Everything from Z to A: Misery Loves Company


“Why is everyone on TV so miserable?” Z asked. “I’m serious, nothing can make these people happy. They’re hopeless, angry people who raise miserable children. It’s all so realistic, and I say that in the most sarcastic, or sardonic, way possible. Does this reflect us, or do we reflect it? The truth, as they see it, is that we’re not happy, and anyone who says they are is lying in these movies.”  

The Sopranos didn’t start the miserable motif,” A said, “but it definitely popularized it to the point that we find negative and nasty more interesting. We want complicated, torn characters who do awful things to one another. We don’t want to see a show about positive people helping people. Miserable people are more complex and entertaining. Happy, positive people are simple-minded, and as we’ve seen in the 50’s and 60’s, and they always find a reason to break into song.” 

“I loved Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, and all the negative, realistic movies and shows that dot the recent past,” Z said, “but our comedies are negative and realistic now too. When did that happen?” 

“I think it started as a set up for happiness,” A said. “A character couldn’t truly be happy without first being truly miserable. Then they got more miserable to make the happiness at the end resound more. Until we started saying, “I hate happy endings.” Everyone I knew started saying it, and we all thought it was funny, until it caught on.”  

“I remember that,” Z said. “It didn’t last long, but everyone started saying happy just wasn’t very realistic. Negative cynicism is the truth. The happy endings diminished the drama of the unhappiness, because everyone knew, eventually, the happy ending was coming. The enterprising writers then wrote unhappy endings, and we said that’s real. We’re all miserable people. Life is book-ended by two screams. The one at the beginning of life and the one at the end, and everything in between involves groans of misery.” 

“I don’t think people hated happy endings so much as they hated the predictable lead-up,” A said. “I think the ‘I hate happy endings’ line caught on so much that screenwriters and directors thought they might lose street cred if they wrote another happy ending, so they wrote the ‘all hope is lost’ movie that ended when they discovered that there was no hope.” 

“The actors influenced it too of course,” Z said, “as they would only work with directors and writers with street cred.” 

“And the critics, don’t forget about them,” A said. “Back when they had influence, they hailed the misery as a tour-de-force.” 

“As a teen, I was attracted to most pessimistic, cynical people I could find. I thought they were real, hilarious, and so fresh and honest. They were also original to me. I grew up in a broken home, but my people were mostly normal with normal outlooks, normal habits, and normal relationships with normal people. We were unhappy people We bought into this whole idea that happiness was a big lie sold to the public. We thought normal people were covering up all of their indiscretions, and once we successfully uncovered them for who they were, we’d all realize we’re all just as miserable as everyone else.” 

“And that was the big lie.” 

“That was the big lie,” Z said. “Maybe not 100% of the time. I’m sure some of these happy people were unhappy, but I grew up in a broken home, and we were counting on the idea that this happiness was a lie. We thought they were covering up a number of indiscretions. When I entered the work force, I found out that most of these people were happy, well-adjusted people, and there was no big cover up. They led happy, uneventful lives. It also didn’t do me any good to think that they were corrupt and evil. Did it get me some laughs? Sure. Did it make me appear more worldly, and that I had street knowledge? It did, but it never paved the way for a raise or a promotion, or some kind of unforeseen career path. These ideas did not serve any purpose for me. Most important, they clouded my mind to such a degree that I had to unlearn their ideas and learn the truth. All those ideas did was make me feel better about myself in a short-term, unproductive way. 

“I know one entertainment medium more miserable than the movies,” Z continued. “Sports. Watching sports on TV, and following a team, is just a miserable experience. I’m not going to tell you what teams I follow, but let’s just say that the lifetime I’ve spent watching sports has been miserable. I was born with an NFL jersey, and I’ll probably die that way, but I wish I could remove whatever gene I have that causes me to care so much about my teams. I wish I could just pluck that gene right out of my body.” 

“If I could advise a younger me on living life well and all that,” Z continued. “I’d tell a younger me to watch sports the same way you do every other program on TV. If it isn’t going your way, turn it off. You think you get some kind of fan points by sticking with them to the bitter end? You don’t. No one will ever know that you turned that game off, and if they find out, guess what, they won’t care. They might rib you. They might call you a fair-weather fan, but how many weekends have you ruined by sulking about the house, because your team lost? It’s ridiculous and embarrassing.”  

