving end of the charitable endeavors that I have recently been involved in. For I have been on the receiving end before. I have been the simultaneously heartbreaking and heartwarming image of the poor, pitiful child, smiling despite barely clinging to life, surrounded by the prayer blankets, get well cards, books, and other care package staples that my friends and relations were able to muster, rush-shipped because it was unclear whether they would arrive “in time” otherwise. I defied the stereotype only insofar as I got better. I am doubly thankful, first that I am no longer in that unenviable position, and second, that I am well enough to begin to pay back that debt.

Technological Milestones and the Power of Mundanity

When I was fairly little, probably seven or so, I devised a short list of technologies based on what I had seen on television that I reckoned were at least plausible, and which I earmarked as milestones of sorts to measure how far human technology would progress during my lifetime. I estimated that if I was lucky, I would be able to have my hands on half of them by the time I retired. Delightfully, almost all of these have in fact already been achieved, less than fifteen years later.

Admittedly, all of these technologies that I picked were far closer than I had envisioned at the time. Living in Australia, which seemed to be the opposite side of the world from where everything happened, and living outside of the truly urban areas of Sydney which, as a consequence of international business, were kept up to date, it often seems that even though I technically grew up after the turn of the millennium, that I was raised in a place and culture that was closer to the 90s.

For example, as late as 2009, even among adults, not everyone I knew had a mobile phone. Text messaging was still “SMS”, and was generally regarded with suspicion and disdain, not least of all because not all phones were equipped to handle them, and not all phone plans included provisions for receiving them. “Smart” phones (still two words) did exist on the fringes; I know exactly one person who owned an iPhone, and two who owned a BlackBerry, at that time. But having one was still an oddity. Our public school curriculum was also notably skeptical, bordering on technophobic, about the rapid shift towards Broadband and constant connectivity, diverting much class time to decrying the evils of email and chat rooms.

These were the days when it was a moral imperative to turn off your modem at night, lest the hacker-perverts on the godless web wardial a backdoor into your computer, which weighed as much as the desk it was parked on, or your computer overheat from being left on, and catch fire (this happened to a friend of mine). Mice were wired and had little balls inside them that you could remove in order to sabotage them for the next user. Touch screens might have existed on some newer PDA models, and on some gimmicky machines in the inner city, but no one believed that they were going to replace the workstation PC.

I chose my technological milestones based on my experiences in this environment, and on television. Actually, since most of our television was the same shows that played in the United States, only a few months behind their stateside premier, they tended to be more up to date with the actual state of technology, and depictions of the near future which seemed obvious to an American audience seemed terribly optimistic and even outlandish to me at the time. So, in retrospect, it is not surprising that after I moved back to the US, I saw nearly all of my milestones commercially available within half a decade.

Tablet Computers
The idea of a single surface interface for a computer in the popular consciousness dates back almost as far as futuristic depictions of technology itself. It was an obvious technological niche that, despite numerous attempts, some semi-successful, was never truly cracked until the iPad. True, plenty of tablet computers existed before the iPad. But these were either klunky beyond use, incredibly fragile to the point of being unusable in practical circumstances, or horrifically expensive.

None of them were practical for, say, completing homework for school on, which at seven years old was kind of my litmus test for whether something was useful. I imagined that if I were lucky, I might get to go tablet shopping when it was time for me to enroll my own children. I could not imagine that affordable tablet computers would be widely available in time for me to use them for school myself. I still get a small joy every time I get to pull out my tablet in a productive niche.

Video Calling
Again, this was not a bolt from the blue. Orwell wrote about his telescreens, which amounted to two-way television, in the 1940s. By the 70s, NORAD had developed a fiber-optic based system whereby commanders could conduct video conferences during a crisis. By the time I was growing up, expensive and klunky video teleconferences were possible. But they had to be arranged and planned, and often required special equipment. Even once webcams started to appear, lessening the equipment burden, you were still often better off calling someone.

Skype and FaceTime changed that, spurred on largely by the appearance of smartphones, and later tablets, with front-facing cameras, which were designed largely for this exact purpose. Suddenly, a video call was as easy as a phone call; in some cases easier, because video calls are delivered over the Internet rather than requiring a phone line and number (something which I did not foresee).

Wearable Technology (in particular smartwatches)
This was the one that I was most skeptical of, as I got this mostly from the Jetsons, a show which isn’t exactly renowned for realism or accuracy. An argument can be made that this threshold hasn’t been fully crossed yet, since smartwatches are still niche products that haven’t caught on to the same extent as either of the previous items, and insofar as they can be used for communication like in The Jetsons, they rely on a smartphone or other device as a relay. This is a solid point, to which I have two counterarguments.

First, these are self-centered milestones. The test is not whether an average Joe can afford and use the technology, but whether it has an impact on my life. And indeed, my smart watch, which was enough and functional enough for me to use in an everyday role, does indeed have a noticeable positive impact. Second, while smartwatches may not be as ubiquitous as once portrayed, they do exist, and are commonplace enough to be largely unremarkable. The technology exists and is widely available, whether or not consumers choose to use it.

These were my three main pillars of the future. Other things which I marked down include such milestones as:

Commercial Space Travel
Sure, SpaceX and its ilk aren’t exactly the same as having shuttles to the ISS departing regularly from every major airport, with connecting service to the moon. You can’t have a romantic dinner rendezvous in orbit, gazing at the unclouded stars on one side, and the fragile planet earth on the other. But we’re remarkably close. Private sector delivery to orbit is now cheaper and more ubiquitous than public sector delivery (admittedly this has more to do with government austerity than an unexpected boom in the aerospace sector).

Large-Scale Remotely Controlled or Autonomous Vehicles
This one came from Kim Possible, and a particular episode in which our intrepid heroes got to their remote destination by a borrowed military helicopter flown remotely from a home computer. Today, we have remotely piloted military drones, and early self-driving vehicles. This one hasn’t been fully met yet, since I’ve never ridden in a self-driving vehicle myself, but it is on the horizon, and I eagerly await it.

Cyborgs
I did guess that we’d have technologically altered humans, both for medical purposes, and as part of the road to the enhanced super-humans that rule in movies and television. I never guessed at seven that in less than a decade, that I would be one of them, relying on networked machines and computer chips to keep my biological self functioning, plugging into the wall to charge my batteries when they run low, studiously avoiding magnets, EMPs, and water unless I have planned ahead and am wearing the correct configuration and armor.

