On Why My Friend Litz and I Are No Longer Boyfriend and Girlfriend—for Now

Epigraph:

Some people claim there’s a woman to blame but I know it’s my own damn fault.
—Jimmy Buffett, “Margaritaville”

I. Meeting Litz Online

I met Litz on Tinder right around the end of April 2026, just about two and a half months ago today. Relationships often begin before either person realizes that anything has begun. Two strangers exchange a few messages, one of them sends a photograph or a joke, and suddenly an event that seemed inconsequential at the time becomes the first scene in a story.

Within a few days, Tinder suspended my account after yet another unsuccessful attempt to satisfy its increasingly byzantine photographic-identification system. I had failed this test many times before. The platform’s technology remained unable to determine that the large, slightly tired-looking man holding the phone was the same large, slightly tired-looking man depicted in the photographs directly beneath him. I found this highly frustrating, although by then it hardly mattered. Litz and I had already begun speaking elsewhere.

The first thing she sent me was a voice message. It lasted only a few seconds. I believe she simply introduced herself. What I remember best is her voice: low, warm, and unexpectedly musical. Litz had once been a professional singer. In her early twenties, she had received a recording contract in South Korea despite speaking little or no Korean at the time. I still do not entirely understand how that arrangement came about, but after hearing her speak I understood why someone might have wanted to record her.

Her voice reminded me slightly of Margo Timmins of Cowboy Junkies—not because they sounded identical, but because both possessed a quality that is difficult to manufacture: intimacy without effort and deeply sensual. To be frank, her voice turned me on immediately, and almost as quickly she did too. Litz could make a routine greeting sound private. Even when she was discussing work, groceries, family obligations, or the weather in Kochi City, I sometimes had the feeling that she was singing under her breath.

I told her how much I loved her voice. She later told me that she had fallen for me almost immediately. I cannot honestly say that I proceeded with greater caution.

Over the next six weeks, we talked almost every day, usually several times a day. Some calls lasted twenty minutes. Others lasted an hour, two hours, or longer. There were mornings when we spoke shortly after waking, afternoons when one of us called while walking somewhere, and nights when we continued talking long after both of us had run out of any practical reason to remain awake. By the time we met in person, we had accumulated hundreds of hours of conversation.

We discussed our families, our marriages, our children, our work, our financial worries, our health, our failures, and our hopes for whatever remained of the future. I have one adult son; she has two adult children. We spoke about the different paths that had carried us into our early fifties and about the lives we might still construct from there. We talked about music, food, travel, friendship, jealousy, loneliness, and sex. We also talked about nothing at all, which may be the greater test of intimacy. It is relatively easy to tell another person the dramatic events of one’s life. It is harder to remain interested while that person describes a difficult customer, a delayed train, an irritating piece of paperwork, or what she intends to eat for dinner.

With Litz, those ordinary conversations rarely felt ordinary.

At the time, I was emerging from a marriage that had lasted twenty-nine years. My wife and I had mutually decided to divorce earlier that spring, although the practical and emotional consequences of that decision were still unfolding. I had not lived as a single man since my early twenties. I had almost no recent experience of dating and even less understanding of how quickly two people could create a private world through their phones.

My mother and several other people cautioned me that Litz and I might be moving too fast. They were not hostile to her, nor were they trying to discourage me from beginning a new life. They had simply lived long enough to recognize acceleration when they saw it.

In retrospect, they were right.

At the time, however, the speed felt less like recklessness than recognition. After so many years inside one relationship, I mistook the intensity of discovery for certainty. Litz and I had not yet confronted the thousand small realities that distinguish knowing someone from imagining that one knows her. We knew one another’s histories, preferences, fears, and fantasies. We knew how to make each other laugh. We knew when the other person sounded tired or distracted. We knew which subjects produced excitement and which could quietly darken the mood.

That felt like knowledge. Some of it was. Some of it was projection. We also became virtually intimate before meeting in person. We had phone sex only twice, although the number is less important than what the experiences represented. Both of us had been lonely, and the intimacy provided a necessary outlet and a sense of closeness across a considerable distance.

At other times, when her work schedule or my obligations made a longer encounter impossible, we exchanged photographs or allowed each other brief intimate glimpses through the phone.

I do not include this information to be provocative. It matters because the relationship did not begin as a cautious friendship that slowly became romantic after a series of conventional dates. Emotionally and sexually, we had already moved far beyond introduction before we occupied the same room. By the time I traveled to Kochi, we had created expectations that neither of us fully understood.

For most of those six weeks, we had almost no disagreements. Litz sometimes expressed concern about whether I brushed my teeth frequently enough, an impressive question given that she was hundreds or thousands of kilometers away and had never stood close enough to inspect them. I assured her that I did. She remained unconvinced. This should perhaps have told us something.

Mostly, though, we were happy. We called each other baby. We spoke openly about becoming engaged and, eventually, getting married. We discussed travel plans and imagined a shared domestic future with the confidence available only to people who have not yet attempted to share a bathroom, a schedule, a kitchen, or a narrow futon.

I knew we were rushing. I rushed anyway.

I returned to Japan on June 12, two days before my fifty-second birthday. Almost immediately, I began arranging the trip to Kochi. Traveling there from Kyoto or Osaka is neither impossible nor particularly convenient. The round trip cost roughly ¥25,000, and the journey consumed much of a day. At fifty-two, a man should perhaps think carefully before spending that amount of time and money to meet someone he knows primarily as a voice emerging from a small electronic device. I went nonetheless.

By the time I reached Kochi Station, it was close to eleven at night. The late arrival eliminated any possibility of a proper birthday dinner. We bought snacks and wine instead and carried them back to a hotel near the station, where we did our best to turn convenience-store provisions into a meal.

There was an unavoidable strangeness in seeing her at full human scale. For six weeks she had existed inside photographs and rectangles, her face appearing or disappearing according to the strength of the connection. Now she was standing beside me, very small and entirely real. Litz is only four feet eleven inches tall. I am six feet three. The physical contrast between us was nearly comic, although neither of us seemed troubled by it.

We talked, drank wine, ate our improvised dinner, and gradually adjusted to the fact that the person we had imagined was now close enough to touch. The transition was easier than it might have been. Her voice was the same voice. Her humor survived the journey out of the phone. The affection between us did not vanish under the brighter and less forgiving light of an actual room.

We slept together that night and again the following morning. The sex was very good, but what mattered more was the sense of confirmation surrounding it. Whatever else we had misunderstood, the attraction was real. We were comfortable enough to laugh, to pause, and to begin again. Nothing felt forced. The night seemed to promise that the emotional and virtual intimacy of the previous six weeks could become an ordinary physical life.

Had the visit ended the following morning, I might have returned home convinced that we had been right about everything.

But eight hours together seemed inadequate after six weeks of anticipation and a ¥25,000 journey. Litz had an apartment in Kochi City, and I asked whether I might stay with her for a few days. She kindly agreed and began rearranging her work schedule so that we could spend more time together. I was, and remain, deeply grateful for that generosity. Inviting someone into a small home is an act of trust. Inviting a new boyfriend who is more than a foot taller than you and has arrived carrying the accumulated habits of twenty-nine years of marriage may be an act of courage.

I expected to remain for several days.

I stayed for ten.

For the first time, Litz and I would no longer be two people describing our daily lives from a distance. We would have a daily life together. We would wake in the same room, eat the same food, negotiate the same space, and discover whether the ease of our conversations could survive the pressures of proximity.

For the first few days, it did.

II. On Learning Someone in Person

By the end of my stay, I had remained in Kochi for about ten days.

Those ten days contained enough happiness to convince me that our relationship had real promise. They also contained enough friction to suggest that promise alone would not be enough.

Very quickly we settled into something resembling a small domestic partnership. Litz would go to work, though she had generously arranged her schedule so we could spend much more time together than originally planned. I cooked when I could, helped with the laundry, cleaned the apartment, ran errands, and generally tried to make myself useful. In the evenings we wandered around Kochi, stopped for drinks, browsed little shops, cooked simple meals together, and continued discovering one another in the quiet rhythm of ordinary life.

Those ordinary moments are, after all, where real relationships actually live. The first few days were wonderful. Then, almost imperceptibly, small tensions began to appear. The first involved something so minor that I still find it difficult to believe it became an issue at all.

I am a smoker. Rather than smoke inside Litz’s apartment, I stepped onto her small balcony several times a day. While smoking I would occasionally call my family or a close friend back in Kyoto. I was speaking quietly, during the daytime, on private property. To me it seemed entirely unremarkable.

Apparently one of Litz’s elderly neighbors felt otherwise.

The neighbor contacted the building management company and complained that the foreign guest next door was smoking and talking on the balcony. The management company called Litz and politely asked if her guest could simply take phone calls inside the apartment instead. That was all.

There was no threat of eviction. There was no confrontation. Nobody came to the apartment. No police appeared. No lease violations were mentioned. It was, from everything I could tell, a routine request that could have been solved in approximately thirty seconds.

I would gladly have stopped taking calls on the balcony. Instead, something else happened. Litz panicked.

When she told me about the call she was visibly shaken. She was close to tears. She repeatedly told me she might lose the apartment she had worked so hard to obtain. She imagined herself forced to leave. She imagined financial disaster. She imagined the worst possible outcome almost immediately.

I asked her a simple question.

“Baby, did the management company actually say you were going to be evicted?”

“No.”

“What did they say?”

“They asked that you talk on the phone inside.”

“I can absolutely do that.”

For me, the problem was already solved. For her, it had barely begun.

Looking back now, I understand that this was not really about balconies, cigarettes, or phone calls. It was anxiety. Real anxiety.Not theatrical anxiety. Not attention-seeking anxiety. Genuine anxiety that transformed relatively ordinary inconveniences into looming catastrophes.

I had not fully understood the depth of that tendency while we were talking online because online relationships naturally allow each person to present a calmer, more edited version of themselves. Daily life removes that luxury.

Unfortunately, her anxiety had an unfortunate side effect. It triggered my own. There are many unpleasant emotions in life, but few I dislike more than chronic stress. I can handle sadness. I can handle disappointment. I can even handle uncertainty reasonably well. Constant anxiety, however, is simply not good for me.

As Litz became more anxious, I found myself becoming more anxious in return. Neither of us wanted that. Neither of us knew quite what to do about it.

Other small disagreements gradually appeared. From my perspective they were simply the kinds of adjustments every new couple eventually faces. From her perspective they often carried greater emotional weight than I expected.

For example, she became increasingly interested in my daily routines.

How many times was I brushing my teeth? Why had I skipped shaving that morning? Was I taking proper care of myself?

These were perfectly reasonable questions in another context. Had we been married for twenty years, they might have seemed almost affectionate. But we were not married. We were not engaged. We had only recently met in person after knowing one another online.