“Or fast forward the game,” A said. “Tape the game on the DVR, wait an hour to watch the game, then you can FF through the horrible plays, the moment after a referee drops a flag, the constant replays, and the commercials.“

“I do that now,“ Z said. “I usually need two hours of lead time, because I FF so much, but I cannot shut the damn game off. I blame the gene, because my dad had it, but as you say I can FF it. It’s the wimpy way out, but I can’t take watching kids who could be my grandchildren let a game slip away with silly mistakes. I wish I did it sooner. I just fast forward through games when my team is getting blown up now, and I go outside and do something else, but I can’t help getting agitated. To this day, I still get so angry that I wish I had the option now to go in and pluck that gene right out of my body.” 

“There’s so much frustration and pain in life,” A said. “Why double down on it when you have a choice in the matter?” 

“My dad used to tell us to shut it off,” Z said. “If it’s making you that mad, just shut it off. He used to say that about sports on TV and video games. We’d laugh at the simplicity of it. With our laughter, we were basically saying, ‘Dad, I don’t think you don’t understand how much we have tied into this.’”  

“That’s really the nob of it is, isn’t it?” 

“It is,” Z added. “It’s personal. If your team of players on a football field beat my team of football players, I see it as a condemnation in the most personal way. It suggests I have a character flaw, and you’d better not rub it in, or we could go down. It’s also, as I said, a family tradition. When I was younger, we would get together with friends and family to watch these games, then as a teen and into my twenties, I got together with my own friends and fellow employees. So, if your team beats my team, and you rub it in, you’re desecrating my family. You can see why it took me so many years to arrive at a point where I could finally fast forward through all the misery.” 

“Seinfeld has a bit where he says, and I’m going to mess this up a little,” A said, “but he says with free agency in the NFL now, there’s little to cheer on anymore. Now with the ease with which college players can transfer schools, the same element applies to college football. We grew up cheering on Franco Harris, Tony Dorsett, and Walter Payton, and their modern-day equivalents are changing teams every four years now. Those old players stuck with their respective teams for most of their careers, and you could make an argument that they were forced to stay, based on the stifling contracts and collusion back then. We could argue that the current collective bargaining agreements are better for the players, more capitalist in nature, and all that, but the end result is it’s more difficult to maintain loyalty to teams that are changing dramatically every four years. Seinfeld doesn’t go into the inherent positives and negatives of the current systems, but he does say, with players switching teams constantly, nowadays, we’re basically cheering on laundry. My team’s laundry is better than yours.” 

“And, as I said, we’re cheering on kids young enough to be our grandchildren.” 

“I accepted that fact long ago,” A said. “I’m over that now.” 

“While we’re plucking genes,” Z said. “We should eviscerate all of the genes that clog our arteries over things we can’t control. It affects our quality of life. It affects my quality of life anyway, and life is too short to scream about the house that some eighteen-year-old kid can’t catch a pass, and some twenty-two-year-old can’t throw properly. We’re here one day, gone the next. Why don’t we just enjoy the fact that we’re alive today, and greet each day as if it’s our last.” 

“Because one day,” A said, “in the not so distant future, your team could start crossing their lines with impressive regularity, and they could prevent the other team from crossing lines with equal regularity, we could experience a championship, and I use the word we in the most sarcastic and condescending manner possible. We could experience a level of vicarious joy that is so vicarious that it could be our own. We could have our very own championship. We could buy a T-shirt that says it. “I stuck with them through all of the vicarious pain, and I am a true fan. Look, my T-shirt says it.”  

“We could jump up and down and scream, and finally be happy for once in all of the decades-long viewing experiences,” Z said. “We’ll have a day to remember for months, decades, years. You remember that day that one guy caught that football and crossed that line? What was his name again? Oh yeah, if I ever run into that guy, I’ll buy him a beer for providing me such a glorious moment in my life.” 

“Put in that context, watching sports feels pretty silly,” A said. 

“Especially when you put it into the amount of pleasure we experience as a result of us winning that championship,” Z said, “and I say us in the most sarcastic and condescending manner possible, then when we compare it to the overwhelming amount of pain experienced in all the years we don’t win a championship.” 

“In our dreams,” A said. “We rewrite the past.” 

“Speaking of which, have you ever rewritten an incident with your grade school bully?” Z asked. “It’s three in the morning, and you’re staring up at the ceiling, reliving that moment in the boy’s bathroom, and instead of passively letting the bullying go, as you did at the time, you haul off and punch him in the mouth?” 

“How many coming-of-age movies did they build around that premise?” A said. “I think we’ve all had that dream.” 

