Itemoids

Don

The Triumph of Coming in Third

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2023 › 06 › winning-third-place-competition-effort-happiness › 674489

Want to stay current with Arthur’s writing? Sign up to get an email every time a new column comes out.

“Second place is just the first loser” is an aphorism widely attributed to the legendary NASCAR champion Dale Earnhardt. Or as my late father put it, (mostly) jokingly, “It’s not enough to win. Your friends have to lose too.”

We may not want others to know we think this way. But think this way we do, because humans are born and wired to compete with one another. What was probably an evolutionary trait derived from a chronic scarcity of resources in our premodern past, the need to win still manifests in many areas of life, sometimes in absurd ways. People jockey for position in line to get on an airplane. They compare how many “likes” they have on social media. We see billionaires envy multibillionaires, and famous actors complaining about the Oscar or Emmy that should have been theirs. In my own world of academia, I have witnessed bitter disputes over a few square feet of office space.

[Read: The real hero of Ted Lasso]

Although the competitive spirit may be as natural as breathing air, it does not always lead to human flourishing. On the contrary, left unmanaged, it can create misery for ourselves and others. Fortunately, there is a formula to solve this problem without unrealistically suggesting that we dispense entirely with our competitive urge: Instead of always going for gold, shoot for the bronze.

To expand on the wisdom of Earnhardt, although second place may be the first loser, third place can be the real winner—at least when it comes to happiness and longevity. This conclusion comes from research conducted on Olympic athletes. In a 1995 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, scholars studied the emotional reactions of silver and bronze medalists in the 1992 Summer Olympic Games both immediately after their events and later on the awards podium. They discovered that the bronze winners appeared consistently happier on average than the silver medalists. (The study did not consider the gold-winning athletes.)

More recent research has looked at the life span of all three medalist categories. A 2018 study in the journal Economics & Human Biology tracked the average longevity of those representing the U.S. in the Olympic Games from 1904 to 1936 and found that the athlete whose best performance was silver lived to 72. Gold medalists beat this by a solid four years, living to 76. But first prize in longevity went to the bronze medalists, who lived to 78.

[Gene B. Sperling: Punching Steph Curry]

The study had a handy explanation for this discrepancy: “Dissatisfactory competition outcomes may adversely affect health.” In other words, silver medalists see themselves as the first loser because they look up to the top step and compare themselves only with the gold medalists, whereas the bronze winners compare themselves favorably with all the others who never made it onto the podium at all. (It would be interesting to know how long the poor souls who came in fourth lived.)

Want to hear more from Arthur C. Brooks? Join him and a selection of today’s best writers and boldest voices at The Atlantic Festival on September 28 and 29. Get your pass here.

This hypothesis is based on a considerable body of literature showing the difference between upward and downward social comparison. When we compare ourselves with those who have more money, power, or achievements, we often feel like, well, losers. What exactly does famous or rich or fast mean, besides having more celebrity, money, or athletic ability than someone else (that is, you)?

That is why people so commonly feel bad about themselves after checking out the lives of others on social media who post only about their victories and celebrations. In contrast, downward comparison makes people feel better about themselves and, thus, happier. In fact, researchers have found that comparing our own circumstances with the unfortunate lot of others is a reliable technique for reducing a negative mood—and not out of schadenfreude or malice but because rewards in life are relative. So, as for the medal-winning athletes, the perception of other people’s position helps you establish your own sense of good fortune.

The worldly happiness strategy of striving for gold every day is foolish. Fixing your hopes for contentment on being No. 1 is about the most precarious approach you can adopt. More likely, you will spend most of your time feeling like a silver medalist: always aspiring, pinning your bliss on a single outcome, but succumbing again and again to the tyranny of probability—and disappointment. Much better, then, to aim for healthy competition in which you do your best without expectation of being the absolute winner. Here are three things to keep in mind as you pursue a happy, bronze-medalist lifestyle.

1. Think Local, Not Global
One of the biggest problems in modern social comparison is the expanding pool of people with whom, in nearly every area of life, you can compare yourself. We are confronted daily with details about the most wealthy, powerful, glamorous, and admired people on the planet. Modern technology offers competing standards that are impossible to meet.

Realizing this and adjusting the comparison pool can help fight the resulting modern angst. Rather than looking at the lives of the rich and famous on Instagram or Hulu, get involved in the lives of people in your local community. Rather than dreaming about giving a concert at Carnegie Hall, go play at your neighborhood community center. Living locally gives us a proper frame of reference for our own accomplishments—one that some scholars contend better matches our ancestral environment and therefore gives us the contentment we need.

2. Don’t Make Your Competition “One and Done”
Competition is especially problematic for happiness when it involves a one-off event, such as the Olympics. We need lots of opportunities to excel, and staking our whole sense of self on one event is likely to result in disappointment. Even if you win, a singular victory means that your greatest moment is immediately in the past. A former star athlete once told me that his biggest trophy was now a source of bitterness. “It sits there on my shelf mocking me,” he said, “because I can no longer live up to it.” Much better, if possible, to subject yourself to contests in a sustained pattern over time. In business, for example, make friendly competition a routine event where sometimes you win and sometimes you don’t.

[Arthur C. Brooks: America is pursuing happiness in all the wrong places]

Perhaps this sounds a little unambitious or unnatural to you, but what I am describing is an actual adaptive strategy in nature. Researchers report this fascinating finding about how young rats play-fight as part of their development. Invariably, one rat attacks first, gains advantage—and could “win” most of the time. But to keep the bouts going, the opponent lets the defending rat prevail about 30 percent of the time. Compete like a happy rat.

3. Contend Against Yourself Instead of Others
One of the problems with most competition against others is that it tends to lower the intrinsic motivation, and thus enjoyment, that people derive from their activities. Decades ago, researchers showed this in such enduring experiments as asking people to solve puzzles and then measuring the interest they reported: They found the puzzles less rewarding when competing against others rather than against the clock. Simply having a time limit means competing against themselves—which is often more fun. The principle at work here is that trying to improve your own past performance provides a sense not of “winning” but of progress.

In case all else fails, I should mention one last way to go for the bronze that comes from the ancient Greeks. The late archaeologist Stephen Gaylord Miller described the funeral games of Patroklos, in which athletes exerted themselves physically and mentally as if to state triumphantly, “I am alive!” If you adopt this approach in your own daily life contests, you will rightfully claim the sweetest prize: life itself. And the only person to whom you will have to compare yourself is you.

The Public Debates Worth Witnessing

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › newsletters › archive › 2023 › 06 › the-public-debates-worth-witnessing › 674544

Welcome to Up for Debate. Each week, Conor Friedersdorf rounds up timely conversations and solicits reader responses to one thought-provoking question. Later, he publishes some thoughtful replies. Sign up for the newsletter here.

Last week, I asked readers what subject they would want to see debated and who the participants would be.

Replies have been edited for length and clarity.

J.E. wants a prominent current or former tech executive to face a critic:

I’d have Mark Zuckerberg or Sheryl Sandberg debate U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy about the damaging effects of social media on the mental health and well-being of young people. I find it quite frustrating that Zuckerberg and Sandberg were so eager to engage with the media about the positive impact of Facebook (Bringing the world together!) or their confidence about creating change (Move fast and break things!). Now that it’s apparent that social media has caused serious problems, we don’t hear from them. Do they agree that children have been adversely affected? Can they offer any solutions to the problems their product caused? What is their response to Dr. Murthy’s report?

Chadd’s struggles with addiction inform the debate he wants to see:

As someone who went to drug-rehab centers all over the country, experienced the opioid crisis over a decade, watched a dozen or so of my friends die, and overdosed multiple times myself, I believe that an under-discussed issue is drug-rehab programs—not only drug rehab but the concept of the “disease of addiction” and the entire 12-step rehab regime that has basically had control of the alcohol and drug narrative for 100 years.

Having been to treatment something like 15 to 20 times (anything from seven-day detoxes to 90-day rehab programs), I’ve seen and experienced so many of these places that it’s embarrassing. But I did finally “recover” and have since been drug-free for more than 5 years.

With that in mind, I want people to understand that nearly every single one of these places offered nearly the exact same treatment program. Some were better than others; most were mostly bullshit. Some really did try, and had honest, kind, and compassionate staff that really cared. Some were full-on grifts, run by former (and current) addicts who took advantage of desperate parents and insurance companies to enrich themselves at the expense of these poor folks. Besides all that, the one thing they all had in common was that the absolute main aspect of the “treatment” was exposure to the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. Sometimes it was very in-depth, with “therapists” who were essentially 12-step evangelists spreading the good word of AA. Some were credentialed and kind and talented. Almost all preached the 12 steps like it was pretty much the gold standard of treatment. Not only that, most would casually even make snide comments about other methods of treatment, dismissing them as if they were completely absurd and irrelevant. That mindset is highly prevalent in the 12-step ecosystem.

Why am I talking about all this? Because people talk about how difficult the “disease” of addiction is, and the dismal success rates of treatment. In my opinion, there are better, more effective, evidence-based treatments that are underutilized and disregarded, if not outright demonized. I have been attacked on social media for stating my views about the 12 steps by vicious AA evangelists, some of whom I used to consider friends. All because I said that I think the 12 steps don’t work and that we should be trying something else instead of the same thing over and over.

I just so happen to be one of those people for whom the 12 steps did not work. Over and over, I was told I “must not have been totally honest,” or “Maybe you’re just not done yet,” as if there is some magical “bottom” you have to hit before you’re ready to stop destroying yourself. None of that stuff ended up being true. What I was missing the entire time was direction and connection. And also medication-assisted treatment, or MAT.

MAT [incorporates] medications that a drug-dependent person can take to ease withdrawal symptoms and more easily reenter normal life. These drugs are heavily stigmatized and demonized in the 12-step community. When I left NA, one could not be considered “clean” if they were taking medication for this purpose. Because of this stigma and the general idea that MAT is just replacing one drug with another—and for that reason is doomed to fail—therapists, doctors, and families are generally pushed away from these treatments. Not only that, but to access them one typically must pay some cash [since insurance often does not offer full coverage]. This leads many users to go back to drugs like heroin and fentanyl, because it’s almost cheaper to continue to use heroin than to afford the doctor visit, travel expenses, and crazy-high prescription costs. These medications have been shown to be highly effective at stopping withdrawals, curbing craving, and preventing future use.

If I could have any two people debate, I would say Dr. Nora Volkow, the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), versus either Dr. Carl Hart of Columbia University or Dr. Gabor Maté, a Canadian addiction and harm-reduction expert. The topic would be the merits of the entire disease concept, and the effectiveness of 12-step programs versus other, evidence-based modalities. I choose Dr. Hart or Maté because both are highly regarded in their fields and have written incredible books on relevant topics. Hart mainly focuses on neuroscientific aspects of addiction, while Maté mainly focuses on behaviors and things like past trauma. Both have talked about how the idea of addiction as a “disease” is highly questionable, and how many of the assumptions about drug use and addicts are totally wrong.

Volkow has been the head of NIDA for years, is also highly regarded in her field, and has been very vocal about her belief in the “disease of addiction” and access to 12-step programs.

I’d love to see them debate the topic of addiction as a lifelong, incurable disease and the effectiveness of the 12 steps. I believe that we have erred in accepting that heavy, dependent drug use is some kind of incurable disease and that once you have it, you'll never kick it, and you can never be the same again.

I’m living proof that this idea is nonsense.

M.’s suggestions raise a significant logistical challenge:

I would argue that the most important debate has already occurred and very few people noticed: John Maynard Keynes vs. F. A. Hayek. Although this version is a parody, the questions raised by these two individuals are still debated by governments throughout the world today. Another important debate resolution: “Is the U.S. federal administrative state in 2023 constitutional?” I’d nominate Woodrow Wilson to argue the affirmative and Alexander Hamilton to argue the negative. Because both support stronger federal governments, we would take Hayek as the moderator, giving him the moderator’s prerogative to ask questions throughout. For the past 100 years there has been a significant shift in the size and scope of both the federal and state governments, and in the responsibilities they claim. What is unclear today is where the limits are. Having a serious debate by “uninterested” (in this case, dead) parties might be useful in starting that conversation.

Adam believes his debate would turn out differently than I do:

What I think is dividing this country is a lost ability to have back-and-forth, unscripted conversation. What is the quickest way to win an argument these days? Don’t engage in one. The second quickest way? Dismiss the opponent’s position as a radical, fringe thought. Planned speeches with little Q&A are becoming more popular. Even more, any appearance of an adverse opinion is shunned instead of addressed. Our political leaders have adopted these methods, and as a result, the virtue of good-faith debate is fading.

My answer to the Question of the Week will thus focus less on the substantive issue and more on reviving spirited, rigorous, and professional debate. So here is what I would like to see (and why): Arthur Brooks debating Joe Biden on whether a hot dog is a sandwich.

One caveat: No notes or teleprompter allowed. This debate, I believe, would juxtapose a levelheaded, articulate, finely tuned oralist with our president. Hopefully this would remind Americans of how real leaders present themselves. The topic is, of course, silly and meaningless. But if it is plainly shown that our president cannot form coherent thoughts on something so simple, then Americans should be skeptical of how he performs behind closed doors with other world leaders. At bottom, what disheartens me most is that those who garner the most attention are either not sharp enough to engage in spontaneous speech or possibly so insecure in their beliefs that they resort to character attacks, leaving the merits of important issues unaddressed and unresolved.

Were I advising Joe Biden, I’d urge him to accept that debate and expect him to perform reasonably well in it––and I say that as someone with my own concerns about his advancing age, and as a fan of Arthur Brooks, who is a contributing writer here at The Atlantic.

Bob turns our attention to agriculture:

The proposition to debate would be: “Farmers and ranchers should be treated the same as other businesses with regard to the water pollution they generate.” I limited it to just water pollution because including all types of pollution would make the topic too broad for an effective debate. (If you want names of debaters, I suggest Carrie Vollmer-Sanders, sustainability director, U.S. Farmers and Ranchers in Action, versus Anne Schechinger, agricultural economist and Midwest director, Environmental Working Group.)

The debate premise would be: Currently, the damage to the general public that is done by agriculture-related groundwater and surface-water pollution is principally dealt with by education of farmers and ranchers regarding new practices, monetary incentives, and appealing to whatever environmental ethic they may have––in contrast to other businesses (paper mills are one example in my area) that are required by law to clean up their pollution to a certain level prior to discharge into waterways. Because there are readily available ways to reduce agricultural pollution, farmers and ranchers could be similarly required by law to do so. Any increased cost would be passed on to those consumers who choose to buy their product. This seems like a reasonable transition since the vast majority of farmers/ranchers impacted are now “businesses” in every sense of the word.