I was fifty-two years old. She was in her fifties as well. I thought that certain decisions about my grooming, my appearance, and my daily habits still belonged primarily to me. I tried to explain this as gently as I could, just as she tried to explain why these matters genuinely concerned her.

Neither of us was entirely wrong. We were simply beginning to discover the practical differences between two people who had fallen in love through conversation and two people attempting to share everyday life. The gap continued to grow.

Reflecting on our first six weeks together, I am increasingly struck by something that I already knew to some extent. There is, in fact, a tremendous difference between getting to know somebody online and getting to know them in person. This may seem obvious. However, my time with Litz underscored that truth in ways I genuinely did not expect.

By the time I finally left Kochi, we were still together. We were still affectionate. We were still physically intimate. We still considered ourselves boyfriend and girlfriend. But beneath the surface, the first fault lines had begun to appear.


III. One Day at a Time

When people hear that a relationship has ended, they almost always want a simple explanation. Someone must have been the villain. Someone must have made the cheated. Someone must have loved less, cared less, tried less, or failed more spectacularly than the other. Real life rarely works that way in my experience.

Litz is one of the kindest people I have ever met. She is generous with her time, devoted to her children, remarkably hardworking, and capable of great tenderness. She also struggles with anxiety in ways that sometimes make ordinary life much harder than it needs to be. I, meanwhile, have my own collection of flaws. I rush into things. I value independence almost to a fault. I can be stubborn, dismissive of worries that seem obvious to others, and too quick to believe that every problem has a quick solution. These qualities have served me well in some areas of my life. In this relationship they sometimes made matters worse.

Neither of us was trying to hurt the other. We were simply carrying different histories into the same room. And perhaps that is what every relationship really is: two biographies attempting to occupy the same present tense. Sometimes they fit together naturally. Sometimes they require patience neither person yet possesses. Sometimes they arrive at exactly the wrong moment, even when the feelings themselves are genuine.

I do not regret meeting Litz. I do not regret falling in love with her. I certainly do not regret the laughter, the conversations that lasted until sunrise, the train rides, her little apartment in Kochi, or the quiet mornings when, for a little while at least, building a future together felt entirely possible. Those moments were real. They remain real.

Today, Litz and I are no longer boyfriend and girlfriend. We are, however, still good friends. We continue to care about one another and talk on the phone, and we both hope that time will provide perspective where emotion sometimes could not. We are discussing the possibility of traveling abroad together later this year. If this happens it happens and if it does not it does not. In either case, we will travel as friends, not as a couple.

The challenges in our relationship were the product of two imperfect people, each bringing old habits, old fears, old hopes, and old wounds into something new. That is not failure. It is simply the complicated business of being human.

So I will keep trying. To become a better man. A better friend. And, if circumstances ever allow, a better boyfriend. I hope Litz finds the same peace she has always wished for me.

Some people claim that there’s a woman to blame. But I know it’s my own damn fault. Perhaps.

Dedication:

For my friend Litz. Let’s just take things one day at a time, baby.

Note: Interested readers may also wish to read the love poem I wrote for Litz during the early part of our relationship. This poem is linked below.

On Meeting My Wife Sachie

Epigraph

Lisa says on a night like this it’d be so nice if you gave me a kiss.

—The Velvet Underground

Author’s Note: This essay is the first of several essays on the theme of my 27 year marriage to and recent divorce from my wife Sachie. As noted below, I met her in the summer of 1997 in Kumamoto Japan, her home town. I had just accepted a job with NOVA Corporation in that same city. This essay traces the first few months of our relationship.

The dates in this essay are reconstructed from memory nearly thirty years later. While I have tried to be as accurate as possible, the chronology is necessarily approximate.

Introduction:

In January of 1997, a few months before I departed for Japan, my grandfather Bill Kolb handed me an envelope.

Inside was $1,700 in cash.

Even now this sentence doesn’t sound quite real.

My mother still can’t believe it. Truth be told, neither can I. Bill wasn’t a wealthy man handing me money because he had too much of it. He simply believed in me. I don’t know exactly why. I was twenty-two years old, fresh out of college, without much of a plan beyond teaching English for a year somewhere on the other side of the world.

“Go with God,” he said. “Good luck in Japan.”

Nearly thirty years later, I still believe it was one of the greatest gifts anyone has ever given me.

Kumamoto and NOVA:

I left for Japan in April with two duffel bags, a stack of CDs, a handful of books, several pack of cigarettes, and the sort of confidence that belongs almost exclusively to young people. I wasn’t fearless. I was simply too young to appreciate all the things that could go wrong.

Before arriving in Kumamoto, NOVA sent me to Osaka for about a week of training. Most of the details have faded into that blur reserved for airports, orientation sessions, and hotel conference rooms, but I do remember how Japan felt.

Little things amazed. The stations. The food. The language. Even the convenience stores. I’d never been anywhere remotely like it.

Then I took the train south to Kumamoto.

People who have never been to Japan often imagine Tokyo whenever they hear the word “Japan.” Kumamoto is not Tokyo. It moves at its own pace. The downtown area is was built around a long covered shopping street—the Shotengai—that functioned as the city’s living room. People shopped there, met friends there, drank there, wandered there, and, if you stayed long enough, discovered that everybody seemed to know everybody else.

I arrived without knowing a soul. That didn’t last very long.

NOVA occupied a building at the north end of the Shotengai. At the time it was an enormous company, hiring English teachers from Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. It has since gone downhill. The classrooms had glass walls. Lessons ran almost continuously. Teachers appeared, disappeared, smiled, taught, smiled again, and hurried off to the next class. It all worked surprisingly well.

It also felt a little like living inside an aquarium.

Things became even more interesting when I learned I’d be sharing an apartment with one of my supervisors.

Her name was Sam. She was from Wales, probably in her mid-thirties, and had an almost supernatural awareness of everybody else’s business. She wasn’t mean about it. She simply seemed constitutionally incapable of not knowing who was dating whom, who had called in sick, who had stayed out too late, and who might be about to break one of NOVA’s many unofficial rules.

My other roommate was a fellow teacher named Heather. The arrangement wasn’t terrible. It just wasn’t private.

Most afternoons I’d finish teaching, wander through the Shotengai interested me more and more with each passing day. I was also hoping to meet someone.

Not because I had arrived in Japan determined to find a wife. I had come looking for adventure, work, and maybe a little direction. If romance happened somewhere along the way, that would simply be a bonus.

Then one afternoon, sometime around late May, the classroom door opened and in walked Sachie Asahi.

The first thing I noticed was her haircut. It was incredibly short—shorter than mine—and on almost anyone else it probably wouldn’t have worked. On her it looked perfect.

The second thing I noticed was her T-shirt. Across the front was Andy Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup Can. Now at twenty-two I saw connections everywhere.

My first thought wasn’t, She’s wearing Warhol.

It was, She might actually know the Velvet Underground.

As soon as class ended, curiosity got the better of me.

“Miss Asahi,” I said, “can I ask you something?”

“Sure.”

“Do you know the Velvet Underground?”

She smiled.

“Yes I do. They are one of my favorite bands.”

Mine too.

That certainly got my attention. Looking back, that conversation probably lasted less than a minute. In memory it lasts forever.

Our First Two Dates:

A few days later I found myself lingering outside NOVA around lunchtime, pretending I wasn’t waiting for anyone in particular. I was waiting for her.

The door opened. Out walked Sachie.

“Are you heading home?” I asked.

“Yes.”

“Would you like to get some lunch?”

She thought about it briefly and said “I know a nice coffee shop.”

We walked over together. The owner was an older gentleman who made coffee the traditional Japanese way, pouring hot water slowly through paper filters with the concentration of a surgeon. We ordered sandwiches, lit cigarettes, and settled into conversation as though we’d been doing it for years.

At one point I looked at her cigarette and smiled.

“You know,” I said, “nurses probably shouldn’t smoke.”

Without missing a beat she smiled back.

“Teachers probably shouldn’t either.”

Touché.

It was such a small exchange. I’ve remembered it for twenty-nine years.

I wish I could tell you I played it cool after that first lunch. I did not.

Whenever our schedules lined up, I would find myself outside NOVA around lunchtime. Sometimes I really was heading out for lunch. Sometimes I was just hoping the door would open and Sachie would walk through it.

Sometimes it did.

As we were finishing our first lunch together I asked if I could call her. She said yes.

I called her the next morning around eleven, thinking this was an appropriate time. When she answered she laughed.

“Why didn’t you call earlier?”

“I didn’t want to seem too eager.”

“Eager would have been good.”

This was encouraging.

Our first proper date was a screening of Hal Hartley’s Amateur. I remember the movie mostly because I remember the evening. Hartley has always struck me as one of those directors I admire more than I love. I’m glad I’ve seen his films, but they never quite found a permanent place in my heart.

Near the end of the film she leaned toward me. Not to kiss me. Not yet.

She brought her lips close enough that I could feel her breath against my ear and whispered, in English,

“What is this music?”

I didn’t know but it didn’t matter. What mattered was that one moment of intimacy.

She was close enough that my entire body lit up. We didn’t kiss in the theatre. I think we held hands on the walk back to the car, but that’s about all. It was wonderfully innocent in the way that only the beginning of a relationship can be.

Kumamoto is not a very big city, and we quickly settled into a rhythm. We’d grab coffee, wander through the nearby Shotengai, or simply drive around with nowhere in particular to go. Looking back, it strikes me that we spent an awful lot of time in her little Mitsubishi. We couldn’t exactly go to my apartment—I lived with my boss, after all—and bringing a young American teacher home to meet your very traditional Japanese father wasn’t something either of us was ready for after a week or two.

So the car became our living room.

We’d park by the river or find a quiet place to talk, windows cracked just enough for the cigarette smoke to drift outside. We would make out in her parked car. I would finger her and she would return the favor. It never felt dramatic. It just felt…comfortable. We were both twenty-two, trying to figure each other out one car ride at a time.

I Join Washington Language School:

Around the same time another opportunity came along.

Washington English School offered better hours, more independence, and what sounded like a healthier working environment than NOVA. I handed in my month’s notice and, sometime around the middle of July, packed my two duffel bags yet again.

Leaving NOVA turned out to be one of the easiest decisions I’ve ever made. Fortunately, Washington was only a short distance away. The boss gave me the use of a cheap apartment, which was a bonus. For the first time since arriving in Japan I had a place of my own.

It wasn’t much. A small furnished apartment on the second floor of a walk-up, two tatami rooms, sliding doors, a tiny kitchen, an even tinier bathroom, a loft that was far too hot to sleep in during the summer, and just enough room for one young teacher who didn’t own very much.