“I wake from these dreams, reliving them in real-time,” Z said. “I’m serious. In my mind, I’m twelve-years-old again, and I’m in the bathroom with that bully saying whatever silly thing he said, and I come up with a great line to put him in his place, or I drop the haymaker on his chin. I know the dream was silly the moment I wake, but I then spend the next couple hours staring at the ceiling, remembering every detail of the moment. These obsessions are so embarrassing, but I get so tied up in them that my muscles tighten up, and I’m in the throws of a minor anxiety attack, until I grab my device and watch a movie for five minutes to void my mind of it. I have to do that, or I’ll never get back to sleep.”  

“You want to know what a priest said to me? He said, ‘The best way to rid yourself of bullies is to pick the biggest one and punch him in the mouth,’ a priest, a priest, once said to me,” A said. “I didn’t expect that from a priest. “Some kids are violent,” the priest, who was our prefect of discipline, said, “and to avoid violence, some of the times you have to learn how to be violent.” Can you believe he said that to a sixteen-year-old kid? Then he said, “I know it’s hard and scary and all that, but it might give you some confidence, and animals can smell confidence.” 

“So, what did you do?” 

“I didn’t punch the guy,” A said. “He was bigger than me. He would’ve annihilated me. I couldn’t believe a priest, someone who should be married to pacifist principles, said that to me. He concluded by saying, “I could say something to these kids, but I think you handling this yourself will be better for you long-term.”  

“So, what we have here is a young you at an existential crossroads in life,” Z said. “Nerd punches bully, nerd’s whole life turns out different. I understand that this is an exaggerated cinematic assessment but I think there might be some elements of truth in it.”  

“The alternative route should also involve that nerd being fully prepared to have his bottom kicked. That’s the alternative reality. That’s the harsh reality of such situations that no one wants to talk about when discussing these matters theoretically. That dream you talk about involves the nerd delivering a haymaker that sends his bully flying into a rattling trashcan, but the reality is that 200-pound bully has two older brothers who punch him all the time. He’s used to getting punched, and he loves to fight. The nerd is 160 pounds, soaking wet, and he’s never been in a real fight before. He probably had to punch twice to kill a housefly. In his dreams, this punch is the shot-heard-around-the-world. In reality, the bully takes this haymaker and turns on the nerd with menace, and the nerd ends up being violently placed in that trashcan. No one remembers the punch. They just remember him sitting in that trash can with injuries that require a soft diet for a decade. I’m exaggerating, but no one would’ve remembered his haymaker. 

“How does a small teenager deal with a bully then?” 

“I wish I found a universal answer that would work for all parties concerned,” A said, “but there isn’t one. The answer is there is no particular answer. The answer is it’s situational. The answer to ending bullying is as complicated and situational as starting a friendship. The playground is a jungle. There are hierarchal structures and moves for advancement on the playground that are similar to any in the jungle, and that metaphor extends to high school too. There are times when a kid needs to fight back to establish themselves somewhere in the hierarchical structure of the playground, and there are times when a kid should demure and concede to his or her station in the jungle.” 

“Some kids overreact to every slight imaginable, and bullies love that,” Z said. “They end up doing more harm than good. Kids, like adults, love to get a rise out of us, and if you’re well-known for reacting to every slight, they’ll drop the hammer on you harder and more often.” 

“It’s because they’re desperate to make it stop,” A said. “I tried to tell my friends how to manage it better, but it’s difficult to foresee strategic reactions when we just want to do anything we can to make it stop.” 

“I know it’s anecdotal, but I know a woman who was never bullied as a kid,” Z said. “She was so beautiful that everyone wanted to like her, and everyone wanted to be liked by her. She’s now an adult who doesn’t take kind-hearted teasing well. She takes it to heart, because no one ever teased her before. My question, is is there some merit to bullying?”  

“That depends of course,” A said. “Bullying is a broad term. If we’re talking about simple teasing that’s one thing, but we all know how far some can take it. It’s a tool of dominance as evident as any other kind of display in the animal kingdom. If we were able to vacate it from human existence, I don’t see any negatives coming from that.” 

An Unsually Unusual Mind


Have you ever heard someone say something so weird it shocked you? Have you ever heard someone say something that you thought not even a weird person would say? They might think it, but they wouldn’t say it. They’d fear everyone knowing how weird they were. 

“Doesn’t, he have cable?” someone asked in the aftermath of the shocking statement. We laughed. We all laughed, hard. We laughed because that line captured what we were all thinking. We had cable TV, and it shaped and molded our expectations of one another. We unconsciously expected everyone to know their station, and if one of us was unable to maintain a level of sameness, we expected them to conceal it beneath layers of shame and fear. Xavier McVie didn’t appear to care about any of that.