This last one highlights an important factor. All of these technologies were, or at least, seemed, revolutionary. And yet today they are mundane. My tablet today is only remarkable to me because I once pegged it as a keystone of the future that I hoped would see the eradication of my then-present woes. This turned out to be overly optimistic, for two reasons.

First, it assumed that I would be happy as soon as the things that bothered me then no longer did, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. Humans do not remain happy the same way than an object in motion remains in motion until acted upon. Or perhaps it is that as creatures of constant change and reecontextualization, we are always undergoing so much change that remaining happy without constant effort is exceedingly rare. Humans always find more problems that need to be solved. On balance, this is a good thing, as it drives innovation and advancement. But it makes living life as a human rather, well, wanting.

Which lays the groundwork nicely for the second reason: novelty is necessarily fleeting. What advanced technology today marks the boundary of magic will tomorrow be a mere gimmick, and after that, a mere fact of life. Computers hundreds of millions more times more powerful than those used to wage World War II and send men to the moon are so ubiquitous that they are considered a basic necessity of modern life, like clothes, or literacy; both of which have millennia of incremental refinement and scientific striving behind them on their own.

My picture of the glorious shining future assumed that the things which seemed amazing at the time would continue to amaze once they had become commonplace. This isn’t a wholly unreasonable extrapolation on available data, even if it is childishly optimistic. Yet it is self-contradictory. The only way that such technologies could be harnessed to their full capacity would be to have them become so widely available and commonplace that it would be conceivable for product developers to integrate them into every possible facet of life. This both requires and establishes a certain level of mundanity about the technology that will eventually break the spell of novelty.

In this light, the mundanity of the technological breakthroughs that define my present life, relative to the imagined future of my past self, is not a bad thing. Disappointing, yes; and certainly it is a sobering reflection on the ungrateful character of human nature. But this very mundanity that breaks our predictions of the future (or at least, our optimistic predictions) is an integral part of the process of progress. Not only does this mundanity constantly drive us to reach for ever greater heights by making us utterly irreverent of those we have already achieved, but it allows us to keep evolving our current technologies to new applications.

Take, for example, wireless internet. I remember a time, or at least, a place, when wireless internet did not exist for practical purposes. “Wi-Fi” as a term hadn’t caught on yet; in fact, I remember the publicity campaign that was undertaken to educate our technologically backwards selves about what term meant, about how it wasn’t dangerous, and about how it would make all of our lives better, as we could connect to everything. Of course, at that time I didn’t know anyone outside of my father’s office who owned a device capable of connecting to Wi-Fi. But that was beside the point. It was the new thing. It was a shiny, exciting novelty.

And then, for a while, it was a gimmick. Newer computers began to advertise their Wi-Fi antennae, boasting that it was as good as being connected by cable. Hotels and other establishments began to advertise Wi-Fi connectivity. Phones began to connect to Wi-Fi networks, which allowed phones to truly connect to the internet even without a data plan.

Soon, Wi-Fi became not just a gimmick, but a standard. First computers, then phones, without internet began to become obsolete. Customers began to expect Wi-Fi as a standard accommodation wherever they went, for free even. Employers, teachers, and organizations began to assume that the people they were dealing with would have Wi-Fi, and therefore everyone in the house would have internet access. In ten years, the prevailing attitude around me went from “I wouldn’t feel safe having my kid playing in a building with that new Wi-Fi stuff” to “I need to make sure my kid has Wi-Fi so they can do their schoolwork”. Like television, telephones, and electricity, Wi-Fi became just another thing that needed to be had in a modern home. A mundanity.

Now, that very mundanity is driving a second wave of revolution. The “Internet of Things” as it is being called, is using the Wi-Fi networks that are already in place in every modern home to add more niche devices and appliances. We are told to expect that soon that every major device in our house will be connected to out personal network, controllable either from our mobile devices, or even by voice, and soon, gesture, if not through the devices themselves, then through artificially intelligent home assistants (Amazon echo, Google Home, and related).

It is important to realize that this second revolution could not take place while Wi-Fi was still a novelty. No one who wouldn’t otherwise buy into Wi-Fi at the beginning would have bought it because it could also control the sprinklers, or the washing machine, or what have you. Wi-Fi had to become established as a mundane building block in order to be used as the cornerstone of this latest innovation.

Research and development may be focused on the shiny and novel, but technological process on a species-wide scale depends just as much on this mundanity. Breakthroughs have to not only be helpful and exciting, but useful in everyday life, and cheap enough to be usable by everyday consumers. It is easy to get swept up in the exuberance of what is new, but the revolutionary changes happen when those new things are allowed to become mundane.

On Horror Films

Recently, I was confronted with a poll regarding my favorite horror film. This was only slightly awkward, as, of the films listed as options, I had seen… none.

I really like this design.

Broadly speaking, I do not see fit to use my personal time to make myself experience negative emotions. Also, since the majority of horror films tend to focus on narrow, contrived circumstances and be driven by a supernatural, usually vaguely biblical demon, I find it difficult to suspend disbelief and buy into the premise. To me, the far better horror experiences have been disaster films, in particular those like Threads or By Dawn’s Early Light. Also certain alternate history films, in particular the HBO film, Fatherland, which did more to get across the real horror of the holocaust and genocide to thirteen year old me than six months of social studies lessons.

To wit, the only bona-fide horror film I’ve seen was something about Satan coming to haunt elevator-goers for their sins. Honestly I thought it was exceedingly mediocre at best. However, I saw this film at a birthday party for a friend of mine, the confidant of a previous crush. I had come to know this girl after she transferred to our public middle school from the local catholic school. We saw this film at her birthday party, which was, in the manner of things, perceived as the very height of society, in the pressence of an overwhelmingly female audience, most of whom my friend had known from St. Mary’s. Apparently to them the film was excellent, as many professed to be quite scared, and it remained the subject of conversation for some months afterward.

I have come to develop three alternative hypotheses for why everyone but myself seemed to enjoy this distinctly mediocre film. The first is that I am simply not a movie person and was oblivious to the apparent artistic merit of this film. This would fit existing data, as I have similarly ambiguous feelings towards many types of media my friends generally seem to laud. This is the simplest explanation, and thus the null hypothesis which I have broadly accepted for the past half-decade or so.

The second possible explanation is that, since the majority of the audience except for myself was Catholic, attended Catholic Church, and had gone to the Catholic primary school in our neighborhood, and because the film made several references to Catholic doctrine and literature, to the point that several times my friend had to lean over and whisper the names and significance of certain prayers or incantations, that this carried extra weight for those besides myself. Perhaps I lacked the necessary background context to understand what the creators were tying to reach for. Perhaps my relatively secular and avowedly skeptical upbringing had desensitized me to this specific subset of supernatural horror, while the far more mundane terrors of war, genocide, and plague fill much the same role in my psyche.