I unpacked my books, stacked my CDs beside a little stereo, purchased groceries I barely knew how to cook, and slowly began settling into something that resembled ordinary life.

When I wasn’t teaching, I was usually doing one of two things. I was either with Sachie or working on a baseball simulation game.

That probably sounds stranger now than it did then. My uncle Steve had inspired me to try designing a tabletop baseball game based on real statistics, and I became completely absorbed by it. Most evenings found me surrounded by notebooks, pencils and baseball encyclopedias, trying to solve statistical puzzles. For weeks one pitcher, Lefty Grove, refused to cooperate. His adjusted ERA simply would not behave the way I wanted it to.

By August we were seeing each other almost every day.

One evening another young woman came on to me at a bar. I was briefly tempted. She was perfectly nice, and yet while talking with her I realized, almost in the middle of the conversation, that I didn’t want to be talking to anyone else except for Sachie.

The next day I told Sachie what had happened. She listened quietly and then she smiled. I said I would like to become exclusive. She agreed. Sometimes the most important decisions in life announce themselves quietly. This was one of those cases.

A few weeks later we decided to spend a weekend together in Tokyo.

Like so many romantic plans made by young people, ours was perfect in theory. Reality had other plans.

Our weekend in Tokyo was supposed to be the moment. We agreed we would have sex in our hotel room. By then we had been dating for a couple of months. We were crazy about each other, and it was time for the real intimacy to begin.

For dinner we had fish and soup and a few glasses of wine. Sachie was never much of a drinker, especially in those days. A few glasses of wine were enough to leave her happily, gloriously intoxicated. By the time we got back to the room she was laughing, stumbling a little, and having a wonderful time.

Then she collapsed across the bed. She was too drunk. Sex was off the table. We went to sleep

Somehow that failed evening made me like her even more. Real relationships, I was beginning to discover, aren’t built on perfect moments. They’re built on imperfect ones that two people survive together.

A week or two later back in Kumamoto life intervened in a somewhat dramatic way.

During the afternoon of August 31, 1997, I was walking home from work when someone stopped me on the street.

“Princess Diana died in a car accident.”

For a second I thought I’d misheard. I was shocked.

News traveled differently then. There were no smartphones and no social media. One stranger told another stranger, and for a few moments the whole world seemed strangely quiet. Such was the case here.

I walked the rest of the way home thinking about Diana, about Paris, about how somebody so famous could simply disappear in the middle of an ordinary night.

History has a curious habit of attaching itself to our private memories. I can’t think about Princess Diana without thinking about that afternoon.

Sachie came over later that afternoon. The mood was quieter than usual. We talked for a while, made coffee, listened to music, and eventually stopped talking altogether.

This time there was no hotel. No elaborate plans. No expectations. Just the two of us in my tiny apartment.

It happened naturally. We fell into bed together. We became lovers.

The sex was good; however I had nothing to compare it to. I was a virgin at 23. She had had some limited experience. I wore a condom for perhaps the first and last time. After that we weren’t trying to make a baby necessarily. If it happened it happened.

Outside, late-summer Kumamoto carried on exactly as it always had. Cars passed. Somebody’s television drifted through an open window. Somewhere in the distance a train moved through the evening.

The world hadn’t changed.

Mine had.

Looking back now, it’s tempting to search those first months for signs of what was coming.

Were there clues? Warnings? Promises?

Possibly.

There was simply a young American teacher who had wandered halfway around the world with two duffel bags, too many cigarettes, a head full of music, and absolutely no expectation of meeting the person he would build his adult life with.

And there was a young Japanese English student who happened to walk into one of his English classes wearing an Andy Warhol T-shirt.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Conclusion:

Sachie and I stayed together for twenty-nine years. We were married for twenty-seven of these.

Our marriage eventually came to an end just this spring, as many marriages do. Time changes people. Interests diverge. Careers pull in different directions. Habits change. Sex stops. Sometimes two people simply grow into different versions of themselves.

We tried our best. In the end our best was not good enough but we had fun along the way,

This essay belongs to two young people on the cusp of life. It belongs to coffee and cigarettes. To our long walks on the Shotengai. To Kumamoto. To our friends who were also young and looking to make a little life of their own.

To a little Mitsubishi with the windows cracked on warm evenings and making out passionately in the front seat.

To the Velvet Underground and an old man carefully pouring coffee.

To a whispered question in a dark movie theatre.

And to a grandfather who slipped an envelope into his grandson’s hand and said, “Go with God.”

Dedication:

For my wife, Sachie. And for my grandfather Bill Kolb, my hero. I love you Grandpa.

For Litzy Litz With an I My Babush Baby: A Love Poem 

“Isn’t she / pretty in pink.”
— Richard Butler

Baby, I love you so very much.
And darling, baby, I don’t mean just. 
I mean to ten thousand stars and back again,
And I’ll write this poem like a half-good man.

I’ve done this before and I’ll do it again,
But meeting you, baby, is the biggest win.
The greatest win of my whole strange life.
And someday soon you will be my wife.

Pause. Deep breath, dude. Don’t get all rude.
Spill the beans and spill the tea.
Don’t get all weak in the knees please. 
Baby Litzy, I love you clear to the moon,
And every time I see you, darling, I swoon.

I’ll fall to my knees and beg you please,
Say yes forever and stay with me.
For life, my darling. For all our days.
Forever and ever in every single way. 

And baby I’ll never, ever give you up,
For I am no chump, and I’ve taken my lumps. 

So Litzy, my Babush baby, pause.
Cause baby, just because because.
I’ve written poems since I was eight,
And some were good and some weren’t great.

And that’s the way these things can go.
Sometimes they shine, sometimes they blow.
I wrote for girls who said they were pearls,
Sweet little queens in shiny worlds.

But none were half as sweet as you.
And baby, yes, that much is true.
No candy shop or sugared peach
Could ever come within your reach.

Babush! Lol and OMG.
Baby, darling, can’t you see?
I love you like the bees love honey.
Like Wall Street loves money.

I love you like ships love the sea.
Like tall green forests love the trees.
And baby this may sound absurd,
But I mean every word.

I love you more than words can say,
More than the sunlight loves the day.
More than my father—and yes it’s true.
But more than anything: I love you.

Sweet baby babes, it’s been three weeks.
And still I cannot quit your cheeks.
Your apple cheeks are so soft and sweet.
They totally cannot be beat.

And if you’re sad or feeling blue,
I’ll always make some room for you.
Just rest your little head on me,
And baby all will gravy be.

Cause you’re four-eleven, cute and small,
And I’m six-three and standing tall.
Baby mine, I’m built like trees.
You rise up barely to my knees.

So I shall buy you some small place,
A little home with warmth and grace.
Or maybe some downtown apartment
Where all of our love can rest apace. 

And yes beneath the sheets we’ll creep—
OMG, baby, did I just say sheets?
But sheets, my darling, cannot lose.
They totally and fully rule.

I must have took some love-drunk pill,
And baby I am floating still.
Or maybe swallowed the whole jar.
I know that sounds a little bizarre.

But that’s just how I feel for you,

My Babush baby tried and true.
Don’t yawn, my pet, don’t drift away.
I need your sweetness every day.

I’m crazy for you. Wild it’s true.
And usually I’m mellow, 
But not around you. No no no.
Around you all my feelings do grow.

They rise and swell like ocean tides,
Like moonlit waves at eventide.
They crash and roar upon the shore
And then come rolling back for more.

The angels watch from high above.
The gods too, baby. That is love.
They watch you, me, and all mankind—
The short, the tall, the sweet, and the kind.

And sweetheart yes, you are my heart.
At least the biggest, finest part.
Though room remains there for my son.
And baby I have only one.

He means the whole wide world to me.
Just like you do, my honey bee.

Baby baby, my Litzy Litz honey.

I have some money. And you do too.
But our love runs deeper than money, honey,
And baby I know that much is true.

And maybe that sounds a little funny.
Laugh out loud. Let’s laugh awhile.
Cause baby we are the cool-kid crowd,
And darling we do it all with style.

And I shall buy you a shining ring.
Yes dear, the ring is the thing.
No wait—make that two instead.
One for your hand and one for my head.

Platinum maybe, or jeweled with light,
Like the crown you wear day and night.
Princess mine, yes the ring’s the best.
And baby your beauty outshines the rest.

And I shall worship down at your feet.
And honestly baby, ain’t that neat?
Then I shall stand and carry you slow
Back to our room where the soft lights glow.

And I just said bed—yes that’s true.
That is just what I said to you.
With giant pillows that puff and billow,
Soft as clouds or a little marshmallow.

Or maybe baby it’s a waterbed.
Wouldn’t that rule? Enough said.
We’ll sleep together like little mice,
Warm and tiny and cozy and nice.

And ain’t they cute? Well shoot, they are.
Baby you shine like a lucky star.
Our first date now is drawing near.
OMG baby, it’s almost here.

And we have spent long hours on phones,
So neither of us feels all alone.
Cause baby you always carry me,
As I carry you through stormy seas.

And I don’t know much, but this I know:
My love for you will just grow and grow. 
I’m fifty-two and you are fifty,
And honestly baby, ain’t that nifty?

I don’t want younger girls no more,
Even the pearl-like beauties ashore.
Cause baby I only and fully want you.
Forever and ever. Tried and true.

Bank it sweetheart. Trust what I say.
Everything’s gonna be fine someday.
Pause dude. Baby just chill.
Don’t go and spill your ink at will.

Don’t splash your words all over the page.
That is the path to readerly rage.
Keep it moving. Keep it light.
Keep the rhythm warm and bright.

Cause baby this poem must soon end,
But I shall always your heartstrings mend.
If sadness finds you, I’ll stay nearby.
I’ll hold your hand and I’ll never lie.

For I will never break with you.
My heart stays faithful, tried and true.
As faithful as wind over oceans blue,
And sweet as melons in morning dew.

And I shall take you to heaven and back,

With love and warmth and midnight snacks.
And heaven, darling, must surely be
Somewhere with you right next to me.

So come here close now, baby mine.
Your little hand fits well in mine.
And I shall kiss your mouth so sweet,
And places farther down beneath—

OMG baby, I just said south.
Quick, back again now to your mouth.
Your lips, your nose, your hips, your eyes,
The stars reflected in midnight skies.

And all of you shall belong with me,
As mine belongs completely to thee.
For sure, sweetheart. Forever true.
Litzy Litz baby—I love you.

Dedication:

For my darling Litz. I am so happy that you are in my life baby. I promise to love you forever and a day. I love you.

