Itemoids

Sorry

Talking to Strangers About the Book of the Summer

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › newsletters › archive › 2023 › 08 › book-of-the-summer-emma-cline-the-guest › 675047

Sign up for Kaitlyn and Lizzie’s newsletter here.

Lizzie: One night several years ago, Kaitlyn and I and a group of other friends ended up at a party in the South Street Seaport. It was at the apartment of someone none of us knew, and I can’t say for sure how we got there. We were excited to see what kinds of people lived in this gift-shop neighborhood, and what their apartment would look like. Would every room feature its own ship in a bottle? Would there be portholes instead of windows?

Of course, the reality couldn’t compare to our fantasy, as is standard for reality. It was a regular old apartment, with regular old IKEA furniture. There was a nice rooftop and cheap beer in the fridge. Eventually, the host requested that our group please leave the premises, probably because they’d realized that no one knew who we were, and also perhaps because Kaitlyn may have mildly insulted their taste in literature.

Anyway, it was this party that we reflected on last weekend as we headed to a sold-out Friday-night book club at McNally Jackson’s South Street Seaport location—where we’d be discussing, with strangers, the novel about weaseling your way into places you don’t belong that everyone’s been talking about this summer: Emma Cline’s The Guest.

Kaitlyn: The other thing I remember about that Seaport party was that someone there was blowing up a bunch of pool inflatables to use as roof furniture. (Imagine being at a party where most people are standing but some people are sitting down on pink inner tubes …) I want to be clear that we brought our own Bud Light Limes from a nearby Duane Reade and did not steal anything from those people, other than their view of the East River. I don’t remember being embarrassed about being asked to leave, and that’s because nothing is embarrassing when you have co-conspirators. (This is called the “Watergate burglar principle.”) It’s only when you’re alone that you can be humiliated (“Nixon principle”).

Lizzie has already covered the vibe of the South Street Seaport, but I also think you should know that one of its main features is a construction site that has been the subject of a lot of controversy for years and years, most of which is too boring to explain, but one of the issues is that it is on top of the rubble of a 19th-century thermometer factory and some people have worried that digging around could release a lot of mercury vapor. Anyway, I was in a bit of a mood the day of the Guest book club. I left work early and stomped downtown. Online, some had been referring to The Guest as “Uncut Gems for girls,” which I consider a spoiler and not accurate. While I was walking, I passed the AT&T Long Lines building, which is a hideous brown skyscraper known for having zero windows and maybe having some relation to the surveillance state. Looking up, I thought that someone should instead write “Underworld for girls.” (I love baseball and I’m very paranoid.) I also thought that people have been talking about “girls” too much lately.

I then passed what I have to assume is a temporary business, Malibu Barbie Café New York. I waited for Lizzie at the deserted end of Front Street, while staring at a bunch of garbage trucks parked under an overpass and regretting my choice to make a pre-book-club reservation for us at a bodega-and-speakeasy called The Little Shop. The chalkboard sign on the sidewalk said “purveyor of fine and junk foods.”

Lizzie: On my way to The Little Shop, I walked past a new pickleball court hogging the sidewalk in front of a Duane Reade. I wondered if the people playing in matching outfits were actors paid to create unthreatening “bustle” for the neighborhood. I stopped to buy a granola bar, and when I needed to throw out my wrapper, the only available trash can was one that looked like a barrel. In the South Street Seaport, gimmicks are the most important currency, and the neighborhood’s commitment to them continued at The Little Shop.

You walk through a “convenience store” to get to the bar in a back room, but the store felt more like a sanitized sitcom set than a convincing front. I wouldn’t have been surprised if the boxes of cereal and the cans of soup lining the shelves turned out to be empty. Is anyone actually shopping here for pantry goods? How often do they restock the Fruit Loops? I’m guessing never!

Kaitlyn: Lizzie thought that if you were taking a date to The Little Shop, a suave thing to do would be to pick up one of the boxes of pancake mix and say something like, “This is for tomorrow morning.”

It’s a clever set-up in The Little Shop, for sure. The idea is that you pick out your snacks, and then pay a 20 percent markup to have them “plated” for you. We had no problem with this fee. We did wonder why the only cheeses available were Cabot and Organic Valley. Even a Heluva Good would be more luxurious, don’t you think? Not to be snobs. But this is Manhattan. Also, if you buy a whole brick of cheese and then someone slices up the whole brick of cheese for you, that’s really too much cheese for two ladies to get through together at happy hour.

To their credit, The Little Shop does provide sandwich bags for your excess cheese. They also return your Pretzel Chips bag so you can put the rest of your Pretzel Chips back into it. So, after a short white-wine pregame, I tossed our snacks in my tote bag and Lizzie plucked a fake peacock feather out of a juice glass on the table to slip into hers. This behavior was what she called “going Guest-mode.” (In The Guest, the main character steals an expensive watch and a lot of prescription pills.)

We should say a little more about The Guest. Everyone in New York is reading it (or has read it). The book is about a generically pretty young woman named Alex who is more grifter than guest. She’s on the run from financial obligations and threats of violence in “the city,” and living with a rich man named Simon in his beach house, in what seems to be the Hamptons. He kicks her out (politely, through the staff, of course) after she embarrasses him at a pool party, and that’s when the real events of the novel start. She reasons that if she waits it out until Simon’s Labor Day party, he will no longer be mad at her, so she has five days to kill. Alex pinballs around town, manipulating one rich person after another into hosting her for an extra few hours or a night or two at a time. Of course, her plots get only more ill-considered and dangerous as she goes along. No spoilers!

Great cover. (Courtesy of Kaitlyn Tiffany)

Lizzie: Our own plans that evening were possibly ill-considered, but not dangerous, and maybe this is where we went wrong. Had we better planned the night to thematically align with elements of The Guest, maybe I wouldn’t have had to take that fake feather for the thrill of it. Maybe Kaitlyn wouldn’t have had to carry around half a block of warm cheese for the rest of the night. But, like Alex, we had gone too far to back out now. It was time to leave the bar and head to the book club, without committing any crimes.

We didn’t know what to expect. The other day someone said to me, “No one’s talking about how Greta Gerwig directed Barbie,” and it occurred to me that there’s a universe where The Guest is a book that no one’s ever heard of. But this was the second McNally Jackson “After Hours” book club dedicated to the book, and New York magazine just published their own book-club newsletter about it, so we know that, anecdotally, NYC-based book clubs at least are ravenous for it.

Kaitlyn: If not dangerous, a book club is still a risk, especially with a book about modern-day “the city.” It’s too easy for people to say things like “This reminded me of my own life” or to talk about the characters as if they’re real people who they’ve met and know things about. But we were excited about this one because it would have professional guidance (a McNally Jackson moderator) and because anyone who RSVPs in advance to talk about a book on a Friday night must be serious. Probably more serious than us!

When we arrived, we chatted with the event organizer, Mikaela, who is very chic and has an Australian accent. She was wearing cream satin. She’d had cocktail napkins made up with a curly “After Hours” logo and conversation starters on them, and she’d also come up with the brilliant innovation of ordering people to shuffle into new mini-groups every 20 minutes or so. This prevented awkward silences and the horrible experience of having someone’s eyes wander up over your shoulder and around the room while you are talking to them.

Lizzie: The shuffle was welcome. Our first round was a little bit messy, so we can call it a warm-up. I couldn’t hear what the far end of the table was saying. One girl admitted that she hadn’t read the book and was just accompanying a friend who had. She seemed incredibly regretful. One guy mentioned that, compared with other books he had recently read, he actually didn’t have that much to say about this one.

A book club might not be the ideal place to find yourself at a loss for words, but maybe he was on to something. Maybe there was nothing left to say about The Guest. Or maybe we just needed to try harder.

Arguably we do live in the world of this book, but we're not happy about it. (Courtesy of Kaitlyn Tiffany)

Kaitlyn: With those guys, I tried arguably way too hard. I wanted to make them feel better about their lack of interest in the book, so I ended up doing a little rant about how it was fun and well plotted but “unsubstantial.” It wasn’t doing much as a novel, I said. Well, I was being obnoxious, but I was coming from a good place. (And it isn’t Middlemarch; that’s just a fact.)

With our next set of conversation partners, two women roughly our age, we did better. The four of us talked about all the moralizing we’d seen in The Guest’s Goodreads comments. A lot of people on the internet were worried that Emma Cline wasn’t aware that the character she’d written was not a very good person. Maybe, by writing about this fictional girl, she was endorsing all of her made-up choices, they suggested. We’d all gotten sick of this aspect of the culture, we agreed. In fact, we’re so sick of it that we’re sick of being sick of it. Stop putting us in the position of defending fake people … and books we didn’t even love.

Last note of importance: Before book club, our dearest friend Ashley, who was off on an actual beach vacation, had asked us to find out what everyone thought happened at the end of The Guest. The last 10 pages or so are kind of mystical and vague, and a reader has to make some guesses about what’s literally going on because [SPOILER] the main character is a bit out of it and possibly concussed. There’s been a lot of discussion about this. Like some of the Reddit commenters, Ashley was sure that the book ended with [SPOILER] murder, and she also was sure that everyone else aside from me and Lizzie would agree with her. Well, not one real-life book-club person did. As they say in English class, the theory wasn’t supported by the text … Sorry, Ash!