Russ gets right to his proposition:

Should Joe Biden stack the Supreme Court?

The debate opponents would be Elizabeth Warren (pro) and Mitt Romney (con). I picked them specifically for the following reasons: They are both current sitting senators but not the leaders of their party. They both have run for president, so there would be name recognition, and neither can truthfully claim to represent the majority of their respective parties any longer. They can both articulate a position fairly well. I am going to give credit early that both would equally wish to win the debate and therefore prepare accordingly.

Jaleelah would debate me:

Let’s assume that I could choose the format of the debate, pick a neutral moderator committed to enforcing time limits, and guarantee that the audience is randomly selected from a pool of all Americans. I have reservations about forcing figures I respect to participate in massively viewed debates. Not every smart person is a smart debater, and some people do not appreciate the possibility of being laughed at by millions of people. I would love to see Natalie Wynn debate Jordan Peterson on whether postmodern neo-Marxism is a real threat, but I would not want Wynn to face death threats from Peterson’s more extreme supporters.

I would choose myself as one of the debaters. I am a persuasive speaker, and I know I would be able to deal with the consequences of participating in such an event. I would make you debate me on the following question:Are the principled pursuit of near-absolute freedom of speech and the practical pursuit of intelligent debate mutually exclusive?” Despite the fact that I sent you a very long email giving away many of my arguments last August, I am completely confident that I could win defending the proposition that the two cannot coexist. I think this debate would be fun, and it would probably force you to defend one over the other in future writing. There would be no good reason to refuse!

The Posting

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › books › archive › 2023 › 06 › sara-freeman-the-posting-short-story › 674506

This story seems to be about:

Editor’s Note: Read an interview with Sara Freeman about her writing process.

Everything overheard in those days. German on the streets, my mother and my father on the phone. They’re only children. My mother, Philip, and I: three bodies stuck inside the bright-yellow cage of a phone booth. He was in Bosnia on assignment. Assigned to what? We didn’t know. We were only children. We knew far away; we knew war-torn; we knew 10 days, maybe two weeks, maybe more. We knew we had moved to Berlin earlier that summer and turned a page we could no longer turn back.

The flight home to Toronto was a year away, a lifetime in our little lives. By August I’d stopped wishing for the rec center and its too-chlorinated pool, for the park near our house and the counselors who brought us there, those miraculously stoned 14-year-olds, letting us climb on the monkey bars and making us necklaces out of marigolds and calling it “camp.” I missed my best friend Eva, but not as much as I’d thought. And even when I missed her, I liked it, my missing, this nothing the same anymore, this everything suddenly in the past tense. I had been made for the habit of missing, living out of a single suitcase with the same four T-shirts and two pairs of soccer shorts, the one jean dress, which I wore only because it made my mother smile, the same way she smiled when she looked at herself in the mirror, a smile equal measures modesty and conceit. The smile of a discerning woman. I lived for those smiles, the rare exception of them; we all did.

It was my brother, Philip, 18 months older, who had a hard time of it. He would turn 13 that summer but had started wetting his bed like a much younger boy. Not every night, no, but once and then again and then again. Back at home, I might have let myself enjoy it, even gloat a little. He who could do nothing wrong, he who had been everyone’s favorite, my mother’s particular pet. But here, instead, I sat on the foldout chair in the kitchen of the cavernous short-term-rental apartment and watched as my mother stuffed the soiled single sheet into the too-small washing machine and turned to me with her index finger to her lips, lifting her coal-dark eyebrows, and I thought about how I was being asked to keep a secret all the time now.

One evening, waking up uneasy, aware of something happening just outside my reach—moving out of bed with the inevitability of a dream. My mother on the patio, cigarette in her mouth, like the movie star she was not. I let out a little yelp. Her words, their sound escaping my mouth, How could you? She looked surprised, although less alert than I would have thought; stubbed the cigarette out on the balcony railing, and came over to me, smelling of a stranger, cigarettes and something else, a new smell blossoming from somewhere deep. When she tucked me back in, she pointed to the other sliver of bed where my brother slept, his face contorted and red; Stumm, she whispered, our favorite German word. Our second secret. My brother’s bad habit and hers. She was training me, I was beginning to understand, to store them away.

In the daytime, walking in the Tiergarten. My brother’s mouth pressed to the spout of a water fountain, my mother not even saying don’t. The junkies sitting around the entrance of the Zoologischer Garten, girls not much older than me, with their agitated German shepherds barking at their own tails. I asked my mother why the dogs were like that, and she told me fleas reflexively, and I thought about the tiniest facts and how adults accrued them, how many there were that I had yet to encounter. How would I ever catch up?

Every evening, sharing an ice-cream cone from the Häagen-Dazs on Kurfürstendamm, my mother not even complaining about the tourist prices. With my father away, bills were dispensed from the neat stack in my mother’s wallet like a magic trick, ta-da, not a perpetual rummaging in deep pockets, coins jangling, my father’s nervous habit. You’re in Europe now, he’d warned us when we’d arrived at Tegel Airport. We needed to keep an eye on prices and remember the exchange rate, which could sneak up on us at any moment. My brother perked up then, literal-minded as he was, terrified of those calculations, the exponential dangers of being abroad. My father, before leaving on assignment, had even loaned him his cheap Casio calculator. No matter where we went, Philip set to converting the price of each purchase from deutsche marks into Canadian dollars, even though the currencies were nearly on par.  

How many phone conversations inside those yellow phone booths, with the playing-card-size ads for call girls papering every side? My mother calling Realtors in German that sounded like her native French—a language she had always kept from us—those guttural sounds made pert and pinched in her mouth. Breasts everywhere. In ads on the U-Bahn and plastered to buildings and construction fencing. The Beate Uhse Erotik Museum taking up an entire city block, with its displays of tasseled and G-stringed mannequins. One night, on our way back from ice cream, two women—girls, really—waiting in their miniskirts and go-go boots by a lamppost, their eyes surveying the road. I stopped and looked: a car slowing down, a beat-up shoebox with a man inside it with an ugly mustache, the woman looking to one side and then the other, and then her head dropping down to meet the mustache. A strangely elegant dance. My mother telling me, Don’t stare. I couldn’t tell if she disapproved of the scene, or if she didn’t want to make its actors feel uncomfortable. She didn’t seem to mind about anything in those days, or her minding was different, a kind of loose minding I’d always envied in other mothers.

And then, not a secret anymore. She smoked continually, inside the house and in the café under the arches of Savignyplatz, where she drank not one, but two cappuccinos in a row, always identical in their stout white ceramic cup and saucer and delivered by a waiter in a tux. We must have made a funny trio: my mother and I, our hair dark as ink; my brother, a redhead like our father, with his little calculator, waving my mother’s smoke away. Hot chocolate mit Sahne in a glass mug for me, with its dollop of whipped cream floating luxuriously at the top. Philip ordered strictly Coca-Colas, refusing orange Fanta, which I knew he liked. He boycotted everything German, with his Canadian flag sewn onto his backpack.

This was West Berlin. 1996. My mother not yet 35, the age I am now. We never went to the east in those days. Only my father went on assignment. Berlin had been reunified, but you couldn’t have guessed it from the way we lived. The few expats we’d been put in touch with all lived in the West. The John F. Kennedy Schule, where we would be attending fifth and sixth grade in September, was in the West, in leafy Zehlendorf.

My father had explained to us before we moved: He had been posted by his newspaper to track Berlin’s reconstruction, the country’s reunification. But I didn’t think the city needed rebuilding. It was beautiful, broken as it was. We had gone to see the Wall during our first week. Our father had briefed us before the visit, given us a loose chronology of the Cold War, shown us pictures from the fall: Berliners from the west and east dancing on the Wall’s thick lip. Fall seemed a passive word when it came to all those people wanting the same thing at the exact same time.

Back at home, when we were alone together, my father spoke to me almost continuously. He spoke and I listened. On the way to dance class and soccer practice, on the way to the supermarket, and to sleepovers at Eva’s. He never seemed to mind that I was a child. He spoke to me the same way he spoke to his few adult friends, to the people he interviewed over the phone. I don’t think he knew how else to speak to me. He was the kind of parent who seemed perplexed by the lives of the young, as though he had never had a childhood. He retained facts with exquisite precision.

It was odd, then, that he should love my mother, who appeared in her very nature like the opposite of a fact one might retain. Or maybe it was this—her counterfactuality—that had drawn him to her in the first place. When my father was with her, he spoke quietly, in a choppy and informational way. They did not argue, or if they did, did not allow us to overhear. But it was impossible not to notice the way her mood might shift irretrievably in his presence, the skin around her jaw tightening, the divot between her eyes deepening, her body becoming more rigid and upright—all of the physical cues she gave my father to keep his distance, his hushed compliance. I wished, in those moments, for my father to be a different kind of husband, one who might tease her, might take her out of herself, but I think he had a great respect for a person’s inborn right to her inborn seriousness. And there was complicity between them; I saw that too. The distance she demanded and his careful maintenance of it created a world unto itself, just large enough to house the two of them.

We were waiting for our furniture and the rest of our clothes. We had packed light, hoping the shipping container would arrive in a few weeks. But it had been six now; the first apartment we’d planned to move into had fallen through. Fallen through what?

And so we visited dozens of apartments. At first, the three of us: my mother, my brother, and I. When my brother said he’d had enough of snooping around other people’s stuff—It’s weird, he told us accusingly, as though we were enjoying it too much—my mother and I went alone. There were those apartments so emptied of life, so generic, that it was impossible to imagine reviving them with our presence. But there were also apartments so palatial, so bohemian, with their open-planned kitchens and proliferations of glass jars—delicate strands of black tea, swirls of pasta—so nakedly not ours.

We spent a few days in Charlottenburg, seeing apartments there, but I knew that they were beyond the budget the newspaper had set. My mother, under the spell of the stately apartments, the ornate moldings, the high ceilings, acted as though money was of little concern, agreeing on the spot to move into a quiet apartment with a marble-counter-topped kitchen. But that evening, a rare fight erupted between my parents over the telephone, and the next day we had to bow out of the lease. Mein mann, my mother gave, in her rudimentary German, as an excuse. Mann meant “man” and “husband” at the same time. I found this strange, that one should imply the other. I had no intention, even then, of ever being anyone’s frau.

Later, my mother picking clothes out for us at the C&A department store with her version of exuberance, moving easily through the aisles, plucking items off the rack. I loved my mother best in these moments, when I coasted on the wake of her decisiveness, her confident tastes. Cute, my mother said, when I came out of the changing room wearing a tight ribbed polo with white jean shorts. She arranged my collar, tucked a strand of hair behind my ear, very cute. Philip told me I looked weird, but when I asked him why, he said, You just do. Like a weirdo. He had always been sweet before, shielding me as best he could from the bullying I had endured in our middle school in Toronto. But he brooded all the time now.

I could tell from the Turkish families and sturdy German grandmothers wearing floral housecoats that the store was not fancy. My mother loved to shop, but she only bought refined pieces for herself, keeping the habit of luxury her own. In our first week without my father, she had bought a pair of sunglasses for 175 Deutschmarks, followed by a silk blouse for 250. The boutique’s attendant, a young giraffe of a woman with a liar’s gap, had said, Sehr, sehr schön, commenting on my mother’s silhouette. My mother had looked in the full-length mirror in the way she did in those days, with a coy self-satisfaction that seemed like a secret she kept stored up only for herself.  

From time to time, after the purchase of the blouse, I would go to her room, find the stiff bag hanging behind the door, visit the crinkly paper, touch the shirt’s almost impossible weightlessness. I didn’t care about clothes; I cared about her, how she would look in them, how she would feel in them. She had told me, on the way back to the apartment, where my brother sat plastered to the couch watching a recorded episode of Melrose Place, not to tell him or my father about what she’d bought.   

Rainy days spent on the low couch watching the TV shows Eva had recorded for me onto VHS as a parting gift. Philip watching alongside, not even complaining that they were mostly soap operas. Mom reading and smoking on the balcony, not minding what we did. In the early afternoons, she went out and came back with groceries: supermarket potato salad and cold cuts for lunch and frozen pizzas and a salad for dinner, as if she had forgotten how to cook. At home, she had cooked every meal for us, garlic-stewed lamb sprinkled with immaculately chopped parsley, effortless salads bright with lemon and olive oil, nut cakes soaked in orange-blossom syrup, miraculously light, all recipes she’d learned from her Sephardic mother, my grandmother, whom my brother and I had met only twice—both visits so short, it had been impossible to glean more than the fact that she was opposite to my mother: loud, and thickset, and so aggressively affectionate that Philip had burst into tears when she’d squeezed him goodbye.

When the apartment in Charlottenburg fell through, we stopped looking for a place to live. We’ll let your dad do the digging when he gets back, my mother said, with a wry lilt. I knew that our sublet was ending in just a couple of weeks, but I said nothing, following her lead, as I always did. My father had been gone for three weeks, nearly four, and we no longer counted down the days. At night, I heard my brother crying, and instead of asking him what was wrong, I let him. We were each, it seemed, in our new confinement, in our new closeness, entirely on our own.

After the rain, a period of surprising heat. We peeled ourselves from the couch, took the U-Bahn to the Olympic swimming pool in Spandau. The place was packed with families. Bodies young and old on display. Philip grew red, chin down, eyes at his feet. We found a rare spot of unoccupied grass, where we lay our brittle bath towels. My mother on her belly, back to the sun. I bent down and undid the straps; I didn’t need to be asked. I found her handbag and took out the suntan lotion and squeezed the cream into my hands. Gross, Philip said, in his perpetual embarrassment, looking down at his Game Boy. The cream was cold against my hot hands; I massaged until the sunscreen disappeared into her back, hoping it might last longer, giving me something to do while I was here, letting me stay with my mother’s familiar body, rather than the dozens of others calling my attention nearby.

Old men with their enormous, globular bellies. Girls in their teens smoking nearby, no adult intervening. I never wanted to leave. When our father had told us that we would be moving to Berlin, he had said four years, and that had seemed like an eternity. I had cradled the telephone for hours in my room, crying to Eva, planning ways I might stay with her family in Toronto. But four years now seemed too few. I would be 15 then, just as old as those girls over there. We had been inseparable, Eva and I, but I no longer missed her. It seemed that I had been carrying on with her because I hadn’t yet known about the world, all the other people in it.