The third alternative was suggested to me by a male compatriot, who was not in attendance but was familiar with all of the attendees, several years after the fact, and subsequently corroborated by testimony from both male and female attendees. The third possibility is that my artistic assessment at the time was not only entirely on point, but was the silent majority opinion, yet that this opinion was suppressed consciously or unconsciously for social reasons. Perhaps, it has been posited to me, the appearance of being scared was for my own benefit? Going deeper, perhaps some or all of the motivation to see a horror film at a party of both sexes was not entirely platonic?

It is worth distinguishing, at this point, the relative numbers and attitudes of the various sexes. At this party, there were a total of about twenty teenagers. Of this number, there were three or four boys (my memory fails me as to exact figures), including myself. I was on the guest list from the beginning as a matter of course; I had been one of the birthday girl’s closest friends since she arrived in public school, and perhaps more importantly, her parents had met and emphatically approved of me. In fact I will go so far as to suggest that the main reason this girl’s staunchly traditionalist, conservative parents permitted their rebellious teenage daughter to invite boys over to a birthday party was because they trusted me, and believed my presence would be a moderating influence.

Also among the males in attendance were the brother of one of the popular socialite attendees, whose love of soap operas and celebrity gossip, and general stylistic flamboyance had convinced everyone concerned that he was not exactly straight; my closest friend, who was as passive and agreeable a teenager as you will ever have the pleasure to know; and a young man whose politics I staunchly disagreed with and who would later go on to have an eighteen month on and off relationship with the birthday girl, though he did not know it at the time.

Although I noticed this numerical gender discrepancy effectively immediately, at no point did it occur to me that, were I so motivated, I could probably have leveraged these odds into some manner of romantic affair. This, despite what could probably be reasonably interpreted as numerous hints to the effect of “Oh look how big the house is. Wouldn’t it be so easy for two people to get lost in one of these several secluded bedrooms?”

Although I credit this obliviousness largely to the immense respect I maintained for the host’s parents and the sanctity of their home, I must acknowledge a certain level of personal ignorance owing mainly to a lack of similar socialization, and also to childhood brain damage. This acute awareness of my own past, and in all likelihood, present, obliviousness to social subtleties is part of why I am so readily willing to accept that I might have easily missed whatever aspect of this film made it so worthwhile.

In any case, as the hypothesis goes, this particular film was in fact mediocre, just as I believed at the time. However, unlike myself with my single-minded judgement based solely on the artistic merits and lack thereof of the film, it is possible that my female comrades, while agreeing in the abstract with my assessment, opted instead to be somewhat more holistic in their presentation of opinions. Or to put it another way, they opted to be socially opportunistic in the ability to signal their emotional state. As it was described to me, my reaction would then, at least in theory, be to attempt to comfort and reassure them. I would assume the stereotypical role of male defender, and the implications therewith, which would somehow transmogrify into a similarly-structured relationship.

Despite the emphatic insistence of most involved parties, with no conclusive confession, I remain particularly skeptical of this hypothesis, though admittedly it does correlate with existing psychological and sociological research on terror-induced pair-bonding. I doubt I shall ever truly understand the horror genre. It would be easy to state categorically that there is no merit to trying to induce negative emotions without cause, and that those who wish to use such experiences as a cover for other overtures ought simply get over themselves, but given that, as things go, this is an apparently victimless crime, and seems to being a great deal of joy to some people, it is more likely that this issue lies more in myself than the rest of the world.

To a person who seeks to understand the whole truth in its entirety, the notion that there are some things that I simply do not have the capacity to understand is frustrating. Knowing that there are things which other people can comprehend, yet I cannot, is extremely frustrating. More than frustrating; it is horrifying. To know that there is an entire world of subtext and communication that is lost to me; that my brain is damaged in such a way that I am oblivious to things that are supposed to be obvious, is disconcerting to the point of terrifying.

I will probably never know the answer to these questions, as at this point I am probably the only one who yet bothers to dwell on that one evening many moons ago. It will remain in my memory an unsolved mystery, and a reminder that my perception is faulty in ways imperceptible to me, but obvious to others. It might even be accurate to say that I will remain haunted by this episode.

Happy Halloween.

Television Bubbles

So there’s a new show on Disney that allegedly follows the cast of That’s So Raven some decade after the show itself ended. This isn’t news per se, considering the show launched in July.

This is news to me, however. For some reason, the existence of this show, it’s premiere, any hype and marketing that may have surrounded it, and generally anything about it, managed to come and go completely unnoticed by me. I learned about this by accident; I happened to recognize the characters on a screen in the back of a burrito restaurant. At first I thought I was watching a very old rerun. But I was informed by other members of my party that, no, that’s part of the new show. Didn’t I know about it?

I have been wracking my brain trying to I ever heard anything about this. The closest I can come up with is a very vague recollection of someone making an offhanded remark in passing that such a concept was under consideration. This would have been probably in February or March. Thing is, I don’t actually remember this as a conversation. It’s just as possible that in trying to remember that I must have heard of this at some point, part of my brain has fabricated a vague sense that I must have heard of this at some point.

In retrospect, if I were going to miss something like an entire television series entirely, the chronology makes sense. May through early July, I was buried in schoolwork. I began Project Crimson, which by my count eliminated some half of all advertising that I see at all, in late April. By July, my whirlwind travel schedule had begun. I stayed more or less up to date on the news, because there were plenty of television screens blaring cable news headlines wherever I went, and because when it is likely that I will meet new people, I do make an effort to brush up on current events so as to have all the relevant discussion points of the day, but this really only applies to news headlines.

So it is possible to imagine that this series premiere happened somewhere further down in my news feed, or in a news podcast episode that got downloaded to my phone but never listened to. I find it slightly odd that I was at, of all places, Disney World, and had no exposure whatsoever to the latest Disney show. But then again, their parks tend to focus on the more classic aspects of the Disney culture. And who knows; perhaps they did have posters and adverts up, or were putting them while my back was turned, or whatever. Clearly, it’s possible, because it happened.

Here are my two big problems with this whole fiasco. First, this is something I would have liked to know. I would understand if some story about, say, sports, or celebrity gossip, slipped under my radar in such a way. I don’t watch a whole lot of TV in general, and I don’t really watch anything related to sports of celebrity news. My online news feeds respond to what I engage with, giving me more stories I am likely to digest, and quietly axing pieces that my eyes would otherwise just glide over. Though this makes me uncomfortable, and I have criticized it in the past, I accept this as a price of having my news conveniently aggregated.

