Book Notes: Splinters by Leslie Jamison

I’ll read anything Leslie Jamison writes. Her memoir Splinters, about the implosion of her marriage and the love of her daughter, is as just engaging as her other writing. Many wonderful insights and sentences. My highlights from Kindle below. All bolding is my own.


[On the intensity of early love] Every morning we ate breakfast at a little diner down the road. The coffee was mulchy and bitter and hot, but I drank cup after cup, burned my tongue on it—eager to be awake, eager to talk, eager to bite the salty bacon that made my chapped lips sting; eager to rush back to the table from the little diner bathroom because there was so much to say.

Those early days with my daughter felt like excess and hallucination. It was all too much, but when I tried to find language for it, it was nothing at all: milk and diapers, milk and diapers, milk and diapers. The astonishing revelations of caring for a baby felt shameful to claim as astonishing, or—honestly—as revelations at all. Attachment bathes every common thing in the glow of false remarkability. My love-drunk gaze made it impossible to see if anything was worth seeing.

In its best moments, writing made me feel like I was touching something larger than myself. During those early days with the baby, however, it was hard to feel that I was contacting anything larger than my home or my child—anything larger than I could see the edges of. Now that I could not hurl myself constantly into work and trips and teaching and deadlines, I had to look more closely at the life I’d built: this husband, this marriage.

C saw right through the performances of mine that impressed everyone else. He was a keen but tender observer of other people’s coping strategies and blustering compensations. Listening to me do a radio interview, he could tell I was nervous because I was speaking too quickly. There was something electrifying, even erotic, about the experience of being seen through. The X-ray.

Years later, he told me that even though I’d managed to convince the world I was a good person, he knew what lay behind this façade: the selfishness underpinning my ambition, the virtue-signaling others mistook for virtue. Some part of me believed him. Some part of me would always believe him. Where others looked at me and saw kindness, he saw the elaborate puppetry of a woman desperate for everyone to find her kind.

During our four years together, we broke up, got back together, broke up again. We moved, moved again, moved out, moved in, more or less, again. We fought. We made up. We fought. We made up. I drank. I stopped drinking. I started drinking again. I stopped drinking again. We moved back and forth between conflict and reconciliation. Always in transit. Somehow we felt most present to each other in that passage across the threshold.

I was a teenager—and already angry at him in ways I couldn’t quite name, for distances I’d grown so acclimated to I didn’t even realize how badly I didn’t want them. I bristled with indignation and a blind, molten fury that I told myself was on my mother’s behalf. And it was. But it was also on behalf of that little girl who’d been part of the home he left behind, and—though I didn’t know this yet—on behalf of the woman I would become, who recognized some version of his restlessness in herself, and wished he’d given her a different model for how to navigate it.

I didn’t ask why his day had been so bad. I’d asked this question so many times before, I thought I already knew the answers: his frustration with work, or else the unspoken hurt of our distance. Which is maybe how love dies—thinking you already know the answers. I said none of this to him—just, “Our day was great,” and let him read my tone however he wanted.

I came to hold both truths at once: I’d caused him deep and lasting harm, by leaving him. And also, I did not regret choosing a life that would not share a home with his anger. When I say I held both truths, I mean that I lay with them, sleepless, in the dark.

The baby now consented to sleep in her stroller, as long as she was moving. So we never stopped. It made me think of the movie where the bus would explode if it ever slowed down. Or how sharks need to keep swimming to breathe. I was an art shark. I never stopped walking, except to nurse.

Also, I wanted to be taken care of. I told people I wanted to enjoy my singleness, when really what I wanted was a partner. But I was embarrassed not to be enough for myself.

My hometown made me feel at ease in a way no other landscape ever would: the strip malls and cloverleaf freeway exits, the rush of salt wind on the Pacific Coast Highway, the dark silhouettes of palm trees against those startling, smog-brightened sunsets. This was where I’d gotten high with my high school boyfriend, sixteen and not a virgin anymore, driving the dark back roads thinking, not a virgin not a virgin not a virgin. These streets were the first streets I ever drove with my friends, late at night, with the radio cranked up, imagining our futures…. When I drove these streets now, it made me nostalgic for that plural state of being—imagining multiple possible lives. Now I just had this one life—with this baby, this marriage.

His loyalty through crisis, and his unflinching compassion; his awareness that everyone is more than his best or worst moments.

But nothing happened next. Or rather, this happened next: we were friends for twenty years; we were never together; I married someone else. Being an adult meant watching many possible versions of yourself whittle into just one.