“He is not weird,” someone responded with some accusation in her voice. “He just says weird stuff.” She wasn’t defending Xavier. She didn’t like Xavier, so we knew she wasn’t defending him. She was implying that ‘he wishes he was weird, but he’s not’. Why would anyone wish they were weird, we wondered. There was something to it we knew, because Xavier seemed normal most of the time, but he’d drop these thoughts on us so often that her characterization of Xavier McVie seemed to be a decent category for him.

Some say that the need to label, categorize, or judge our peers is wrong, but it’s kind of what we do. Our brain is the primary weapon we have against powers foreign and domestic. It’s what separates us from the rest of the animals, and we use judgment to enhance our quality of life and in some cases our survival. If a lion slaughters a gazelle in an unorthodox manner, other lions might take note, but it doesn’t affect their perception of that lion. They don’t care how another lion takes a gazelle down. They just want to eat. Humans, on the other hand, care very much when, where, and why our fellow humans act the way they do. We want to know who to befriend, how to befriend, and if we should avoid certain people for our own self-preservation. 

Anyone who knows someone who is handicapped knows that most of us avoid them as if their ailment is contagious. We might sympathize with their plight in life, but we don’t want to be around them. We prevent our children from staring or asking questions, and we move away swiftly. We do the same with those we consider weird. “He’s just weird,” we say to explain why we avoid them. “He’s just too weird.” Why do we avoid the weird? Why do we tell others to avoid them? When they introduce weird ideas to us, we don’t want to know how they arrived at that idea. We don’t want to discuss their novel approach to living. We shield our children from them and move away swiftly. We think we have a certain hold on reality, and human nature, and anyone who introduces us to the depths of their experience provides us an outlook that if we stare too long at it, it might start looking back at us.

Most truly bent people don’t want to do this to us anymore than they want to do it to themselves. They don’t want people to avoid them. They strive to fit into our longitudes and latitudes and platitudes, but some don’t. Some don’t care what we think, and when it’s a punk ethos we respect it. When it doesn’t have anything to do with a militant need to shatter our illusions and delusions, we’re confused. We don’t know how to put our finger on it. We need something to help us understand. We develop something, such as a dartboard as a visual display, to explain it, so we don’t have to yawn our way through theoretical exposition. 

The center of this dartboard, the bull’s eye area, is absolute normalcy. For all that Xavier McVie said, we knew he was normal, so we placed him between the triple score area and the bull’s eye. Russell Hannon’s eccentricities, on the other hand, were more organic, and his efforts were geared toward being considered normal by the rest of us. This placed him between the triple score area and the outer reaches of the dartboard where the double score area lies. In each of the little boxes on the dartboard, we listed some of the characteristics that defined the individuals we attempted to categorize. Why are some people slightly off the trail? Some have minor brain malfunctions, others have brain chemical deficiencies in certain areas, and still others have such unusual upbringings that they accept certain other norms as truths. The rest of the little boxes contained a description of a different characteristic that leads to unusual thinking.

Another instrumental characteristic of the visual display the dartboard provides are the borders that divide the various rings and boxes. These borders not only helped us define normal vs. the abnormal, but they illustrate the obstacles an abnormal person must pass to achieve a more normal perception. Abnormal people know these borders well, and they’ve spent most of their life trying to overcome them. They’ve had unusual, strange, and absurd thoughts their whole life, and it takes some effort on their part to keep them unknown. They know that saying such things aloud might serve to reinforce their borders, so they learn to just stop saying them. To attempt to eviscerate the dartboard borders before them, they also exaggerate the normal characteristics they’ve learned by watching other, more normal people. Their goal, of course, is the middle of the dartboard, an arbitrary and relative definition of absolute normal, and to near it they begin to act hyper-normal. 

Normal is a relative term, of course, and it invites all sorts of questions about what is normal and abnormal. Defenders will suggest there is no such thing as absolute normal, as there are no absolutes. It’s a valid argument when it comes to characteristics, but for the purpose of this exercise let’s say that, at least by comparison, we’re normal.

The normal often seek anything but. We enjoy weird music, sayings, conclusions, and anything else that is weird excites us because it is different from everything normal. “Normal is boring,” we shout out to the spectators who wish they were half as normal as us. We don’t understand the plight of the abnormal, and we take our normalcy for granted. We want to escape what we consider its confining borders. 