The Great Roast of Bill Simmons, The Podcasting GOAT

Note: Bill Simmons has many gifts, but none more enduring than his ability to take a perfectly good idea and turn it into a totalizing worldview. Chief among these is his obsession with “who gets the keys,” a concept that began as a useful shorthand for late-game NBA hierarchy and has since metastasized into a governing principle for all human activity. In Simmons’ hands, the question is no longer who closes Game 7, but who closes anything: marriages, movies, bands, revolutions, and possibly even the Enlightenment. It is a framework so elastic that it explains everything and therefore, in a quiet and almost admirable way, explains nothing. Yet Simmons returns to it again and again, like a man who has discovered fire and insists on using it to cook every meal. The result is less analysis than ritual: a familiar incantation that reassures both host and listener that control exists, that someone always has it, and that identifying that person is the highest form of understanding. Whether this is insight or compulsion is an open question, but in the meantime, Simmons has the keys—and he’s not giving them back.

I. The Obsessive With the Keys

Bill Simmons is a strange and singular figure in American media, a man whose greatest innovation may have been to take the interior monologue of a slightly obsessive sports fan and publish it wholesale, unfiltered, and then slowly convince an entire industry that this was not only acceptable but essential. He is not quite a journalist, not quite a commentator, and not quite a comedian, but rather a hybrid form: a “Sportish Guy,” as Cousin Sal once put it, who treats every game, every movie, and every stray anecdote as part of a single, ongoing argument about how the world works. Central to that argument is his enduring fixation on control, on agency, on the question he returns to again and again with the devotion of a man checking the locks before bed: who gets the keys?

It is tempting to dismiss this as a bit, and in some sense it is, but like all of Simmons’ best bits, it has metastasized into something larger and more revealing. What began as a useful shorthand for late-game NBA hierarchy—who has the ball, who takes the shot—has expanded into a general theory of human behavior. Quarterbacks have the keys. Movie characters have the keys. Entire bands, dynasties, and historical figures are evaluated based on whether they had, lost, or never quite secured the keys. That Mark Sanchez could, for a brief and inexplicable moment, be discussed in these terms tells you less about Sanchez than it does about Simmons’ commitment to the framework. He does not particularly care if the fit is perfect. The system must be applied.

This is what makes Simmons both compelling and faintly ridiculous. He is, at heart, a “who’s on my team” guy, a loyalist who rewards proximity, familiarity, and shared history, sometimes to a fault. Former colleagues have occasionally noted that he can cool on people once they leave his orbit, a tendency that reads less as malice than as a kind of emotional sorting mechanism: you are either in the ecosystem or you are not. Some, like Kevin O’Connor, speak warmly of early generosity—gifted shirts, guidance, a foothold in Los Angeles when money was tight. Others have been less charitable, and the occasional critique, including a much-circulated piece in The New York Times, has tried to frame Simmons’ blind spots, particularly around race, as more systemic. These critiques are not wholly without merit, but they often feel slightly overdetermined, flattening a personality that is better understood as idiosyncratic rather than ideological. Simmons himself tends to respond not with grand rebuttals but with motion—hiring voices like Van Lathan, insisting, plausibly, that such moves were already in progress, and continuing on as if the conversation will resolve itself over time.

There is also, undeniably, an ego in play. Simmons has built an empire—Grantland, then The Ringer—largely on the strength of his own voice, and he is not shy about asserting it. Stories persist, as they do in any media ecosystem, including the long-running rumor that he played a role in Magic Johnson’s exit from NBA Countdown, a claim Simmons has repeatedly and emphatically denied. More verifiable is the moment that effectively ended his ESPN tenure: a live broadcast of NBA Countdown in which, after a colleague spoke at length, Simmons leaned in with heavy, unmistakable sarcasm—“Oh, is it my turn to talk now?”—a line that was funny, revealing, and, in the context of corporate television, fatal. It was the voice of the columnist breaking through the format, the irrepressible instinct to comment on the comment, to seize the keys even when the structure said otherwise.

What makes Simmons unique, and worth writing about at all, is that these contradictions—generous and insular, insightful and reductive, earnest and performative—are not bugs but features. He is a weird obsessive who has turned his obsessions into a career, and in doing so has given us a language that is at once clarifying and absurd. He loves the game, he loves the conversation around the game, and above all he loves the feeling that somewhere, in any given moment, someone has the keys.

II: The Bits That Ate the Brain

If the keys are the theory, the bits are the practice. Simmons has always understood that repetition is power: say something often enough, with just enough conviction, and it graduates from joke to canon. Thus “greatest stickman,” a phrase that should have died in a driveway, becomes a legitimate category, and suddenly Burgess Meredith is being floated as an all-timer. “Sal, Sal, BM was the greatest stickman of all time. Every lady wanted a ride.” It is ridiculous, obviously, but also irresistible. The specificity disarms you. The confidence sells it. The framework expands.

This is the Simmons trick: take a private-language riff and run it until it becomes a public one. It does not matter that no one else has ever considered ranking “stickmen.” What matters is that Simmons has, and that he will return to it, again and again, until you find yourself half-convinced that you, too, should have an opinion. It is analysis as inside joke, inside joke as analysis.

III. The Ecosystem

No system survives without a supporting cast, and Simmons has assembled one of the most durable in podcasting.

There is Cousin Sal, the indispensable counterweight, quicker and often funnier, whose primary function is to puncture Simmons at exactly the right moment. The Vegas trips are their shared masterpiece: two grown men insisting, year after year, that this time they will behave differently, and then not. Simmons, improbably, claims that he only smokes in Vegas. No one believes this. The morning-after pod is the payoff—hungover, frayed, the truth leaking out in fragments. “I only had three cigarettes last night,” Simmons offers. Sal, without missing a beat goes: “Yeah, more like three lighters.” It is the kind of line that ends the discussion because it cannot be improved.

There is Joe House, lawyer by day, chaos agent by night, who turns every appearance into a small act of self-destruction. “House Eats” remains a high-water mark: an adult man consuming Chinese food until he vomits, captured and distributed as legitimate sports media content. It should not work. It works perfectly. Drunk House—slurring, swearing, denouncing Daniel Snyder with operatic intensity—is not a bug but a feature. Simmons does not rein him in; he amplifies him. The ecosystem thrives on this permissiveness.

And then there is Nephew Kyle, the quietly essential, publicly baffling producer whose qualifications are, at best, opaque. The nepotism is acknowledged, even embraced. Simmons does not pretend otherwise. He does not have to. The show goes on. The levels are sometimes off. The energy is always on.

IV. The Interviews: High Risk, High Variance

Simmons as interviewer is a study in range. At his best, he is disarming, patient, and genuinely curious, capable of extracting moments that feel both candid and consequential. His conversation with Al Michaels is a case in point: Michaels, relaxed, recounts the day of the O.J. chase, including the now-legendary call-in where a supposed eyewitness punctuates his tip with “Baba Booey.” The co-host takes it seriously. Michaels does not. “It’s a joke, dude,” he essentially says, and in that moment you see the difference between professionals. Simmons knows enough to step back and let the story land. It is radio as it should be: a master talking, a host listening.

The interview with John Skipper is another apex moment. Post-ESPN, Skipper speaks with a level of openness that borders on the shocking—cocaine use, morning routines, the normalization of behavior that would end most careers. Simmons guides rather than pushes, and the result is a “huge get,” the kind of conversation that justifies the entire enterprise.

At the other end of the spectrum sits the Denzel Washington interview, a minor classic of mismatch. Washington arrives as if for one kind of conversation; Simmons is clearly expecting another. The opening is awkward, the rhythms off. To his credit, Simmons does not retreat. He leans in, tries to find common ground, and eventually does, or at least something like it. It is not a triumph, but it is revealing: the limits of the format, the limits of the host, the persistence of the effort.

V. Homerism as Method

Simmons’ greatest cultural contribution may be the legitimization of homerism. Before him, fandom was something to be managed, disclosed, occasionally apologized for. With him, it becomes the point. He is, unapologetically, a Boston guy: the Boston Celtics are not just a team but a lineage, a narrative, a near-mythological entity anchored by figures like Larry Bird, whose legend grows incrementally with each retelling. The takes are, at times, outta control. They are also, in their way, coherent. Simmons is not pretending to objectivity. He is offering a perspective, and trusting that the audience will meet him there.

This approach extends beyond basketball. Baseball, once a central obsession—AL keeper leagues, granular analysis—fades over time, dismissed as too long, too slow, no longer aligned with the rhythms of his life or his listeners’. Basketball remains the core competency, the area where his knowledge is both deep and defensible. Everything else orbits around it.

VI. Family and Formation

The personal mythology is never far from the surface. Simmons’ father, a longtime Celtics season-ticket holder, is both character and audience, the origin point of the fandom that would become a career. The pride is evident, even when unspoken. The access—courtside seats in the 1970s—becomes part of the narrative, a credential as meaningful as any byline.

His mother, less present on the pod but frequently referenced, provides another axis: a love of movies, a different kind of cultural literacy that feeds into Simmons’ broader interests. The recurring mention of being a child of divorce functions as a kind of grounding note, a reminder that the voice, however confident, has origins in something more fragile. He seems, by most measures, to have come out fine.

VII. Drift and Discipline

As the empire grows—Grantland, then The Ringer, now under the umbrella of Spotify—Simmons changes in ways both subtle and obvious. He fades certain voices who no longer fit the evolving brand: Adam Carolla, once a regular presence, becomes less so; Michael Rapaport, similarly, drifts out of the rotation. The official reasons are varied—tone, fit, the simple passage of time—but the underlying dynamic is familiar. Simmons is, at heart, a “who’s on my team” operator. The team changes. The roster turns over.

And yet, it is hard to shake the sense that the affection remains. These are not clean breaks so much as quiet reassignments, the byproduct of a system that requires a certain level of control. Spotify money, corporate expectations, the need to maintain a particular tone—these exert their own pressure. The outta-control energy that defined earlier iterations of the pod is still there, but it is managed, channeled, occasionally held back.

VIII. The Countdown Moment

If there is a single scene that captures Simmons in miniature, it is the one that ends his ESPN tenure. On NBA Countdown, a colleague speaks at length. Simmons waits. And waits. And then, with a level of sarcasm that is both unmistakable and, in context, disastrous, he interjects: “Oh, is it my turn to talk now?” It is funny. It is honest. It is, within the rigid structure of live television, unacceptable.

He is removed not long after.

The moment endures because it reveals the core tension: Simmons the columnist versus Simmons the employee, the impulse to comment versus the requirement to conform. He cannot quite suppress the former, even when the latter demands it. He reaches for the keys, even when they are not his to take.


VIII. Conclusion

Bill Simmons is the GOAT podcaster, full stop, and it’s worth saying that clearly at the outset because we only roast the ones we love. Bill Simmons has given us an entire language—keys, stickman, Vegas nights, Sal lines, Drunk House—and if you’ve been along for the ride, those bits don’t wear out, they compound. They get funnier with time, richer with context, a kind of private shorthand that becomes, almost accidentally, a shared culture. You either hear “three lighters” and laugh immediately or you don’t, and if you don’t, there’s not much point explaining it.