Except that here, I honestly would have liked to know that there was a new That’s So Raven series in the pipes. I would wager that I’m actually part of their target audience, which is part of why I’m so surprised that I wasn’t very aware of this. That’s So Raven ran, at least where I lived in Australia, at roughly the opening of when I was old enough to follow and appreciate the slightly more complicated “all ages” programming. And while I wouldn’t rank it as my favorite, its stories did stick with me. Raven’s struggles against racism, sexism, and discrimination, introduced me to these concepts before I had been diagnosed with all of my medical issues and experienced discrimination firsthand. Raven’s father’s quest to build his own small business, and Corey’s dogged, (some might say, relentless) entrepreneurial spirit, inspired me.

Moreover, the spinoff show Corey in the House, while often cringeworthy at the best of times, even more-so than its predecessor, was the first exposure that I had to, if not the structure and dynamics, than at least the imagery and phraseology, of US politics. This, at a time when I was forbidden to watch cable news (all that was on was the war on terror) and many of my schoolmates and their parents would routinely denounce the United States and its President, as the Australian components of coalition forces in the Middle East began to suffer losses. Naturally, as the token American, I was expected to answer for all of my president’s crimes. Having a TV show that gave me a modicum of a clue as to what people were talking about, but that also taught that America and American ideals, while they might not be perfect, were still at least good in an idealistic sense, was immensely comforting.

All of that is to say that I hold some nostalgia for the original series and the stories they told. Now, I have not seen this new show. I don’t know whether how close it is to the original. But I have to imagine that such nostalgia was a factor in the decision to approve this new series, which would suggest that it is aimed at least partly at my demographic. Given that there are trillions of dollars involved in making sure that targeted demographics are aware of the products they ought to consume, and that I haven’t been living particularly under a rock, it seems strange how this passed me by.

Furthermore, if a series of unusual events has caused me to miss this event this time, I am quite sure that I would have picked up on it earlier five years ago. Even three years ago, I would have within a few weeks of launch, seen some advert, or comment, and investigated. In all probability, I would have watched this show from day one, or shortly thereafter. However, the person who I am and my media habits now have diverged so much from the person that I was then that we no longer have this in common. This rattles me. Even though I understand and accept that selves are not so much constant as changing so slowly as to not notice most days, this is still a shock.

Which brings me nicely to my second problem in all of this. This new series, in many respects represents a best case scenario for something that is likely to cross my path. Yes, there are confounding variables at play: I was traveling, I have cut down how much advertising I tolerate, and I had been mostly skimming the headlines. But these aren’t once-in-a blue moon problems. There was a massive, concerted publicity effort, in behalf of one of the largest media and marketing machines on the planet, to promote a story that I would have embraced if it ever came across my radar, while I was at one of their theme parks, and while I was making a conscious effort to pay attention to headlines. And yet I still missed this.

This begs an important, terrifying question: what else have I missed? The fact that I missed this one event, while idly disappointing, will likely not materially impact my life in the foreseeable future. The face that I could have missed it in the first place, on the other hand, shows that there is a very large blind spot in my awareness of current happenings. It is at least large enough to fly an entire TV series through, and probably quite a bit larger.

I am vaguely aware, even as a teenager, that I do not know all things. But I do take some pride in being at least somewhat well informed, and ready to learn. I like to believe that I some grasp on the big picture, and that I have at least some concept of the things that I am not paying attention to; to repeat an earlier example, sports and celebrity news. I can accept that there are plenty of facts and factoids that I do not know, since I am not, despite protestations, a walking encyclopedia, and I recognize that, in our new age of interconnectedness and fractally-nested cultural rabbit holes, that there are plenty of niche interests with which I am not familiar. But this is in my wheelhouse, or at least I would have thought.

It is still possible, and I do still hope, that this is a fluke. But what if it isn’t? What if this is simply one more product of how I currently organize my life, and of how the internet and my means of connectivity fit into that? Suppose this latest scandal is just one more item that I have missed because of the particular filtering strategies I use to avoid being overloaded. If this best-case scenario didn’t get my attention, what are the odds that something without all of these natural advantages will get to me?

How likely is it that I am going to hear about the obscure piece of legislation being voted on today, or the local budget referendum, which both affect me, but not directly or immediately enough that I’m liable to see people marching in the streets or calling me up personally? How often will I hear about the problems facing my old friends in Australia now that I am living on a different continent, in a different time zone, and with a totally different political landscape to contend with.

For all of my fretting, I can’t conceive of a realistic path out of this. The internet is to large and noisy a place to cover all, or even a substantial number of, the bases. More content is uploaded every second than a human could digest in s lifetime. Getting news online requires either committing to one or two sources, or trusting an aggregation service, whether that be a bot like Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and the like, or paying a human somewhere along the line to curate stories.

Going old fashioned, as I have heard proposed in a few different places, and sticking to a handful of old-fashioned print newspapers with paid subscriptions and a set number of pages to contend with, is either too broad, and hence has the same problem of relying on the internet at large, or too specific and cut down. TV news tends to fall somewhere between newspapers and social media. And crucially, none of these old fashioned services are good at giving me the news that I require. I want to hear about the scandal in the White House, and the one in my local Town Hall, and hear about the new series based on the one that aired when I was young, and what the World Health Organization says about the outbreak in Hong Kong, without hearing about sports or celebrity gossip, or that scandal in Belgrade that I don’t know enough about to comment on.

Figuring out how to reconcile this discrepancy in a way that satisfies both consumers, and society’s needs for a well informed populace, may well be one of the key challenges of this time in history, especially for my generation. For my part, the best I can figure is that I’m going to have to try and be a little more cognizant of things that might be happening outside of my bubble. This isn’t really a solution, any more than ‘being aware of other drivers’ is a solution for car accidents. Media bubbles are the price of casual participation in current events, and from where I stand today, non-participation is not an option.

Lost in Times Square

Times Square is a weird place to wind up by accident. You take a single wrong turn, notice that the amount of billboards and lights is much higher than usual, even for New York, and you look up and around you and realize, wait, is that the flatiron building? Like, the actual one that they have Lego sets of and stuff. It’s hard to tell with all the advertising. It’s hard to focus on anything with all the advertising. But that’s part of the aesthetic, right? You can’t tell for sure because it’s late, but the tourists taking pictures makes you pretty sure you’ve just walked into Times Square by accident.