Then, Sabine. Not the first day at the pool but the second. At first, just a stranger on a towel a few meters away from mine, topless, me trying not to stare. Oblong nipples, dark and distended like stretched-out full moons. My mother, with one eye open, only half-listening to what Sabine was saying—she had started talking without a greeting, a stranger on a towel next to mine, our sudden intimacy, no introduction necessary. Philip, playing Tetris, pretending, successfully, not to care. Sabine was tan with an unevenly cut bob, no doubt something she’d fashioned on her own. She had hairy armpits; I tried not to look at those either. I’d never seen hair there on a woman before, but it had the same illicit urgency as the dark triangles in the pornos passed around at school. Sabine wanted to know where we were from; she had heard us speaking English. She had spent, she told me, a year in Wisconsin as a teenager on exchange and it was the most beautiful place in the world. Have you been? she asked, as if I were not an 11-year-old child. I told her I hadn’t, but that it seemed like one of those places that had more livestock than people in it, the kind of comment I’d heard my father make in the past. Laughter, hers, deep and from the belly, You’re funny. It’s good to have a sense of humor in your age, which made me blush. I wanted, from then on, above all else, to make Sabine smile, to make her laugh. Sabine spoke English well, save for her prepositions, which made the whole world, in her mouth, a little askew.

My mother and Sabine spoke for a while and I could sense that my mother was glad to finally be speaking English again, to be having a conversation with someone other than me. Back home, my mother had always been entirely self-reliant, the kind of mother who didn’t easily make friends with the other mothers or the neighbors or her colleagues at work. But she and Sabine got along immediately. Or Sabine spoke and my mother listened.

We spent the afternoon together. Sabine, we learned quickly, was a student at the university, and still, at age 29, working on her undergraduate degree in sociology. Looking back on it now, my mother must have envied Sabine this freedom, to study at the university for so many years without financial pressure. My mother had completed only the first two years of a degree in business administration before leaving Montreal for a summer job in the offices of an insurance company in Toronto. She’d met my father and stayed on, closed the door on her life before him.

Sabine had an ease about her, so that when we got up from our towels to walk back to the U-Bahn, so did she, and instead of taking it in the direction of her apartment, she jumped onto our line, and spoke to us until we’d arrived at our stop, and then, as if it were the most natural thing, walked us all the way to the door of our apartment building. I could tell Philip found this infuriating, as he always did when other people tried to burst our sacred family bubble. My mother and I watched her with rapt attention, and for the first time since we had arrived in the strange city, we both felt taken care of. We made plans to see one another again the next day, or Sabine suggested it and my mother agreed. And just like that, Sabine was in our lives. Sabine, of the loose-fitting skirts and tops, breasts—untethered, outlined by a silk camisole—that I couldn’t help but track, shifting beneath her shirt as she moved, as she talked. Her smell like baby powder, and something botanical, the smell of all drugstores here, a scent that I would later come to think of simply as Germany.

Trips to the Checkpoint Charlie Museum and the Fernsehturm and the Pergamon Museum were swiftly deemed boring by Sabine. Instead, a walking tour of all of the apartments she’d either lived in or thought of living in, and the ones her boyfriends and close friends had lived in too. This is where I lost my virginity, she informed us, pointing to a white-and-pink facade on a sunny street in Moabit. He was sleeping inside a bed, you know, that is close with the ceiling, so it was not a very good idea, she explained. A mezzanine, my mother providing the English word whenever Sabine couldn’t find it. How old were you? My mother asked. Thirteen, Sabine said tonelessly. My mother must have found this very young, but she said nothing. Instead, she smiled, Sabine looping her arm in hers and continuing the tour. And that is where we broke up, she said, pointing to the intersection of two broad boulevards nearby. Sabine had a way of making it seem like a life, for being one’s own, was worthy of commemoration.

My mother never spoke about her own life this way, even though I knew hers had been an interesting one, full of rupture and self-definition. The fact of her, her past, always just beyond our reach, a living mystery. Why, I’d asked my father earlier that year, did we only rarely visit our grandparents in Montreal, or did our mother ignore calls from her sisters, who seemed, from the photographs at least, lively and sweet? My father had simply said, Your mother is a very complicated woman, as if we were two men sharing in our private language, in our incomprehension.  

We must have met Frank soon after that. Frank was, Sabine explained, her partner, a word I had only ever heard used in the context of business or crime. Frank—with his tight jeans and stringy, greasy dirty-blond hair, eyes blue and nearly cruel, a tiny gold hoop in his left ear—looked more like a criminal than a businessman. He smoked constantly, a brown stain where the filter hit the front tooth. He smelled too, of stale cigarettes and body odor, and something else, pine maybe, which was meant to mask it. On warm days, it only intensified the smell of his sweat.

Frank, we pieced together from his digressive, elliptical storytelling, was from a town in the former East, a cow farm, where he’d grown up a strict Catholic. I grew up in the Scheisse, he liked to say, laughing, always looking at me when he made the joke, even though it was my mother’s response that he tracked afterward. And I wasn’t one of these guys who wanted to come to the West: America, Bruce Springsteen, that kind of thing. I miss it every day. And then Sabine would say something in German, just to him, something that sounded to me unspeakably technical, that I could not associate with love or romance. Yet Frank would respond, in English now, But of course, I would not know Sabine, and they would kiss—open and lingering and a little bit wet. Philip looking at his feet, my mother unfazed, as though the woman who’d spent our childhoods placing her hands over our eyes whenever an intimate scene came onto our small television screen had been suddenly replaced.

Philip disliked Frank right away. I don’t know why we’re spending time with that trash, he said one morning, when my mother had made plans for us to spend the whole day with Sabine and Frank. I didn’t know you to be such a snob, my mother said, slapping him lightly across the face. She seemed as taken aback as we were by the gesture; she and Philip had been inseparable back home. In Toronto, it was in my brother’s presence that my mother had been happiest, most at ease. But there was no question of canceling our plans. The day trip to Treptower Park had been Frank’s idea; he was appalled, although not especially surprised, he let us know, by how conservative we’d been in our explorations of the city’s former East.

That afternoon, Frank, as though aware of Philip’s objections to his personality, seemed set on taunting him with it. On the walk to the S-Bahn station from our apartment, he teased Philip about his near-empty backpack. Each time we passed a phone booth or a vending machine, he made a show of sticking two fingers into the coin dispenser to check for stray change. Frank finally found a deutsche mark coin in a cigarette machine and, unbeknownst to Philip, stuck it in the front pocket of his backpack, winking at me as he did. Frank must have been feeling lucky, because when my mother took our tickets out from her wallet so that Philip could validate them—one of Philip’s few remaining pleasures—Frank grabbed her gently by the arm, intercepting the exchange. We were tourists, Americans, he explained. Canadians, Philip mumbled. Certainly, Frank continued, we could get away with saying we didn’t understand German if a ticket inspector came onto the train. And if you get the fine, I pay it, Frank said. And if you don’t get inspected, you give me the tickets. Sabine rolled her eyes; Philip glared at Frank. Of course, there was nothing fair about the offer, but my mother looked at Frank and smiled, satisfied with the terms. It’s a deal, she said, a girlish glint in her eye. It was a long journey—11 stops—my stomach tight the entire time, picturing the moment we’d get caught, what would come afterward. We would have to tell my father, explain to him what we’d done: We had not paid the fare, on a dare. Why would you do such a thing? he would ask us, with the tone of moral incredulity he used whenever questions of civic responsibility, of personal integrity—however minor—were at stake.

Inspections were frequent, but we got lucky that day. At the Treptower Park Station, my mother deposited the unused tickets into Frank’s expectant palm; he slipped them into the back pocket of his jeans and said, Schönen Dank! My mother did not look dejected. She appeared light, celebratory, even, as though she had gotten away with something too. From then on, Philip called Frank and Sabine “The Scheissters,” and to show my solidarity, I called them that too, even though I didn’t think it was fair that Sabine should be absorbed into the insult.

Frank called me Frank, even though my name was Frances, Frankie to my family and to Eva. But Frank thought it was too much of a coincidence that our names should be so similar, and so he shortened my name and made it into his own. I didn’t mind having a new name in this new place and so I didn’t complain. I neither liked nor disliked Frank. I merely saw him for what he was: a man, not my father, who was suddenly always there.

I had never seen a man’s body so close up, not even my father’s. Frank invited us to look at his in a way I understood women usually did, his T-shirts tight and worn so that we could make out his chest, lean and muscular, the veins pulsing down his arms as he moved, his limbs long and articulated. He had a strangely narcotic effect on my mother, so that when he spoke, she watched, impassive, until a languid smile emerged, which seemed to connect her to some internal circuit board.

Frank was a journalist too, he explained, but not the kind your father is, he told me, putting his arm around my shoulders and squeezing. I write about politics and ideas in newspapers you or your father probably haven’t heard of. I wanted to tell him that my father had ideas too. He was the smartest man I knew. In these moments, I forced myself to remember my father—the sprinkling of freckles on his fair arms, his hair a funny russet mop that puffed up when it got too long—as though doing so would help my mother remember him fondly too.

They liked me, Sabine and Frank, immediately, and treated me, it strikes me now, like my mother’s Mann. Do you two eat wurst? The two of them asked us one afternoon, as if my mother and I had the same taste in everything, excluding Philip from their questions, their attention, as they had learned to do. We both nodded, yes, which surprised me; I had never seen my mother eat pork before. Although she had disavowed nearly every part of her upbringing, she had always drawn the line at eating pork.

And so, one afternoon at the Imbiss in the hot August light, my mother eating an entire bratwurst, drinking not one but two cans of beer. Frank offering his own freshly opened Schultheiss to Philip, whom he insisted on speaking to in German, Musst du es probierenYou have to try it. My brother looking up at my mother: a nod, or even just a lack of one. A sip, lips pursed, and then another slug, and then another. You like it? Frank asked. My brother shrugged but took another gulp and burped loudly. Everyone, including my mother, laughed. Frank was the one to say, Ja, enough, before grabbing the half-finished beer with his thick fingers and drinking the rest of it himself. Did I see it then? Philip’s particular pleasure? Some special unlocking of genetic proclivity? Or maybe Frank, like any good con artist, simply knew exactly what each of us wanted before we ourselves had figured it out.

Sabine was our self-appointed teacher, our cultural liaison. Children in Berlin, we learned, took the U-Bahn alone to get to school, often before they could even read, and so they would count the stops on their fingers. It’s normal, she’d say of anything that seemed strange to us. What Sabine found abnormal was that we had never visited Wisconsin. How could we have missed the most beautiful place in the world? One afternoon at Wannsee, while my mother and brother were off swimming, Sabine asked me if I’d ever smoked a cigarette, and when I told her no, she looked at me as though that was not normal either and then said: You should try everything once; then you can take your decision. Otherwise, you’ll always be like everyone else, letting them decide for you. I hated, above all else, disappointing Sabine, and so I vowed, privately, to take her advice seriously.

That evening, at the apartment, my brother and I sunburned and tired, my mother unpacking our beach bag immediately, as she always did. Philip sent to the kitchen to turn the oven on for our frozen pizza, our mother looking around frantically in her beach bag. I don’t believe it. I had them all afternoon, she said, looking at me, as though I would know exactly what she meant. I was certain I packed them up. Do you remember, Frankie? she asked me. My sunglasses, she clarified, impatiently. I tried to piece the day together in my mind. But I couldn’t picture the sunglasses or their leather case, just the faded spray roses of Sabine’s old bedsheet; Sabine cross-legged, quizzing us from my mother’s German-word book, the tanned, chubby look of her toes, painted a surprising pink; Sabine’s sunscreen, her open pack of paprika chips; Philip nearby, on his own towel, reading a comic book; Sabine stuffing the sheet into her Kaiser’s supermarket tote bag, smiling at me. Maybe Sabine put them in her bag when she was packing up? I offered. Maybe, my mother said, but I could tell this was not a version of the story that she liked, the answer she wanted. She furrowed her brow, moved away from me. Maybe someone took them on the U-Bahn, she said, not looking at me. We won’t tell your brother they’re missing, okay? But she didn’t have to worry about that.         

The next afternoon, at the Hackescher Hof with Sabine, white tablecloths and gold-stenciled columns, spaetzle for lunch, little worms wriggling around in a butter sauce. I waited for my mother to bring up the missing sunglasses. Instead, when the sun became too bright, she shielded her eyes with her hand. Want to switch seats? Sabine asked. Oh no, I’m fine, my mother answered. I forgot my sunglasses, she offered up, a lie uttered so effortlessly, I wondered how many others she’d told in her life. I never wear sunglasses, Sabine offered up. It’s too much of a, how do you call it, a curtain, with me and the world.

When the check came, my mother was still in the bathroom, and I watched as Sabine moved it toward my mother’s side of the table, not even trying to hide the gesture from me. I nearly asked about the sunglasses, but then I remembered: I was only a child. When my mother returned, Sabine rose and went to the restroom as my mother placed the cash down for the meal, as she nearly always did with Frank and Sabine. I knew that they believed us to be rich, and my mother had done nothing to disabuse them of that impression; no doubt, she enjoyed the fantasy too. I had the thought, not for the first time since we’d moved, that if adults knew just what children really saw and understood, they would not act as though they were alone when children were around.

Back at the apartment that afternoon, my mother took me aside and told me, I think I know what happened to the sunglasses. I remember feeling a little tug at my shoulder on the U-Bahn. But I remembered it differently: On our journey back to the apartment, she had been standing with Sabine, gripping the pole, and had placed the beach bag with its large opening on Philip’s lap. He’d attended to it with his usual vigilance; there was no way anything could have been stolen under his watchful eye. But when I tried to say as much, my mother changed the subject.

Our sublet expired, and we moved into the Holiday Inn near the Gedächtniskirche. My father had been gone for five weeks by then, and his voice had started to sound, over the telephone, like a recording of itself. Soon, Frankie. They need me here. I love you. Take care of your mom. Philip had stopped speaking to him altogether. You’re going to hurt your father, my mother told him, but Philip just shrugged, not looking up from his Game Boy. Under regular circumstances, my mother would have complained about the hotel—the cheap floral bed covering, the bathroom with its bleach smell—but she took the unexpected move in her stride. On our first day there, she let us mope around in our pajamas all day watching NBC, the only English-speaking channel on the hotel TV, eating Haribo Smurfs and drinking Fanta straight from the bottle. She came in and out, running errands, smelling of cigarettes and her new perfume. We didn’t have many traveler’s checks left. My mother hid her trips to the exchange bureau from Philip and often asked me to stay behind with him while she went out to get more cash. When she returned, she put me in charge of placing the money pouch back into the bedside drawer when Philip wasn’t looking. I wondered what would happen when my father returned and found out that his cost-of-living allowance was being spent on dinners and drinks with Sabine and Frank, as well as other luxuries my mother had permitted herself in his absence. There was the bottle of perfume purchased at the Parfümerie Douglas while Philip and I waited outside; the pair of trousers to match the blouse at the small boutique; linen placemats and a delicate ceramic bowl she’d bought at a craft fair, first for herself, and then, when Sabine had suggested that she too liked the pairing, for her as well. My mother, I knew, had always kept a separate bank account, her own, where she saved half of her monthly paycheck from the insurance company, but this was not the money she was spending in Berlin. She had told me once, in a rare moment of maternal advice: Remember, Frankie, a woman always needs her own money. You never know what might happen between two people. It was true, I didn’t know, and yet I suspected it; with my mother, talk of relationships had always thrummed with a certain threat.