The women sitting in that room were a loose net, holding pain but not absorbing it. They’d heard worse. They felt a grace that had nothing to do with getting everything they wanted. It was the grace of surviving things they hadn’t believed they could survive. The grace of one day at a time. The grace of washing stained coffeepots, cracking a bad joke in a dark time, putting one foot in front of another.

Reading a biography of Susan Sontag that winter, I put three exclamation points in the margin next to a quote from her diaries: “I’m only interested in people engaged in a project of self-transformation.”

Some writers hate revision, but I’ve always appreciated its clarifying adrenaline. It’s like plunging into a cold lake, or a basement plunge pool. A challenge. A scouring. Not comfortable, but exhilarating. There’s a visceral buzz that comes from removing an unnecessary sentence from a draft. In its absence, everything else is crisper, starker, more alive. In writing, these removals were a form of rigor. But in life, they felt like cruelty.

During my first weeks getting sober, when I was spending many evenings each week in church basements, I fell in love with these words from G. K. Chesterton: “How much larger your life would be if your self could become smaller in it. You would find yourself under a freer sky, in a street full of splendid strangers.” In that dark gallery, I found myself.

She made solitude look liberating, while others made it look like a grind. I knew the truth everyone knows, which is that it’s both.

The road is pure loneliness, he wrote. Or rather, dying of loneliness & dying to be alone. It’s perfect for a sober alcoholic because you only feel bliss or terror. He was a self-dramatizer who was aware of his own drama. I recognized myself in his preemptive self-awareness.

That summer I was ravenous for the world—for stoop chats on hot nights, and endless seltzer at my kitchen table, next to the open window, listening to the anonymous soap operas of strangers on the sidewalks below. I’d never felt more seduced by the city, more grateful to it. I was determined to treat the divorce not as life paused, but as life happening. Every feeling was a fucking miracle. I wanted to believe that maternal love could be bolstered by everything else you longed for—friends, work, sex, the world—rather than measured by your willingness to leave these longings unanswered.

Holding his disabled calico cat in a tight embrace against his tattooed chest. Lol, he said. But he loved it. He was so committed to his own mythology—living in the well-worn jeans of a certain sense of self—that I had trouble believing it.

Talking to him felt cozy and illuminated, like settling into the passenger seat for a long road trip, the car packed with gas-station snacks, rolling prairies beyond the windows, the buzz of everything ahead.

When I talked about the tumbleweed with friends, I’d say, Oh, I know we’re doomed, but only because I imagined us in a movie where the main character says, I know we’re doomed, and that means they aren’t doomed, after all.

This version of me spent whole days not checking his Instagram—not checking it, not checking it, not checking it—like starving myself in college, that self-denial as proof that there was some force inside me larger than my hunger. Perhaps I could call it dignity.

This wasn’t wanting. This was just wondering, What would it be like, after all these years, to feel that flush of relief again?

Kyle had given me this holiday without my daughter as an experience of presence rather than just absence. All this time, our friendship had been teaching me about ongoingness—how intimacy holds friction alongside sustenance, how pain and proximity emerge from the same honesty.

We aren’t loved in the ways we choose. We are loved in the ways we are loved.

On the page where the conductor says, “To the North Pole, of course!” I always raised my finger to point at the ceiling, and did my silliest voice for the conductor. My daughter always raised her arm at the same time, her tiny finger also pointed, giggling madly, looking up at me to see if I’d seen. I knew there would never be a word for how this felt.

Getting my heart broken by the tumbleweed was a useful pain. It told me I could still want something so much I was willing to be broken by it.

Just because a relationship didn’t last forever didn’t mean it had failed. I wanted to feel this way about the tumbleweed. I wanted to feel this way about my marriage too. Roland Barthes once asked, “Why is it better to last than to burn?” A sober heroin addict once told me, “I like being hungry. It’s my body telling me it wants to be alive.”

The chill was stark, but the sky was blue and wide open like a doorway. Both things were true, the bitter wind and the brightness of the sky. Neither one dissolved the other.

But it made me nervous to think about sharing the actuality of parenting with him: the constancy and repetition, the ways it was neither new nor revelatory in most moments, just more of itself.

When he’d first told me the story of his marriage and divorce, now seven years behind him, I could hear genuine pain in his voice, but also the well-worn grooves of an oft-told tale. I asked if he felt like he was still learning.

He would often preface things he told me about his job, his home, his exes, by saying, “The thing I always say about this is…” Letting me know I was getting a secondhand sentiment. A polished stone of selfhood.