The abnormal avoid anything weird, and they avoid it like the plague, which to them it almost is. It’s a mindset that has chased them throughout their lives. They seek an antidote in others. They watch us and imitate us, hoping that the rest of the world might consume them and confuse them with us, the more normal. They take our characteristics, the characteristics of their other friends and family, and the characteristics of that guy they ran into at the bar who seemed so normal that they almost envied him, and they stir them in a big pot and exaggerate them to display characteristics we might call hyper-normal, so someone, somewhere might accidentally confuse them with normal.  

Those of us who are fascinated by the borders between normal and abnormal among our peers don’t search for these characteristics. Our default thought is that everyone is at least as normal as we are, until we learn otherwise. The effort to achieve hyper-normal characteristics are often less than organic, however, and they have a way of eventually betraying their host when they least expect it. 

We all love music, and we use it as a barometer to gauge those around us. We use it to define who is cool and nerdy or hip and old-fashioned. We might think this is relegated to high school, but in many ways, we never leave high school.  

Our initial inclination might be that weird people love weird music, but here’s where the norms seeking the weird and vice versa come into play. This is where normal people say, “Normal is boring!” to escape their border. Weird music  satisfies their temporary aesthetic need for contrast. Those on the outside looking in, listen to more normal music with hope. By listening to normal music with normal lyrics that deal with normal hopes, they hope to keep strange and weird ideas out of their heads, because they’ve made so much progress toward the center that they don’t want to risk taking a step back, even if it is only in the arena of impressions. The music they enjoy is so normal that one might define it as hyper-normal. What is normal music? There’s no definitive answer of course, but if more people are listening to a certain kind of music doesn’t that make it more normal? It might not to you and I, but what does it mean to a person hoping to leave a more normal impression?  

The abnormal might consult Billboard charts or a listing of downloads. “Think about it, how many people listen to your favorite artist?” they might ask. “How many people listen to mine? Who’s the freak now?” The favored artist of the abnormal sell millions of albums and millions downloads. “That artist is my favorite, and I’m going to tell the world about it.” They don’t want to listen to weird music, but they also don’t want us to know they listened to it, because they fear someone, somewhere might think they enjoyed it. 

Those of us who competed with one another to find weird music grew up listening to the staples, and we eventually grew bored with them. We went through all the phases, perpetually seeking something different, until we arrived at the most unusual music you’ve probably ever heard.  

Most of those outside our tight circle of music aficionados did not enjoy the music we shared with them. They said they didn’t get it, and some of them said it was just too weird. “This is what you’re listening to?” they said with some disdain. Their rejections were mostly fun, polite, and the good-natured type of ribbing that says, “I don’t know how normal you can be listening to that. That ain’t normal.” 

Russell Hannon’s reaction to our music was not fun or polite. His reaction was so over-the-top obnoxious that he left us all silently staring at him, then one another in its aftermath. Did he just accidentally reveal everything he spent years concealing from us? We didn’t know at the time. At the time, we were left with ‘What was that?’ expressions on our faces. It was one of those type of reactions that everyone uses to connect all the various dots they saw before and after the reaction to form some sort of impression. 

“That’s the weirdest [stuff] I’ve ever heard,” he said so loud that we couldn’t help but look around to see who he was screaming at. “How can you listen to [stuff] like that?” Later, when others agreed to listen to our music, he privately warned them to avoid actually playing it in their disc player. “It’s just so weird. You’ll hate it.“

“Why didn’t you just say you don’t care for my music?” we said in the aftermath of all that. “Why did you have to make such a show of it?” 

He said some stuff that we can’t remember, but our initial inclination was to view his obnoxious rejection of our music as a personal condemnation, and that he wanted to make defamatory statements about us that he wanted our co-workers to echo. What we didn’t understand at the time was that it had less to do with the music or his preferences and more to do with his intent to use our music as a platform to inform those in our world that he was so many levels closer to normal than we were. He wanted to stand atop us in this world of perceptions and declare that he would never deign to listen to our weird music ever again, and they shouldn’t either. That music, he said through actions not words, is not for we normal folk. 