Lizzie: The “she was murdered” theory was floating around online, but in real life it was met with blank stares. Ah, well. Maybe we just didn’t ask the right people. But time wasn’t on our side! Like a 20-something scammer on her way to party in the Hamptons, we also had places to go and people to see.

We were back on the cobblestone streets of the Seaport by 8 p.m., headed out to the second halves of our respective nights, with tote bags full of items we stole (just kidding!).

On Nobody Famous: Guesting, Gossiping, and Gallivanting, a collection of Famous People letters from the past five years, is available now from Zando Projects and The Atlantic.

A Very Silly Movie About Some Very Good Dogs

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › culture › archive › 2023 › 08 › strays-movie-review › 675052

Early on in the raunchy talking-animals comedy Strays, a montage plays of four dogs humping inanimate lawn ornaments, guzzling beer leaking from trash bags, and bonding over a plan to bite off a man’s genitals. It’s an inartfully staged sequence, packed with sophomoric jokes and enough f-bombs to rival a Quentin Tarantino film. On the other hand: Will you look at those sweet, scruffy faces! Those little paws! Sure, their CGI-ed mouths appear a bit strange and the canines do not seem to be making direct eye contact with one another, but they each deserve belly rubs and every single treat ever. How can anyone dislike a scene in which the goodest dogs are having the best time? Indeed, halfway through my screening, I glanced at my notes and realized that I’d drawn a series of smiley faces.

That’s all to say that Strays knows what it’s doing with its choice to follow a furry foursome, which saves the film from being an exercise in pure nonsense—at least for the dog-lovers in the audience. Hollywood makes plenty of absurd movies built on underbaked premises: This year, Cocaine Bear, Mafia Mamma, and 65 come to mind. Amid such a mediocre pack, you could do worse than a 93-minute film that, for all its obscene humor and gratuitous violence, contains a softhearted center about—what else?—the unconditional love of pets.

Then again, you could also do much better—and much funnier. Strays, despite being billed as an “R-rated comedy with bite,” is rather tame. (Sorry.) The story follows a Border Terrier named Reggie (voiced by Will Ferrell), who, after being abandoned by his pot-smoking loser owner, Doug (Will Forte), meets Bug (Jamie Foxx as a tough Boston terrier), Maggie (Isla Fisher as a smart Australian shepherd), and Hunter (Randall Park as a shy Great Dane). The group shows Reggie how to live without human supervision, and teaches him to accept that Doug was never kind to him—a revelation that kicks off a journey to make the former owner pay for his abuse.

Along the way, the four get involved in predictable misbehavior—drug-induced hijinks, gross-out gags—while indulging in endless dog-based jokes. The best ones involve highly specific jabs at dog-movie tropes, including a cameo that sends up A Dog’s Purpose and a scene involving a Homeward Bound–like, sentimental “narrator dog.” The worst involve asinine puns: At one point, the group debates what “regular style” means when it comes to dog sex.

[Read: What do dogs know about us?]

The director, Josh Greenbaum, isn’t trying to deliver the winsome charms of his last effort, Barb and Star Go to Vista Del Mar, a comedy about best friendship and coastal vacations that’s already becoming a cult classic. Instead, it strives for a not unpleasant brain-numbing effect on par with, say, falling down an online rabbit hole of cute animal videos. Strays achieves that result, to an extent. By the final act of the film, I had stopped taking notes altogether, defeated by the relentlessness of the movie’s profanity and poop-based imagery. I—and the audience I was with—laughed at a scene involving Maggie attempting to tell knock-knock jokes, only for the other dogs to respond with a chorus of woofs. I chuckled when Hunter said the word howling because he could not actually howl, and when Bug yelled “Fuck you, leaf!” at a leaf.

At the time, I could not really explain why this was so funny. In an attempt to pull myself together, I started thinking about what it meant that I was enjoying Strays; is this what “original” means now, for films to be made out of scenes that seem destined to become memes? Are the movie gods balancing the scales of narrative richness after the highs of Barbie and Oppenheimer? Has the relentless crush of being too online made me the perfect target to appreciate the juvenile humor of cute characters cursing? Should every movie just star dogs? Would it work with cats? (Not if they’re played by humans.)

I know: I’ve overthought Strays. The movie is, in the end, deeply unserious and completely mindless, but still strangely sweet. It is late-summer schlock, featuring an ensemble of four-legged animals who have done nothing wrong ever in their lives. It’s a reminder, if nothing else, that an adorable protagonist embarking on a hero’s journey goes a long way. It doesn’t matter if Strays is good. Because those dogs? They’re very good dogs.

How to Apologize Like a Pro

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2023 › 08 › apology-contrition-responsibility-benefits › 675025

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

I have eaten
the plums
that were in
the icebox

and which
you were probably
saving
for breakfast

Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold

And so apologized William Carlos Williams, presumably to his wife, Flossie, in his 1934 poem “This Is Just to Say.” My own apologies tend to be somewhat less elegant, and certainly less worthy of publication. In my defense, however, I don’t directly repurpose my apologies as content for The Atlantic, explaining to my wife before a large audience that although I have been an insensitive jerk for the millionth time, it was totally worth it.

Apologizing well, after all, is tricky. It requires personal strength, a good ear, and a fair bit of psychological sophistication, which is why so many apologies are unsuccessful. If you have something you need to apologize for—or if you would just like to be ready to deal with the fallout from your next screw-up—here is your primer on the art and science of contrition.

[Arthur C. Brooks: Make yourself happy: Be kind]

From a neurocognitive viewpoint, apologies are extremely complex, involving at least three distinct processes. First is cognitive control, because you are making a choice to say you are sorry even though doing so is difficult and uncomfortable, which involves the lateral prefrontal cortex. Second is perspective taking, which involves thinking about how something you have said or done was experienced by another person and putting yourself in their position, implicating the temporoparietal junction. Last is social valuation, the way you calculate how much your apology will help everyone involved as opposed to just yourself, which mobilizes the ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

A sincere apology involves a certain amount of vulnerability and risk. Researchers find apologies between partners—spanning romantic, personal, and professional connections—occur more readily in three circumstances: in a longstanding relationship; between well-matched partners who enjoy a lot of trust; and very early on in a relationship, when there is a premium on fixing problems so that they don’t kill the developing partnership. Scholars have also shown that people who are defensive and uncomfortable being vulnerable—characteristics of attachment avoidance—give fewer and worse apologies than others. This last finding can be a useful tell for people who are dating: A reliable indication of an emotionally avoidant person is an inability to say sorry.

[Read: The sociology of sorry]

An apology can be completely motivated by contrition. According to evolutionary psychologists, however, many apologies may be motivated instead by a desire to forestall a wronged person’s seeking revenge or retaliation. For example, a 2011 study focused on what happens when physicians who have harmed patients apologize. In general, doctors are advised never to apologize, because doing so may imply an admission of guilt in law. To offset this problem, some states have introduced laws to limit the admissibility of apologies as evidence of culpability in court. By enabling more doctors’ apologies, estimates indicated that these states would see lower malpractice payouts and faster settlement times for cases involving serious injuries.

How you apologize has a huge influence on your apology’s likelihood of success. To begin with, make it fulsome. A partial apology is worse than none at all. In one experiment in which subjects were asked to imagine themselves as a pedestrian who’d been hit by a cyclist (and the cyclist was at fault) and evaluate a settlement, 52 percent said they would definitely or probably accept the proposed cash offer when there was no apology. When there was a partial apology, in the form of sympathy for injuries but no acknowledgment of responsibility, the acceptance rate fell to 35 percent. But with a full apology—sympathy plus responsibility—the rate rose to 73 percent.

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.

In other such experiments, the acknowledgment of responsibility proves to be the most important ingredient of a good apology. Next in importance is an offer of repair, followed by an explanation of what happened. All three of these quite practical components are more effective than an apologizer’s more abstract options of an expression of regret, a declaration of repentance, or a request for forgiveness.

This finding might surprise some people, but it shouldn’t. Think of the least effective apologies you have received, perhaps from a repeat offender. It probably featured those exact elements. Consider this version of that sort of apology: “I’m so, so sorry for going on another bender and waking up broke in Vegas. This time I’ll really change—really! Just give me one more chance!” See what I mean?

Armed with this information, you are now ready to apologize in a way that is most likely to solve the problem you created. Be sure to remember three crucial maxims.

1. Apologizing is less costly and more beneficial than you think.
Researchers in 2014 found that when people contemplate an apology, they sometimes make a forecasting error. For example, people commonly imagine looking weak or incompetent for admitting guilt, resulting in their losing trust or losing face. They can imagine being forgiven, but they don’t think much about how being willing to admit fault might raise others’ admiration for them. Experiments show that we tend to overestimate the cost and underestimate the benefit of apologizing.

Of course, you will always find someone who does not admire any admission of guilt or weakness. But such people are generally terrible romantic partners, bad business associates, and toxic social-media trolls—not exactly the jury you should be courting in the first place.