His shower was a graveyard of expensive conditioners left by other women he’d dated. When I asked if it stirred up old feelings to see things that belonged to his exes, he said no. I nodded, receiving the news about this different way of being alive.

Table, the ex-philosopher told me that there was something about our conversations that felt unsatisfying to him. His comment was like a heat-seeking missile the universe had sent to destroy me. He actually said it this way: “It feels like our conversations are about 85 percent as good as they could be.”

Adapting to People in Pursuit of Interpersonal Connection

“Be yourself” is common advice. The ode to authenticity.

“Change yourself” is also common advice. The ode to personal growth.

My reconciliation? Love yourself is what should be the baseline. Self-love is the foundation. And then, from that bedrock of confidence, embrace the dynamism of change yourself.

But “change yourself” doesn’t just mean to do so in a macroscopic, grand “I will pursue higher virtue and wisdom in the years ahead” kind of way.

It also means to be adaptive and changing at the day-to-day level, especially in your micro interactions with other people.

See, folks who are merely “average” at interpersonal connection embrace “just be yourself” and hope their authenticity will attract people to them and serve as the basis for connection.

I notice people gifted at interpersonal connection instead adapt themselves to their conversation partner. They emphasize different parts of themselves. They read the other person’s pressure points, insecurities, desires.

The “basic” game is to truly listen to your conversational partner as he or she bobs and floats and tilts in the waves of conversation. You must assiduously stay present.

Conversations in the professional world wilt when one person fails to practice basic listening. Sarah mentions she’s overwhelmed with her new project responsibilities, her voice tight with stress. Instead of acknowledging this, Mike immediately launches into his own exciting news about a promotion. Sarah withdraws; Mike wonders why she seems distant.

In an age of tech distractions and continuous partial attention, staying present to hear the other person, and then say things in response, is actually a differentiated skill.

The “advanced” game is to be a fluid status player in how you project energy. If the person you’re talking to is dominant and expects submissive energy, then you should either channel submissiveness in return or be cognizant of sensitives that can emerge if you choose to match their dominance. As a friend recently put it, “The master of interaction can switch between dominant and submissive energy effortlessly.”

This is interpersonal 4D chess: recognizing energy patterns and status needs. Say Mike projects dominance and expects submission. If Sarah directs dominance back, tension emerges.

What counts as “dominant” or “submissive” energy is subtle. For example, you might think asking questions of another person is a way to convey submission whereas expressing declarative statements conveys dominance. Sometimes that’s so: I have questions, you have answers, I signal submission when I ask you questions. But question-asking can also, depending on how it’s done and in what context, be an expression as dominance. It’s often about tone more than words; context more than content.

In sum, the theory is:

1) Your “authentic self” contains multitudes, and cannot be be singularly distilled. “Just be yourself” is an unhelpful starting premise to guide the way you relate to others.

2) Long run personal change to deepen your capacity for deep connection is powerful but… takes a long time.

3) The key rests in day-to-day adaptiveness in the micro interactions with the people you’re relating to. Conversational presence is a good start. Fluidly shifting status and power dynamics is the advanced game.

(Thanks to Sasha Chapin for helping brainstorm this.)

Forming Conviction and Talking About It on an Investment Team

For investors, conviction—the depth of your belief in an investment opportunity—is the most important compass.

And talking about your conviction with your colleagues is something that happens on every investment team. But it’s a minefield.

When the tendencies of how each person on an investment team forms and communicates conviction are poorly understood, it can inadvertently distort investment decisions, diluting fundamental analysis with interpersonal misinterpretations.

People’s Default Tendencies and Personality Traits

Personality and cognitive styles loom large when it comes to conviction.

Some people are simply more convicted people in general. They’re decisive. They love something—or they hate something. That oyster soup is damn delicious, or it’s reprehensible and get it out of my face. That Tesla Roadster is absolutely the model we should buy – or it’s definitely not.

Hell yes, or hell no. They’re gung ho personalities, decisive temperature, brimming with natural confidence. At their best, it’s not that these conviction-by-default people are incapable of subtle thinking. It’s more that their brains tend to work down or up from either a high or low starting point.

For example, I know investors of this breed who, upon encountering a credible opportunity, tend to start with 9 or 10 out of 10 conviction after one pitch. They default to, “What could go right?” They default to enthusiasm. As they undergo diligence, their enthusiasm sometimes lessens, and their conviction gets chipped away. If the investment gets done, the opportunity went from 10 out of 10 to 7 out of 10 – still above the bar.