As a treat for Philip’s birthday, we bought a large jar of Skippy peanut butter, Kraft Dinner, and individual-size boxes of Corn Pops and Frosted Flakes, all priced as luxury goods in the KaDeWe food department. I was put in charge, before we went on this shopping spree, while Philip brushed his teeth and my mother smoked a cigarette outside, of removing the calculator from Philip’s bag. I found them then: my mother’s sunglasses, wedged in the inside pocket of Philip’s weightless backpack, not missing at all. I moved swiftly, still focused on my original mission. I placed the calculator in the bedside table, next to the laminated room-service menu and the money belt, and zipped closed the knapsack, laying it on its side, as it had been before I’d picked it up. I left the sunglasses exactly where I’d found them; I could be decisive, hide the truth as well as any adult.

Later, watching Philip in the imported-foods aisle, I was glad I had not told my mother. Philip seemed so at ease among the garish packaging, the familiar brands—his birthday homecoming—ignoring the prices, not even reaching for the calculator in his backpack. Although he was officially a year older, 13 now, his age seemed incidental. He was so much younger than me, in need of my protection, my secrecy. A few days later, feeling around for the sunglasses while Philip was still asleep—my mother gone to the bakery—I was surprised to find that the pocket where the sunglasses had been was now empty. I looked around in his suitcase, under his bed, in the pocket of his fleece, his windbreaker, but I couldn’t find them anywhere.

One evening, Frank and Sabine visiting our hotel room, their singularity at odds with the drab interior. Sabine sitting cross-legged, at home wherever there was a floor. Frank messing with the remote control. My mother wearing a pretty dress, mixing drinks on the varnished hotel-issued desk, as though she were hosting a cocktail party. A strange scene: this North-American family, father missing, with a 20-something German couple in the Holiday Inn Berlin Kudamm, 99 Deutschmarks a night, with a discount for a week, which my mother had negotiated by speaking to not two but three different employees. I had been relieved to watch her do it, to find that perhaps she had not, in fact, entirely forgotten about our father, about us. I wondered where our father would have settled if he’d been there that evening, but I couldn’t picture his body in the scene. The only person in the room tethering us back to him was Philip; I could tell Philip thought we were fickle, that our loyalties were cheap.

Ice, my mother indicated to Philip and me, passing me the plastic bucket. Philip took a while to snap to attention, but then my mother raised an eyebrow and we slinked out of bed into the hallway. We raced to the elevator in our flip-flops, tripping a little as we did. We fought to press the button. I won, as I always did, and then we fought, too, to press down on the lever of the ice machine. But I let Philip do the honors, knowing he needed the win more than I did, the sense of temporary power: the ice clattering, the loud whoosh, the release.

On the way back to the room, we didn’t race but walked slowly instead. Philip looked so sad, I wanted to shove him, or to slap him, as my mother had just a few weeks before, so he could come back to us, be my older brother again. I knew that he hated Frank and Sabine, hated their presence in our room, hated the way they acted upon our mother, and upon me. He missed our father and the normalcy his presence would have necessarily restored. He missed our beat-up minivan. He missed baseball practice. He missed our neighbor’s dog, a dachshund who always slunk right up to him, licking his open palm. I knew all of this without him saying a word. Why didn’t I miss these things too? I put my hand on his shoulder, just as Frank was in the habit of doing with me. Philip let me keep it there longer than expected before pushing it away. Don’t be a weirdo, he said. I could see, from the side, that his cheeks were gleaming pink; he was crying.

We had forgotten the key and so when we got back to the locked door, we knocked and waited, wondering, after some time, if we’d gotten the room number wrong. My mother finally arrived, slightly flushed, her hair down. She smiled at us; Willkommen, she said, as though we were late arrivals to her party. She was a little bit drunk, her eyes darker than usual. She looked young, like the photographs I’d seen of her from the period when she and my father had first met; she’d been only 19 then. Frank lying on his back, using a paper clip to clean his fingernails. Sabine, armed with my mother’s comb, returning to the activity we’d interrupted: braiding my mother’s dark mass of wavy hair. My mother was very proud and protective of her hair, and I had never once seen another person, not even my father, touch it. In Toronto, she had cut her own bangs and trimmed her own split ends. Sabine wet her comb in the glass and glided it through my mother’s long hair. My mother sighed with pleasure, and I had the urge to turn the volume up on the television. When Sabine was halfway done, she brought my mother to the mirror, and I heard Sabine say, You have such nice eyebrows. My mother demurred, said something about missing the woman who waxed them back home. That’s normal? Sabine asked.

For my 11th birthday, earlier that year, my mother had taken me to that very aesthetician; she had waxed my legs and the three lone hairs under my armpits, the small shadow above my lip, the hair between my eyebrows. My mother had made the appointment for me; driven me to the small salon, in a strip mall in a part of town I’d never been to; sat on a chair beside me as I squirmed in my underwear beneath the stranger’s tender efficiency. When I had started to cry, my mother had grabbed for my hand, but I’d refused it, finding her touch unbearable. I had the thought for the first time: I am separate; I belong to myself. And aside from thinking that my mother was the most beautiful, the most interesting woman in the world, I hated her a little bit too. I had immediately swallowed these thoughts down. I was a good-natured, loyal child, and it had frightened me, what these thoughts might do, what they might set in motion between us. My mother had said, in the car on the way home, as a kind of apology perhaps, You’ll thank me later, because you’ll never have to shave. She had always been, before this moment, so careful with me. Whatever her mother had been to her—overbearing, intense—she had handled me with an opposite energy. It was as though she were worried that any explicit assertion of her power—to love or to punish—might affirm some similarity between them.

Philip seemed not to take in the scene in the hotel room. He crawled into the nearest bed, tucked himself in with his jeans still on, returned to Super Mario Brothers. Frank propped himself up on his elbows and snapped his fingers at Philip, and said, Hey, man, I think there’s a beer in there, pointing to the mini-fridge. Philip perked up at the mention of the beer, even putting his Game Boy down. Yeah? he said, with his practiced shrug. Ja, Frank said, and set about getting him one. He crawled around my mother and Sabine; I waited for my mother to say something, anything. Surely, she should be the one to say no. But it was Sabine who grabbed Frank by the belt loop as he made his way past her, and I watched as some electric current moved between them, and then a few words spoken in German very quickly—too quickly for me to even hear the words individually—Frank crawling backwards, as if on rewind, head down, looking up at Philip and saying, Sorry, man. When Sabine speaks, you listen; that is the rule. Philip did not say anything or even look at Frank, just back at the tiny screen of his gray console, but I could see the redness that had erupted across his throat. The invitation to have something he might want, and then its retraction, was the exact kind of inconsistency that drove Philip crazy.

I spent the rest of the evening lying in bed with Philip, pretending to watch the German-culture program that was playing on TV. The men were debating something important about the future of the country, but I couldn’t understand what positions each was taking. Just two old men frowning, gesticulating; Frank snorting, swearing on the second bed. My mother sat silently on the floor, back to me and to Sabine, who continued to twist her hair into a braid that looped around the front of her head like a crown. My queen, I had heard my father call my mother on a few occasions, and the idea had embarrassed me, his deference to her, this power she had accrued how, exactly? She sat that evening nearly silently, an emanation, head rocking gently back and forth with the current of Sabine’s hand weaving. It seemed more and more dangerous—her power, her sovereignty—a glass teetering on a table’s edge.

Done with her coiffure, Sabine rose and tapped my hip to indicate that I should move over and settled onto the bed between Philip and me. Philip groaned, but Sabine laid her arms around both of our shoulders and declared: It’s like camp, isn’t it? And we’re like s’mores. I’m the marshmallow. She laughed. I had them once in Wisconsin. So disgusting, right? But, you know, good too, she said to Philip. But he ignored her, so she looked at me, and I said, Yeah, not knowing what else to say. My mother was in the bathroom, and for a moment, I had the thought that if she left us, as I knew some parents did, maybe Sabine could step in and be my mother instead. Yet if my mother left, wouldn’t it be to be with Frank? In which case, Sabine probably wouldn’t want to stick around us, to be reminded of her heartbreak. Or maybe my mom would want to live with both of them like on Melrose Place, where young and attractive people lived near one another, a revolving door of attachments and betrayals—only in this case it would be in Berlin, and there wouldn’t be a pool but an interior courtyard with decrepit bikes and an elaborate system of trash and recycling. The image of my mother, living another life without us in it, was not a new one. How long had I held it? Not a fear exactly, but a queasy interior tug, a thought to avoid just in case thinking it might make it come true. I had always been comforted by a certain attendant superstitious belief: My mother loved Philip far too much to leave our family. He was too precious to her, too dear. But that had been before; now I wasn’t so sure.

When my mother finally came out from the bathroom, she looked taken aback by the arrangement of our bodies. She gestured to the spot on the bed next to Frank, and said to Sabine in a gentle but firm tone, You’ll be more comfortable there, no? Sabine squeezed my shoulder, rose and jumped into the bed next to ours, curling up to Frank like an overgrown cat. He lay his hand instinctively on her soft waist; she made a sound like purring. I missed Sabine, her warmth, her heavy breathing, her thick presence next to mine, so foreign and pleasurable. Instead, Philip’s clammy feet, my mother’s rigid body, kept at a distance from mine. I wanted to grab my mother’s hand, to tell her not to leave us; we were a family. Philip needed her; he wasn’t doing well at all. But I couldn’t get my hand to move over to hers. My arms stayed stuck to my sides, unwilling to cooperate.

Frank asked if they could order room service, and my mother said, Of course, leaning over and opening the side-table drawer, just long enough, I noticed, for Sabine to see, above the laminated menu, the thick money belt—beige and somehow as illicit as a pair of underwear or some exposed part of the body. My mother and I had gone together to cash 1,000 deutsche marks only that afternoon. My mother lay back down, turned over to face us; she put her arm around my waist and tried to reach for Philip too, but he shimmied his body away from ours in revolt. My mother settled on hugging just me. A relief. I could breathe again. Get some sleep, Frankie, she spoke sweetly into my hair, kissed my cheek. You look nice, I said, touching the thick silken plait poised above her forehead.

I must have fallen asleep, because when I opened my eyes, it was morning, and my mother was already dressed, Philip snoring next to me, still wearing his jeans, his face ruddy, his upper lip slick with night sweat; the bed next to ours already made. I bought us some breakfast, my mother said, passing me a brötchen mit Käse right in bed. She looked fresh and concerned, Sabine’s braid still crowning her head but loosened and uneven, a little sad-looking in the light of day. I didn’t have to wait, as I usually did, to piece together what was wrong with her. She whispered to me, It’s gone, pointing to the bedside drawer. They took it, she said. I can’t believe it.

I watched my mother pace the room; I ate my brötchen quietly, letting the seeds fall between the sheets, not even catching them in my cupped hand, as I usually did. Then she sat on the ground at my feet, and I knew what she wanted me to do. I started unplaiting. I worked gently but efficiently, trying not to hurt her tender scalp. As I undid the braid, my mother’s thick hair fell into my hands and I felt it in her, the switch, the split: before and after. I might have said something then, about Philip, the sunglasses, the backpack. But I didn’t. It was her skill, but I could have it too; I already did. To decide: That’s it. To close the door on those people, that phase. To turn the page. I let her do it; I did not intervene. She got up and kissed me on the forehead. You’re a good girl, she said, but I didn’t exactly feel like one.

When the phone rang while she was out—Sabine, no doubt—I didn’t pick up, just as my mother had instructed me. And when Philip asked me what was wrong—had Mom broken up with the Scheissters?—I told him I knew what he’d done. The sunglasses. The money. He didn’t deny it. Give it to me, I said. No, he replied, and so I went into his backpack myself. I was not angry; I was satisfied. What I thought I knew was true. I counted it out loud: 780 Deutschmarks. I didn’t even ask him why. I understood. I thought for a moment, considered the different outcomes. We’ll give it back to her 20 Deutschemarks at a time, I said, as though I really was a Frank after all. I wished Sabine could see me this way, one last time: suave and certain. Making my own decisions. Taking things into my own hands.

How easy it was, just a single phone call. Our father back within two days. I pictured what my mother must have said: We need you. Come home. The kids. He had a concerned, harried look when we first saw him, an uncanny guest in the lobby of our Holiday Inn. He smelled oddly unlike himself, like the airplane and the soap from foreign hotels. The conversation between my parents, when it finally took place, happened in the bathroom of the hotel room. Philip turned the volume up on Jay Leno, but I pressed my ear to the door. She had been robbed, I heard her explain. Robbed? Where? Why hadn’t she told him over the phone? His voice like a branch snapped off in a gust of wind. You’re being very confusing; tell me exactly what happened, Sophie, he said, and I pictured him in there with one of his black-and-white reporter’s notebooks with the coil at the top, just a few words per page in his indecipherable scrawl. And then she told him everything, from the beginning. From the time at the swimming pool, to the Imbiss, to the many walks around Sabine’s neighborhood, to the trip to Treptower Park and the Hackescher Hof. She spoke the facts, the kind my father would be interested in. The exact number of times we had met up with them, the name of the village where Frank had said he was from, the name of the publication he wrote for, the exact amount of money stolen, 780 Deutschmarks. It won’t take me long to find them, he said. It might even make a good story. My mother let out a little inchoate cry. No, Joel. I didn’t hear the rest. The taps were turned on. But I imagine the particular quieting down, the thing that I had never understood—would never understand—between them, a pitch unreachable to anyone else, their quiet acquiescence; in other words, their love, or maybe simply their marriage.