As a result, when Xavier McVie joined our team, we were a little sheepish about lending our music to him. Especially after he and Russell Hannon made something of a connection. We expected Xavier to reject our music in the same vein Russell did. When Xavier didn’t just enjoy our music, but he tried to top it, it surprised us all. He would lend us equally strange music that he considered better. We knew music as a barometer of cool and uncool, but we never considered it an indicator of the various levels of sanity. We still didn’t consider it a comprehensive reflection on Russell’s sanity, but it was a dot in a landscape of dots that informed us Russell’s hold on sanity was a lot more tentative than any of us suspected. If a truly weird person was off the cliff, in other words, Russell Hannon was clinging to the edge screaming for us to help him before he falls. We didn’t know where Xavier McVie was in this analogy, when he not only embraced our music but tried to top it with weirder music, but we thought he might have an unusually unusual mind. 

***

We met a number of unusual thinkers before and after Xavier McVie. When we met them, we were so fascinated and excited that we developed a bad habit of interrogating them. “Why did you do that?” we would ask some, and “Why do you think that?” we would ask others. These initial Q&A’s were friendly and polite, but our innate curiosity drove us to ask questions beyond the why to the how. How did you arrive at that line of thought, and most of the insecure didn’t react well to this line of questioning.

“I’m sorry, but your line of thinking is just so unusual that I want to know everything I can about it,” we said. Most of them were still insulted that we would insinuate that they were, in any way, weird.

“You think I’m weird? What about you?” they asked.

Until we could establish our genuine curiosity, most people were combative.

In the face of our unusual brand of polite, patient interrogation, some unusual thinkers begin to wilt and eventually become insulted. Most people don’t see anything wrong with their thought processes, as it’s the only thing they’ve ever known. Some, very few, became as intrigued with their thought process as we were.  

When we found the few willing participants we did, over decades of this casual intrigue, we found that it often takes unusual thinkers a long time to find the source their unusual thoughts, if they ever do. The one thing in our favor is that most people love to talk about themselves, even if they don’t consider themselves as weird, strange, and just plain different as we do.  

Of those who responded well to our questions about the source of their unusual thinking, some suggested that a break might have occurred as a result of an incident. Two of them cited a traumatic episode in their life that they considered so shocking that it might’ve changed their way of thinking. One was a shockingly horrific car accident, and the other suggested it might be the premature death of a loved one who guided them philosophically in life. Most of the people who agreed that they had an unusual take on life, and that it might be based on some experience in life, had a more difficult time arriving at a source than Xavier did. Xavier was quick with it, though he was as suspicious about it as we were.

“I don’t think I had some psychological break or bend away from the norm, as you put it,” Xavier McVie said. “If I did, I think it might’ve had something to do with a young girl enticing me to try some LSD when I was far too young and not equipped to handle it. She was a teenage girl. Her name was Mary, and when she offered it to me, and two other guys, I was barely a teen myself. I was the only one of us with the courage,” and he said that with air quotes, “and I now say stupidity, to take it. Mary was an older girl. She was probably two years older, but she had all the things boys like. I thought a lot was on the line when she offered it to me. I thought it might change the course of our friendship, in ways a teenage boy hopes to advance their friendship with girls. When I took it, it changed me. I know it goes against the science on we have on drugs, but I swear the reaction I had lasted years. The way I see it, I was a normal, happy boy on a Thursday, and on Friday I was an angry teenager who felt so abnormal that I hated myself.

“Some called it a bad trip,” Xavier continued. “I hated those two words for years. You don’t understand, I would say. I’ve read a lot about reactions to controlled substances since then, and I’ve read that reactions are so varied that there is no consensus on how people will react. The brain is so different that some say it’s almost impossible to know how someone will react. Some are more susceptible to bad trips than others are. It took about twenty minutes for the LSD to really hit, but when it did I went through a lot. I went through every horrible experience I had in life in real time, and when I say real time, I mean real time. I relived the experiences as if I was going through them all over again. ‘That’s the definition of a bad trip,’ they said as if I should just say, “Oh!” and move on in life. “You don’t understand,” I told one of the people who said that, “I came out of that experience different.”

“My mom even noticed it,” Xavier continued. “She said, ‘What is wrong with you these days. You used to be such a happy boy.’ She thought it was the teen years, or some after-effects from my dad’s death. She sent me to a psychiatrist and all that, but it didn’t help. I never told my mom or the psychiatrist about the LSD. I probably should’ve, but it scared me so much that I wanted to put it behind me, as if it never happened. It might’ve been the dad thing, the teenager thing, or all of those things, but that experiment with LSD changed me so much in such a short time frame that I think I came out of it different. I relived so much, and experienced such nasty effects on that drug that it scared me.”   