There’s also the inverse. There are investors who start at “no” and default to skepticism. For whatever reason, they’re more jaded by nature. More cautious. They’ve seen too many failures. As they spend time with the founder, they warm up, and conviction creeps up from 4 out of 10 to 7 out of 10—and the investment gets done.

Still other types of people are equivocal by nature and tend to default to “both sides have good points”—they see the possible merits and demerits of every investment and have a measured way of forming and expressing opinions. These more deliberate people are constitutionally incapable of loving or hating anything – they start at 5/10 for everything.

All of these types of investors—the gung-ho, the skeptics, the aggressively even keeled—can arrive at 7 out of 10 conviction (or higher)—or whatever level necessary to pull the trigger on the actual investment.

Each person ended up in the same place. So I’d argue the difference in each person’s starting “conviction default” matter didn’t matter presuming it took each person the same amount of time to arrive at the right answer.

Talking about Conviction Casually Can Change Underlying Conviction in Unhelpful Ways

Investors gauge how much their partners believe in a particular opportunity by asking, “How much conviction do you have in this opportunity versus the others we’re looking at?”

In a team context where you talk about deals before a decision’s been made, these differences in personality and style as it relates to conviction introduce impurities as you try to calibrate how a colleague is thinking about an opportunity.

If you ask someone whose default posture is skeptical to provide an update on his in-progress thinking on a given idea, he might come off to the group as lukewarm. He’s still forming his views. His on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand narrative might undersell his potential to garner great enthusiasm. In that fragile state, the rest of the group might pile on to reinforce the skepticism—skepticism that may have had more to do with a personality disposition than fundamental analysis. And just like that, you’ve killed the deal.

These dynamics make it vital to know the tendencies of each colleague on the team, how they tend to default, and what “high conviction” sounds like in terms of the words they use and body language they display.

AI Medical Assistants and Pain

Over the holidays, I experienced searing, acute physical pain related to a tooth/dental issue.

I cut short a visit to Barcelona (an amazing city!) to return home to have it dealt with, and luckily am now fully healed up.

Over the three weeks of pain, research, and ultimate resolution, I learned a few useful things:

  1. AI assistants are game changers for navigating the healthcare system. Over the course of my ordeal, I exchanged probably 75 messages with ChatGPT examining every aspect of my diagnosis. It served as a steady source of advice, a therapist of sorts (there’s only so much your friends and family want to hear about your pain!), and a practical conversational coach as I sought to ask the right questions of dentists to ensure my treatment plan was sound. For example, I uploaded the dentist proposals and asked for an analysis, and asked it to summarize my symptoms and treatments to date so I could provide a succinct synopsis to a specialist. With a good memory (memory is key in AI!), it would reference back to comments and symptoms I had expressed days earlier as part of making go-forward suggestions.
  2. I now understand why people get addicted to painkiller drugs even though I didn’t take anything heavier than huge doses of ibuprofen, Tylenol, and some codeine. When you’re in pain, you’ll do anything to make the pain go away. I also have newfound empathy for people who deal with chronic pain. This wasn’t chronic, but I now can imagine how debilitating it is for someone dealing with, say, chronic back pain.
  3. The fortune of financial security: 99% of people who write about tooth issues on Reddit and elsewhere view their decision matrix primarily through the lens of cost. It’s actually somewhat difficult to find dental content that’s not tightly linked to a cost ROI analysis. I am fortunate to not have to worry about cost and can just optimize for quality of care. This proved especially fortunate when I went to the oral surgeon. It wasn’t until I was strapped in the surgery chair with IVs connected to my arms, heart rate monitor beeping, that an assistant came into the room with a print-out and reviewed the costs and asked if she could take my credit card out of my wallet. I said yes, and she walked over to my wallet on the counter, pulled out my credit card, and walked away. 5 mins later, I was under sedation. Prior to this point, there was no disclosure of how much anything was going to cost.
  4. Speaking of financial means, in my research, it was sad to read stories of dental students sharing how they fucked up the mouths and gums of their early patients as they learned on the job — the unlucky patients, I assume, are those without financial means and thus getting their treatment at dental schools.

So: I feel gratitude for it being resolved, empathy for those who have it worse, and tons of optimism over what our AI future will augur for all of us in becoming more informed and savvy consumers of the healthcare system.