Yep. That’s the flatiron building.

And then suddenly it feels like you’ve stepped onto a stage for a play that you are not in, and the stage freight of being in the middle of the everything unprepared sets in, and you work to make your exit as quickly and nonchalantly as possible, but you snap a few pictures on the way out, because you’re not sure you’ll be here again soon, and it’s one of those places that kind of demands to be photographed. And you manage to escape just before the full scale sensory overload sets in, before your brain can really process what’s happened.

And as you walk away quickly, but not so quickly as to look suspicious to the visible counterterrorism police presence, you start to register a sort of disappointment. It feels as though you have spoiled something that was supposed to come later. You didn’t come mentally prepared to see any landmarks today, and when you did you didn’t have time to really soak it in, and you know you’ll never get a second impression. But you really have to get where you’re going because you’re already on the verge of running late.

Maybe, you reflect, this is appropriate. You are too busy to enjoy the city renowned for its busy-ness (and also its businesses). Perhaps this is fitting. Perhaps. But it still leaves a bittersweet taste in your mouth.

A hasty, blurry panaroma of Times Square

Break a Leg!

Perhaps in the intervening days since leaving high school I have simply aged into a grumpy old man. Perhaps I have excessively high expectations. Perhaps it was that I was simply in a foul mood. Quite possibly all of the above; I won’t contest any or all of these charges. Whatever the case, the round of plays which were read at our local playhouse last week were all mediocre at best.

I should explain: Our local playhouse (that is, theater,) put on an event in cooperation with the local library and high school in which they solicited entries for original short plays, and had a number of them read by the school theater cast, which included my brother. Had I known about this, I probably would have entered. Alas, I did not know, and did not enter. Which is a shame, because most of the plays were just okay. I am reasonably certain I could have been a finalist.

Of course, it’s easy to throw stones without doing anything constructive. And I do endeavor to lead by example. And so I have taken it upon myself to write a short play, to prove that I can. In the grand tradition of those plays sampled earlier, mine is vaguely autobiographical, subtly (and not so subtly) caricaturing those closest to me, and lampooning those I feel have wronged me with satire and pretentious moralism. I don’t claim that mine is exceptional, or even good, merely that it is at least as good as those I saw.

Square Peg in a Round Hole

A short, vaguely autobiographical, but still fictional play by the Renaissance Guy.

Scene 1

The curtain rises on a bored English class waiting for last period to draw to a close. It is unseasonably warm for a Friday in October, and the temperature is producing a mix of agitation and sloth among the STUDENTS. TEACHER stands in front of the room, supervising.

TEACHER: Remember, if you don’t finish your write up for today’s discussion questions they’re for homework over the weekend. If you do finish, you can start working on edits for your college essays.

STUDENTS, BROOKE, and PAIGE groan.

TEACHER: Hey, you’re all upperclassmen now. You need to start taking personal responsibility. (Aside.) Not that that’ll help those of you who shouldn’t be in an honors class anyways, but that’s not my problem.

BROOKE twirling hair: Hey Max, did you get an answer for question four?

MAX: Yes. I’m just finishing the last one, and then I’m done. (Aside.) And then, god willing, I can be out of here before anyone notices I showed up today.

BROOKE: What’d you answer for number four?

MAX: These are, I understand, supposed to be our own opinions on moral issues. You can’t just copy my answers.

BROOKE places her hand over her chest, more for drama than actual indignation: I wasn’t going to copy. I already have my answer. I just want to know yours.

MAX: How about you tell me your answer first?

BROOKE: Alright. (Reading) If I were forced to choose to torture an innocent child in order to create a utopia, I would not do it. It is never right to harm an innocent, least of all a child. Even if this would create a better world, the ends do not justify the means.

MAX shaking his head: I disagree.

BROOKE: Oh? What’d you say?

MAX clears his throats and begins reading: Assuming for the purposes of this question that I am confident beyond a shadow of a doubt that inflicting torture on this child would indeed bring about the Utopian society promised, I would reluctantly agree to torturing an innocent in order to eradicate future suffering.
Indeed, I submit that such is the only moral course of action; for unless one is to argue that the current world is at all times entirely moral and fair by nature, which I do not believe for a moment, then it is accurate to say that innocents are already being tortured. Indeed, at this very moment there is already far more pain and suffering happening than could possibly be inflicted upon or experienced by a single mortal being, much of it experienced by innocents, all of it unnecessary in this scenario.
That this particular innocent sufferer happens to be visible, while the majority of sufferers are not, is not particularly important to the dilemma at hand. To claim otherwise is to claim that moral quandaries only really matter insofar as they apply to oneself, which in addition to being exceedingly selfish, assaults the foundational assumption of a universal standard of moral behavior, and is thus self defeating.

BROOKE applauds. PAIGE gives a thumbs down gesture, and BROOKE shoots her a glare, causing her to stop without MAX realizing.

MAX: I wasn’t done.

BROOKE: You wrote more than that?

MAX defensively: It’s an interesting question! And besides, our assignment is to give our opinions. My opinions all happen to be complex and multifaceted. Which naturally means they take up several pages.

BROOKE: Mm-hmm. And that’s why you’re the smartest guy in our class. (Aside) But goddamn if I can get him to stop paying attention to his work and start paying attention to me for five minutes.

The bell rings. MAX, caught off guard, begins immediately rushes to pack his things. PAIGE and STUDENTS exit.

BROOKE: So, are you coming to my party this weekend? It’s going to be themed after The Great Gatsby. You really liked that book when we read it for class last year, right?

MAX: Indeed I did, and still do. Alas, I have to get my transfusion later today, which usually pretty well tuckers me out for at least a few days.

TEACHER: Max! When you’re done, can you come over here for a moment.

MAX stops rushing to pack his things: Of course, just a moment. (Aside.) Curses.

BROOKE crestfallen: Oh. Well, if you feel better or whatever you should definitely try and come. If you’re up to it.

BROOKE pulls out a crumpled piece of paper decorated with doodles in colored ink, and a phone number: Here. Text me and I’ll give you all the details. Or even if you don’t feel up to coming and just want to chat.

MAX: Thank you. I’ll bear your advice in mind.

PAIGE steps in from offstage: Brooke, c’mon!

BROOKE: Coming!

BROOKE exits. MAX braces himself, standing alone against TEACHER.

MAX: (aside) Once more unto the breach. (To TEACHER) You wanted to see me?

TEACHER: Yes, Max. I’ve hardly seen any of you this semester. And it’s only October.