2. Take full responsibility.
Think of all the begrudging apologies we hear in public life from politicians and celebrities. Generally, they take the form of “If anyone was hurt or offended by my words, I am sorry.” That is a partial apology, which shows grudging sympathy but no sense of responsibility. When you have offended someone, don’t say, “I’m sorry if your feelings were hurt.” Say instead, “I can see that I hurt your feelings, and I am sorry I did that.”

[From the December 2019 issue: Sorry, not sorry]

One good way to do this, particularly in a professional context, is what scholars call “self-disserving” admissions by leaders. For example, if a CEO has a public-relations crisis that is not directly of their own making, they should still own it by saying, “I am the leader, so this error is my error, and I am accountable for fixing it.” Scholars found that this kind of attribution was followed by a surge in business success, as measured by a rising stock price during the following year, probably because it inspires confidence in leadership that a problem will be solved.

3. Use contrition as a self-improvement practice.
One of the biggest—and most paradoxical—impediments to apologizing is the belief that people, ourselves included, can’t change. What psychologists call “entity theory” can mean that we fail to treat difficult and discomforting situations as the opportunities for improvement that they can in fact be. In contrast, adherents of “incremental theory,” people who believe human traits are malleable, look for ways to better themselves, which includes acknowledging their missteps and showing contrition. So think like an incremental theorist and use your apology as a way of developing your resources of fortitude and virtue.

If all goes well, what should you hope for after you give an apology? Most likely, you want to be granted a clean slate and for life to return to normal. That brings us back to William Carlos Williams, who ate the prized plums. Did his apology do the trick?

Flossie, it seems, replied in a short note, which Williams opportunistically turned into another poem. (It was in fact published in this very magazine, in November 1982, after their deaths).

Dear Bill: I’ve made a
couple of sandwiches for you.

In the icebox you’ll find
blueberries—a cup of grapefruit
a glass of cold coffee.

On the stove is the teapot
with enough tea leaves
for you to make tea if you
prefer—Just light the gas—
boil the water and put it in the tea

Plenty of bread in the breadbox
and butter and eggs—
I didn’t know just what to
make for you. Several people
called up about office hours—

See you later. Love. Floss.

Please switch off the telephone.

Given that she didn’t even mention the plums, she appears to have accepted his apology.

The Comebacker

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › magazine › archive › 2023 › 09 › dave-eggers-comebacker-short-story › 674771

Illustrations by Lili Wood

The day was cold, cold even for August in San Francisco. As Lionel walked over the Lefty O’Doul Bridge, the wind seemed to be coming from every direction—the Pacific, the bay, the brackish creek underfoot. And with every step, Lionel’s left shoe squeaked, an especially maddening thing, given that he’d just had them resoled. For years he’d passed a subterranean shoemaker’s shop, thinking it would be old-timey and fun to engage the ancient Romanian proprietor in some project. Finally Lionel had entered the man’s tiny shop and asked him to resole his favorite leather shoes, so soft they felt like moccasins. The whole encounter had been as quaint and satisfying as expected, until Lionel retrieved the shoes a week later and found that the left one now let out a cartoonish squeak with every footfall.

When Lionel went back to the shoemaker, the old man shrugged. “Some shoes squeak,” he said.

Lionel had learned to walk on the edge of his left foot. This decreased the sound, but gave him a worrying gait. People at the stadium had begun asking him about it.

Lionel covered the Giants for the Examiner—the home games at least. The paper didn’t have the budget to send him on the road. The season was effectively over anyway; the team had no chance at the playoffs, and the mood in the clubhouse was dour. Not that the players were so garrulous in winning, either. Sydney Coletti saw to that.

Brought in to head the media-relations department, she’d drilled the players on verbal discipline, and day after day, they dispensed word clusters that made sense but said nothing: “Trying to contribute.” “Just focused on getting the win.” “Great team effort.” “Happy to be here.”

Sydney strode around the stadium in beautiful suits, sunglasses embedded in her raven hair. As if aware of her imperious affect, she often brought in treats—candy, cupcakes, huge bars of artisanal chocolate. She was polished and warm, but had no qualms about limiting access if a reporter crossed her. So Lionel had traded candor for access, and loathed himself for it.

“Nice work, Lionel,” Sydney said when she approved of something he’d written. It was a terrible thing, to be praised this way.

“Get me sticky,” Lionel’s editor, Warren, demanded.

The problem was that when a player said something even vaguely sticky—Warren’s word for memorable, colorful, controversial—the sportswriters pounced, and often the player paid the price. Apologies followed, and lost endorsement deals, diminished love from fickle fans, a requested trade, a new team. That, or a player could just keep his mouth shut.

Squeak, squeak, squeak.

Lionel entered at the stadium’s media gate and made his way through the dim hallways to the locker room, where he showed his lanyard to Gregorio, the security guard.

“Hannah beat you,” he said.

“Beat me how?” Lionel said, thinking it could be any of 10, 12 ways. There she was, interviewing Hector Jiménez.

Hannah Tanaka was technically his competition, in that she wrote for the Chronicle, the larger of the two valiant locals. But from the time he’d started on the Giants beat, she’d done everything humanly possible to help Lionel—introducing him to every staffer at the stadium, sharing every tip and data point—and he’d quickly fallen in love with her. She was so steady, so funny; her laugh was raspy, almost lewd.

Squeak, squeak, squeak.

She turned when she heard him. She had her notebook out, and her phone—she had some transcription app that converted everything a player said to text, instantly—but she looked at Lionel and smirked. That smirk! Good lord.

She was married, though, and had two teenage girls, and so every year Lionel had gotten better at disguising his heartache. During the games, they sat next to each other, bantering, complaining, comparing notes, and with every word she said, in her low, clenched-jaw way, he was stung by the great injustice of finding his favorite person, sitting next to her every day, but heading home each day alone.

Lionel looked around. He could talk to the second baseman, Hollis, who had some kind of problem with his heel, but what was the point? Warren wouldn’t give him space for news of another almost-injury to a player on a losing team.

Hannah finished with Jiménez and sidled up to Lionel. “Behold the new guy,” she said, and nodded to a gangly man in the corner. She handed Lionel the day’s media packet and pointed to the relevant paragraph about a middle reliever, Nathan Couture, being called up from AAA Sacramento. “Get him before Sydney puts the muzzle on,” Hannah said.

The man in the corner was holding the sleeves of his uniform apart, apparently dumbfounded to find his own name, COUTURE, stitched to the back of a Giants jersey.

“Nathan?” Lionel asked.

The pitcher turned around and smiled. His teeth were small, and he was missing his left canine; it gave him a look of youthful incompletion. He had a narrow, pockmarked face and a weak chin. A wispy mustache overhung his stern, chapped lips.

“First time in the majors?” Lionel asked.

“Indeed,” Nathan said.

That word—it wasn’t heard so much in a locker room. Lionel wrote “indeed” in his notebook, and then asked the most inane, and most common, query in sports. “How does it feel?” It hurt to utter the words.

But Nathan nodded and inhaled and exhaled expansively through his nostrils, as if this was the most provocative question he’d ever heard.

“When I got the call, just yesterday, I was elated,” Nathan said.

Lionel heard an accent. Rural. Southeastern maybe. Georgia? He wrote down “Elated” and underlined it.

“The drive from Sacramento was a fever dream,” Nathan continued. “The scenery rushed by like meltwater. And then to get here, to this cathedral, to warm up, and to meet these men at the top of their craft”—he swept his arm around the room, now filled with a dozen or so players in towels and jockstraps; one was jiggling his leg, as if to awaken it—“and to be welcomed by them without condition, and now to see my name on this shirt … I have to say, it’s sublime.”

Lionel wrote and underlined “sublime.” He looked around to see if he was being pranked. But no one was listening; no one was near.

“I’m sorry, I didn’t get your name,” Nathan said, and extended his hand. Lionel introduced himself, and found that Nathan was examining his face with a friendly but jarring intensity. He rested his eyes on Lionel’s notebook. “Do you take shorthand?” he asked.

Lionel’s handwriting was a chaotic mix of cursive and all caps—a madman’s scrawl. “No, no,” he said. “This is just my personal code, I guess.”

In four years, no player had ever asked even the vaguest question about Lionel’s process or profession.

“I assume you’ll call me a journeyman,” Nathan said.

Lionel had just written that exact word. He quickly crossed it out.

“Don’t, don’t,” Nathan said. “I like the word, and for me it’s apt. And removed from baseball, it’s a good word, don’t you think? Journey-man. I know not everyone loves it, since it implies a kind of purgatory just below success, but in isolation, the word has a simple beauty to it, right? How could you not want to be called a journey-man?”

Lionel looked at the word he’d obliterated. “I guess so.” He circled it. When he glanced up again, Nathan was looking down at him with priestly interest.

“Did you dream of this work as a boy?” he asked.

Lionel couldn’t speak. He returned to the assumption that this was a prank. He looked around. No one looked back.

“I’m sorry. I shouldn’t probe like that,” Nathan said, and laid a hand on Lionel’s shoulder. “I just had the sudden awareness that the two of us are in the enviable, even surreal position of living out our most impossible dreams. The fact that we aren’t digging ditches or mining coal—that I’m paid to play a game and you’re paid to watch a game and tell people what you see—it seems, in a world of sadness and misfortune, to be a thing of great luck. Don’t you think?”