We moved the next day to a cheaper hotel in the Western suburbs and found an apartment more affordable than any of the others we’d looked at. It had a brutalist charmlessness, but a room for each of us, and was walking distance from our school. School was not as different from Toronto as we expected. Every effort was made to shorten the distance between this place and North America, the school’s ethos like sliced bread: comforting but not especially nutritious. Philip made friends quickly there, and I found two boys—the son of a Nigerian diplomat and the son of a Bostonian violinist at the Berlin Philharmonic—who didn’t mind spending time with me. My mother stayed mostly in the apartment, doing penance, although for what, exactly, I wasn’t sure. Philip and I returned the money one 20-deutsche-mark bill at a time, and there was a certain pleasure in watching my mother’s little flash of joy at finding more than she’d thought was hers. When we did venture into Berlin for the odd concert or for an exhibit or to visit some expat my father had been put in touch with, she always wore her prettiest clothes, the silk blouse and trousers from the boutique in Charlottenburg. In them, she had that expectant sense about her, as though at any point she might be recognized.

Our stay in Berlin lasted only one year. My father was called back to Toronto before his posting was over. Budget cuts, the newspaper gave as an explanation. He would make editor within the year. I was not wrong about my mother. She was, I must have sensed it even then, with my child’s prescience, destined for rupture, scorched-earth cycles. Within two years of our return, my parents would be divorced, my mother gone to live in Vancouver with her second husband, an insurance salesman with a face as smooth and supple as a child’s. My brother and I saw her, after that, only during holidays, which merely solidified what she’d always felt like to me: a scarce resource, on loan from another life. I hated her for six months, maybe a year, as any teenager would, but it was a feeling that was impossible, constitutionally speaking, for me to sustain for very long. My father reacted to his heartbreak with a similar composure: He was sad and forlorn until he couldn’t stand to be that way anymore. It was Philip who took the divorce most to heart. He pointed the finger at my father: He had been the one to upend our lives, had been the real absence all along. He pointed the finger at me: I had no character, followed others around like a dog. Philip punished us by disappearing for days at a time, showing up drunk at our high school, getting into fistfights at the smallest slight. It would take him nearly a decade to recover from the bomb my mother’s departure detonated in his fragile life. But that was all much later. That year in Berlin, at least as I remember it now, had the pleasant, suspended quality in our family’s history of an entre-guerre, a détente.

Dear Therapist: I’ve Been Dumped by My Friends

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › family › archive › 2023 › 06 › long-standing-friendships-value-assumptions › 674486

Dear Therapist,

For 20 years, I have made an effort to reach out to two close friends from high school. I’ve texted to make plans whenever I’ve visited our hometown (none of us lives in the same place). I’ve sent Christmas cards. Our families all know one another. Sometimes I’ve visited my friends’ parents when I’ve passed their houses while walking my parents’ dog. Everyone’s life moves on, but I caught up with my friends when I could. These were old friends, people I could fall back into sync with even after years because of our shared history. Or so I thought.

Last year I found out that one friend I’ll call Jess was getting married when I saw the wedding invitation on the coffee table at my other friend’s house. The invited friend (I’ll call her Jane) told me the wedding was very small. I felt left out, of course, but I let it go.  

Jane got engaged a few months later. The wedding is in four months, but I haven’t been invited. I invited both Jess and Jane to my own wedding five years ago. Neither one came, and at the time I didn’t think anything of it. People are busy, and they would have had to travel.  

Now it seems to me that these women who I thought were my friends—close friends!—just weren’t that interested in my wedding, or apparently in me either. It seems certain that Jess will attend Jane’s wedding, just as Jane attended Jess’s last year. And neither one invited me. Or even made an excuse about whatever the constraints (if any) were. Even a lie would have been a gesture.  

I feel like I stepped onto an elevator and there was no floor. I am devastated. I thought my formative years were characterized by supportive relationships that had stood the test of time. But I was wrong. My friends moved on. They kept each other in their orbits and forgot all about me.  

I have never really had “friend drama” and it won’t be starting now, either, because I’m not asking any questions about this. There is nothing either of them can say to mollify me. Their actions speak for themselves.

When you read the midlife-friendship advice columns, they’re all about “Reach out! Be the one to make plans! Don’t keep score!” I reached out. I was flexible. I didn’t take things personally. It didn’t work. I’ve been dumped by my friends. And you can’t make new old friends.

Anonymous

Dear Anonymous,

You write that nothing your friends might say would mollify you because you feel that their actions speak for themselves. But because you wrote to me about your distress, I’d like to offer another perspective.

The short version is: I suspect that your assumptions about these friendships aren’t quite accurate—and it’s these assumptions, more than what your friends have done, that are causing you to be in such great pain.

Let me explain. I understand how excluded you feel, and how not being invited to either of their weddings made you question the decades-long bond you believed you shared. In your mind, you were a good friend who nurtured these relationships, and you made a consistent effort to show how much you valued having these women in your life. Now, however, not being invited to their weddings makes you wonder if your friendships were a sham, and if the warmth you felt toward these women has been, unbeknownst to you, completely unreciprocated.

Of course, the sting of being left out is human and understandable. But the larger meaning you’ve attached to normal feelings of rejection is getting in the way of seeing the full and nuanced scope of these friendships clearly.

Let’s back up and consider some context. I don’t know what your dynamics with these women were like in high school, but in any friend group, and especially groups of three, typically not everyone will be equally close. Some people just connect more naturally with each other, and these differing levels of connection don’t make the other friendships in the group less worthwhile. The fact that you have all kept in touch for the 20 years since graduation is a testament to the strength of the connections that you do share. Someone can like you very much but not feel as close to you as she does to someone else, and that shouldn’t in any way diminish your relationship and the enjoyment that this long friendship brings to your life.

Even if you were all equally close when you were younger, many friendships change after high school for a variety of reasons: distance, different interests, life paths that leave you having less in common. Much of what bonded you as teenagers—shared experiences, mutual friends, similar daily routines—might not be relevant anymore, or enough to keep a friendship together. But yours have endured, just in a new form.

It sounds like you understood and felt comfortable with the changing nature of friendships when neither Jane nor Jess came to your wedding. Perhaps you were disappointed not to see them but, as you said, you “didn’t think anything of it.” You didn’t react the way you’re reacting now, which is to question your entire friendship with both of them. At the time, you were probably more concerned about whether people more active in your adult life would be there to celebrate with you, so the absence of your high-school friends didn’t devastate you.

Learning that you weren’t invited to their weddings changed your perspective retroactively. You interpreted this to mean that they lacked interest not only in being at your wedding, but also in you as a person. I’d like you to challenge that assumption. There’s no evidence that Jess and Jane don’t want to be your friend or that they’ve “forgotten all about you”—in fact, you were visiting with Jane at her home when you saw Jess’s invitation. If these women didn’t want a friendship with you, they wouldn’t see you at all. You say you’ve been “dumped” by your friends, but they haven’t gone anywhere.

You’re also assuming that because they didn’t explain why you weren’t invited—you say you’d even be more satisfied with a lie—this means they don’t care about you. I want to suggest instead that they might have avoided mentioning not inviting you in order to spare your feelings—because you do matter to them. Similarly, when you saw the invitation to Jess’s wedding, Jane explained that it was a small wedding so you would understand that this wasn’t a rejection. Wedding guest lists can be tremendously difficult to navigate, and with two extended families and friends on both sides, lines have to be drawn such that people will inevitably be excluded.

The part you’re having trouble with is acknowledging that there are different kinds of “close” friends. Some are considered close because you came together at a formative time in your life, and nothing can replicate that bonding experience. Others are close because you’re involved in one another’s lives in a significant way in the present. Still others are close because despite seeing one another only every few years or decades, you easily pick up where you left off.

You’re right that “you can’t make new old friends,” but you don’t have to. Sure, you could declare the friendships over and pull away because you’re hurt, but that doesn’t sound like what any of you want. Instead, now is a good time to look at the big picture over these 20 years, consider what you value in these friendships and want for their future, and share that. You might say to one or both of these friends, “I’m thrilled that you’ve found your partner, and I’d really love to meet your new spouse next time we’re in the same town.” Or: “I know you’re not able to invite me to your wedding, but I’d still love to be a part of your life in the future, and it would mean a lot to be included in celebrating whichever milestones make sense as our families grow.”

In doing so, you’d be nurturing these friendships by having the flexibility to accept that friendships are fluid over time.

Clearly, these women matter to you, and I believe you matter to them. Right now the only thing standing between you and these friendships is your own hesitancy to embrace them.

Dear Therapist is for informational purposes only, does not constitute medical advice, and is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician, mental-health professional, or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. By submitting a letter, you are agreeing to let The Atlantic use it—in part or in full—and we may edit it for length and/or clarity.

Why Putin Let Prigozhin Go

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2023 › 06 › putin-prigozhin-belarus › 674523

In announcing the deal purportedly brokered by the Belarusian leader, Aleksandr Lukashenko, that Evgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the short-lived rebellion against Russia’s military leadership, would be permitted to “retire” to Belarus, in exchange for stopping his “March of Justice” to Moscow, the Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov explained that the deal, “was for the sake of a higher goal—to avoid bloodshed, to avoid internal confrontation, to avoid clashes with unpredictable results.”

That sounds very noble, except that only a few hours earlier, Peskov’s boss, Russian President Vladimir Putin, gave a televised address describing Prigozhin’s mutiny as treason and “a betrayal,” that struck at the very heart of Russian statehood. He seemed to be preparing the Russian people for a civil war. So, for Prigozhin to literally fly off into the evening sunset (at least for now), is odd, to put it mildly. It is especially bizarre given that in Putin’s Russia, even teenagers can be jailed for posting anything faintly critical of the “special military operation” (it is illegal to call it a war) that the Russian defense forces have been pursuing in Ukraine since February 23, 2022. The liberal opposition figures Ilya Yashin and Vladimir Kara-Murza received prison sentences of 8.5 and 25 years respectively for their social-media criticisms of the war last year. While their weapons were words, Prigozhin’s were tanks and guns. One would think leading an armed rebellion is significantly more problematic for the regime than some tweets and interviews. So what is the true “higher goal” for which Prigozhin was let off the hook?

Evidently, there was genuine fear in the Kremlin of Prigozhin’s mutiny leading to a wider military rebellion. Indeed, it is striking that after announcing his intentions on Telegram, Prigozhin met no resistance in marching his forces into the city of Rostov on Don, the seat of Russia’s Southern Military District, and staging ground for the military effort in Eastern Ukraine. He was able to take over the command center in a matter of hours, and was even recorded chastising the Deputy Minister of Defense Yunus-Bek Yevkurov and Lieutenant General Vladimir Alexeyev for “guys dying because you are sending them into the meatgrinder in Ukraine.” Heading north from Rostov, the Wagner column reportedly made it within 200 kilometers of Moscow before Prigozhin announced on Telegram that his troops would be returning to their camps “as planned” in order to avoid spilling “big blood.” But his quick conquest of Rostov and rapid journey north toward Moscow indicates that some units of the Russian defense forces stationed along the way may have been at least passively, and perhaps even actively, supporting his mission.

Given how poorly the war in Ukraine has gone for the rank and file of the Russian military, it would be understandable if some junior officers empathized with Prigozhin’s complaints against the Russian high command. Casualty estimates run as high as 250,000, with perhaps a quarter of those being deaths. Commanders have reportedly abandoned their troops in battle, corruption is rampant, and undersupplied and underprepared soldiers have been used as cannon fodder.

Putin’s speech offered an explicit warning against joining the rebellion, providing implicit confirmation that Prigozhin was gaining followers as he moved toward Moscow. Further, the fact that Moscow was clearly preparing for a long and bloody battle, indicates that there was genuine concern that a broader conflict was imminent. Prigozhin’s column of mercenaries stopped less than 200 kilometers outside of the city, but rumors put some Wagnerites prepositioned in the capital. So Putin had ample reason to allow Lukashenko to negotiate a quick end to the rebellion, with a promise to let the mutineers, and especially Prigozhin, go free (at least for now).

What does all of this tell us about what might now be going on in Russia and how Putin might pursue the war in Ukraine going forward? While to us, Putin may look weak and ineffective, he will undoubtedly use his control over the Russian media to pin the rebellion on Ukraine, NATO, and Russia’s other enemies. He may even take credit for avoiding mass casualties in a civil war by making a deal with Prigozhin. Spinning the story as best he can, Putin himself will survive, although his carefully crafted myth of competence will be damaged. Over time, this might erode elite confidence, although it is unlikely to result in an open coup attempt any time soon.

Beyond this, the clear disorganization of the leadership’s response to Prigozhin’s short-lived rebellion can only be good for Ukraine. Wagner mercenaries delivered one of Russia’s few military victories in finally capturing the town of Bakhmut a few months ago. Now, they are off the battlefield. Further, there may well be more military mutinies to come.

Although this is not the end of the war or of Putin, the Wagner rebellion might yet prove the beginning of the end of both.

The COVID-Origins Debate Has Split Into Parallel Worlds

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › science › archive › 2023 › 06 › covid-origin-theories-rival-data-evidence › 674495

The lab-leak theory of COVID’s origin has always been a little squirrelly. If SARS-CoV-2 really did begin infecting humans in a research setting, the evidence that got left behind is mostly of the cloak-and-dagger type: confirmations from anonymous government officials about vague conclusions drawn in classified documents, for example; or leaked materials that lay out hypothetical research projects; or information gleaned from who-knows-where that certain people came down with who-knows-what disease at some crucial moment. In short, it’s all been messy human stuff, the bits and bobs of intelligence analysis. Simple-seeming facts emerge from a dark matter of sources and methods.

So it goes again. The latest major revelation in this line emerged this week. Taken at face value, it’s extraordinary: Ben Hu, a high-level researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and two colleagues, Yu Ping and Yan Zhu, could have been the first people on the planet to be infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to anonymous sources cited first in the newsletter Public and then in The Wall Street Journal. These proposed patient SARS-CoV-zeroes aren’t merely employees of the virology institute; they’re central figures in the very sort of research that lab-leak investigators have been scrutinizing since the start of the pandemic. Their names appear on crucial papers related to the discovery of new, SARS-related coronaviruses in bats, and subsequent experimentation on those viruses. (The Journal reached out to the three researchers, but they did not respond.)

Is this the “smoking gun,” at last, as many now insist? Has the Case of the Missing COVID Origin finally been solved? If it’s true these were the very first infected people, then their professional activities mean they almost certainly caught the virus in the lab, not a market stall full of marmots and raccoon dogs. The origins debate has from the start revolved around a pair of dueling “coincidences.” The fact that the pandemic just happened to take off at a wet market suggests that the virus spilled over into humans from animals for sale there. But the fact that it also just happened to take off not too far away from one of the world’s leading bat-coronavirus labs suggests the opposite. This week’s information seems to tip the balance very heavily toward the latter interpretation.