MAX: I can get a doctors’ note if you’d like.

TEACHER: I’d much rather see you in class. Or failing that, see the first draft of your college essay, which you were supposed to hand in last week.

MAX: I wasn’t here last week.

TEACHER: No. No, you weren’t here at all last week. Or the week before that. Why is that?

MAX shrugs: Lead guesses are either bacterial sinusitis or a garden variety coronavirus, but we haven’t definitively ruled out strep or a mild influenza.

TEACHER: Right. Look, you’re not the first kid to come in here with special needs, or an IEP. You’re not even the first to have… remind me, what’s your problem again?

MAX: Seventeen years and they still don’t know. There are some theories, but as yet nothing that matches all of the lab pathology and the symptoms. Though if you can figure it out, I’m quite sure there’s a doctorate in it for you.

TEACHER: …Right. Well, look, you’re not the first kid to come in with weird health issues. But all of those kids were able to put in the effort.

MAX: I am hopeful that the work I turned in today will show that I am indeed putting in my maximum effort wherever possible.

TEACHER: That’s a start. But I can’t grade you on just today’s in class assignment. You’ll need to complete the college essay for a start.

MAX: I will try. But I missed all the in class time that was spent on it, and as yet lack the stamina to work after school.

TEACHER: Christ, Max. You must have some free time. What’s your schedule look like?

MAX: Well, today I have to go get a transfusion.

TEACHER: Can you work on schoolwork there?

MAX: No. It drives up my blood pressure and pulse rate too much and makes the nurses nervous.

TEACHER: Okay… How about after?

MAX: After the infusion center is dinner. Then after that I usually spend another hour or so fighting to avoid throwing up dinner. Then my mother will sit with me and try and get me to take in some fluids to avoid dehydration.

TEACHER: Could you work on your essay then?

MAX: Not likely. The nausea tends to impair my ability to properly construe syntax. After that is bedtime. I usually sleep until around eleven, that is, unless I have a migraine, and then it’s more like two. And then it’s pretty much the whole meal-nausea-rehydration thing over again until the next day.

TEACHER (aside): I just don’t know what to do with this kid. I’m stuck between a state-led crackdown on kids slacking off, and a federal civil rights lawsuit waiting to happen. God knows I don’t want him here any more than he does. But God also knows the department will have me out the door faster than you can spell favoritism if I don’t put his nose to the grindstone. He can’t really be that sick all the time, can he?

TEACHER: Do you think this is going to get better later in the year?

MAX: That would be a pleasant change. It hasn’t before, though.

TEACHER: If you knew this was going to be a problem, why did you choose to take an honors course?

MAX gives an over dramatic shrug: I don’t know. The other course I had been interested in taking didn’t get enough signals and wasn’t offered so… I suppose perhaps I guessed it would be more interesting than the regular course on the days I was here? Maybe I was led to believe by my standardized test scores and my advisers that I needed to be challenged intellectually as well as physiologically? Or that an honors course teacher would be more invested, and in a better position to work with individual students?

TEACHER bristles, but does not respond.

MAX: Or my IEP committee flat out told me that I needed to take more honors and AP courses to look good for my transcript, and for their official records? No idea really. Why does any teenager do anything?

TEACHER: Just… just get your work done.

TEACHER exits. As soon as he is gone, MAX plunges his head into his hands in silent but obvious distress. He remains like this for several moments before the scene ends. 

Scene 2

Max’s MOTHER is picking him up in her car to drive to the hospital. The car is loaded with snacks, entertainment, and various other amenities that only veterans think to bring to the hospital, along with stacks and stacks of medical files and medication.

MOTHER looks anxiously at her watch.

MAX enters, apparently recovered.

MOTHER: Hey. How’s it going?

MAX answers slowly and in a soft voice: As my blood tests would say… equivocal.

MOTHER: Well, that at least beats terrible. How was class?

The car begins to pull away from the curb. MAX dribbles his index finger back and forth over his lips in answer.

MOTHER: That bad?

MAX chooses his words slowly: The English teacher apparently came to the conclusion that rather than reducing my workload of make up work, that I required a motivational speech on personal responsibility.

MOTHER: Again? I’ll call the guidance counselor. This is not acceptable. Your IEP is a federal document. “Essential work only” is not a suggestion.

MAX: You’re preaching to the choir again.

MOTHER: I know, I just… argh. You just need to remember that it’s not you, it’s them. You’re a square peg in a round hole, and if they can’t deal with that… well… we’ll make them deal with that. (Beat.) Was the discussion at least interesting?

MAX: Somewhat. I gain the distinct feeling that most of my conversations in that class are rather one-sided in my favor. Though whether for want of intelligent response, or for want of a modicum of interest, I cannot fathom.

MOTHER (laughing): I bet it’s a little of both. But it was interesting?

MAX: I suppose on balance. Apparently my points were warmly received enough to merit my invitation to another event.

MOTHER: What do you mean?

MAX pulls out the crumpled piece of paper: I was invited to a party this weekend. It is apparently to be fashioned after those thrown by none other than the Great Gatsby himself. Quite an ambitious aim; almost sure to disappoint. I see no particularly pressing need to attend.

MOTHER: Who invited you?

MAX: Brooke.

MOTHER: Who’s Brooke. A girl in your English class?

Max nods.

MOTHER: Is she nice?

MAX: Well, she has apparently insisted on fetching documents for me from the front table when necessary, and has made a point to be my discussion partner on multiple occasions. Granted, she sits next to me, and I strongly suspect she copies my work.

MOTHER: You should try and go if you’re feeling alright. When is it?

MAX: I don’t know. Brooke gave me her number and said to text her for details.

MOTHER smiles: She gave you her phone number?

MAX: Well, she said it was her phone number. I am familiar with cases of fake phone number giving, though I can’t think of any motivation given that she gave me her number unsolicited.

MOTHER: You should definitely try and go. You should text her now.

MAX: We’ll see how the infusions go.

Scene 3:

The party is in full swing. STUDENTS are dressed in a variety of attire, ranging from casual, to semi-formal, to 1920s themes. PAIGE and BROOKE both wear art-deco design fringe dresses and hair bands. George Gershwin’s Summertime plays in the background.

MAX enters, dressed in black pinstripes.

PAIGE: Well. He showed up. Guess I owe you twenty bucks.

BROOKE: Sh!

MAX: Good evening ladies. Quite a nifty little rub you’ve arranged. I dare say, you spiffied up nicely. You two looked like a pair of veritable choice pieces of calico.