Lionel watched the game in a daze. He sat in the press box, Hannah on his right. On his left was Marco DaSilva, in his mid-20s, round-shouldered and stat-obsessed, and for some reason doing AM radio, where the average listener was 76. Lionel read, and reread, his notes, while hoping Nathan Couture would be called in to pitch.

“Interesting guy?” Hannah asked.

“His numbers are shit,” Marco said.

It was not right to withhold anything from them, but Lionel kept the strange interview to himself. The Giants lost badly and Nathan didn’t play, and somewhere along the way, Hannah, bored by Lionel’s distracted state, moved to sit next to Marco, and made a show of having an especially good time with this new seating arrangement.

Lionel wrote up the game, but because Nathan hadn’t been a factor, it made no sense to include him. He’d play sooner or later, Lionel figured, at which point he could get him into a story. Maybe Warren would let him do a profile. Or maybe not. Warren didn’t generally like human-interest stories.

That night, Lionel went online, searching for Nathan Couture. His hometown was Thomasville, Alabama. He was 28 and had never been to college. His statistics were unremarkable in every way, which meant he was unlikely to remain in the majors for any stretch of time. He was both average and old. A mediocre pitcher who was happy to be in the bigs, and who asked about Lionel’s work and method? What was he thinking?

Nathan was sent back to Sacramento the next day.

Lionel wrote up his summaries of the games that week, printing the players’ inanities, and Sydney baked white-chocolate brownies, which were exceptional.

“I don’t like her baking, actually,” Marco said. He and Hannah and Lionel were watching batting practice on another cool August afternoon.

“Her cookies are brittle,” Hannah said. Lionel hadn’t thought about Sydney’s cookies that way before, but they were definitely on the crumbly side. Soon the three of them had turned on all the food in the stadium. The garlic fries, which had been so crisp last season, were now less crisp, and the little pepperonis on the pizzas had dropped a few notches.

“Remember when they were sort of curly?” Lionel asked.

The gates of complaint were now open. The architects of the park, they agreed, had not allotted enough elevators, so the writers often had to wait—sometimes many minutes—to get from the field to the press box.

“And the paper towels!” Marco said suddenly, tragically.

In the bathrooms closest to the press box, the paper-towel dispensers had been replaced by air dryers, which they all agreed were too loud.

“Well,” Marco said, his voice weary, “I guess we should go inside and get the lineup for tonight.”

Lionel grabbed the copy Sydney had put in his cubby and saw Nathan’s name. He felt a flutter of excitement that embarrassed him.

“Couture is back,” Hannah said, and Lionel nodded, giving away nothing.

The game began, and by the sixth inning, with the Giants up 5–0, it was highly unlikely they would need Nathan. He was the third or fourth middle reliever on the roster, and the starter was still soaring.

But the Padres hacked a series of singles into shallow left and right, and suddenly it was 5–3, then 5–4. The manager made his way to the mound and took the ball, and the starter walked to the dugout, head low and muttering. Lionel looked to the bullpen to see who would emerge.

When Nathan stepped out, he waited on the warning track, taking a long breath. He walked onto the grass like it was the first step of a royal staircase, and then broke into a steady trot. The rest of his entrance and preparations were routine. He kicked the dirt and took his warm-up pitches. His face appeared on the massive outfield screen, in a goofy photo, and 20,000 fans wondered, idly, who he was. Then, without fuss, he struck out the first batter with three pitches.

“Damn,” Marco said, and typed feverishly for a while. Lionel assumed he was looking for some numerical context for what had just happened.

The next batter hit a rope toward left. Winebrenner, the third baseman, knocked it down but bobbled it, and there was a runner on first.

When the third man up hit a dribbler to second, Hollis fielded it—clumsily—and flipped it to the shortstop, who stepped on second and threw to first for a double play.

“Okay,” Hannah said. “Okay.” For Hannah, this was high praise.

Next inning, Nathan took care of the first three batters in much the same way—with crafty pitch selection and pinpoint placement. When the third hitter fouled a ball high, Nathan ran after it, briefly confusing the first baseman, who waved him off and caught it.

Between innings, Hannah took a cryptic call.

“Huh,” she said. Apparently Hollis, the second baseman, was getting an MRI. The heel that had been bothering him was now shot. Something had happened during that double play.

More experienced pitchers closed out the eighth and ninth, and that was that. The Giants won, 5–4. Down in the locker room, the early word on Hollis’s heel was bad. Warren would not want the story of Nathan Couture, not on the night the starting second baseman got injured. Lionel wandered over to Nathan anyway. Most of the players had showered already, but Nathan was still in his uniform.

“Is that corny?” Nathan asked. “I wanted to savor it a bit longer.”

Hollis seesawed into the room on crutches and the reporters swarmed. The professional thing to do would be to go over and hear from the player who’d won four Gold Gloves and was being paid $12 million. But Lionel stayed with Nathan.

“I noticed you paused when you first stepped out,” he said.

“I did,” Nathan said. “I assume you want to know how it felt?”

Lionel smiled and licked the tip of his pen theatrically.

“It was big,” Nathan said.

Lionel wrote down “It’s big” and for a moment, he wondered if Nathan’s earlier eloquence had been a fluke.

“Kidding, Lionel. Truly, I think it’s a happy, wholly irrational spectacle,” he said. “Don’t you think? I mean—”

“Hold on,” Lionel said, and scrambled for his tape recorder.

Nathan took a deep breath. “I mean, those upper-deck seats are probably 200 feet up. Think of it. Twenty-five thousand people were here tonight, some of them sitting 200 feet in the air, to see men play as silly a game as has ever been conjured. Balls and bats and bases—all of it perfected and professionalized, sure, but essentially childish and irrelevant. And to serve it, to celebrate it, this billion-dollar coliseum is built. People come 100 miles to watch it under 1,000 lights. When you and I first met, it was a day game, a completely different atmosphere. At night the stadium takes on the look of deep space. The sky is so black, the lights so white, illuminating a surreal sea of green. When you jog out there, as I did, in the dark, it feels, briefly, like you’re in a spaceship, approaching a new planet.”

Hector Jiménez, the catcher whose locker was next to Nathan’s, had begun listening, and was giving Nathan a disapproving look.

“There was some confusion over that foul ball,” Lionel said, and already Nathan was nodding.

“First of all,” he said, “that ball was rightfully Gutierrez’s, but it started out over my head, and that northeast wind took it toward the first-base line. So I had it in my sights, but then it evaporated. I mean, it ceased to be!”

Lionel caught Jiménez’s eye. He looked alarmed, horrified.

“And for a long moment,” Nathan continued, “as I searched the void for the ball, I thought, I’ve caught a million balls. How could I lose this one? And then I thought, Why am I here? Where are my legs? Are my arms still raised? Why can’t I see? The sky was so black, and this solid thing, this baseball, had utterly disappeared in it! So I wondered if the ball had been real, and if I was real, if anything was real.”

Jiménez tossed his gear into his duffel and zipped it loudly.

“Then I smelled roast beef!” Nathan said, and laughed loudly, placing his hand on Lionel’s shoulder. “I thought, Is that roast beef I smell? Who brought roast beef to the ballpark? Then Gutierrez yelled, ‘Move, kid, I got it!’ and my eyes swung toward him. As they did, I saw the blur of 1,000 faces in the stands beyond first. Then he caught the ball.”

Jiménez walked away. Seconds later, Sydney appeared. She always grew suspicious when interviews ran long.

“Everything good over here?” she asked.

“Fine,” Lionel said, but the interview was over.

Lili Wood

Lionel had to wait a few days for the drama of Hollis’s injury to play out before asking Warren for some space in the paper to profile Nathan. Warren had zero interest in it, especially since Nathan hadn’t played again. But then one day an ad dropped out, so on page 23, Lionel was allotted six column inches to introduce “Nathan Couture, Pitcher With Unique Outlook.” He did little more than print the two long quotes he’d gotten from Nathan before Sydney had hustled him away, but the article made an impression.

“You have to play me that tape,” Hannah said, clearly dubious.

All the reporters wanted to talk to Nathan, but Nathan was suddenly unavailable. Sydney felt they’d dodged a bullet in having this eccentric Alabaman talk and talk and somehow avoid a catastrophic mistake. She would not risk it again. But then she said she would.

“The owner insisted on it,” Warren said.

The octogenarian owner of the team had evidently read Lionel’s article, and was an immediate fan of Nathan’s. He wanted Nathan in games, and wanted Nathan to talk, as much as he could, before and after games. The owner, viewed as an eccentric himself (though from Kansas), was assumed to be not long for this world. Three days after Nathan’s first outing, he pitched the eighth inning of another tight game, and again he held his own, and the Giants won. This time, he had to bat, and actually stroked a line drive into Triples Alley. Against the wishes of the first-base coach, Nathan rounded first base and was easily tagged out at second. It made for a comical and eventful inning, and the home crowd went berserk.

Afterward, a scrum of reporters surrounded him, and Lionel, who had unwisely waited for the elevator, found himself in the third ring. He felt oddly proprietary, even jilted. He wanted, to a degree that filled him with shame, some kind of acknowledgment from Nathan that he was different, that he had been first.