[Read: If the lab-leak theory is right, what’s next?]

The only problem is, we don’t know whether the latest revelations can be trusted, or to what extent. The newly reported facts appear to stem from a single item of intelligence, furnished by a foreign source, that has bounced around inside the U.S. government since sometime in 2020. Over the past two and a half years, the full description of the sickened workers in Wuhan has been revealed with excruciating slowness, in sedimenting clauses, through well-timed leaks. This glacial striptease has finally reached its end, but is the underlying information even true? Until that question can be answered (which could be never), the origins debate will be stuck exactly where it’s been for many months: always moving forward, never quite arriving.

The story of these sickened workers has been in the public domain, one way or another, since the start of 2021. Officials in the Trump administration’s State Department, reportedly determined to go public with their findings, put out a fact sheet about various events and circumstances at the Wuhan Institute of Virology around the beginning of the pandemic. Included was a quick description of alleged illnesses among the staff. The fact sheet didn’t name the sickened scientists or what they did inside the lab, or when exactly their illnesses occurred. It didn’t specify their symptoms, nor did it say how many scientists had gotten sick. If you boiled it down, the fact sheet’s revelations could be paraphrased like this:

Several researchers at WIV became ill with respiratory symptoms in autumn 2019.

That vague stub did little to budge consensus views. The lab-leak theory had been preemptively “debunked” in early 2020, and broad disregard of the idea—contempt of it, really—hadn’t yet abated. The day before the State Department fact sheet was released, a team of 17 international experts dispatched by the World Health Organization arrived in Wuhan to conduct (with the help of Chinese scientists) a comprehensive study of the pandemic’s origins. By the time of their return in February 2021, they’d come out with their conclusions: The lab-leak theory was “extremely unlikely” to be true, they said.

The next month, while the WHO team was preparing to release its final report, further details of the sick-researchers story began to trickle out. In a panel discussion of COVID origins and then in an interview with the Daily Mail, David Asher, a former State Department investigator who’s now a senior fellow at a conservative think tank, filled in a few more specifics, including that the researchers had been working in a coronavirus laboratory and that the wife of one of them later died. The intel had arrived from a foreign government, he said. Now the facts that were revealed could be summarized like so:

Three coronavirus researchers at WIV became severely ill with respiratory symptoms in the second week of November 2019.

Pressure for a more serious appraisal of the lab-leak theory grew throughout that spring. In May 2021, more than a dozen prominent virologists and biosafety experts published a letter in the journal Science calling for “a proper investigation” of the matter. A week later, The Wall Street Journal published a leak from anonymous current and former U.S. officials: According to a “previously undisclosed US intelligence report,” the paper said, the sickened researchers had been treated for their sickness at a hospital. In other words, they probably weren’t suffering from common colds. This new aspect of the narrative was making headlines now, like this:

Three coronavirus researchers at WIV became severely ill with respiratory symptoms in the second week of November 2019 and sought hospital care.

After all of this publicity, President Joe Biden ordered the intelligence community to redouble efforts to analyze the evidence. While that work was going on, the leaks kept coming. In a 12,000-word story for Vanity Fair, the investigative journalist Katherine Eban gave some backstory on the sick-research intelligence, claiming that it had been gathered in 2020 and then inexplicably file-drawered until State Department investigators rediscovered it. (One former senior official described this as a “holy shit” moment in an interview with Eban.) Her article contained another seemingly important detail, too: The sickened researchers were doing not simply coronavirus research, her sources told her, but the very sort of research that could produce amped-up versions of a pathogen—an approach known as “gain of function.” Later in the summer, Josh Rogin, a Washington Post columnist, added that, according to his unnamed sources, the sickened researchers had lost their sense of smell and developed ground-glass opacities in their lungs. By this point, in the middle of 2021, the expanded piece of intel amounted to the following:

Three gain-of-function coronavirus researchers at WIV became severely ill with COVID-like symptoms in the second week of November 2019 and sought hospital care.

The latest revelations are coming at just the moment when Republicans are lambasting the Biden administration for failing to declassify COVID-origins intelligence in accordance with a law that the president signed. The Sunday Times quoted an anonymous former State Department investigator who said they were “rock-solid confident” that the three sick researchers had been sick with COVID, because people as young as the researchers would rarely be hit so hard by a mere seasonal illness. A few days later, someone spilled the researchers’ names to Public. On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal matched the scoop, and it seemed that every detail of the once-secret information was now exposed:

Ben Hu, Yu Ping, and Yan Zhu, three gain-of-function coronavirus researchers at WIV, became severely ill with COVID-like symptoms in the second week of November 2019 and sought hospital care.

However vivid this may sound, its credibility remains unknown. Did Hu, Ping, and Zhu really get sick, as the intel claims? If so, was it really COVID? Two years ago, the Journal cited two anonymous sources on this question: One, the Journal wrote, called the intelligence “potentially significant but still in need of further investigation and corroboration”; the other said it was “of exquisite quality” and “very precise.” Just this week, anonymous officials in the Biden administration told The New York Times that intelligence analysts had already “dismissed the evidence,” by August 2022, about the sickened workers at WIV for lack of relevance. Which secret source should be trusted to explain the significance of this secret intelligence? Readers are left to sort that out themselves.

[Read: Don’t fall for these lab-leak traps]

In the meantime, over the past two years, even as the sickened-worker intel was revealed, a very different sort of evidence was mounting, too. A new research paper, published just days after Eban’s feature in Vanity Fair, revealed that live wild animals, including raccoon dogs, had been for sale at the Huanan market in Wuhan shortly before the pandemic started. In early 2022, scientists put out two detailed analyses of early case patterns and viral genome data, which argued in favor of the animal-spillover theory. Another study involving many of the same researchers came out this past spring, noting the presence of genetic material from raccoon dogs in early samples from the market; its authors described their findings as providing strong evidence for an animal origin. But other scientists were quick to challenge the study’s importance. A further study of the same data by Chinese scientists made a point of not ruling out the hypothesis that the pandemic had started with a case of tainted frozen seafood; yet another study, released in May, argued that the original work provided no useful information whatsoever on the question of COVID’s origins.

So it goes with the animal-spillover theory. The evidence in favor has always been highly esoteric, knotted with data and interpretation. Scientific points are made—a particular run of viral nucleotides is a “smoking gun” for genetic engineering, one famous scholar said in 2021—and then they are re-argued and occasionally walked back. Long-hidden sample data from the market suddenly appear, and their meaning is subjected to vituperative, technical debate. If the evidence for a lab leak tends to come from messy human stuff, the evidence for animal spillover emerges from messy data. Simple-seeming claims are draped across a sprawl of numbers.

In this way, the origins question has broken down into a pair of rival theories that don’t—and can’t—ever fully interact. They’re based on different sorts of evidence, with different standards for evaluation and debate. Each story may be accruing new details—fresh intelligence about the goings-on at WIV, for example, or fresh genomic data from the market—but these are only filling out a picture that will never be complete. The two narratives have been moving forward on different tracks. Neither one is getting to its destination.

The Gaps Between Media and Reality

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › newsletters › archive › 2023 › 06 › the-gaps-between-media-and-reality › 674468

Welcome to Up for Debate. Each week, Conor Friedersdorf rounds up timely conversations and solicits reader responses to one thought-provoking question. Later, he publishes some thoughtful replies. Sign up for the newsletter here.

Last week I asked readers what they experience or observe personally that is most at odds with what they see portrayed in the media.

G. is a 77-year-old woman:

I’m not seeing the real me. I wish the entertainment media would tell the truth about people like me who are my age. I don’t wear (or own) an apron. I’m perfectly comfortable with technology. I taught my 20-year-old granddaughter how to populate a website.

Don’t let looks fool you. I am a sexual person. I love my family but value my privacy and independence. Managing that space is harder than you think. The never-ending display of face lifts and rejuvenation products is a mean-spirited denial of the real beauty of age.

G.Y. offers an analogy:

I am a southerner—from the deepest of the deep South. We southerners don’t hear our own accent, just as my New England friends don’t hear their accents. It takes an outsider to hear and point out the sonic nuances that we never notice in ourselves. And if the accent is to be portrayed—by a stage actor, for example—it requires a farcical overexaggerated caricature to portray the accent in a universally recognizable way.

This is the problem with our political discourse and how it is reported on by perfectly good and conscientious journalists. None of us are capable of hearing our own ideological accents, but they are glaringly obvious to the rest of the world. All of our assumptions are assumed and so we imagine them to be conventional wisdom. And you just can’t edit out your ideological accent when you are immersed in it any more than you could dry yourself off while swimming in a lake.

All of our [national] media outlets are located on the coast, as is the entertainment industry, as is our seat of federal governance, and so they are all immersed in one particular ideological accent. Not only do they not hear it, but they also can’t possibly hear it, nor should we expect them to. It can only be pointed out by an observant outsider and can only be illustrated or portrayed by outsiders with a sort of exaggerated vaudeville act—oversimplifying and overemphasizing small, nuanced tones and tenors.  Think, for example, the exaggerated and overheated Kabuki theater of political talk radio.

In the past, before the advent of internet and instant posting, the reporters lived in the same ideologically accented bubble, but if you wanted your story to be picked up off the wire in Topeka, or Racine, or Little Rock, or any town in Middle America, you had to get the attention of the local editor that was conversant in the local vernacular. If the local editor in Topeka did not pick up the story, it did not get read in Topeka. Now the newsrooms are populated by Ivy League–credentialed elites, just a younger version of the editors. And so again we miss the vital opportunity for writing in the vernacular of the nation rather than our own particular provincial perspective. After all, New York and Washington, D.C., are easily the two most provincial towns in America. The most obvious solution is to disperse our reporters to the hinterlands, but will any of them be willing to trade Manhattan for Racine?

Eric harkens back to pandemic coverage:

I take umbrage with the portrayal of essential workers by media organizations. As someone who has worked at grocery stores throughout the pandemic, I felt as if the media treated essential workers as a strange curiosity who do not consume media themselves. The use of the royal we in phrases like “We’ve all been at home the past few years” became so ubiquitous as to go unquestioned. Actually, many of us went out into the world on a daily basis. There were so many articles talking about the difficulties of isolation or cohabitating during the pandemic. But I could find none that addressed the struggle of an essential worker living with someone who never left the house.

Jaleelah sees a lot more hand-wringing about the unwillingness of young people to debate than she does real-world support for them to do it:

The biggest threat to debate on campus does come from administrators, but in an indirect manner: Debate clubs in Canada often receive little to no funding from their universities. Hundreds of curious students seek out my debate team, but since the university I attend started charging all clubs $100 per room booking (after 10 or so freebies), we don’t have the space for all of them to speak. Dozens of students who practice constructing and delivering arguments for weeks or months express interest in debating students from other schools. But since there’s some obscure rule against funding off-campus events, we can only send a handful of them to competitions. With so many prominent conservatives publicly lamenting the decline of debate, one might assume that sponsors are jumping to support the activity. That is sadly not the case.

Kimberly is glad that people who are obese are now portrayed in media and that fat-shaming is being challenged, but believes that almost all such portrayals are leaving out the health challenges of obesity:

I have three very good friends who are obese and they all suffer with diabetes and decreased mobility. All have had knee replacements and two have serious respiratory issues. On television, all that you see is fat and happy, with good health insinuated, whereas in reality that is often not the case.

Earl believes that “much of the media have a less-than-adult portrayal of religion in the lives of Americans.”

He writes:

The writer/reporter who admits to having been “raised Lutheran” or otherwise concluded their religious participation before finishing high school nevertheless will write or report on religion as if everyone has the same, often two-dimensional, perspective on a part of the human experience that has been around since humans were invented. When religious beliefs, dogma, and practices conflict with hot-topic issues in the secular, popular culture, the media usually make no effort to probe into the religious basis of such matters.

Media that pride themselves on accurate and in-depth reporting have knowledge of the U.S. political system and its history well beyond high-school courses. When writing and reporting on religious affairs, they need to educate themselves to a level commensurate with the topics at hand.

Leela opines on media portrayals of Asian Americans:

As a mixed-race Jewish teenage girl, I’ve never been able to find a piece of modern media that quite encapsulates my life. However, one of the biggest discrepancies between my life and the media is the current portrayal of “Asian stories.” I’m half South Asian, and nearly every time I see a movie or television show in the United States that claims to be capturing the “Asian experience,” it’s actually just about East Asians. Always Be My Maybe, Crazy Rich Asians, Fresh Off the Boat, Shang-Chi, Beef, Minari, and more films and shows that I’m encouraged to watch because they “capture what it’s like to be an Asian American” don’t have a single person who looks like me. I 100 percent believe that the stories told in these movies and television shows are important, and I don’t feel like South, Southeast, or Central Asians should have been randomly inserted into them. But just for once, I’d like to see a movie about the Asian experience that lives up to its marketing by actually including characters from more than one region of Asia.

Based on the majority of TV shows and movies that are promoted as “telling Asian stories,” you’d think Asia was only made up of China, Japan, Korea, and sometimes Vietnam. This impacts how Asian Americans like me, whose families don’t come from those countries, are treated. Even the action of casually referring to myself as Asian has led to me needing to open Google Maps to show others that India is in Asia, to “prove” why I can identify that way, and I have never felt comfortable joining organizations such as my school’s Asian Student Union because I feel as though I’m not the type of Asian that it was created for.

I also feel as though the media’s limited idea of who gets to be Asian American has impacted their reporting on hate crimes. When South Asians and Middle Eastern people (many of whom are also Asian) are targeted as “terrorists,” it should also be an issue that the Asian American community and their allies rally together and raise awareness about, just like we showed up to protest the attacks on East and Southeast Asians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

I can’t explain how amazing it was to watch Never Have I Ever and see it front and center on Netflix’s recommended shows during AAPI heritage month. Seeing characters who look like me and my family on a show that was included in a list of media about the “Asian experience,” a marketing tagline which used to only reaffirm my sense of not belonging in the Asian community, makes me smile every time I rewatch it. I hope that in the future, movies and television shows will start to get made that showcase the full range of diverse stories and experiences within the Asian diaspora.

Matthew opines on homeownership:

This will come as a very heterodox viewpoint to the narrative of my generation, but I disagree with the portrayal of home ownership as out of reach for most Americans. My partner and I were making less than $100K combined a year when we bought our home in Dallas. We had been renters our whole lives (mid-30s at the time) and lived in central Dallas in an affordable apartment in a VERY expensive area. Rents kept climbing but we knew we wanted to buy. We eventually looked at much more affordable homes in a slowly gentrifying area that was within five miles of downtown. We paid $225K for our home in 2016 and found our mortgage payment to be less than rent for many of our friends.