This is part of what makes Simmons both beloved and, in certain circles, a little contentious. He has clearly made enemies—inside ESPN, across the broader media landscape, and occasionally among former employees—and while it’s easy to chalk this up to ego or looseness, the better read is that the looseness is largely performative. Underneath the hangout vibe, the teasing, the Nephew Kyle chaos and the Drunk House indulgence, there is a very real set of standards, and Simmons enforces them. He is, at heart, a “who’s on my team” operator, and the team matters. People drift out. Some of that isn’t pretty. Most of it, however, is consistent with how he’s always operated: loyal, selective, and ultimately in control of the room.

At the same time, there is a sense now that Simmons is, if not slowing down, then at least rounding off the sharper edges. He talks openly about retirement in a way he didn’t a decade ago, and you get the feeling that he is aware, at some level, of the limits of the bit. Will he be seventy-five, still ranking stickmen and assigning keys? It’s hard to see it. He’s a boss now, a central figure inside Spotify, with responsibilities that extend well beyond the pod. The insurgent has become the institution, and while the voice is still there, it’s necessarily more managed than it once was.

There’s also the simple fact that Simmons is no longer a writer in the way he once was, and he knows it. The old columns—the mailbags, the trade value pieces, the obsessive digressions—have given way to the pod, to conversation, to rhythm. He jokes that his fingers don’t work anymore, and like most of his best lines, it’s funny because it’s partly true. The Book of Basketball stands as the monument to that earlier phase: long, ambitious, slightly out of control in the best way, complete with the famous pyramid (Jordan at the top, Magic above Bird, a decision that still tells you everything you need to know about him). But the shift from writing to talking isn’t a decline so much as an evolution. Simmons was always more voice than text anyway. The medium finally caught up to the man.

If and when he does step back, what we lose is not just a podcast or a brand but something rarer: a genuinely original voice that bent an entire corner of the media world toward itself. Plenty of people analyze sports. Plenty of people talk about culture. Almost no one has managed to fuse the two into a single, durable, endlessly riffable system the way Simmons has. The keys, for all their absurdity, are real in that sense. He found them early, used them often, and built something that will outlast the bit itself.

And if he eventually decides to set them down, or even just hold them a little more loosely, it will mark the end of a run that, for all its contradictions, was unmistakably his.

The Adventures of the Thin Man and Andrea II CHAPTER 4: The Thin Man’s Great Grandfather in Moscow I

CHAPTER IV — THE ANNEX

Scene One: The Office / The Invitation

The office was already in its late morning rhythm, which meant it had stopped pretending to be anything other than itself. Papers moved in shallow stacks. Ink dried on fingers that did not belong to the men using them. Conversations rose and fell without consequence, like breath in a cold room.

Niko sat at his desk with the quiet concentration of someone trying to stay slightly ahead of his own life. The work was not difficult. It was worse than that—it was repetitive in a way that made thought drift toward other, less supervised subjects.

The Southerner arrived without announcement, as he always did. He never seemed to enter a room so much as appear already inside it, as though the office had quietly agreed to produce him when needed.

He leaned on the edge of Niko’s desk.

“You are still here,” the Southerner said.

“I am paid to be,” Niko replied.

“That is not the same thing,” the Southerner said, smiling faintly. “Come along tonight. There is a place. A bathhouse annex. Dice. People worth meeting. You will find it useful.”

Niko looked up. “Is this work?”

“It is better than work,” the Southerner said. “It is instruction.”

Across the room, the Teutonic Knight cleared his throat with deliberate severity. He approached, holding a single sheet of paper as though it were evidence in a moral trial.

“This document,” the Knight said, “has migrated again.”

Niko glanced at it. “It appears to be in the correct file.”

“It was not there yesterday,” the Knight insisted.

“It is there today,” Niko said.

The Knight stared at him as though the universe had briefly failed to obey.

The Southerner sighed softly. “He is correct, you know. The paper is now where it should be.”

The Knight hesitated, recalibrated his indignation, and finally withdrew with a small, wounded dignity.

When he was gone, the Southerner tapped Niko’s desk twice.

“Seven,” he said. “Be there at seven.”

And then he left, as if the conversation had already been archived.


Scene Two: The Bathhouse Annex / Anya Appears

The bathhouse was warmer than the street in a way that felt almost indecent. Steam softened the edges of everything—voices, money, judgment, time. The annex behind it was not officially part of anything, which made it more important than anything that was.

Dice moved across low tables. Drinks appeared and disappeared, something without accounting. Men spoke in half-sentences that assumed agreement. Somewhere, someone laughed too long at a joke that had already ended. The crowd was a mixture of civil servants, military men, commercial travelers, and the odd semi-criminal element that such places always attract.

The Southerner greeted people as he passed, each nod suggesting a prior history Niko had not yet been invited into.

“Here,” the Southerner said at last, guiding him toward a table where the air felt slightly denser. “Watch first. Then play.”

Niko did not ask questions. He rarely did.

He sat.

The dice were small and worn, softened by use. They looked less like objects than habits. The first roll came quickly. Loss. The second, neutral. The third, unexpectedly favorable.

He felt something loosen in him—not relief exactly, but attention.

That was when she appeared.

Not entering so much as arriving within his field of perception, as though she had been standing just outside his awareness and decided to step in.

Anya did not look at the dice at first. She looked at him. Then she smiled slightly, as if confirming something she had already guessed.

“Buy me a drink,” she said.

It was not a request that demanded urgency. It was a test that did not require refusal. Niko paused just long enough to register the tone, the cost, the structure of the moment.

Then he nodded. “Of course.”

She accepted this as expected behavior.

Later, much later, after the dice had lost their clarity and the room had begun to fold into itself, Niko walked back through the city alone.

His lodging was a narrow stairwell building where the air smelled faintly of coal dust and old wood. He climbed slowly, as if each step were part of a decision he had already made.

In his room, he did not undress properly. He sat on the edge of the bed with his shoes still on, then removed them with deliberate care. Anya remained in the corner of his thoughts, not as a person exactly, but as a continuity.

He imagined a version of the future where she was simply present in it without explanation. Where evenings were not entered alone. Where dice were occasional rather than defining. Where risk could be contained rather than pursued.

He turned onto his back. The ceiling was damp in one corner. He would have to get that looked at, that is if his landlord could ever be located.

He fell asleep thinking, not of winning, but of Anya.


Scene Three: Two Weeks Later / The Restaurant

The restaurant was modest in the way things become modest after expense has been calculated too carefully. The light was steady, neither flattering nor cruel. Anya arrived slightly late, which made her presence feel more intentional when she finally appeared.

Niko stood when she entered, then immediately felt slightly foolish for doing so.

“You didn’t have to wait,” she said.

“I did not wait,” he replied. “I arrived earlier.”

This was technically true and socially irrelevant. They ordered simply. Niko paid without hesitation, though the number at the bottom of the bill lingered in his mind afterward like a minor echo.

Anya watched him over the rim of her glass.

“You are not very careful with money,” she said.

“I am careful in other ways,” he said.

“That is what men always say,” she replied, not unkindly.

There was a pause between them that was not awkward, but not empty either. It held its own structure.

When they left, she took his arm briefly—not as possession, but as orientation. He did not misread it. It was one night.

That would matter later.


Scene Four: The Morning / Anya’s Apartment

Morning arrived without ceremony.

Niko woke to the sound of movement in another room, not hurried, not performative. The ceiling above him was plain. The air smelled faintly of tea and something warm that had been cooked without ambition.

He lay still for a moment, listening to the normality of it. Anya entered carrying a cup of tea. She set it on the table beside the bed without comment.

“You stayed,” she said.

“I did,” Niko replied.

“That is not always how it goes,” she said.

“No,” he said.

She sat at the edge of the bed briefly, as if confirming that the space between them still existed in a usable form. Outside, the city was already functioning. Inside, nothing required immediate adjustment.

Niko took the tea. It was slightly too hot. He did not complain.

Anya watched him drink it, then stood.

“You should go soon,” she said, not unkindly.

“I know,” he said.

He did not move immediately.

And for a short while longer, neither of them tried to name what had already begun to form between them.

The Adventures of the Thin Man and Andrea II: The Thin Man’s Son. CHAPTER 3: The Thin Man in Costa Rica

Matt texts the Thin Man before he has even fully decided to.

There is a kind of threshold in sending a message like that, where intention arrives slightly after action. The screen shows the name and then the words appear as if they were always going to exist.

Found her.

There is no immediate reply.

Matt goes to the hotel rooftop pool instead, because the body refuses to remain still when the mind is doing work it cannot complete. The city below is a port city, functional rather than beautiful, ships moving like punctuation marks across water that does not care about narrative.

He swims slowly. Not exercise. Just repetition. Something to keep him inside himself.

The Thin Man arrives without announcement.

Matt sees him later in the lobby, as if he has always been there and only now decided to become visible. There is nothing theatrical about his movement. He is dressed simply, unremarkable in a way that only becomes noticeable after you have already started paying attention.

They do not greet each other like friends. They never have. They greet each other like continuity.

Matt watches him cross the space and feels, not for the first time, that proximity to him changes the temperature of events.

LUCÍANA

The café is near the port, where the air carries salt and fuel in equal measure. Luciana arrives slightly early, not because she is nervous, but because she is efficient. She chooses a table where she can see the entrance without appearing to be watching it.

When Niko arrives, she recognizes him immediately, though recognition does not translate into welcome. Time has done what time does, which is soften edges without removing structure. He is older now, but not unfamiliar in the way she expects him to be unfamiliar.

They sit.

For a long moment, neither of them performs memory. When they finally speak, it is careful, almost formal. He asks about her life. She answers without inviting him into it. There is warmth in her tone, but it is bounded. Controlled.

She tells him about their son. He listens without interrupting.

“He is in Dubai,” she says after a time. “He is working in media. Content. Travel. He is doing well for himself.”

Niko nods once. No visible reaction beyond that. But something in the air shifts slightly, as if a long thread has been acknowledged without being pulled.

Luciana continues. She has a daughter now. A marriage. A life that has moved forward without apology. When Niko asks nothing more, and she is briefly grateful. Then she tells him, clearly and without cruelty, that this is not something she wants reopened.

He understands. He does not argue. He never argues with time.

MATT THOMAS AT THE HOTEL

I am still at the hotel when he returns. He does not look like a man who has just been refused something. He looks like a man who has confirmed a hypothesis and chosen not to act on it. There is a difference, and I am beginning to understand it.

I ask him if he saw her. He says yes.

I ask what she said. He does not answer immediately. Then he tells me about Dubai, about the son, about the fact that life has continued in a direction that does not require his permission.