(beat)

BROOKE: Huh?

PAIGE: I think he’s complimenting us.

MAX: Now you’re on the trolley.

PAIGE: Uh-huh. I’m going to go… what’s the phrase… see a man about a dog?

MAX: Sounds swell.

PAIGE exits.

MAX: I can tone it down if you’d prefer.

BROOKE: Maybe just a little bit.

MAX: I must compliment you on your choice of music. Though I’m slightly disappointed that you didn’t go with the Ella Fitzgerald version.

BROOKE: I can add it to the playlist if you’d like? I think this version is by a guy called Gershwin. He did the thing from Fantasia that was set in the city. It comes up in the new Gatsby movie.

MAX: I’m well aware of George Gershwin’s work. I’m quite partial to Rhapsody in Blue myself. My grandfather used to play his vinyls for me as a child, to make sure I didn’t just grow up knowing it as the United jingle.

BROOKE giggles affectionately. The music changes to a modern synth-pop dance track. The two stand in awkward silence for several moments.

BROOKE: Do you want to… uh… foxtrot?

MAX: Do you mean the actual dance the foxtrot, or just dance?

BROOKE smiles flusteredly: Um. Either? You’d have to teach me to do the actual foxtrot.

MAX: Sure thing. It’s actually deceptively easy.

MAX and BROOKE begin to dance a foxtrot, and other STUDENTS begin copying. PAIGE renters, carrying several liquor bottles.

PAIGE: Alright. Now to get this party really on theme: I’ve got the moonshine.

STUDENTS clamor towards PAIGE. Within moments almost all have a drink in their hand.

BROOKE: Come on. I think I could use a drink, how ’bout you?

MAX: Are you kidding?

BROOKE: What? You’re not one of those fundamentalists in class. It’s just a little ‘moonshine’.

MAX: More like coffin varnish. Aside from the fact that with all my medications I’d be better off drinking bleach than beer, this is all very illegal and dangerous, even without all my medical conditions. I’m sorry, Brooke, I really am. But I’m afraid I ought to take my leave.

BROOKE: You’re not going to turn us in, are you?

MAX pauses, hesitates: Unless I’m specifically compelled to testify, no. I’m not going to tattle. But I can’t stay here. If I passed out or had a seizure or something, and everyone else thought I was drunk because they had been drinking… I’m sorry, I have to leave.

MAX moves to leave.

PAIGE (shouting): Oh for crying out loud! Come freaking on, Max.

MAX pauses: I beg your pardon?

PAIGE: You don’t fit in as a student in class. You’re not an establishment kid, great. Now you’re claiming you don’t even fit in with us rebels? I mean, come on. You can’t have it both ways.

STUDENTS gawk and laugh

MAX exits.

BROOKE: Max, wait.

BROOKE exits.

PAIGE: You think you’re being edgy? You’re not being edgy. You’re just a loser. You’re just a square peg in a round hole.

Curtain falls.

End of play.

Parties interested in using this play may reach me by the Contact page to discuss licensing arrangements. This has been an amusing exercise, and one I may return to at some point.

What is a Home?

I know that I’m getting close to where I want to be when the GPS stops naming roads. That’s fine. These roads don’t have names, or even a planned logic to them, so much as they merely exist relative to other things. Out here, the roads are defined by where they go, rather than having places defined by addresses.

After a while I begin to recognize familiar landmarks. Like the roads, these landmarks don’t have names, but rather refer to some event in the past. First we drive through the small hamlet where I was strong armed into my first driving lesson. We pass the spot where my grandmother stopped the golf cart by the side of the road to point out the lavender honeysuckle to far younger versions of myself and my younger brother, and we spent a half hour sampling the taste of the flowers. Next we pass under the tree that my cousin was looking up at nervously when my father grabbed him by the shoulders and screamed that he was under attack by Drop Bears, causing my cousin to quite nearly soil himself.

I have never lived in a single house continuously for more than about eight years. I grew up traveling, an outsider wherever I went, and to me the notion of a single home country, let alone a single house for a home, is as foreign as it is incomprehensible. So is the concept of living within driving distance of most of one’s relatives, for that matter.

To me, home has always been a utilitarian rather than moral designation. Home is where I sleep for free, where my things that don’t fit in my suitcase go, and where the bills get forwarded to. Home is the place where I can take as long as I want in the bathroom, and rearrange the furniture to my arbitrary personal preferences, and invite people over without asking, but that is all. Anywhere these criteria are met can be home to me, with whatever other factors such as ownership, geographic location, and proximity to relatives, or points of personal history, being irrelevant. I can appreciate the logistical value of all of these things, but attaching much more importance to it seems strange.

Yet even as I write this I find myself challenging my points. Walking around my grandfather’s farmhouse, which is the closest thing I have to a consistent home, I am reminded of images of myself from a different time, especially of myself from a time before I was consciously able to make choices about who I am. It’s difficult to think of myself that long ago in terms of me, and my story, and much easier to think of myself in terms of the other objects that were also present.

My grandparents used to run a preschool from their house, and the front room is still stocked with toys and books from that era. Many of the decorations have remained unchanged from when my grandmother ran the place. The doors and cabinets are all painted in bright pastel colors. In my mind, these toys were as much my own as any that stayed at home while we traveled. Each of these toys has wrapped up in it the plot lines from several hundred different games between myself and whoever else I could rope into playing with me.

Against the wall is a height chart listing my, my brother’s, and my cousins’ heights since as early as we could stand. For most of my childhood this was the official scale for determining who was tallest in the ever raging battle for height supremacy, and I remember feeling ready to burst with pride the first time I was verified as tallest. I am tall enough now that I have outgrown the tallest measuring point. I am indisputably the tallest in the family. And yet I still feel some strange compulsion to measure myself there, beyond the mere curiosity that is aroused every time I see a height scale in a doctor’s office.

This place isn’t my home, not by a long shot. In many respects, it meets fewer of my utilitarian criteria than a given hotel. It is the closest I have ever felt to understanding the cultural phenomenon of Home, and yet it is still as foreign as anywhere else. If one’s home is tied to one’s childhood, as both my own observations and those of others I have read seem to indicate, then I will probably never have a home. This might be a sad realization, if I knew any different.

I have often been accused of holding a worldview that does not include room for certain “human” elements. This accusation, as far as I can tell, is probably on point, though somewhat misleading. It is not out of malice nor antipathy towards these elements that I do not place value on concepts such as “home”, “patriotism”, or, for that matter “family”. It is because they are foreign, and because from my viewpoint as an outsider, I genuinely cannot see their value.