Our home needed lots of work. (Still does!!) It’s vintage 1969. No granite countertops, some really ugly carpet and wallpaper, but it’s our project. We’ve been doing bit by bit to make it better. When I hear so many people complain about the affordability of homes, I can’t help but think, “Of course you can’t afford to live where you rent right now!” The narrative that we’re being told is that you should be able to buy a house convenient to the best places in town. It’s not realistic! There are affordable houses available, they just aren’t where you want to live. You might have to sacrifice convenience, location, and amenities.

I realize that there are cities and places that are ABSOLUTELY too expensive and have terrible policies that have made homeownership a real struggle. I am really fortunate to have a good job and was able to afford the many surprise costs of buying a home. But, to constantly reinforce to a whole generation that they CANNOT afford to own a home doesn’t mesh with reality. That dream is possible with adjusting expectations and potentially looking outside your comfort zone.

John believes there is a negativity bias built into media:

The biggest difference between my personal observations and the media’s reported news is just how amazingly good everything really is in our country. Whether you are watching Fox News or reading The Washington Post, you might get the impression that things are very, very bad in America. They aren’t. While there are plenty of negative things to report on, unemployment is low, goods are plentiful, and people have discretionary money to spend.

Typical news quote: “Our country is divided as ever.” No, not really. And if the media wasn’t complicit in the politicians’ efforts to divide us into neat groups, we would be less divided. I have all types on my boat for fishing trips and all are welcome. Trump superfans to LGBTQ, we all have a lot in common, and in my experience, all you have to do to get along with most anyone is be polite and friendly (and maybe avoid political discussions).

But it really is more than that. Our country, somehow, is still behind some of the greatest innovations the world has seen. And our country keeps innovating, and it makes the world a better place. IT devices are reliable and capable in a way that even 10 years ago would’ve seemed impossible. Health care has advances that are simply amazing, helping people not just live longer, but live better lives. This list could just go on and on. What is often lacking, especially from TV media, is context. My spouse and I watch the evening news every day, and she often says, “I needed one more sentence.” Instead of getting that additional context, we get the next sensationalized outrage bait.

Dan and Vicky are curious about the explanation for a demographic shift:

What we see in the media that conflicts with our professional and personal experiences: The apparent frequency of transgenderism—i.e., individuals whose identities conflict with their biological sex. We are in our mid-70s. As children, one of us remembers Christine Jorgensen. That’s it in terms of individuals who are transgender. We had no knowledge of anyone in elementary school, high school, college, or graduate school who seemed to identify as a different gender than their biological sex.

In the ’70s one of us became a police officer, and spent her entire career in law enforcement. She was one of a group of five women who were admitted to the police academy in Seattle. She worked as a patrol officer, in corrections, setting up a marshals service for a county in Washington, as an advocate for abused women going through the court system, and as a juvenile probation counselor. The other one of us went to graduate school in the ’70s, earning a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from Vanderbilt. Then he went to Illinois State University and taught for 30 years. His speciality was children and families. In that time he had a professional practice of psychology, he trained graduate-level counselors, and he was a psychological consultant for numerous community agencies.

Thus, in our professional careers we have seen or consulted for thousands of children and families. We also had children ourselves in the ’70s and ’80s and knew dozens and dozens of their friends, in addition to their schoolmates. In that time, we can, together, tentatively identify only ONE person who appeared to be transgender. One, in 70 years of knowing children and 40 years of working with children and in the community for both of us.    

One could argue that transgender people would have kept this to themselves in these decades, but that seems a stretch. We worked with children/adolescents/families on a very intimate basis … hundreds and hundreds of them. We also worked with students and co-workers who were virtually all kind and accepting people. Dozens and dozens and dozens of other professionals, all of whom would have been extremely open and compassionate with any child who would have expressed transgender ideas.

While neither of us denies the idea that there are people whose gender identity does not match their biological sex, the issue is that there seems to be a virtual explosion in numbers. To write this observation off as being due to people being unwilling or unable to communicate their gender confusion in the past does not seem possible given the extremely large number of children and adolescents we have known personally and professionally, and the number of other professionals who we knew well who consulted with us on their most challenging cases. Why? What explains the apparent explosion?

Gary remarks on demonization:

The most jarring thing for me is to see conservatives and liberals painted with such negative “brushes” by the media. I know several people from all viewpoints stretching from very conservative to very liberal. They are all decent people with the good of the nation at heart. Caring for and loving one another is not limited to one political viewpoint.  On one side you hear conservatives explained as uncaring Neanderthals who want a 1950s patriarchy. On the other side you hear liberals illustrated as crazy people whose minds are twisted like pretzels to reconcile all their conflicting ideological views. The media seems unable or unwilling to treat everyone with dignity and respect just for being a human being.

What to Read When You Need to Laugh

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › books › archive › 2023 › 06 › funny-book-recommendations › 674459

This story seems to be about:

The phrase serious literature comes with an unfortunate double meaning. When we call books serious, we mean they are satisfying, well written, and worthy of consideration. But we also use serious as an antonym for funny, which can mislead us into assuming that a good book shouldn’t make us laugh. That’s too bad, because humor is a bona fide literary effect, right up there with tragedy, suspense, and profundity—just as much a part of the author’s toolbox but a lot harder to fake.

Let’s be honest: What passes for funny in book marketing falls beneath the standard just about everywhere else. The number of published works that say “Hilarious!” on their cover but turn out to be merely quirky—or the dreaded wacky—is enough to make a reader cynical. The sense of desolation is deepened by the “humor” genre of commercial publishing, in which comedians and influencers monetize audiences they built on television or social media. Many of these books are entertaining, but they tend to prioritize individual gags over sustained effect in a way that crowds out all the other pleasures the reader might be looking for.

Admittedly, this problem seems inherent to the form. Most people who identify as funny learn to make people laugh in the short term, at the level of quips and retorts; to come up with a humorous turn of events is another thing. Memoirs and nonfiction expand this dilemma: If it’s hard to think of amusing plot points, then convincing the reader that real life is funny requires a borderline metaphysical power to shift perception. We might therefore conclude, after being advised for the umpteenth time to read John Kennedy Toole’s execrable A Confederacy of Dunces, that funny literature is a contradiction in terms. It is true that such books are hard to find—but they are out there, and I have recommended some here.

W. W. Norton and Company

The Code of the Woosters, by P. G. Wodehouse

Wodehouse is often cited as one of the great sentence-level writers in English literature, but he made his reputation during his lifetime by putting together clockwork plots. The Code of the Woosters is a Swiss watch. Dispatched by his aunt to the country estate of Sir Watkyn Bassett with instructions to steal a certain piece of antique tableware, the wealthy fool Bertram Wooster takes it upon himself to repair the broken engagement between his old school chum and Sir Watkyn’s daughter, all while dodging one Roderick Spode, a parody of the English fascist Sir Oswald Mosley. Bertram’s genius butler, Jeeves, provides him with a steady drip of schemes to navigate this obstacle course, but their deceptions—and the at most intermittent competence with which Bertie executes them—keep getting him in deeper and deeper trouble. This 1938 novel combines old-fashioned dramatic irony with the conventions of farce to produce a high-water mark in Wodehouse’s Jeeves series.

Picador

The Sellout, by Paul Beatty

In this satire of American race relations, Beatty makes comedy out of one of the most serious topics imaginable—a project he took on because, according to an interview in Rolling Stone, he “was broke.” The Sellout begins with the narrator, a Black farmer in the suburb of Dickens, California, appearing before the Supreme Court for bringing back segregation and slavery. How did he get there? One thing led to another. After his sociologist father is shot by police, the narrator inherits both his land and his informal role in the community: talking his neighbors out of bad ideas. He does not rise to the occasion, starting a segregated bus so that his friend can live out his fantasy of giving up his seat to a white woman, and then, after crime on the bus mysteriously vanishes, agreeing to expand the program to the local school. Beatty’s narrator isn’t an Uncle Tom figure or the “sellout” he is accused of being so much as a comfortable guy who has concluded that racism isn’t much of a problem anymore. The book’s lesson is not easily distilled, and Beatty relentlessly complicates it in ways that evoke the old maxim: It’s funny because it’s true.

Good Gossip, by Jacqueline Carey

This collection of interconnected short stories is set in late-1980s Manhattan, a done-to-death milieu that Carey revives with metered doses of irony. As controlled and closely observed as the best naturalist fiction, it treats the world of illegal sublets and trivial social distinctions with the light touch and wary empathy it deserves, making something comic out of material that many of Carey’s contemporaries sabotaged themselves trying to make profound. The stories are about, as the narrator puts it, people like her: everyone in New York “if … you took away the guys” and “the people who didn’t know normal things, like the shape of Florida,” and all the others who somehow fail to be like “me and my friend Liz.” Here is the narcissism of small differences, as an occasion not for contempt but for love. Carey’s husband, Ian Frazier, is better known, but she has accomplished something more difficult, threading the needle between capital-R realism and the kind of book you can enjoy as much as you appreciate.

Catapult

Fake Accounts, by Lauren Oyler

This novel by my favorite living essayist starts with a tragedy and ends somewhere more ambivalent. After the narrator’s boyfriend dies, she moves to Berlin and has a series of Young Writer–type experiences, such as drinking beer with other expats, going on internet dates, and taking conscientious but wage-appropriate care of other people’s children. Oyler makes this series of nonevents work by bringing a second layer of consciousness to the material—a suspicion of her own knowingness that captures the muddled project of curating yourself, of trying to be someone on purpose. The narrator reacts to her boyfriend’s death with a kind of guilty relief: It resolves all the tensions in their relationship without her having to do anything. But realizing that introduces a whole new set of problems. Oyler makes it funny by allowing her fictional stand-in to look petty, vain, and selfish—like a real person.

[Read: Lauren Oyler on the drama of swiping and scrolling]

W. W. Norton and Company

Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!, by Richard Feynman

Oh, for the days when famous scientists wrote amusing books instead of going on Twitter to correct the rest of us! Feynman won the Nobel Prize in physics and helped determine why the space shuttle Challenger exploded; he also came from working-class Queens and spoke with an accent so thick that many of his peers accused him of putting it on. This episodic memoir, which ranges from his childhood in Far Rockaway to his work on the Manhattan Project to his life as a charmingly unreluctant public figure, keeps returning to one central theme: how funny it is to act dumb when you are in fact really, really smart. In a letter turning down an offer from the University of Chicago, he explains that the salary is so high, he would finally be able to afford a mistress, which would complicate his life to the point that he could no longer concentrate on physics. This kind of self-deprecation evokes Feynman’s first principle of science: “That you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” Watching one of the greatest minds of the 20th century proceed as though he were a blockhead is an inspiration to those of us who will not be advancing the field of quantum mechanics anytime soon.

Graywolf

Erasure, by Percival Everett

Since the vaudeville era and the early days of Hollywood, ethnic minorities have defined American comedy on stage and screen, but the publishing industry seems to prefer that writers of color present themselves as the subjects of grim generational trauma. In Erasure, Everett goes straight at this limiting convention with a bitterness so evident that the reader cannot help but laugh. The English-professor protagonist, enraged by the success of his peer Juanita Mae Jenkins’s novel We’s Lives in Da Ghetto and goaded by his agent’s complaint that his own writing is not “Black” enough, writes a book whose working title is My Pafology. He eventually changes it to Fuck. The full text of this fictional novel appears within the book, giving us both Everett’s parody of Black literature that panders to white audiences and his idea of what would happen if that parody were unleashed upon the world: First the author is ashamed, then he gets a bunch of money, and then he wins an award. Erasure suggests that the best time to write something funny is when you’re so angry that a laser is about to shoot out of your mouth.

[Read: Percival Everett’s revenge tale of a very rich man]

A Night Without Armor II: The Revenge, by Beau Sia

The modern poem seems to refuse to be funny on abstract principle: For every James Tate, there are a dozen turtlenecked postformalists intent on having no fun at all. Sia is not that kind of poet. A luminary of the tragically unhip but extremely fun New York City slam scene, he wrote ANWA II in response to the best-selling and deeply not good collection A Night Without Armor, by the pop singer Jewel. (The legend is that he did it in four hours.) Sia meticulously tracks Jewel’s book, using her titles as jumping-off points for his own verse, replacing the illustrations with crude pencil drawings and re-creating the original cover design, in which the author looks sad on a field of handwritten, painfully earnest lines (“I die on the page every time / What do you know about push-ups?”). There are definitely moments in this collection when he prioritizes the dick joke over the metaphysical conceit, but it reminds us that poetry can be vital and messy.

Ecco

The Sisters Brothers, by Patrick deWitt

This Western, narrated by the fatter and more sensitive of two brothers working as hired killers, starts with a rapturous description of the cool brother’s new horse: how strong and steady it is, its physical beauty and preternatural speed. The narrator juxtaposes this Cormac McCarthy–esque prose with the observation “My new horse was called Tub.” This kind of deadpan humor buoys deWitt’s novel without ever sinking to parody, making it a rare instance of a genre comedy that doesn’t break the frame. Charlie and Eli Sisters are dispatched to find a chemist who has discovered a mysterious and valuable formula. One a sociopath and the other just moody, the brothers travel across a 19th-century West that is comic and tragic by turns, searching for one fortune and finding another. The novel is an audience-seeking missile, combining the danger and forward momentum of pulp Westerns with a literary yearning for beauty and decency.

[Read: The Sisters Brothers is a brutal, funny, and surprisingly graceful Western]

Grand Central Publishing

The Stench of Honolulu, by Jack Handey

Handey’s best-known contribution to American letters remains his “Deep Thoughts” sketches on ’90s episodes of Saturday Night Live, but the man who wrote “Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer” works surprisingly well in prose. This intensely stupid, deeply wonderful comic novel is narrated by a frenzied dolt who presents Hawaii as a land of savagery. Handey manages to wield his comedic genius without breaking the boundaries of his narrator’s distorted worldview, so the tale is relayed with a potent combination of unearned confidence and complete ignorance. The book begins, “When my friend Don suggested we go on a trip to the South Seas together, and offered to pay for the whole thing, I thought, Fine, but what’s in it for me?” That’s about the register we’re working in, here: at once moronic and efficient. The density of jokes is Airplane!-level high, but Handey achieves a success rate unequaled in written comedy.