I wait for more. There is no more.

That is when I realize how little I actually know about him, even now. Later that night, I finally ask the question I have been circling since Tokyo.

“What is your real name?”

He does not look surprised.

He never looks surprised.

He says he is from Georgia. That his name is Niko. That he was born in 1977.

Nothing more.

And somehow that is enough to change the entire shape of what I thought I was holding.

CODA — MATT THOMAS IN KOYTO

I am back in Kyoto, but I am not fully back in anything that resembles ordinary life. The school still exists. I still teach. I still perform the version of myself that can explain narrative voice to students who are mostly thinking about lunch. I have had readings now—one in Kyoto, one in Tokyo—and people are starting to treat me as if I might become something recognizable.

It does not go to my head. But the Thin Man does. He’s always there.

We talk on Signal in fragments. Nothing structured. No schedule. Just interruptions in time that feel more real than the rest of the day. I sit in shisha places after work and try to write, but what I am actually doing is waiting for the next message.

Book II is already taking shape in my head.

I am just not sure yet whether I am writing it is writing me.

The Adventures of the Thin Man and Andrea II: The Thin Man’s Son. CHAPTER 2: Matt Thomas in Costa Rica

COSTA RICA — LATE FEBRUARY

Before I got on the place for Costa Rica the school was still trying to pretend this was still a normal conversation.

Vice Principal Nakata-san called me into the office with the kind of politeness that always signals something is already decided. The room was too bright, the air-conditioning too strong, the framed notices on the wall insisting on order. I sat down expecting administrative concern and got something closer to procedural disbelief.

“If you leave during term time,” Nakata-san said carefully, “your employment status may be affected.”

I nodded as if this was news I could process. Inside my mind was pure white. I said I understood. but I was going anyway.

There was a pause after which neither of us spoke.

“I am not firing you,” Nakata-san added, almost gently. “But you are… on thin ice.”

I thanked him, which felt like the wrong response but also felt like the only one available. When I left the office I was not thinking about consequences in the way institutions intend. I was thinking about distance, and how quickly it can become irreversible.

The flight to Costa Rica felt like a correction rather than a journey.

I watched the map on the screen and thought about how absurd it was all becoming. Somewhere over the Pacific, I opened my laptop and tried to write some notes, but nothing useful formed. Everything kept collapsing back into the same name.

Luciana Solís.

I did not yet know what I was looking for. I only knew that stopping now would mean admitting the shape of the obsession too clearly.

San José arrived humid and unceremonious. Costa Rica did not announce itself so much as absorb you. I moved through it with the slightly displaced awareness of someone who has read too many fragments of a story before seeing the whole thing.

I started where any amateur investigator starts: public record offices, municipal archives, online registries that are barely maintained but still technically alive. Marriage records, birth records, civic logs that feel like they were designed to discourage curiosity rather than enable it.

The work was slow and unglamorous. Most of it was administrative noise.

And then, on the third day, something aligned. A record. A name. Luciana Solís.

It is not dramatic when I found it. There was no cinematic recognition, no surge of certainty. Just a quiet moment where the page refused to behave like a coincidence.

I sat back from the screen and realized that my hands were slightly cold.

That is when I knew I was no longer guessing. This was the Thin Man’s son’s mother.

The Adventures of the Thin Man and Andrea II: The Thin Man’s Son. CHAPTER 1: The Thin Man in Tokyo

TOKYO — 1:13 PM, late January

He wakes up without remembering the descent. Not the drinking. Not the last message. Not the shape of the night leaving his body. Just the slow return of weight.

The house is rented, not lived in. A clean, architectural expanse in western Tokyo—glass, pale wood, too much air between objects. The kind of space that does not ask questions because it assumes nothing will answer.

He sits up once, then stops. 1:13 PM. The afternoon has already begun without him. He lies back for a moment and listens to the silence of money maintaining itself. There is a bottle on the floor beside the bed. Half-finished. Warm now. He doesn’t look at it again.

He stands, showers without thinking, dresses in the order that muscle memory dictates: black shirt, trousers, jacket. No tie. Never a tie unless someone insists.

His phone is already lit when he returns. Two messages. One from Tomoyo.

“Weekend still okay?”

One from Mina.

“Bar As One. Late.”

He reads them without responding yet. Then another notification appears. A different rhythm. Alejandro.

No name attached. Just the letter cluster, like something filed incorrectly in a system that never bothered to correct itself.

“Need you in Akasaka. KBS situation. Quiet, but messy.”

He stares at it longer than he should. Then:

“Corporate accounting discrepancy. Possibly internal extraction.”

That word—extraction—is always a translation problem. It never means only one thing. He exhales, once.

And for the first time that day, he is fully awake.

KYOTO — That Same Day

I am in my classroom when I see the notification. I’m not during anything important. Just one of those pauses between things where students are pretending to work and I am pretending not to notice they aren’t.

The phone is face down. I flip it. It’s Signal. I don’t even check the sender first anymore; I know it’s from the Thin Man.

“Akasaka. KBS. Quiet job.”

That’s it. No greeting. No explanation. No punctuation beyond necessity.

I look up at the room. The students are writing essays on narrative voice, ironically enough. I tell them to keep going and step into the hallway.

Outside, the corridor smells like floor wax and winter coats that never fully dry. I write back:

“You’re back?”

A pause.

Then:

“Always.”

I sit down on the stairs and realize I’ve been waiting for this message more than I admitted to myself. Not because I want the job. Because when he appears, the world becomes legible again.

Even if it shouldn’t.

TOKYO — 5:57 PM That Same Day

Akasaka in daylight is almost offensive in its normality. Glass buildings pretending they are neutral. People moving like they have somewhere else to be even when they don’t. He enters KBS through a side entrance.

Not invited. Not uninvited. Just expected. The problem is explained in fragments.

A mid-level finance manager has flagged irregular payments in a production budget. Someone else has flagged the flag. A third layer has erased the second.

Now everyone is quietly pretending nothing happened while insisting something must be done. He listens. He does not take notes. He asks three questions.

The answers contradict each other in useful ways.

By 4:02 PM, he knows what happened. By 4:07 PM, he knows who benefited. By 5:12 PM, he knows why no one will say it out loud.

He leaves without announcing that anything is resolved. This is the job. 

On the street outside, he finally replies to Tomoyo who he has beeb seeing for about two moths now:

“Saturday still okay.”

Then Mina:

“Later.”

Then Alejandro:

“Done.”

No embellishment. No summary. Just closure.

KYOTO — 10:02 PM That Same Day 

I am in a shisha place near Sanjo when he updates me. Not the kind of shisha place you imagine. Cleaner. Quieter. Students pretending to be older than they are. A place where time slows down but doesn’t stop.

I have a draft open on my laptop. A text arrives. It is about him. It is always about him these days.

“KBS resolved.”

That’s all. No story. No detail.

I type:

“What was it?”

Three dots appear. Disappear. Return.

“Accounting.”

That word again. He uses it the way other people use weather reports. I lean back.

Outside, Kyoto is doing its careful thing—bicycles, soft neon, the sense that nothing ever fully arrives here.

I realize I’ve stopped writing fiction and started writing evidence. 

TOKYO — 11:35 PM That Same Night

Bar As One is half-lit, as always. Mina is behind the counter like she has been there longer than the building. She does not ask what happened in Akasaka. She never asks anything that can be answered incorrectly.

He sits and orders a whisky ginger. They talk about nothing that matters. Tomoyo arrives later. She wears corporate black like it is a second job. She kisses him once, briefly, like a scheduled interruption. He notices everything about her that is real and nothing about her that is performance. That is what he likes about her.

At some point, his phone vibrates again. A new Signal message. It’s from Matt.

KYOTO — 11:26 PM. That Same Night.

I’m still at Shisha, still thinking about the Thin Man, I shouldn’t be doing this in public. But I am.

Me:

“I think I understand what you do in Tokyo.”

A reply comes faster than expected.

“You don’t.”

I almost smile. Then I don’t. I type:

“I’m going to Costa Rica.”

This time there is a long pause.  Then:

“Why.”

I look at the ceiling of the shisha place. Smoke moves like it has intention.

“Luciana.”

The name sits there on my screen like it has weight. I don’t know if he will respond. 

But I know I’ve crossed a line.

TOKYO — 12:14 AM The Next Morning

He reads the name once. Then again. Luciana.

Not spoken in years. Not held in any current system. Not part of any job file. He steps outside for a smoke. 

Akasaka is quieter at night, but not safer. Just less honest about itself. He does not ask Matt not to go. That would be meaningless.

Instead he writes:

“Don’t dig wrong.”

Then, after a pause:

“If you’re going, be precise.”

He puts the phone away. Tomoyo is still inside, laughing at something someone said that is not funny. Mina is polishing glasses that are already clean.

He thinks, briefly, of leaving Tokyo again. Not because something is wrong. Because something has started.

And that is usually enough.

KYOTO — 12:44 AM The Next Morning

I read his message twice.

Be precise.

As if precision is the problem. As if I have ever been anything else. 

I close my laptop. Outside, Kyoto continues as if nothing has happened. But I know it has.

I have a name now. And names are how you begin to lose your distance from things.

On Of Montreal’s The Past is a Grotesque Animal

Note: A reflective piece on an Of Montreal track and a cluster of other listening moments where music stopped being background and became something closer to intervention. Starting in a cramped, overheated apartment in Furano, Hokkaido, on New Year’s Day 2006, the essay moves through a snowbound walk soundtracked by Kevin Barnes’ The Past is a Grotesque Animal, then branches outward to two other formative listening experiences—Bob Dylan on a half-awake AM radio morning, and Father John Misty in mid-career exhaustion on a city commute. It is less about music as taste than music as rupture: the way certain songs bypass interpretation and reorganize the inner self in real time, leaving the listener briefly unarmoured, and then altered.

Furano, New Year’s Day, 2006.

Outside, Hokkaido is doing what it does in winter when it stops pretending to be habitable: the air is an exposed blade, the snow hard-packed and granular underfoot, everything outside reduced to distance, glare, and breath. Inside Ken and Eri’s small apartment it is the opposite problem—heat pushed to excess, a sealed, overcompensating warmth that turns the room into a kind of shared pressure chamber. We are all in it together: Ken, serving in the Japanese army and posted up here in Furano; Eri, quietly and expertly holding the domestic center; their son Shinya, one year younger than our son Hugh; and the four of us effectively folded into one cramped sleeping arrangement that collapses night into proximity. It is kind, it is hospitable, it is also inescapably too much. The bed feels like it belongs to no one and everyone at once.