Nathan looked around and smiled broadly. “Well, this is extraordinary.”

Hannah was closest. “General thoughts, Mr. Couture?”

Nathan stared at the ceiling for a while, as if peeling back the many layers of the query, then rested his eyes upon her.

“First I thought about the smell of the grass,” he said. “They cut it today, so the smell was fresh and just a bit sour, as newly cut grass is. There’s something both wet and dry at the same time, both dead and alive. I inhaled a bit longer than usual, wanting to take everything in, and I saw four men, all gray-haired, arm in arm in the stands, posing for a picture. Then the Jumbotron showed a picture of the same men, as teenagers, at a ball game. Same four guys, same pose, just 50-odd years ago. And I had the feeling that the four of them, whenever they stand side by side like that, probably feel invincible.”

“Nathan, I—”

Another reporter broke in, thinking Nathan was finished. But Lionel knew he wasn’t.

“Then I saw a seagull. Maybe you did too? It hovered over home plate for a moment, maybe 20 feet up. Under the lights it looked like a tiny angel. I wondered what brought this bird, alone, to the ballpark. No doubt he hoped he might come across some discarded chips or fries, but the risk is considerable, too. Wouldn’t the lights, and 30,000 people, be daunting? But then again, he can fly. Is anything daunting when you can fly? And briefly I thought about the nature of flight. I do think there will come a time when humans can fly more or less as birds do, and I wondered how that would affect our idea of freedom. Will anyone ever feel constrained, spiritually or materially, if they can fly?”

Lionel wrote down “If we can fly.”

“And then it was time to pitch,” Nathan said. There was scattered laughter, and the exchange of looks. Nathan was stranger in person than he had been in Lionel’s article. A dozen hands went up.

“Oh jeez,” Nathan said. “I just went on and on. And you probably have so many other players to talk to. Why don’t we do a speed round? Deal?”

Someone in front asked, “What was it like to get your first hit?”

“If you remember,” Nathan said, “I fouled off the first two pitches. And fouling a ball off is like every mistake you make in life: You put everything you’ve got into a task, and if it’s just a little wrong, it’s wrong enough to make the whole effort a waste of time. The ball goes nowhere, or worse than nowhere. But when the barrel of the wooden bat hits the ball just so—you feel nothing. There’s no resistance. Nothing at all. The ball leaps into the sky. The struggle is gone.”

Marco edged in. “Nathan, the average spin rate of your four-seamer is solid, at 2320, putting you ninth among middle relievers, but tonight, your average for the last three batters was 2090. Do you have a plan to address that?”

As Marco talked, Nathan’s face slackened, his eyes glazed, and when Marco was finished, he said, “Honestly, Marco, I have no ever-loving idea.”

A balding man in a baby-blue sweat suit raised his hand. It was Tom Verlo, from the L.A. Times. He’d likely come upstate to throw a bit of cold water on San Francisco’s new attraction.

“Can you tell us about running?” he asked. “You looked a bit rusty.”

“Was it as bad as I’m thinking it was?” Nathan said, and flashed an enormous and spectacularly awkward smile. “You know, as natural as it was when I hit that ball, running was the opposite. I felt like I was running in 1,000-year-old armor. By the time I got to second, the ball was in the second baseman’s glove. He was waiting for me like a groom would a bride. When he tagged me out, I was so relieved, I wanted to fall into his arms.”

Tom smiled. “On the broadcast, it looked like he said something to you.”

“He did. He said, ‘Mijo, now you can rest.’ ” Nathan looked at the clock on the wall. “We should hurry. Superspeed round now.”

“What does it sound like when a ball is caught?” a young web reporter asked.

“When I was a kid in Alabama, my grandfather lived in the backyard, in a little cottage. Every night after dinner, I would walk back to his place with him, and he would kiss me on the crown of my head and say, ‘Adieu.’ Then he would close the door, and the sound of his door closing would be a muffled, wet, and decisive click. That’s what it sounds like when a ball is caught. Like the click of the door to my grandfather’s home.”

Nathan looked at the clock. “Okay, one last one? I see you, Lionel.”

Lionel, standing in the back, was happy for Nathan, and for the moment felt unnecessary. He shook his head.

That was the game, and the interview, that broke Nathan Couture into the national media. The next day, and for the following week, he was everywhere. ESPN did a segment, and Jimmy Kimmel had him on his show. With Sydney offering Nathan freely to all, the only thing Lionel could do was go to Phoenix.

Nathan’s parents, though they’d raised Nathan in Alabama, had moved to Arizona, and Warren green-lit a longer profile. In a stolen moment before a game, Lionel told Nathan he was thinking of going, and Nathan gave his blessing. “I trust you,” he said.

“Thank you,” Lionel said.

“You report accurately and you listen carefully,” he said.

“I try,” Lionel said.

“They are tremendous people,” Nathan said. “Immeasurably charming. You’ll love them, and they you. I’m envious that you get to see them. I’ll call ahead and let them know I vouch for you.”

Lionel arrived at a comfortable ranch house 20 minutes from downtown Phoenix. A pickup truck was out front, and next to it, a small fishing boat rested on a trailer. Lionel rang the bell, and when the door opened, a thin couple in their late 60s stood before him, arms around each other’s waists. Jim and Dot, short for Dorothy.

“Lionel,” Jim said.

“I took the liberty of pouring you a glass of ice water,” Dot said.

Lionel followed them in. He walked on the side of his left foot, but the squeaking was clearly audible. Lionel guessed, correctly, that they would be too polite to mention it.

“Come sit,” Jim said, and indicated a plush leather recliner in the living room. It was almost surely Jim’s TV chair, and Lionel took the honor given. Nathan’s parents sat to his right, on a matching couch.

“Nathan speaks highly of you,” Dot said.

“He does,” Jim agreed.

Lionel got his notebook out and looked around the room. He’d expected a house full of books, but saw few. There were no trophies, either—no shrine to their son, the professional baseball player. An enormous TV dominated one wall. Next to it were two photos, from middle school, he guessed. One was clearly Nathan. The other was a girl, younger by a year or two, who shared a version of Nathan’s goofy smile. But there was something knowing, even sardonic, in her eyes.

“So how does it feel,” Lionel asked, “with Nathan becoming this …” He almost said “curiosity” but instead chose “phenomenon.”

“Oh, it’s been so nice,” Dot said.

“He worked hard,” Jim said. “Deserves it.”

Lionel smiled, thinking they were warming up. But they were done. Dot held her glass of water with two hands and smiled at Lionel in a motherly way. Lionel looked down at his notebook.

“So outside his skill as a pitcher,” he said, “one of the things that’s gotten Nathan noticed is his way with words. Was he always loquacious?”

Dot winced. She looked to Jim. Jim chewed his cheek.

“I read your first article,” Dot said. “When you had him saying ‘Indeed,’ right away I thought, That’s the comebacker.” She pointed to her temple.

“He was never, you know, book smart,” Jim added. “That was his sister.”

“Never read a book unless you tied him down,” Dot said.

“He didn’t talk a whole lot,” Jim said, “and when he did, he did it in a regular way. He was all laser-focused. That’s how his coaches described him.”

“Single-minded. Then the comebacker happened,” Dot said.

“I’m sorry. The comebacker?” Lionel asked.

“Well, he was hit by a comebacker,” Jim said, sounding surprised that Lionel didn’t know. “In Sacramento. It was on the radio up there.”

“We were at the game,” Dot said. “It was awful. Nathan threw a fastball to a very big guy, I think he was from Nevada, and this guy hit the ball right back at him a million miles an hour. Hit him right here.” Again she pointed to her temple.

“From our angle, it looked awful,” Jim amended. “But later we saw it on tape, and it was more of a … It sorta grazed his head. The doctor checked him out and said he was okay. Nathan felt okay too. He pitched the rest of the inning and did fine. But then he took us out for dinner afterward, and it was like talking to some other person.”

“He had a $10 word for everything,” Jim said. “He said the wine was ‘unafraid.’ I remember that. The wine was ‘unafraid.’ That was new.”

“He did say that. He said a lot of things,” Dot said.

“He talked a lot that night,” Jim added. “We flew home the next morning, and a few days later, he gets called up to the Giants. Which is when you met him.”

“We figured the new way of talking was some temporary thing,” Dot said. “But then your article comes out, and he’s still talking this way—‘indeed’ this and ‘glorious’ that.”

“His sister talked like that. She was the reader.”

Lionel was afraid to ask.

“She passed young,” Dot said, and leaned forward, her hands on her knees. “It was a tumor. When they found it, it was too big.”

Jim cleared his throat. “Anyway. With Nathan, when he was talking like that, we put it together. It had to be the comebacker.”

Dot was nodding steadily, her eyes locked on Lionel. “Like something got knocked loose, and whatever was clogged up in there came pouring out. Sometimes people get hit in the head and start speaking another language.”

Jim nodded enthusiastically. “French, Portuguese, Turkish. But it seems like it’s usually French.”

By the time Lionel left, the impossible heat of paved Arizona had relented. He drove with the windows open, the red sunset behind him. He got back to the hotel and checked his messages. One was from Hannah.