Book Review: Late Admissions: Confessions of a Black Conservative

Glenn Loury’s memoir is remarkable. One of the finest economists of his generation dishes on his own addiction to porn and drugs, rampant infidelity, endless lying, and all sorts of other misdeeds that most people would go out of their way to cover up — not publish. In the opening chapter, one of the most riveting I’ve ever read in a memoir, he writes:

I am going to tell you that I have lied, because I need you to believe me. I am going to tell you that I have deceived those closest to me, because I need you to trust me. I am going to tell you that I have abandoned people who needed me, because I need you to stick with me. I must tell it all in this memoir, because if I don’t tell it all, nothing I say will be heard. The skeptical reader will have observed that this game has already begun.

Glenn repeats a refrain throughout the memoir about the difference between the “cover story” and the “true story” — and his own life was full of cover spin, masking darker truths, and so it goes for many us in our presentation of self in everyday life.

Aside from all the jaw-dropping moral confessions, Glenn’s intellectual evolution is fascinating. He is an African American economist who grew up on the wrong side of town and who made his way into the most prestigious corridors of academia. Presumptions of allyship on the basis of race came from both the political left and the political right at different times in his career. But Glenn is fiercely independent, rejects labels, and at different turns and on different issues (be it affirmative action, race and crime, Obama, Trump), surprises people who thought they had him (and his worldview) figured out.

The real reason this memoir has generated so much attention, though, relates to his personal life misadventures — not his academic accomplishments. He speaks apologetically about his addictions and betrayals, although with not quite as much scathing self-judgment as one might expect. He takes a fairly balanced tone about it all, even though words of disapproval about himself appear frequently.

I don’t know Glenn personally or the players who appear in this book. But I read about his flawed mind and heart and I am not decisively repelled. I would be open to the possibility of friendship with someone like Glenn. Not that Glenn cares, but it made me think about singular moral purity tests for friendship. I don’t have them. This is borne from a recognition that things are more complex than they can seem from the outside, that almost nobody should be judged in full by their worst deeds, and that I, too, am morally flawed. To be sure, there are people who, in sum, morally repel me. But it’s often a function of their lack of self-awareness and lack of desire to improve more than it is a decisive black-and-white litmus test on particular beliefs or actions.

Some direct quotes / highlights from the memoir below.


My bet is that this strategy of self-discrediting disclosure will accomplish two things: First, it will appease your impulse to find cracks in the edifice of my self-presentation, to search out my contradictions and too-convenient narrative contrivances.

Since I was a child, I had watched Adlert and Alfred seduce their way through the South Side. Adlert was very clear about it. Despite his professional accomplishments, he told me, point blank, that life’s goal was to “get as much pussy as you can.”

I found myself doubting that he fully grasped the pain, frustration, anger, and self-doubt many of us felt in moments such as these, when the seeming intractability of American racism made itself felt by such vicious means.

She was not the most stylish dresser, and she was not a conventional beauty in their eyes, although I found her very attractive.

She now knows for sure that there is someone in my life I’m not telling her about. I know that she knows. She knows that I know that she knows. But, amidst this intersubjective game of tacit consent and thinly veiled deceit, neither of us ever lets on that we know what we know, even though my infidelity has now become common knowledge between us.

I was overcome by a sense of panic. None of it seemed good enough to live up to what was expected of me or to what I expected of myself or to what I saw my peers doing. My research questions just weren’t big enough, I felt; my insights were insufficiently deep and original. Along with this terrifying suspicion that I could not measure up came an old, familiar feeling: I really was choking.

It’s the excitement that comes from the adventure of entering an unknown situation with an unknown person and betting that I can charm my way past whatever reservations she may have.

I had met Bennett previously, and he and I got along well. He had a sharp mind and a sharper tongue. I liked him. Although he made his name as a crusader for family values and public morality, behind the scenes he was a bit of a hedonist. The first time I saw him in a private setting, I was astonished by his appetite for alcohol. Who was I to judge? I had my own appetites.

A baby would mean I would have to curtail my affairs and flings. I knew what having an infant in the house was like, and it would be almost impossible to continue to exercise my right as a Master of the Universe to seduce any woman I could, whenever I wanted to.

…can be a little like talking about Israel with a Jewish American. Just as an otherwise liberal Jew can take a surprisingly hardline stance on the Israel-Palestine issue, even some conservative African Americans buckle down and shake their heads if you question affirmative action. In such matters, the call of the tribe can ring out louder even than political ideology or, indeed, than reason itself.