Feminists Against the Sexual Revolution

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2023 › 06 › reactionary-feminism-differences-between-sexes › 674447

This story seems to be about:

Was the sexual revolution a mistake? From the 1960s through today, the majority of feminists would instantly answer “no.” Easier access to contraception, the relaxation of divorce laws, the legalization of abortion, less emphasis on virginity, reduced stigma around unmarried sex—all of these have been hailed as liberating for women.

But in the past few years, an emergent strand of feminism has questioned these assumptions. “Reactionary feminism”—the name was popularized by the British writer Mary Harrington—rests on a premise that sounds far more radical today than it once did: Men and women are different. In her 2022 book, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, Louise Perry argues that individual physical variation “is built upon a biological substrate. Liberal feminists and trans activists may do their best to deny this, but it is still true that only one half of the human race is capable of getting pregnant, and—failing the invention of artificial wombs—this will remain true indefinitely.” Perry also argues for “evolved psychological differences between the sexes.” Men are innately much hornier, more eager for sexual variety, and much less likely to catch feelings from a one-night stand, she believes. Modern hookup culture serves men very well but forces women to deny their natural urges toward seeking commitment, affection, and protection.

These are heretical thoughts. For more than a decade, the dominant form of American feminism has maintained that differences between the sexes—whether in libido, crime rates, or even athletic performance—largely result from female socialization. Anything else is biological essentialism. The feminist scholar Catharine Mackinnon recently declared that she did not want to be part of “a movement for female body parts … Women are not, in fact, subordinated or oppressed by our bodies. We do not need to be liberated from our chromosomes or our ovaries.” This view extends to the assertion that male and female bodies do not differ enough to justify strict sex segregation in sporting competitions or prisons, domestic-violence shelters, and public changing rooms. Recently, a reporter asked the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, for a response to parents who worry about the safety of daughters competing in sports against genetically male athletes. Jean-Pierre responded with a terse smackdown. The reporter’s question, Jean-Pierre said, implied that “transgender kids are dangerous” and was therefore itself “dangerous.”

The reactionary feminists have no patience for this line of argument. In her new book, Feminism Against Progress, Harrington writes that the internet has encouraged us to think of ourselves as a “Meat Lego,” hunks of flesh that can be molded however we want. For women, that involves suppressing the messy biological reality of the female body—taking birth control, having consequence-free casual sex, even outsourcing pregnancies—to achieve something that might look like equality, but is really just pretending to be a man. “Realizing my body isn’t something I’m in but something I am is the heart of the case for reactionary feminism,” she writes.

Reactionary feminism is having a moment. Harrington recently toured the United States, where Feminism Against Progress was plugged in The Free Press, the heterodox equivalent of a glowing New York Times review. At the recent National Conservative conference in London, she shared the stage with Perry, whose book covers similar themes. Another NatCon speaker was Nina Power, a former leftist who is now a senior editor at Compact, an online magazine whose editors declare that they “oppose liberalism in part because we seek a society more tolerant of human difference and human frailty.”

[Helen Lewis: Why so many conservatives feel like losers]

All three women are British—which is no coincidence. In Britain, where I live, feminism has developed around the assumption that women belong to a sex class with specific physical vulnerabilities. In America, the movement has been filtered through a progressive legal tradition of outlawing discrimination against a variety of marginalized groups, and because of the decades-long abortion fight, American feminism relies heavily on the concepts of choice and bodily autonomy. In the view of many mainstream U.S. feminist writers, Britain is TERF Island, a blasted heath of middle-class matrons radicalized by the parenting forum Mumsnet into conservatism and “weaponized white femininity.” The response of some British feminists is that, in practice, the agenda of mainstream American feminism has shriveled down to the abortion fight and corporate-empowerment platitudes, and is hamstrung by its strange refusal to accept the relevance of biology.

That said, Harrington was radicalized by Mumsnet, which she started reading more than a decade ago. “At the time, I was still a fully paid up Butlerite,” she told me in clipped English tones. She was referring to Judith Butler, the high priest of queer theory, which argues for the subversion of categories and norms. In her 20s, Harrington hung out in bohemian communities online and offline, and sometimes went by the name Sebastian. “My first glimmers of ambivalence” about queer theory, Harrington said, “were when I realized that pretty much every butch woman I’d ever dated had subsequently transitioned, and now thought of themselves as a man.” As a married mother of one, living in a small town, she went on Mumsnet and met other women who shared her ambivalence about the new ideology around gender.

Both Power and Perry had similar experiences that peeled them away from the progressive consensus. Perry’s was in the early days of motherhood, realizing her deep connection with her baby—and her economic dependence on her husband. Power, a scholar of Marxist and continental philosophy, told me that her apostasy was driven by a “general frustration with the progressive movement. It’s just gone mad.”

Inevitably, reactionary feminism’s focus on sex differences has been welcomed by many on the political right—who enjoy portraying liberals as reality-deniers and themselves as no-nonsense realists. It has also been welcomed by the manosphere, that loose collection of blogs and YouTube channels whose content melds positive advice and help for men with anti-feminism and misogyny. Perry has appeared on podcasts with Jordan Peterson and Rod Dreher; Harrington’s American publisher is Regnery, the conservative imprint whose top authors include Ann Coulter and Republican Senator Josh Hawley. “I walk a very strange line,” Harrington told me. “The best engagement I get is when my work hits a sweet spot between conservative Catholics, radical feminists, and the weird online right. That’s not a Venn diagram that I really thought existed, but apparently it’s an underserved niche.”

[Helen Lewis: The abortion debate is suddenly about ‘people’ not women]

In her advocacy for marriage and opposition to the birth-control pill, Harrington finds fans among religious conservatives. In her opposition to commercial surrogacy, the sex trade, and gender self-identification, she is aligned with radical feminists. And in her language and arguments, you can see the influence of internet micro-celebrities such as the pseudonymous author Bronze Age Pervert, whose self-published manifesto warned that modern society was replacing masculine strength with phalanxes of weedy “bugmen.” (His book became briefly popular with junior staffers in the Trump administration.)

Reactionary feminists and the manosphere like to cast liberal feminists as daydreaming utopians. Both groups argue that, look, men are men and women are women, and evolution ordained it so. Yes, they say, a small percentage of people are gay or gender-nonconforming, but that doesn’t change an overall picture shaped by millennia of sexual selection. Both groups invoke evolutionary psychology to explain their conclusions on female dating preferences, the reasons men cheat, and why so-called short kings struggle in the dating market.

I asked Stuart Ritchie, an academic psychologist turned science writer who has previously criticized the evidence base for Perry’s claims on porn use causing erectile dysfunction, if he finds this pop-science approach troublesome. He told me via email that evolutionary psychologists stress that their findings merely describe reality, rather than morally endorsing the effects of natural selection—what’s known as the naturalistic fallacy. “Both reactionary feminists and manosphere red-pillers are often committing exactly this fallacy, assuming that everything natural must be good, and that things that are more prevalent in the modern world [than in the past]—contraception, divorce, surrogacy, etc—must therefore be bad,” he added. “That’s not necessarily to defend any of those modern things, but just to say that the arguments used against them are often very weak and fallacious—and that might be the main overarching thing reactionary feminism and the manosphere have in common.”

Because it argues that men and women are fundamentally different in ways shaped by millennia of evolution, reactionary feminism is deeply fatalistic about the possibility of social change. (“Political horndogs will always abuse power,” Harrington claims in a recent article.) In Perry’s book, her belief, derived from evolutionary psychology, that men are uncontrollable sex beasts sits uneasily alongside the assertion that monogamous marriage and children are the optimum conditions for female flourishing. “Her core message seems to be simultaneously that men are usually ghastly and often potential rapists, and yet that women should also try very hard to marry one and never divorce him,” the British journalist Hugo Rifkind wrote after reading it. “Which, I must admit, I found a little unsatisfactory.”

When I asked Harrington how Americans had received her book, she said that Baby Boomers had been more defensive of the post-1960s ethos than younger generations have been. Many Gen Z and Millennial women are disillusioned with the modern sexual marketplace of abundant porn, dating apps, and unfulfilling hookups: In 2021, Billie Eilish told Howard Stern that she’d started watching porn at age 11, and “it destroyed my brain.” In the novels of Sally Rooney, sadomasochism is repeatedly presented as abusive and miserable rather than kinky and fun—much to the chagrin of “sex positive” feminists. In The Right to Sex, the ultraliberal Oxford philosopher Amia Srinivasan describes being challenged by her own students over what they see as her complacency about violent and misogynist porn. The widespread discontent felt by young people has led to unexpected collisions, such as the Washington Post columnist Christine Emba being interviewed by Church Times, a religious magazine, about her book-length critique of consent-only culture, Rethinking Sex: A Provocation. Generation Z might not all agree that “New York’s Hottest Club Is the Catholic Church,” as a New York Times trend piece put it, but they aren’t all libertines either.

Reactionary feminists take these concerns to their logical end. Louise Perry’s book begins by imagining the grave of the Playboy founder Hugh Hefner, who asked to be buried next to Marilyn Monroe. The sexual revolution worked out well for Hefner, she argues—he gained a house full of “playmates” and built an empire on female flesh bared in the name of empowerment. But for Monroe, being the sexiest woman alive brought mostly misery, including a string of men who wanted to bed her for the bragging rights. “There is never a reckoning with what sexual liberation does to those women who follow its directives most obediently,” Perry writes.

[From the September 2021 issue: Sally Rooney addresses her critics]

Reactionary feminism also lionizes motherhood with a zeal that, in the case of Perry and Harrington, feels very personal. Perry wrote her book while pregnant, and Harrington wishes she could have had more than one child. “I came to motherhood pretty late, and I wish I’d started sooner,” Harrington told me. “That’s an ongoing source of regret for me.” Power, who does not have children, is nonetheless sympathetic to the other two women’s pro-family stance. “I’ve spoken to people in their 30s who desperately want to have a family and can’t,” she told me. “There’s something tragic about women who want to have a child but miss the moment. Louise is saying: Be realistic. Think about it sooner than later.”

Unfortunately, these paeans to the nuclear family sound judgmental, no matter how many times the reactionaries insist that they aren’t demonizing gay couples, single parents, and people without children—not least because they hand ammunition to anti-feminists who really do want women barefoot and pregnant.

Harrington’s jeremiad against the pill is the kookiest part of Feminism Against Progress. Put simply, she thinks sex is hotter when it might lead to conception, “because a woman who refuses birth control will be highly motivated to be choosy about her partners.” She lost me with the assertion that the rhythm method is freakier than BDSM because it’s “sex with the real danger left in.” And there’s more: “In a lifelong partnership, the possibility of conception itself is deeply erotic.” If there’s anything less sexy than imagining that your future child will soon be in the room with you, I don’t want to hear it.

While Perry’s book specifically castigates “those conservatives who are silly enough to think that returning to the 1950s is either possible or desirable,” renouncing effective birth control would immiserate many women and imprison some in abusive relationships. The pill’s reported downsides, such as irritability and anxiety, also have to be weighed against the toll that decades of childbearing took on previous generations, both physically and economically. While researching my 2020 history of feminism, Difficult Women, I found wrenching letters that the contraceptive pioneer Marie Stopes had received, and I told Harrington about some of them. “I have a very Weak Heart if I have any more it might prove fatal my inside is quite exausted [sic] I have a Prolapsed Womb, it is wicked to bring children into the world to Practicly [sic] starve,” read one from a 37-year-old mother of nine children. Another woman wrote: “He says if you won’t let me at the front, I will at the back. I don’t care which way it is so long as I get satisfied. Well Madam this is very painful to me, also I have wondered if it might be injurious.”

Is that a world to which any woman would want to return? “You can be sure that Stopes would have selected them to underline the point she wanted to make,” Harrington told me. “And the demographic that would have been writing to Stopes would have been self-selecting, for the reasons you would expect.”

Again and again, reactionary feminism offers a useful corrective and then goes to the edge of overkill. For example, its proponents argue for the revival of men’s single-sex spaces: sports clubs, bars, voluntary associations. This sounds unobjectionable, but could bring back the Mad Men days, when deals were sealed at the golf club or the strip club or a weird elitist retreat with a 40-foot owl. But Louise Perry takes the idea further by arguing that women should never get drunk or high “in public or in mixed company,” because of the risk of sexual assault. She thinks this is pragmatic; I find it incredibly bleak. As I told her during an interview about her book, I don’t want to live in a voluntary Saudi Arabia.

Reactionary feminism is not the dominant strain in Britain, any more than its opposite (what Harrington calls “Verso feminism,” after the radical-left publisher) is. Most British feminists, as far as I can tell, are centrists and soft-left moderates, the heirs of a tradition that developed in tandem with labor unions, placing hard constraints on both its conservatism and radicalism. The movement has stayed grounded in material conditions arising from physical sex differences—the challenges of pregnancy and motherhood, the threat of violence by bigger and stronger males. In the absence of a strong religious right and red-state governors banning abortion and passing punitive bills on LGBTQ issues, the gender debate is not so polarized here, and feminist thinkers and LGBTQ activists have more space to acknowledge that their interests are not always identical.

[Read: The unending assaults on girlhood]

Because of fears of being tarred as fascists or bigots, some American feminists refuse to even engage with any reactionary-feminist arguments. That is a shame, because the movement’s final tenet—that the unfettered free market should be kept away from bodies, particularly female ones—is one you might expect the political left to embrace. Reactionary feminism offers pungent criticism of liberal “choice feminism” and its laissez-faire attitude to the exploitation of women who have ostensibly chosen their circumstances. The reactionaries dare to say that some choices are better than others, and that being offered two bad options is no choice at all.

Many liberals support commercial surrogacy: Let women do what they want with their bodies, the argument goes. The reactionaries, meanwhile, reply that the industry is driven by inequality: Rich couples open their wallets, and poor women provide the labor. (They also argue that separating a newborn from its mother is cruel unless absolutely necessary.) Similarly, they note that the shibboleth that “sex work is work” is complicated by the fact that rich men buy sex, and poorer women (and men) sell it. Harrington sees trans medical care, too, as unhappily consumerist—an empowerment movement acting as a sales rep for Big Pharma. She also believes that feminists who advocate for government-supported day care—downplaying the importance of maternal attachment to small babies, in her view—are useful idiots for corporations who want women back at their desks.

“There are a great many conservatives who haven’t noticed quite how much Marxism I’ve smuggled in,” Harrington says. “Don’t put that in The Atlantic.” Then she relents: Reactionary feminism was coined half as a joke—turning an insult into a badge of honor—and half as a “signal scrambler.” If it isn’t provoking you, then it hasn’t worked.