I can understand and recognize the utilitarian value; I recognize the importance of having a place to which mail can be delivered and oversized objects can be stored; I can understand the preference for ensuring that one’s country of residence is secure and prosperous; and I can see the value of a close support network, and how one’s close relatives might easily become among one’s closest friends. But inasmuch as these things are said to suppose to have inherent value beyond their utilitarian worth, I cannot see it.

It is probably, I am told, a result of my relatively unusual life trajectory, which has served to isolate me from most cultural touchstones. I never had a home or homeland because we lived abroad and moved around when I was young. I fail to grasp the value of family because I have never lived in close proximity to extended relatives to the point of them becoming friends, and my illness and disability has further limited me from experiencing most of the cultural touchstones with which I might share with family.

It might sound like I am lamenting this fact. Perhaps I would be, if I knew what it was that I am allegedly missing. In reality, I only lament the fact that I cannot understand these things which seem to come naturally to others. That I lack a capital-H Home, or some deeper connection to extended family or country, is neither sad nor happy, but merely a fact of my existence.

The Fly Painting Debate

Often in my travels, I am introduced to interesting people, who ask interesting questions. One such person recently was a lady who was, I am told, raised on a commune as a flower child, and who now works in developing educational materials for schools. Her main work consists of trying to convey philosophical and moral questions to young children in ways that allow them to have meaningful discussions.

One such question, which she related to me, focused on a man she knew tangentially who made pieces of microscopic art. Apparently this man makes paintings roughly the width of a human hair, using tools like insect appendages as paintbrushes. These microscopic paintings are sold to rich collectors to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Because of their size, they are not viewable without special equipment, and broadly speaking, cannot be put on display.

There is obviously a lot to unpack here. The first question is: Is what this man does art, especially if it cannot be enjoyed? My feeling is yes, for two reasons. First, there is artistic expression taking place on the part of the artist, and more importantly, the artwork itself does have an impact on its consumers, even if the impact is more from the knowledge of the existence of the piece than any direct observation. Secondly, the piecesare by their very existence intellectually stimulating and challenging, in a way that can provoke further questions and discussion.

Certainly they challenge the limits of size as a constraint of artistic medium. And these kinds of challenges, while often motivated by pride and hubris, do often push the boundaries of human progress as a whole, by generating interest and demand for scientific advancement. This criteria of challenging the status quo is what separates my bathroom toilet from Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain”. Admittedly, these are fairly subjective criteria, but going any further inevitably turns into a more general debate on what constitutes art; a question which is almost definitionally paradoxical to answer.

The second, and to me, far more interesting question is: is this man’s job, and the amount he makes justifiable? Although few would argue that he is not within his rights to express himself as he pleases, what of the resulting price tag? Is it moral to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on such items that are objectively luxuries, that provide no tangible public good? How should we regard the booming business of this man’s trade: as a quirky niche market enabled by a highly specialized economy and generous patrons willing to indulge ambitious projects, or as wasteful decadence that steals scarce resources to feed the hubris of a disconnected elite?

This points at a question that I keep coming back to in my philosophical analyses, specifically in my efforts to help other people. Is it better to focus resources on smaller incremental projects that affect a wider number of people, or larger, more targeted projects that have a disproportionate impact on a small group?

To illustrate, suppose you have five thousand dollars, and want to do the moral utilitarian thing, and use it to improve overall happiness. There are literally countless ways to do this, but let’s suppose that you want to focus on your community specifically. Let’s also suppose that your community, like my community, is located in a developed country with a generally good standard of living. Life may not always be glamorous for everyone, but everyone has a roof over their head and food on the table, if nothing else.

You have two main options for spending your five thousand dollars.

Option 1: You could choose to give five hundred people each ten dollars. All of these people will enjoy their money as a pleasant gift, though it probably isn’t going to turn anyone’s life around.

Option 2: You could choose to give a single person five thousand dollars all at once.

I’m genuinely torn on this question. The first option is the ostensibly fairer answer, but the actual quality of life increase is marginal. More people benefit, but people probably don’t take away the same stories and memories as the one person would from the payout. The increase in happiness here is basically equivocal, making them a wash from a utilitarian perspective.

This is amplified by two quirks of human psychology. The first is a propensity to remember large events over small events, which makes some sense as a strategy, but has a tendency to distort trends. This is especially true of good things, which tend to be minimized, while bad things tend to be more easily remembered. This is why, for example, Americans readily believe that crime is getting worse, even though statistically, the exact opposite is true.

The second amplifier is the human tendency to judge things in relative terms. Ten dollars, while certainly not nothing, does not make a huge difference relative to an annual salary of $55,000, while $5,000 is a decent chunk of change. Moreover, people will judge based relative to each other, meaning that some perceived happiness may well be lost in giving the same amount of money to more people.

This question comes up in charity all the time. Just think about the Make a Wish Foundation. For the same amount of money, their resources could easily reach far more people through research and more broad quality of life improvements. Yet they chose to focus on achieving individual wishes. Arguably they achieve greater happiness because they focus their resources on a handful of life-changing projects rather than a broader course of universal improvement.

Now, to be clear, this does not negate the impact of inequality, particularly at the levels faced in the modern world. Indeed, such problems only really appear in stable, developed societies where the the value of small gifts is marginal. In reality, while ten dollars may not mean a great deal to myself or my neighbor, it would mean the difference between riches and poverty in a village facing extreme poverty in a developing nation. Also, in reality, we are seldom faced with carefully balanced binary options between two extremes.

The question of the microscopic artist falls into a grey area between the two extremes. As a piece of art, such pieces invariably contribute, even if only incrementally, to the greater corpus of human work, and their creation and existence contributes in meaningful and measurable ways to overall human progress.

There is, of course, the subjective, and probably unanswerable question of to what degree the wealthy collector buyers of these pieces are derive their enjoyment from the artistic piece itself, or from the commodity; that is, whether they own it for artistic sake, or for the sake of owning it. This question is relevant, as it does have some bearing on what can be said to be the overall utilitarian happiness derived from the work, compared to the utilitarian happiness derived from the same sum of resources spent otherwise. Of course, this is unknowable and unprovable.

What, then, can be made of this question? The answer is probably not much, unless one favors punitively interventionist economic policy, or totalitarian restrictions on artistic expression. For my part, I am as unable to conclusively answer this question as I can answer the question of how best to focus charitable efforts. Yet I do think it is worthwhile to always bear in mind the trade offs which are being made.