I remember wanting, with a clarity that felt almost physical, to go home. Not anywhere abstract—Kyoto specifically. My own bed. My own thermostat. The ability to set the heater somewhere between restraint and comfort rather than Arctic evacuation or sauna collapse. Kyoto’s winter is mild enough to forgive you for being human. Furano’s winter is not.

It is late afternoon on New Year’s Day. The holiday has that particular suspended quality: nothing is open, nothing is moving, and even time seems to have adopted local weather conditions. I have just discovered I have lost my wallet—ID, credit cards, the small administrative skeleton of a life—and I am trying not to let it tip everything further off balance. Eri will later find it, of course, lodged under the couch cushions, and post it back as if this is just another minor adjustment to the day’s equilibrium. At the time, though, it feels like the world tightening a little further around me.

So I go for a walk.

It is not a decision so much as a pressure release. I put on headphones, step out into the cold, and immediately the winter reasserts itself with total authority. No negotiation. Just air, snow, and the sound of my shoes biting into frozen ground. I am wearing sneakers instead of boots, which already feels like a small error in judgment that will have consequences.

And then I press play.

The Past is a Grotesque Animal arrives like a system taking over the system. Of Montreal, Kevin Barnes—whatever name you want to use for the person or force behind it—unfolding a twelve-minute architecture of confession, excess, fragmentation, and emotional overexposure that does not so much accompany the walk as overwrite it.

I do not listen once.

I walk for an hour in circles, or near-circles, or something that becomes circular by repetition. The song loops again and again—four times, maybe more—and each return feels less like repetition and more like deepening. The cold sharpens, the snow crunches, my breathing becomes part of the rhythm. At some point I am no longer fully tracking direction. I am just in motion inside the sound.

And I am crying.

Not the polite kind of emotional leakage you can disguise as weather or fatigue, but something closer to surrender. Barnes is doing something too exposed, too unguarded, too structurally unstable to defend against. It is not just lyrics—it is tone, duration, refusal of containment. The line lands like a fracture: you know things could be different / but they’re not.

That is the moment. Not because it is the most complex line, but because it is the simplest possible articulation of something I am already carrying without knowing it.

Ken and Eri are not the problem. In-laws are not the problem. Furano is not the problem. The problem is the accumulation: ambition just starting to harden into structure (new full-time role at Rits Uji after years of part-time teaching), the sense of trajectory toward IB, the pressure of becoming legible professionally, and underneath it all the quieter, more persistent anxiety about language, about my son’s future English, about whether proximity is enough when communication is not yet guaranteed.

Hugh is three. He doesn’t yet speak English in any sustained way. He will, later—Kyoto International School, gradual unfolding—but at this moment it feels like a future I am trying to pre-pay emotionally, as if worry could accelerate outcome.

And so the walk becomes something else entirely: a cold, repetitive loop through snow and sound, a private weather system synchronized to a song that refuses to stay at a safe emotional distance. I am half-lost in it, half-anchored by it. At some point I stop thinking in sentences.

When I finally turn back, the house is still there, still too warm, still intact. The ordinary world resumes its shape as if nothing has happened. Dinner will happen, conversation will happen, the night will pass.

But something has already been displaced.

That walk, that loop, that song—those remain as a fixed point. Not resolution, not transformation exactly. More like an encounter with a register of feeling I did not previously have language for, but which now exists and cannot be removed.

Barnes did not explain anything.

He just got through.

Kevin Barnes, the lead singer of Of Montreal, is one of those contemporary indie figures who refuses the clean categories people like to file musicians into. What’s known, in fairly plain terms, is that Barnes has moved over time into an openly fluid understanding of gender and sexuality—identifying in recent years as non-binary and queer, using multiple pronouns, and explicitly framing earlier work (including the Georgie Fruit persona) as something they now see as a problematic, overextended act of identification and performance. That matters because it retroactively clarifies what was already visible in the live persona you’re describing: drag-inflected glamour, exaggerated femininity/masculinity, theatrical self-invention as method rather than costume.

The deeper pattern is that Barnes’ sexuality and identity have never been “announced” in a single stable form so much as continuously staged—worked through performance, breakdown, and reinvention. The turbulence people sometimes read as “issues” (depression, relationship collapse, manic productivity, alter-egos like Georgie Fruit) sits less in the register of scandal than in the register of aesthetic method: self as unstable material. Albums like Hissing Fauna… are basically internal monologues set on fire, where romantic relationships, identity, and chemical imbalance are all entangled rather than separated into neat clinical categories. 

Barnes sits in a lineage of glam and art-pop performers (Bowie is the obvious shadow) where gender play is not commentary on identity but the medium through which identity is continuously rewritten. The result is that the work feels emotionally confessional even when the persona is highly stylised: the sincerity and the artifice are not opposites; they are fused, sometimes uncomfortably so.

In short: Barns does not have a fixed sexuality, and lives t a life in which sexuality, gender, and performance are permanently entangled, and where his “issues” are inseparable from the creative engine itself.

Grotesque Animal arrives less like a track than like a prolonged exposure to someone thinking out loud with no filter, no editing instinct, and no interest in letting the listener rest. The Past is a Grotesque Animal begins with a kind of conceptual detonation: the past is no longer memory or narrative continuity, but something bodily and misbegotten, an organism that looks back at you with the capacity to reveal not just error, but total epistemic miscalibration. The emotional register is already unusual here—this is not nostalgia, but retrospective humiliation at the fact of having ever thought you were right about anything.

From there the song folds into a second movement that is almost aggressively self-conscious: desire framed through embarrassment, attraction filtered through cultural overreach, intimacy mediated by theory. The encounter with a “cute girl” is not allowed to remain simple; it immediately drags in philosophical reference points, as if feeling itself requires justification through external intellectual scaffolding. What should be direct becomes over-determined, and the over-determination is precisely the point: the narrator cannot experience attraction without simultaneously watching himself experience it. Even love becomes something like a performance being observed in real time.

Then comes the pivot where the track sharpens into something more brutal. The language shifts from reflection to collapse—academic failure, emotional disintegration, the recognition of being “gone” while simultaneously narrating that disappearance. The crucial gesture here is not despair but authorship: the insistence that even breakdown is self-produced. That phrase—“authoring disaster”—is doing a great deal of work. It removes the possibility of passive suffering and replaces it with something more modern and more punishing: agency inside collapse. One is not simply breaking; one is composing the form of one’s breaking as it happens.

By the time the song reaches its midsection, it has abandoned restraint entirely. What had been psychological becomes infrastructural. The fantasy of tearing things apart—houses, bodies, structures of containment—is not really about violence in a literal sense, but about the release from moderation. It is a desire for total unbinding, for a condition in which limits no longer apply and intensity can proceed without correction. It feels adolescent in energy but philosophically adult in implication: if order is already failing, why not accelerate the collapse and inhabit it consciously? “Let’s tear our fucking bodies apart.” Indeed.

What prevents the song from becoming mere excess is its final register shift into intimacy as circuitry rather than refuge. The closing idea is not reconciliation but connection as transmission—human relation imagined as something like hidden wiring beneath visible separation. Two people are not joined by resolution or understanding, but by something involuntary and continuous, an electrical sympathy that persists even when emotional coherence has dissolved. Love here is not stabilising; it is conductive. It carries instability rather than resolving it.

That is what makes the piece so unusual over its length. It does not progress toward clarity or resolution; it deepens a single proposition through repetition and escalation: that consciousness is unstable, self-authored, and perpetually aware of its own failure to stabilise. And yet, paradoxically, that awareness itself becomes the form of continuity. The song does not resolve the grotesque past—it learns to live inside its ongoing presence.

I like Of Montreal, but I don’t love them, and the distinction has mostly to do with form rather than intent. A lot of the catalogue is deliberately baroque—dense production, shifting textures, long runtimes that feel less like songs than elaborately staged environments you’re expected to inhabit rather than enter. There’s a kind of aesthetic overgrowth to it: too many surfaces, too many internal modulations, too much happening at once for easy emotional access. It’s not background music, and it doesn’t really want to be. The cost of that ambition, for me, is that it can be hard to get inside the songs in a way that feels immediate or bodily. You end up listening at them more than through them.

Which is why The Past is a Grotesque Animal feels so different. It breaks the pattern entirely. It is still maximal, still structurally excessive, still willing to stretch time, but it has a strange internal clarity that most of the other material doesn’t. There’s no sense of ornamental distraction or sonic clutter for its own sake. Instead, everything feels metabolised into a single forward-moving emotional logic. It doesn’t feel like it’s demonstrating complexity; it feels like it’s trapped inside it.

And crucially, it has no filler energy whatsoever. Even at length, it maintains pressure. It doesn’t meander—it accumulates. Each section feels necessary to the psychological arc it is tracing, even when the content is volatile or self-cancelling. That’s the paradox: it is expansive but not indulgent, long but not diffuse. It behaves less like a composition and more like a sustained state of consciousness that refuses to close.

That’s why it stands apart. In a catalogue where density sometimes becomes opacity, this one remains piercingly legible. It is maximal, but it is also focused. It doesn’t just add material—it tightens around an emotional core until it becomes unavoidable.

The final movement of this piece is really about how certain songs don’t just soundtrack life, they puncture it and then rearrange the internal furniture. I don’t have many of these, but I have a few, and they tend to arrive at moments when I am not exactly looking for them.

One is Bob Dylan’s “Every Grain of Sand,” heard half-awake at around 6:30 in the morning on AM radio, sometime in my late teens. I hadn’t slept properly in years—there was a long adolescent stretch where nights just bled into mornings—and the room was that grey-blue pre-dawn wash where nothing feels fully solid. I remember lying there with the radio still on from the night before, drifting through news bulletins, late-night voices, static, and then this song arriving like a kind of moral weather system. It doesn’t announce itself so much as settle in. Something in it made the world feel both unbearable and forgiven at the same time. I stayed in bed longer than I intended, not because I was tired, but because getting up felt like leaving something important unfinished.

Another is much later, in 2017, walking down the steps toward a Starbucks after work, head full of obligations, deadlines, the general low-grade administrative pressure of being a functioning adult in motion. On comes Father John Misty’s “Leaving LA” from Pure Comedy, and I just stop. Not dramatically—no cinematic pause—but enough that I find myself going up and down the steps again, as if I’ve temporarily forgotten what the destination was supposed to be. The song is slow, almost patient with its own despair, and it carries that peculiar tone of someone who has both succeeded and slightly lost the plot in the process. There’s a line of thinking in it about authorship, irony, and being turned into something by other people’s projections—about how the self becomes a kind of public object. And it landed at exactly the wrong/right time, which is to say: it landed perfectly.