“Sorry about your boy,” she said. “You probably know more than I do. Call if you want to compare notes.”

Lionel looked online and found a short blip about it. Nathan had been pitching in Cleveland when he blew out his arm. He left the park in a sling.

The professional thing for Lionel to do would be to return to Nathan’s parents’ home and get their reaction. But he couldn’t bring himself to bother them, and was so shattered that he sat on the bed and stared at the wall for the better part of an hour. Finally he got to his feet and drove his rental car to the airport.

Back in San Francisco, Lionel waited for news. For two days Nathan wasn’t at the park, and no one had updates. Finally a press conference was called.

The room was full. Lionel sat at the back. The team doctor came out and said they’d done an MRI and consulted with the best specialists in the city. Nathan would need surgery, and even after that, the prognosis was not good. “I can’t promise anything,” the doctor said.

And then Nathan walked in, wearing a coat and tie, his arm in a sling. He sat down. He looked warmly out at the throng of reporters, but before he could begin, Tom from the L.A. Times walked in late. “What’s the prognosis?” he asked.

The room groaned, but as always, Nathan treated the question with great decorum.

“If I were still 18,” he said, “I might be able to get the surgery. Then, in 10 or 12 months, I could return, though with reduced capacity. But I’m almost 30, so there is no way back. Even if I did every last thing right, I’d be, at best, a single-A player. And an old one at that.”

Hannah was in the front row. She raised her hand.

“Hi, Hannah,” Nathan said. “I’m guessing you’d like to know how it feels?”

She laughed and lowered her hand.

“It’s a good question. At the moment, I’m still stunned. Numb. I have to admit my imagination had gotten away from me, and I saw great glory ahead. I was looking forward to the rest of the season, to seasons to come, to the lights, all those people sitting 200 feet in the sky to watch this game. It’s over sooner than I expected, for sure. So for the moment, I’m adrift. Don’t you cry now, Hannah.” He looked around the table for tissues. “All we have up here is water. Here,” he said, and poured her a tall glass from the pitcher. And as he did, time slowed. Every reporter in the room watched closely, as if they’d never before seen water move from one vessel to another.

Nathan sat down again, and called on Lionel.

“Did you have any warning?” Lionel asked.

“You know, my friend, I really didn’t. I felt good that day in Cleveland. But it’s probably like any other thing. How can a sequoia withstand a thousand years of earthquakes and fires and wind, and finally, one day, it just falls? One afternoon, a gust comes and it gives up.” Nathan stood. “I’ll miss you all. Hope I see you here or there or somewhere in between. Goodbye now.”

Lionel walked onto King Street, trying to figure out how to shape the story, or if he should bother. He still hadn’t written about his time with Nathan’s parents; his heart wasn’t in it. When he turned the corner at Third Street, heading home, he felt a presence next to him.

“Caught up to you!” It was Nathan, out of breath. “I tried to find you at the park, and then was wandering around the neighborhood, hoping to run into you. I know you live around here. Then I heard the squeaking.”

They ducked into a burrito place. Lionel tried to order margaritas for them both, but Nathan declined. “I don’t know why my mind is working the way it does now, but I don’t want to mess with it.” He ordered a lemonade.

Lionel ordered a lemonade too, and they sat by the window facing the park. “Your parents told me about the comebacker,” he said.

“Yeah, I figured,” Nathan said. “Funny thing is, I don’t feel different, and I don’t see differently than I ever did before. I’ve always noticed the same things, but I guess that now I have the need, and maybe the words, to describe it.

“My sister was the eloquent one,” he continued after a pause. “My parents mention her?”

“A little bit,” Lionel said.

For a second Nathan smiled, as if thinking of her, of something she’d said. “Anyway,” he said, “I’ll be reading you, making sure you get it right.”

“I can do better,” Lionel said suddenly, and Nathan did not argue the point. It was criminal to sit in that park, Lionel thought, with all that color, all that vaulting joy in a world of sadness and misfortune, and not do better.

“You plan to fix the squeak?” Nathan asked.

“I took it back to the shoe guy,” Lionel said, “but he freed himself of any responsibility.”

“Can I?” Nathan asked, and Lionel took off his shoe and handed it to Nathan.

“It has to be an air pocket, right?” Nathan said. Even with one bum arm, he quickly found the pocket and aimed a fork at it. “Can I?” he asked again. Lionel nodded, and Nathan jabbed a strategic hole. “Try it now.”

Lionel put the shoe back on and walked a few steps. The squeak was gone. His relief was immeasurable. “Thank you,” he said.

They finished their lemonades and stepped back into the city. The lights were on in the stadium. Lionel had forgotten there was a home game that night. He turned to Nathan, thinking he’d be wistful, but his eyes were sharp and happy.

“So what will you do now?” Lionel asked.

“I’ve been thinking about that. Are you walking this way?” Nathan was heading toward the water, his gait loose. Lionel followed.

“Maybe you buy that Romanian shoemaker out.”

Nathan laughed. “You know,” he said, “a few years ago, I was in a high-rise in Guangzhou, visiting a friend at his office. Long story. But anyway, this was 42 floors up, and there was a man outside, cleaning the windows. He had one of those wide T-shaped tools for cleaning the glass—like a blade. You know the tool. So simple. He drenched the window with soap, applying it with such liberality. Just soaked this vast window overlooking this limitless city.”

Nathan turned to the towers of downtown San Francisco.

“And then, with the T-shaped blade, he slashed the surface of the glass with the precision and finality of a guillotine. He got every last white sud. As we watched, the view through the window went from muddy to crystalline.”

Lionel couldn’t figure out what the connection was. Nathan wanted to be a businessman in a Chinese high-rise? And how had this minor-league pitcher from Alabama ended up with a friend in Guangzhou?

“So I thought I’d like to do that job,” Nathan said. He meant cleaning the windows. “Not necessarily in Guangzhou, and not forever, but I’d like to try that for a while. I like being outside.”

They’d arrived at the water, and Lionel thought he should get back to the ballpark. He reached out to shake Nathan’s hand. Nathan lowered his sling and took Lionel’s fingers in his.

“Or babies!” he said, still pumping Lionel’s hand. “You know how after babies are born in hospitals, there are nurses who hold the babies while the moms recover from the birth? How do you get that job?”

Nathan released Lionel’s hand and began backing away, toward the South Beach marina, where hundreds of white masts looked like lances aimed at the night.

“Imagine holding babies all day!” Nathan said. “Wouldn’t that be a worthwhile life? So tomorrow I’m going down to the maternity ward to find out who gets to hold the babies. I want to hold all those babies before they go home.”

This story appears in the September 2023 print edition.

There’s No Shame in Flaking

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › technology › archive › 2023 › 08 › flaking-commitment-keeping-social-acceptance › 674991

Years ago, when I lived in Southern California, I worked with an extremely responsible project manager I’ll call Rocco. Rocco was reliable to the point of neurosis. Accountable to a fault, he was a first-guy-in-the-office guy whose shirts were always pressed and whose meetings started and ended on time. Everyone liked Rocco, but we also wished he would lighten up a little.

One day, Rocco didn’t make it to a scheduled meeting. The next time we saw him, we asked what happened. Was he okay? Rocco wore an ear-to-ear grin as he explained that, yes, he was fine. “I just flaked,” he said, beaming. “I flaked!”

He had done it. Rocco had adopted a social strategy that everyone else grapsed, even if they never spoke of it: Sometimes you just flake.

Alas, flaking—which is to say, failing to keep a commitment—is rarely celebrated with Rocco’s newfound enthusiasm. The term has long been used in a derogatory rather than liberatory sense: “I can’t believe Rocco flaked on us. He’s so unreliable.”

It is time for everyone to adopt flaking in the way Rocco did. Flaking, understood and used correctly, is an important and healthy social tool. It relieves you of the burden of always requiring a reason or an excuse, whether rational, psychological, clinical, or otherwise. No need to blame “the subway” or “a thing that came up” or “my anxiety.” Just, “I flaked.” Ah, okay, you flaked. Thanks for letting me know.

[Read: How to flake gracefully]

Before I go any further, let me acknowledge that to flake is a precious act. Flake too much and you become, as in the derogatory sense, “a flake.” Unreliable. That’s bad. Nobody likes a flake. Those cases are usually clear because they are patterned: Gavin just never shows up on time or You can’t rely on Sarah to have done the work.

But to flake when the circumstances are right—that is a glorious good. People have long relished in canceling plans or avoiding obligations, whether in the name of self-care, procrastination, conflict avoidance, exhaustion, or social awkwardness. Relaxed social conventions have helped by making etiquette less delicate, and our very online culture has inspired more reasons to wring hands or strategize about avoidance. But flaking, ghosting, and their kin typically get celebrated as an almost divine intervention or guilty pleasure. True flaking must never be indulged this way. To embrace flaking means casting off mysticism, shame, and secrecy.