Three other willing participants of our polite interrogation cited an experience with drugs, similar to Xavier’s except one suggested it was the morphine a doctor prescribed and the other suggested she had a “bad reaction” to the lidocaine a dentist used before a dental procedure. The last one we talked to before he met Xavier, cited a shocking moment when an authority figure betrayed their relationship with them in a life-altering way.  

As we wrote, most of those we grilled in polite, casual, and lengthy Q&A’s didn’t think there was anything wrong with them. Most of those who agreed that they were unusual thinkers didn’t think there was ever an incident or episode that drove them to think different, but some of those who did eventually arrived at an answer. Whether or not it was the answer is debatable, of course, but they thought they had an answer. The idea that these people exaggerated the effect these episodes had on them is probable, as it’s difficult to imagine that one incident, no matter how horrific or traumatic, can change a person so completely, but they thought it did. The first question we asked ourselves was, what if it didn’t? What if they exaggerated their reaction to an incident, an episode, or a drug, for an answer? The question we ask ourselves now, looking back on all of these Q&A’s is, is it better and healthier for an Xavier McVie to have an answer regarding his break from reality, even if it’s not 100% accurate? Should we have informed him that his suspicions were correct and that the myth about a 20-year flashback is just that, a myth. Russell Hannon, would’ve never sat down for a Q&A. He was so convinced he was the absolute center of normalcy, the bull’s eye of normalcy, that it would’ve been pointless to even ask him about his mindset. Russell and Xavier were both unusual thinkers, but does Xavier have a better chance at maintaining a relative level of normalcy, because he lists an incident that led him to some bend in his way of thinking? Even if it could be proven untrue? Is it better for him to have answer to explain it, because if he knows the trail from, it might put him back on the path back to.

Everything from Z to A: Hating the Hypocrite


“‘He’s a hypocrite, and I hate hypocrites!’” Z said imitating a woman complaining about someone. The tone Z used to imitate the speaker informed A that Z had no respect her complaint. “Wait a second, so you’re philosophically pure? Let me guess, this hypocrite is someone who won’t let you do something. I’m also going to guess that the two of you know that you’re going to do it anyway, because you’re a grown woman who can do whatever she wants, but you know you’re going to feel guilty about it. Calling them a hypocrite is your super-secret way of breaking them down, so you transfer to him whatever guilt you might feel for doing it anyway.” 

“You said all that to her?” A asked. 

“Of course not,” Z said, “but I wanted to, and she seemed like the type of person who needed to hear it.”  

“I no longer ask who is hypocritical,” A said. “I now ask who is not? Seriously, it’s such a malleable charge that we’re all vulnerable to it. The idea that anyone practices what they preach 100% of the time is just silly. Some might be more hypocritical than others, of course, but we’re all vulnerable to the charge. Anytime I hear someone say something like, ‘I hate hypocrites!’ My first thought is, I know I could nail you on something, and I know you could nail me. It’s such a situational charge that I just don’t take it serious anymore. 

“Hypocrite.”

“Funny.”

“If we had a third party sitting here,” Z said. “You couldn’t, ‘No, you’re a hypocrite’ me. That would be childish, and you’d know it, so I’d win. By accusing you of being a hypocrite first, I would insulate myself from the charge.”

“How many of us evaluate the person making the charge?” A asked. “How many of us analyze their motivations? We’re more apt to get behind the indignant and righteous raised fist of the speaker.” 

“We might call this psychological projection, and we might also wonder if the projector suffers from some faulty wiring that could lead to a fire if we don’t inspect for narcissism?” 

“Narcissism is another charge I hear bandied about.” 

“How do we lose contact with external realities?” Z said. “Narcissism lines most low-level impairments, and they can be resolved with some acknowledgement of narcissism.”   

“Narcissism might be as situational and malleable a charge as hypocrisy,” A said. 

“It could be,” Z agreed, “but wouldn’t that put us in some kind of obscene circle.” 

“With everyone labeling the person to their left a synonym of imposter?” 

“The imposter synonyms,” Z said, “or the imposter syndrome?” 

“The imposter syndrome is more of an internal psychological concept we use to explain those who feel guilty for achieving something,” A said. “Who am I to achieve this level of success? Everyone is going to eventually find out that I’m a fraud. A syndrome tends to be more internal, but when we project it outward to others, we might want to call it a phenomenon. The imposter phenomenon.” 

“Whatever the name is,” Z said. “When we project it outwards, we’re saying everyone to the left of us is a fraud, an imposter, a hypocrite, everyone except me.” 

“And that comes equipped with its own level of insecurity,” A said. “I might not be much, but at least I’m not an imposter, or a fraud, like you. Then, we have those who get behind us when we make these charges of hypocrisy or narcissism, and we form groups against the other. Divided we stand. Divided we fall.” 