And then there is the Of Montreal experience, specifically Kevin Barnes’ “The Past is a Grotesque Animal.” I like Of Montreal, but I don’t love them in general. The songs are often too baroque, too long, too densely wired to immediately enter; they resist casual listening in a way that can feel like work. But this one is different. It is not just long, it is internally necessary. It moves through regret, desire, self-destruction, erotic confusion, intellectual posturing, collapse, and a kind of exhausted self-awareness that never quite resolves. The refrain—“things could be different, but they’re not”—is almost banal on paper, but in the context of the song it becomes something closer to a philosophical statement about adulthood itself. There is no exit ramp offered. Only repetition, escalation, and admission.

What ties these three moments together is not genre or mood, but exposure. Each of them removes a layer of insulation. Dylan makes meaning feel too large to comfortably contain. Misty makes authorship feel slightly embarrassing, slightly external, as if the self has already been narrated elsewhere. Barnes, in the Of Montreal track, does something more aggressive: he refuses to simplify anything at all, and in doing so forces the listener into a kind of emotional honesty that is hard to sustain.

These are not “favourite songs” in any simple sense. They are more like points of contact where life briefly becomes too legible, and then continues anyway.

Dedication:

For Kevin. I know you’ve been through it baby. I’ve been through it too and I can hear it dude. 100. You rock baby.

Note: If you ilke this piece you may also like the pieces about music below.

On Nina Van Pallandt: Muse, Witness, Residual Character, and Her Own Woman

Note: Nina Van Pallandt moves through this piece as a kind of drifting hinge figure between art and biography, cinema and scandal, half-real and half-mythologised: from her striking, uncanny presence in Robert Altman’s The Long Goodbye—where she plays the abused, luminous spouse of Roger Wade and becomes, briefly, a kind of muse/anima figure for Philip Marlowe—to her earlier life in the Danish pop duo The Baronets, through her entanglement with Clifford Irving and the great Howard Hughes hoax that later reverberates through Orson Welles’ F for Fake, and onward into the quieter aftermath of fame, reinvention, and partial retreat. The essay follows her not as a stable “character” but as a site where male-authored narratives—Hollywood noir, literary fraud, journalistic myth-making—keep trying (and failing) to fix her meaning, while she keeps slipping free in ways that are at once accidental and oddly deliberate. In the end she becomes something like a case study in cinematic and cultural afterlives: a woman repeatedly written by others, occasionally complicit, sometimes resistant, and finally legible only as a residue of performance, gossip, and unfinished stories that refuse to settle.

I first became aware of Nina Van Pallandt the way most people probably do: not through biography, but through atmosphere—specifically Robert Altman’s The Long Goodbye (1973, The Long Goodbye), a film that feels less like a narrative than a slow collapse of narrative reliability itself. It is a film in which people drift through scenes as if they have forgotten whether they are supposed to be characters or witnesses, and Nina arrives inside it already slightly misfiled, already too composed for the emotional weather she is asked to endure.

She plays Roger Wade’s wife, but “plays” is almost the wrong verb. Altman’s casting logic is not psychological realism in the classical sense; it is something closer to behavioral residue. People are dropped into the frame and asked not to perform identity but to inhabit proximity—to money, to violence, to desire, to failure. Nina’s presence has that peculiar Altman quality: she does not dominate the scene, but she stabilizes it just enough to make everything else look unstable.

Roger Wade (the blocked writer, the alcoholic genius-in-decline) is already collapsing before the plot admits it. Nina is the counterweight that never quite becomes balance. She is care without resolution, intimacy without clarity, the kind of emotional presence that suggests there is a story somewhere but refuses to confirm what it is. And then there is Marlowe, Elliott Gould’s version of Marlowe—half-stoned, half-wandering, permanently a few seconds behind the moral implications of what he is witnessing.

The film keeps staging small ruptures in epistemology. One of the most famous arrives early and feels almost accidental in its perfection: Terry Lennox appearing at 4 AM, asking for a ride to Tijuana. There is a moment—“Tijuana now?”—where Gould’s Marlowe is briefly jolted out of his procedural fog into genuine surprise, as if even he cannot believe how far the plot is willing to drift from explanation. That tonal instability is the world Nina inhabits as well, except she does not get Marlowe’s ironic distance. She gets consequence.

There is a domestic sequence—one of the film’s most disarming—that feels almost out of register with the noir frame: Nina cooking, the soft logic of food and attention, a candlelit dinner shared with Marlowe, where violence and absence are temporarily suspended by something as ordinary as butter and chicken. It is precisely the kind of scene that should resolve emotional ambiguity, but in Altman it does the opposite: it deepens it. Intimacy here is not revelation; it is another form of deferral.

What the film keeps doing, quietly and persistently, is refusing to assign stable moral weight to anyone. Roger Wade is both victim and self-destroyer. Marlowe is both agent and sleepwalker. Nina is both witness and participant, but never allowed the comfort of explanation. Even her suffering—when it arrives—is not narratively sanctified; it is simply another event in a world where events do not accumulate into meaning.

And this is where Nina becomes interesting beyond the film itself. Because she does not resolve into a character arc, she persists as something else: a figure who has been “used” by multiple narrative systems without ever fully belonging to them. In a conventional noir, she would be femme fatale or redemption object or tragic spouse. In Altman, she is none of these cleanly. She is what remains when genre stops enforcing coherence.

What begins to emerge, if one steps back slightly from her, is that she belongs to a broader category of women who are not simply “in” cultural narratives but are written into them by proximity to men who are doing the narrating. The pattern is subtle but persistent: women become legible to the public through the structural gravity of male projects—films, scandals, bands, memoirs—while simultaneously attempting, with varying degrees of success, to assert an interior life that resists that formatting.

It is difficult not to think here of Marianne Faithfull, who occupies a parallel register in the British version of the same phenomenon. Marianne Faithfull is initially rendered publicly intelligible through association—romantic, cultural, chemical—with the Rolling Stones orbit, and specifically through a media ecosystem eager to translate her into a kind of emblem: muse, fallen angel, tragic accessory to male genius. But what is striking about her trajectory is not the initial inscription but the long, stubborn insistence on rewriting it from within.

In both cases—Faithfull and Van Pallandt—the question is not simply “agency” in the abstract liberal sense, but something more structurally constrained: how does a person reassert authorship of self once they have already been written as a function in someone else’s story? Faithfull does this through survival, reinvention, and the eventual authority of her own voice as an artist. Nina does it more quietly, less performatively, by simply not continuing to cooperate with the demand that her life be endlessly narrativized into legible arcs.

And this is where Nina stops being just a cinematic presence and becomes entangled with a second, more volatile narrative system: the world of Clifford Irving and manufactured truth. I remain, in a slightly persistent way, puzzled by Clifford Irving—not in the sense that his actions are obscure, but in the sense that the scale of the gamble still feels oddly disproportionate to the era in which it occurred. Clifford Irving occupies that 1970s threshold where narrative fraud still had room to breathe: before the internet, before instantaneous archival correction, before every claim arrived already cross-checked by a thousand invisible clerks. The rope, in other words, was longer. Not infinitely elastic—but long enough that someone could plausibly believe they might walk it all the way across.

What he did, of course, was fabricate the authorized autobiography of Howard Hughes and briefly convince a publishing system that this fiction was fact. And one cannot quite shake the sense that this sits in a parallel register to Orson Welles’ late-career meditation on forgery and authorship, F for Fake, where the art forger is not simply a criminal but a kind of metaphysical irritant—someone who reveals how fragile the category of “authenticity” already is, even before it is attacked. In Welles’ world, the faker is almost honest about the fact that everyone is faking something. In Irving’s world, the system briefly forgets to notice.

The irony, of course, is that Irving’s fraud depended on a very pre-digital faith in paper trails, intermediaries, and the general slowness of institutional verification. Today it feels almost quaintly physical: forged documents, publishing contracts, phone calls that had to be believed in real time. One can imagine the same scheme now collapsing within hours, not because people are more moral, but because the feedback loops are instantaneous.

And then there is prison. Irving did time—real time, not narrative time—and emerged into a world that had already moved on to other, faster deceptions. Yeah, I mean what did you expect, dude. The arc compresses there in a way that feels almost unsatisfying: scandal, exposure, incarceration, partial reinvention. One wants something more operatic, but what you get is the bureaucratic version of consequence.

The interesting part is not that he was punished, but that for a brief historical window the system was even buildable enough that his plan could function as a kind of temporary reality. That is the shared atmosphere he has with Nina Van Pallandt: not guilt, not innocence, but proximity to narrative systems that were still slow enough to be fooled by their own assumptions.

In later life, Nina becomes harder to place in any of the familiar compartments that earlier decades tried to assign her. The cinematic afterglow fades into cult memory, and the Irving episode recedes into archival texture. What remains is a quietness that feels deliberate rather than accidental—not disappearance, but refusal of continued amplification. She does not convert notoriety into permanent self-mythology in the way later media ecosystems would almost require. Instead, she settles into a lower frequency of visibility: remembered, cited, intermittently revived, but no longer authored by the same pressures that once pulled her forward.

And here the comparison widens again, because what she resembles is not a “sidekick” at all—that word is too structurally comic, too dependent on hierarchy—but something closer to an attendant presence: a figure whose job, in other people’s stories, is to make emotional or moral instability legible without ever fully resolving it.

There is a related category, more neutral and slightly more precise: the faithful interlocutor. Not in the devotional sense, but in the structural one—the person who remains close enough to the main character’s instability to render it speakable, without ever becoming fully absorbed into its explanatory system. Nina performs this function in The Long Goodbyewithout being granted interpretive authority over it.

And there is another: the witness who does not testify cleanly. Not unreliable, but resistant to conversion into stable narrative fact.

We all make mistakes; that much is banal. The more interesting question is what kind of cultural weather those mistakes occur in, and how much agency is genuinely available inside it. Nina Van Pallandt seems, in retrospect, to have lived inside a period when men were still doing a great deal of the writing—of scripts, scandals, explanations—and women were often expected to appear inside those scripts as if they had authored them themselves. Her resistance to that framing is not always loud or declarative. Sometimes it is simply a matter of stepping out of the demand to be continuously interpretable.

And in that sense, what she ultimately carved out is not a grand public myth but something more modest and, arguably, more durable: a minor legacy, lightly held, slightly resistant to over-definition. Not central, not erased, not simplified—just there, in a way that feels unexpectedly intact.

I really like Nina Van Pallandt. In The Long Goodbye, and in the shadow of the Clifford Irving story, it is impossible not to root for her—not because she is resolved, but because she is never fully reducible. She drifts through systems built by men who are busy writing meaning onto the world, and she does not quite consent to being finalized inside any of them. We all make mistakes. She was written into a few. She was also, quietly, a drifter inside Hollywood’s narrative machinery, and what she ultimately leaves behind is a minor but distinct and instinctively cool legacy: not the center of anyone’s story, but one of the few figures who never fully became owned by it.