To keep those devils at bay, one must refuse to investigate a flake’s rationale. Why did Rocco flake? We didn’t ask, because the reason behind a true flake need not be known. Overwork or burnout, family strife or flat tires—these are excuses that underlie and motivate an outcome that might wrongly be deemed flaky. Flaking abstracts from them, allowing space to have failed absent specific reason. To flake is to recognize that the vastness of the universe, and the many forces at work within it, cannot always be unpacked like a suitcase. Over some you have control: your alarm clock, your laundry, the preparation devoted to a task, the physical and mental effort exerted to make good on a promise. But over others, no control is possible. Or, at least, submission to forces greater than human will should be expected. Maybe the subway did fail to come or your anxiety did get the best of you. But not necessarily. Perhaps daylight’s golden end proved paralyzing. Maybe a simple refusal to act overtook you, absent restlessness or rebellion. In any event, you didn’t show up; you didn’t do the work. You flaked.

Who can blame you? Everyone is suffocating under the incessant demand for rationales, explanations, justifications. Online life is surely to blame, even if not exclusively. For every question, suggestion, and idea that comes up, someone can always, and immediately, seek affirmation or disproof. You say you emailed the document, and yet look at my screen—no email arrived. Did you really tell me you were stuck at work? The text-message record says no. You say the subway didn’t come, and yet you posted an Instagram selfie at the cronut shop, hmmm. It’s easy to feel like every thought and action demands deep reason, a whole scaffolding of support, as if every solitary decision has emerged from a master narrative backed by lore sufficient to withstand investigation by attorneys, conspiracists, and redditors.

[Read: The six forces that fuel friendship]

Explanations have their place, and certainly they’re understandable currency for avoiding awkwardness or hurt feelings. But all of us can benefit from taking a breath and remembering that a human’s existence is not a judicial proceeding or a franchise screenplay. It is a mess, a pile of accidents that somehow, if you’re lucky, coheres into a structure more often than not. Flaking, taken selectively, allows you to acknowledge that life is porous. Errors seep through its gaps. The source of those errors might be knowable—you were tired or hungover—but they might be unknowable. A strange brew of accidents, sensations, events, and sensibilities that led you just not to. Resist the temptation to make excuses, at least sometimes. No need for diagnoses to overshare, tragedies to invoke, white lies to cover the truth: You don’t even really know why you didn’t do whatever it was you didn’t do. You just didn’t do it.

That doesn’t make flaking an ace in the hole, however. Some requirements distinguish the good flaking from the bad. For one, the stakes must be relatively low. Failing to complete the big report the day before the presentation is not flake-eligible. Nor is forgetting to pick up the kids at tae kwon do. One can flake only if having done so will injure no one more than it benefits you. What responsibility did Rocco fail to show up for? I don’t remember. Nothing important. The Earth continued turning.

For this reason, flaking can only be assessed retroactively. You can’t text someone, “Hey, just a heads-up, I’ll be flaking tonight.” But likewise, you can’t flake until the consequences release you from serious potential blame. That makes every flake a risk, but a calculated one. Experienced flakers can tell the difference by instinct. Some meetings demand your presence; others do not. Failing to show up at a group dinner is different from standing up a date. With practice, these distinctions will become intuitive.

Furthermore, the good kind of flaking must be done in the first person: “I flaked.” You must acknowledge it, and publicly too. Flaking is always shameful if unconfessed, because it disrespects both those who might have been affected by your flaking and the institution of flakery itself. To truly flake requires owning up to it, ideally proactively. “Sorry about last night. Dunno what happened. I flaked.”

If you are not already an adept flaker, learning this new skill will be difficult. People will likely mistake you for an asshole, especially if you do it wrong (or if you’re not flaking in a flake-aware geography, like Rocco in SoCal). Flaking is not just an act but an ethos. A fading one, too. It is harder to flake today than it once was. Back when I bore witness to Rocco’s first flake, nobody had mobile phones. It was more of a hassle to check up or check in, so nobody had such high expectations. Now you should really call, or text, or reply to a text or call. “Rocco, are you coming?” Silence isn’t flaking; it’s just rude. And yet, the demand for a response has undermined the institution of flakery. It is a dying art.

But one you can yet revive. You can start by flaking yourself, and then explaining matters as a curative to your reason-addled friends, family, or colleagues. Eventually, with practice, an advanced mentality of flaking will unlock. And at expert level, a calm acceptance of its righteousness. A flake has no reason and no rebuke. “I just flaked.” Silent nods. It happens. Nothing anyone could have done.

A Sweet, Surrealistic TV Show

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › newsletters › archive › 2023 › 08 › boots-riley-virgo-show-recommendation › 674933

This story seems to be about:

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

Welcome back to The Daily’s Sunday culture edition, in which one Atlantic writer reveals what’s keeping them entertained.

Today’s special guest is Atlantic associate editor Morgan Ome. Morgan recently reported on the ripple effects of the U.S. government’s reparations program for Japanese Americans, and recommended five books that’ll fit right into your busy schedule. She’s also investigated the trend of “demon screaming” at concerts. Morgan has been watching a surrealist Boots Riley satire, revisiting Mitski’s “pithy, poetic” lyrics as she awaits the singer’s next album, and recovering from the heartbreak of an Eileen Chang novel about star-crossed lovers in 1930s Shanghai.

First, here are three Sunday reads from The Atlantic:

The misunderstood reason millions of Americans stopped going to church A strike scripted by Netflix The most misunderstood concept in psychology

The Culture Survey: Morgan Ome

The television show I’m most enjoying right now: I’ll watch anything by the writer-director Boots Riley, who made the absurdist, anti-capitalist 2018 film Sorry to Bother You. His latest project is the seven-episode series I’m a Virgo, which follows 19-year-old Cootie, a 13-foot-tall Black man who is kept hidden from the world by his family until he escapes and explores his hometown of Oakland. Jharrel Jerome plays Cootie with a sweet earnestness that helps balance the over-the-top satire and surrealistic visual effects.

I’m also keeping up with the second season of The Summer I Turned Pretty, which holds a lot of nostalgic value for me. I read Jenny Han’s series in middle school, and I remember asking my mom to drive me to Barnes & Noble to get the second book when it came out. The new season deals with the ways that death and grief shape love, and it’s more somber and less frothy than the first season.

Best novel I’ve recently read, and the best work of nonfiction: Half a Lifelong Romance, by Eileen Chang (translated by Karen S. Kingsbury), broke my heart in the same way that the film Past Lives did. Chang’s novel follows star-crossed lovers, but perhaps more interestingly, it explores the way that family, class, and social norms in 1930s Shanghai mold two people over the course of 14 years.  In the novel’s introduction, Kingsbury writes that the Chinese title’s more literal translation is “fated to share only half a lifetime,” which “evokes both lifelong attachment and a sudden sundering.” How devastating, and how beautiful!

In nonfiction, I loved the audiobook of How to Keep House While Drowning: A Gentle Approach to Cleaning and Organizing, by KC Davis. At a basic level, the book gives practical advice on how to get chores done during difficult periods of life. But Davis also makes the argument for removing shame and judgment from care tasks such as laundry, cooking, and cleaning—failure to do these things doesn’t mean failure as a person. [Related: The juicy secrets of everyday life]

A quiet song that I love, and a loud song that I love: We’re in Love,” by boygenius, is the song I want to send to all of my loved ones. It’s the tenderest ode to friendship. (That Lucy Dacus wrote this for her bandmates, Phoebe Bridgers and Julien Baker, makes me weak inside.)

On the loud end, whenever I’m mad, I queue up “UGH!,” by BTS, which is an angry song about … anger. This explainer breaks down the Korean lyrics, which are full of wordplay and idioms.

A musical artist who means a lot to me: Sad girls and Mitski. Name a more iconic duo—I’ll wait. With her new album, The Land Is Inhospitable and So Are We, coming out next month, I’ve been revisiting Mitski’s discography, which holds new meaning on each listen. I’m obsessed with her refrains: They can be lamenting, as in “Two Slow Dancers,” in which she mournfully croons, “To think that we could stay the same,” or joyful, as in “Nobody,” in which that word crescendoes and builds into a dance-y tempo. Her lyrics meld the visceral and the abstract in such pithy, poetic ways—a “washing-machine heart,” a body “made of crushed little stars”—and have this uncanny ability to describe feelings that I previously didn’t have the words for. Whether she is writing about her relationships with people or with her art, Mitski has given me solace and permission to sit with my own messy and complicated emotions. [Related: The dangerous desires in Mitski’s songs]

A favorite story I’ve read in The Atlantic: Since it was published, I haven’t been able to put Hanna Rosin’s 2015 cover story, “The Silicon Valley Suicides,” out of my head. It is an empathetic and deeply reported article that explores why so many Palo Alto high-school students have killed themselves. The story delves into the academic pressure and pains of adolescence that so many young people face, while acknowledging that there are some questions that don’t have straightforward answers.

The last museum or gallery show that I loved: I stumbled across John Akomfrah’s Purple at the Hirshhorn Museum, in Washington, D.C., and was completely mesmerized by the video-art installation playing across six large panels. Sitting on a beanbag chair, I watched archival film of factory workers and coal miners juxtaposed with scenes of breathtaking wilderness around the world. When I emerged from the dark room, I appreciated how the installation had captured the loss and anxiety brought on by environmental devastation and the climate crisis, while still allowing me to cherish and admire our planet.