I still considered them friends. But America in Black and White represented a viewpoint that had, I felt, led conservatives down the path to apathy and, at times, to a kind of smug satisfaction at the failures of the policies they abhorred.

It seemed to me that I was being instructed by my conservative colleagues not to think, and to choose sides between my political affiliations and my race, my tribe. I felt compromised.

But it seemed to me that stigma could be more readily explained as both a rational response to a set of social circumstances and the cause of those circumstances. Imagine the case of the stereotypical New York City cab driver who does not want to stop for young black men because he fears being robbed. He believes picking up a young black man to be less wise than picking up, say, an old white lady, because he believes that young black men are, on the whole, more likely to rob him than old white ladies. Now let’s also say that, as a statistical matter, the cabbie is correct. No matter how unlikely he is to be robbed by a young black man, he is still more likely to be robbed by one than by an old white lady. Cabbies then rarely choose to pick up young black men. But when this happens, young black men who are simply looking to hail a taxi will notice that it’s almost impossible to get one to stop. They’ll then find some other means to get where they’re going and eventually stop bothering to even try to hail a cab. As a result, cabbies who engage in biased profiling will have incentivized law-abiding riders to take themselves out of the pool of potential fares and also increased the likelihood that any young black man looking for a ride will be a robber, as only robbers will be left. In that case, the cabbie will be acting rationally when he sees one of them trying to flag him down and keeps driving. Through this rational behavior, he will also have brought into being the very state of affairs to which he is reacting.

I showed that biased social cognition can go a long way to explaining any number of forms of racial inequality, and without relying on the idea that such inequality is necessarily the result of racial animus or malice. Ordinary people and institutions can respond to incentives in totally rational ways that actually create and perpetuate the very stigmas they are responding to.

suggested to me that in my lecture I had described something like a bank run on black people. That had never occurred to me, but Larry was right! A bank run happens when people come to believe that their bank is going to run out of money. Believing their savings to be at risk, they all, in a totally rational fashion, attempt to withdraw it at the same time. But when everyone tries to withdraw all their funds at the same time, the bank actually does run out of money, which does put the savings of anyone who didn’t make it to the bank in time at risk. A shared belief about some state of affairs, regardless of whether or not it is unavoidably true, brings that state of affairs into being.

“I never understood what you got out of those relationships.” I cannot deny that his bemusement spoke well of him. I didn’t really answer his question at the time, but there was an answer: Nothing could define me. I wasn’t reducible to “economist” or “Christian” or “black man” or even “husband” or “father.” I was those things, certainly. But I was much more than that. This was my life. I was only going to get one shot at it, and if I saw a way to broaden my experience, to enlarge my world,

Some years earlier, Richard John Neuhaus was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer that he thought would kill him. He survived, but in the intervening period, when he believed he was facing death, he wrote As I Lay Dying, a book about the experience of preparing yourself for the end of life. I read this book to Linda in bed, and we both took solace from its wisdom.

I also found a self-help book in her library. It was about learning to forgive those who have wronged you. As I leafed through the pages, I saw that Linda, ever the diligent scholar, had underlined passages and scribbled notes to herself in the margins. Many of those notes clearly referenced things I had done. She made a study of forgiving me. Perhaps that’s what it took to live with me. I had to be treated as a miniature research project.

An absent father was no doubt a difficult thing to deal with, but his life was one of prep schools and elite universities and the political fast track. I don’t think that one must undergo hardship in order to lay claim to their blackness, but the dissonance between Obama’s claim to represent “the black experience” and his actual life experience was just too grating for me to ignore. My childhood friend Woody was “blacker” than Obama, as far as I was concerned.

None of the disqualifications of Trump that his critics listed—ceaselessly, day after day, year after year—could negate the gut-level satisfaction I got from watching him. Sure, he lied constantly, but Americans had become so inured to the dishonesty of their politicians that it was actually a relief to hear someone lie with brazenness and glee, instead of prevaricating and equivocating while pretending they had a claim on moral authority.

enforced silence in a marriage is just as unsustainable as rancor.

In my seventies, I have nothing left to prove and nothing to hide. Whatever promise the young man showed sitting in Mr. Reffels’s solid geometry class at John Marshall Harlan High School has long since come to fruition. I now find myself receiving honors that point backward to what I have accomplished in the past rather than garnering grants that anticipate what I might yet accomplish in the future.

It sometimes seems acceptable to do that which I, inspired by Václav Havel, had fought so hard against: “to merge with the anonymous crowd and to flow comfortably along with it down the river of pseudo-life.”