“But we prefer to fall strong,” Z said, “we fall stronger than we would be if we stood alone. Charges like hypocrisy can unify. Let’s say you didn’t get a promotion because another was more qualified. We could sit around and be sad, or we could get righteously indignant, and what better way to get angry than to have a group get behind us and all the charges we level.” 

“And they don’t have to be true.” 

“They have to be so true to us that we believe it though,” Z said. “That’s essential. We can give excuses, but most of us don’t believe our own excuses. We need something we know to be true, in our hearts, even if it isn’t. Why did Gene hire Joel over me, because Gene is a fraud, hypocrite, imposter! “Sing it sister!” the group shouts, and that vindication and validation gives us a sinister smile.

“I’ve seen it too,” Z continued, “They weave some powerful yarns that they believe. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be so convincing. The yarn they weave is so beautiful that I would love to believe it too. I don’t want to think anything is my fault. I don’t want to think I didn’t receive that promotion because I didn’t have a quality resume, or I didn’t perform well in the interview. I don’t care who you are, rejection hurts, and it’s a painful reminder that I have to improve. Rather than go through all that work, I would much rather believe that there is something wrong with them. There was something wrong with my parents that led me to be the person I am. There’s something wrong with all those girls who rejected my advances. Wouldn’t we all love to live in a world where none of our faults were our fault?”

“I don’t know if it’s because our boss has bosses, and an employee handbook to back him up, but these accusations are less effective in the work place,” A said. “They’re much more effective in the home though. I’m not entirely sure what drives it, but parents seem to care when their kids comment on their performance.” 

“It’s the parent trap,” Z said. “Some parents feel handcuffed by it. I don’t know if it’s repetitive messaging from the movies or what have you, but some people parent their child with a fear that they might one day call them a hypocrite. Who cares, I say. I know I’m different, but I don’t care if my kid calls me a name. I actually relish it when my kid floats his trial balloons. “I hate you,” he says. I laugh, because I know he’s feeling me out and seeing what works best for him. I know I’m different, but I cannot view it as a serious condemnation. Some parents do, they stop the music and say things like, ‘Don’t say you hate me Johnny that hurts mommy’s feelings.’ Screw your feelings, Eloise. Your job is to raise a child into a decent adult.”  

“If it’s in the child’s best interest to follow your rules,” A added. “Your conviction should be solid.” 

“Exactly,” Z said. “You mean to tell me that because I abused alcohol in my youth that I can’t tell my kid not to, because he might hear some stories about my years of drunken debauchery one day and call me a hypocrite. I have no problem with that. I’ll sleep with the same grin I do every night. My experience with alcohol abuse leads me to believe it’s destructive. They say alcohol abuse is genetic, others argue that it has more to do with the climate we were raised in. I don’t know the answer to that, but I want my child to end that legacy. Why wouldn’t I do everything I can to end it, regardless the short-term taints it might have on my presentation? Alcohol abuse is not a divisive issue as most people aren’t against it, but when these parents who abused alcohol in their younger years, debate whether to tell their children not to do the same, do they think their integrity is on the line? If it is, what’s more important, your integrity or your child’s health? 

“Are you going to let your kid talk back to you, because you talked back to your parents?” Z continued. “Ok, she’ll grow up with no respect for authority. You’re going to excuse your child for misbehavior in school, because you misbehaved in school. All because you fear them calling you a hypocrite? As I said, the arrows eventually arrow back to narcissism, and in this case, it’s narcissist to try to achieve some sort of philosophical purity at the expense of your child’s mental health and well-being.”  

“If you need a device, and some parents do,” A added, “tell them what alcohol abuse did to you. Tell them the stories of what happened to you, how many stupid things you said and did while loaded. Tell them about how many days of your life you missed due to hangovers. Tell them how at one point, you couldn’t picture hanging out with friends without alcohol.” 

“Don’t worry about being a hypocrite, a fraud, or an imposter,” Z added, “because you’re going to be all of the above when they want something.” 

“Time heals all wounds,” A said. “I hate to use a cliché here, but it’s really true. There will be times when you are all of the above. You’re flawed and I’m flawed, and we will make mistakes. If we spend more time with them, it will more than make up for any mistakes we make along the way.” 

“And don’t obsess over those mistakes,” Z added. “Don’t worry about being a philosophically pure parent, a cool parent, or their friend. Just be a parent to them.”