A painting, sculpture, or other piece of visual art that I cherish: My favorite paintings, Chiura Obata’s Evening Glow at Mono Lake and Paul Klee’s Blossoms in the Night, evoke serenity and are just plain gorgeous.

A poem, or line of poetry, that I return to: The simple rhymes in “Harlem,” by Langston Hughes, make it perfect for memorizing and keeping in the back of your mind, and the question it asks—“What happens to a dream deferred?”—makes me return to it again and again.

A good recommendation I recently received: While having dinner with an old friend in June, I lamented that our hometown has become less and less recognizable over the years. I missed the many places of our childhood that no longer exist, I told her. “Do you listen to Noah Kahan?” she asked. I shook my head. “I think you’ll like his latest album,” she told me. I’ve played the album, Stick Season (We’ll All Be Here Forever), on loop ever since. Kahan is reminiscent of The Lumineers and Bon Iver; his lyrics have Taylor Swift’s specific-yet-universal quality, and his voice strains just enough to convey angst and yearning. The album’s closer, an extended version of “The View Between Villages,” starts off slow before swelling into a cathartic chorus that captures the melancholy of honoring the people and places who represent our past. Listening to Kahan’s album feels like looking up and seeing my childhood self in the back seat of a car, driving past me. I wave to her, and she waves back.

The Week Ahead

The Heaven & Earth Grocery Store, a murder mystery by the author James McBride, begins with a skeleton found at the bottom of a well (on sale Tuesday). The third season of Only Murders in the Building, a comedy series about three Upper West Side neighbors who bond over their love of true crime, begins streaming on Hulu this Tuesday. Heart of Stone, a new movie featuring Gal Gadot and Jamie Dornan, follows an intelligence operative as she tries to stop a hacker (streaming on Netflix this Friday).

Essay

Photo-illustration by Joanne Imperio / The Atlantic. Source: Getty.

Putting Trump on the Couch

By Scott Stossel

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association established the so-called Goldwater Rule as a response to the many mental-health professionals who had ventured glib and florid diagnoses of Senator Barry Goldwater during his 1964 presidential campaign. “I believe Goldwater has the same pathological makeup as Hitler, Castro, Stalin, and other known schizophrenic leaders” was a representative comment; many other psychiatrists and psychologists deemed him schizophrenic, a “megalomaniac,” and “chronically psychotic.” In the four decades between its enshrining and the 2016 election, the Goldwater Rule—which prohibits psychiatrists from issuing diagnoses of public figures they haven’t seen as patients—was mostly honored.

But from the earliest moments of Donald Trump’s campaign, his behavior, falling far outside the boundaries of conventional candidate comportment, raised the question of whether he could be adequately assessed in purely political terms. Where did politics end and psychology—or psychopathology—begin?

Read the full article.

More in Culture

The surprising profundity of The Righteous Gemstones A movie about an affair that breaks with convention The actor who documented his grief—and shared it with the world The end of the U.S. women’s soccer dominance Kokomo City sees its subjects for who they are. Life has always been a performance. Dear Therapist: My husband had a relationship with his best friend. Poem: “After Viewing The Bowling Match at Castlemary, Cloyne (1847)

Catch Up on The Atlantic

How Bronze Age Pervert charmed the far right The indictment of Donald Trump—and his enablers Why a U.S. women’s team loss might actually be a good thing

Photo Album

A stork perches on a tree branch as the moon rises near the Hamzabey Dam, in Turkey. (Alper Tuydes / Anadolu Agency / Getty)

A trampoline championship in England; a flooded St. Mark’s Square, in Venice; and more in our editor’s selection of the week’s best photos

Katherine Hu contributed to this newsletter.

Explore all of our newsletters.

Passages Is an Unnerving, Electric Romantic Drama

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › culture › archive › 2023 › 08 › passages-movie-review › 674910

The protagonist of Passages, an incisive new romantic drama from the director Ira Sachs, is a man obsessed with perfecting others’ movements, even as he struggles to control his own. The story opens on a Paris film set, where a director named Tomas (played by Franz Rogowski) critiques an actor’s stiff entrance into a party scene. “This is just a transition moment, but we are turning it into a huge drama moment, because you’re not able to make some fucking simple steps down the staircase!” Tomas yells, arms motioning up and down the threshold his actor can’t seem to cross with sufficient finesse.

Passages is filled with similarly stressful snapshots of the tightly wound director, who is no less taxing in his personal life. His recklessness gives rise to the movie’s central tension, which kicks off at the wrap party for Tomas’s apparently exasperating film (also called Passages). After his husband, Martin (Ben Whishaw), leaves the party, Tomas revels in the attention lavished upon him by a young French woman named Agathe (Adèle Exarchopoulos). The night progresses, and their bodies migrate from the dance floor to a bedroom. The next morning, Tomas bursts through the door of the apartment he shares with Martin, waiting all of two minutes to announce: “I had sex with a woman. Can I tell you about it, please?” Weary of his husband’s destructive searches for postproduction catharsis, Martin withdraws from the conversation.

A different kind of film might have focused on this rupture between the two spouses, using the director’s infidelity to plumb their respective and shared emotional landscapes. Passages does broach this territory, but the film is more of a character study of Tomas than it is a portrait of his relationship with Martin or his affair with Agathe. It’s no tortured-artist hagiography, though: Agathe is originally enthralled by his artistry, but the quality of Tomas’s oeuvre ends up being nearly irrelevant to who he is, both in her estimation and in the film’s. Unrelenting and frank, Passages captures the creeping discontents of its Fassbinder-lite protagonist without losing sight of how his transgressions affect those around him. He may be magnetic, but Tomas is also unquestionably egotistical, brash, shortsighted, and mean. With a sparse visual sensibility and sharp dialogue, the film surveys the interpersonal damage wrought by Tomas’s carelessness, making poignant observations about power, desire, and the psychological contours of creative life.

Sachs, a veteran independent filmmaker who also directed the family sagas Frankie and Little Men, is particularly attuned to the cris-crossing complexities of relationships. (Passages was co-written by Sachs, who is American, and his frequent collaborator, the Brazilian screenwriter Mauricio Zacharias; additional dialogue is credited to the French screenwriter Arlette Langmann.) The characters in Passages circle one another constantly: Before Agathe and Tomas’s catalytic dance-floor encounter, it’s Martin who first approaches her at the bar, after watching her have a conversation with the man she came to the party with, whom she ends up rejecting. “Sorry to intrude,” Martin says in Anglophone-sounding French, when Agathe looks confused by his attentiveness. “I thought maybe you wanted to talk to someone.” As Agathe’s affair with Tomas unfolds, Martin never antagonizes her, and the film transcends familiar love-triangle clichés in part because the characters don’t blame one another for the wounds Tomas inflicts.

[Read: Frankie is a moody meditation on mortality]

Passages indulges in the pleasure and tyranny of all its main subjects—foremost Tomas, but also its more abstract concerns: the intertwined pursuits of art, love, sex, and belonging. Tomas’s affair with Agathe spurs Martin’s interest in a writer named Amad (Erwan Kepoa Falé), whose novel becomes a symbol of the chasm between the two husbands. When Agathe tells Tomas that she found the book and the author both “very original,” the comment briefly destabilizes their union too. Tomas is troubled that she admires another talented man; the fact that Amad lives in Agathe’s literary imagination is as disturbing as his physical relationship with Martin.

As Rogowski plays him, the fiercely needy Tomas vibrates with anxiety even as he projects a self-assured image. Throughout the film, he is seemingly incapable of stillness, ping-ponging across the city on his bicycle, flitting from one lover’s house to the other’s, popping up unannounced at either’s workplace. Passages contrasts his live-wire persona with the steadiness of his two lovers, whom Whishaw and Exarchopoulos play with quiet, masterly resolve. Tomas lays his insecurities at their feet, asking Martin to soothe the sting he feels from Agathe’s judgments, and vice versa.

The only time Tomas is at ease, it seems, is when he’s having sex. Refreshingly, Tomas, though prone to navel-gazing, doesn’t lament any perceived confusion about his sexuality or what labels he ought to use. (This is, perhaps, partly a function of the film’s multicultural Parisian setting and the attendant fluidity in language.) The closest he comes to a crisis of identity is more a crisis of cultural norms: After disastrously fumbling his first meeting with Agathe’s parents, Tomas runs back to Martin, admitting to his estranged husband that he misses being with men. The tearful confession doesn’t register as a comment on Tomas’s sexual preferences but rather an expression of how suffocated he feels by the social expectations placed on him as a man who appears to be in a heterosexual relationship.

Sachs excels at choreographing all manner of intimacies. Scenes such as that ill-fated meeting with Agathe’s parents reveal as much about his characters’ relationships as the film’s sex scenes, which have made it the latest in a long line of queer dramas to be given an NC-17 rating. (One of the others, the director Abdellatif Kechiche’s troubled 2013 romance, Blue Is the Warmest Color, also stars Exarchopoulos.) The sex in Passages is indeed stark—nearly wordless, hardly silent. But the beds in the film aren’t just loci of connection, illicit or otherwise. They’re also excavation sites, the minefields where characters unearth tensions between one another and within themselves. They’re reminders, above all, of how a relationship must change when one person refuses to.