Extremes of wealth, fame, and beauty can all be intimidating. To use an example of being tongue tied by fame, I was once introduced at a reception to PM Margaret Thatcher . She said "How do you do" My brilliant reply was to imitate a recording device and respond with my own "How do you do?' She quickly moved on.
Guess what — Margaret Thatcher and Elizabeth Windsor only had to do that about five million times in their lives. I think they were more than happy with a simple, "How do you do."
Billionaire [herein, "B"] slams the front door of the Friends' house and stomps down the steps of the broad front portico. coming down the steps, he swipes at and kills a white cabbage butterfly. Muttering darkly, his face slightly twitching and sheened with sweat, he lodges his bullish body into the front seat of his car ("It's a McLaren, special ordered -- I'm one of only five people in the fucking world who owns this car. It cost $4 million, but so the fuck what?"). To the west, the sun is almost down, casting a gorgeous and generous mess of color somewhere over Sag Harbor, making this the 19,897th sunset in a row that B has pointedly not noticed ("I'm gonna waste my fucking time looking at what? The sky??"). .
B continues to mutter as he drives at a heedless rate of speed toward East Hampton village.
"Do those fucking Moochers know how much I'm worth? And that fucking actor. Probably he's a feggellah."
B places a call.
"Good evening, Nic and Toni's"
"It's [B]."
"Oh! Hello, Mr. B! How are you, what can we --"
"Listen: I'm coming in tonight."
"Great! Your usual table? We're a little busy, but what time --"
"You don't understand. I'm coming in -- and I want to be alone."
[pause]
"Juist you, tonight, well, of course that's not a prob --"
"Listen: shut up and listen. I'm coming in alone and I want to BE alone when I get there. Meaning: no one else."
[pause]
"Mr. B, we have 72 people seated here now, and we're pretty much fully --"
"I . . . said . . . EVERYONE!!!!" [a la Gary Oldman in the Professional] "Everyone leaves! I don't care how many MOOCHERS you got there."
[very uncomfortable pause]
"Mr. B, that's just not --"
B. speaks very quietly and slowly:
"$10,000 for each Moocher you get the fuck out of there. $10,000. "
[pause]
"One minute Mr. B. . . . "
[pause]
"Yes, sir. that will be fine. We will expect you soon?"
"I'll get there when I get there. I want a roast chicken. And one more thing."
"Sir?"
"Those Roberteses? There's never a table for those Moochers at your place, do you understand?"
[pause . . .sigh]
"Yessir, Mr. B."
The McLaren continues westward toward the unseen dying sun.
My brother and you have taken Mr. B. to a whole new level! I loved this.
Those cornfields are a scary setting. I'm a Stephen King (older stuff) groupie so inevitably Children of the Corn came to mind. But you made it eerie and frightening without needing the evil kids!
I saw my brother last night, and we were talking about your comment. He said you succeeded in making him feel sorry for "Mr. B." and we both agreed that was quite a writerly feat!
Or he just got in his car and called someone who would massage his ego and fawn over him until he got to some place where people would do the same and he could forget the incident, though we'd like to think he remained tormented by it.
I enjoyed this, David. Nicely structured! Vividly rendered. Good reminder of how difficult it can be to resist others' distorted representations of us, even if we know, intellectually, that the exchange is more about the other person's baggage than about us.
I'm dodging your mooching question with a craft one: why not give us the time of day and the ocean breeze and the particular slant of sun? Why not just paint the scene without calling attention to what you don't remember? My own feeling is that a little invention in scenes like this is not only permissible, but actually essential to drawing a reader into the emotional truth of a memory. I've never been to the Hamptons. Why not take me there?
I could have added the general natural appeal of the area: the clarity of the air and the expanse and light of the sky when the weather is good. The light is what attracted so many artists to spend time there.
David, it was your story to tell as you wished and I, for one, thought you did it well. There were many things I'm sure you could have done, but I think your choices and decisions, to whatever extent they were conscious (or not), were excellent for this story.
David is a painfully accurate and honest in his communication. That's sets him apart from the modern ethos and one of the things many of us value so highly in him.
Professionally speaking, what you are suggesting is polluting the historical record and that drives us professional historians purely C*R*A*Z*Y. When we spot an attempt at being “atmospheric” we instantly wonder what else is being phonied up.
I also appreciate David's honesty! And I don't want to hijack the comment thread, but what you're suggesting -- that conjuring a physical scene in memoir is "polluting the historical record" -- is pretty extreme. Memoir is not the same as history. There are many who take excessive liberties with emotional truth, but what I'm suggesting here is just to conjure the Hamptons setting truthfully rather than calling attention to what can't be remembered (which isn't actually the point of the story).
I realize that my perspective as a professional historian is not commonly held. But evaluating written evidence is what we do. And we first thing we ask ourselves is how much sauce was poured over these potatoes? In addition, we regard memoirs as potentially critical parts of the historical record, depending on how fact-based they are.
If I were not convinced that David was telling me his honest truth in every word he wrote, I wouldn't bother reading him. I also regard him a rare human being whose memory is an excellent guide to what happened, rather than an editing device.
I know it is fashionable today for psychologists to stress how people often reshape their memories. Like psychological trends in general, I think this overstresses one half of a picture. There are other people who have the problem of remembering too damn well.
The reason why I love David telling us that he could not remember the weather, is because that confirms his extreme and marvelous commitment to telling the exact truth all the time. To trade that evidence of his truth telling commitment for a literary ornament of a few phony details about the weather would be criminal IMO.
What I have realized and is very reassuring, is that I know David will not give up his truth telling because someone encourages him to add trivial phony details to his stories to make them more engaging.
The psychological phenomenon of "confabulation" is interesting: also known as "honest lying", it's the process of gap-filling that we more or less constantly practice -- we do not have a precise memory of events, but we believe that it "must have happened" a certain way. On the other end of the range, those folks who "remember too damn well" evokes the (memorable!) story by Borges, "Funes the Memorious", about a young man who relegates himself permanently to a cot in a dark room because he is wickedly cursed with having a perfect memory: once he perceives a detail, no matter how trivial, he cannto forget it, and it stays lodged in his brain along with a billion other such memories: "He knew by heart the forms of the southern clouds at dawn on the 30th of April, 1882, and could compare them in his memory with the mottled streaks on a book in Spanish binding he had only seen once and with the outlines of the foam raised by an oar in the Rio Negro the night before the Quebracho uprising."
Wow, I did not know that Borges story. Must read it!
Memoirists often artfully play with confabulation. Teresa Jordan begins a chapter of her memoir "Riding the White Horse Home" by vividly describing her father being trampled by a bull, then revealing that the event happened before her birth, but that she'd heard the story so many times that she'd come to imagine herself there at the edge of the corral, watching.
To remember is to reconstruct and to interpret. Even Borges's Funes, if he were to wrangle a narrative out of those vivid memories, would have to contend with tone, with which details to emphasize and which (if any) to exclude. There would need to be a theme, such as David's emphasis on mooching here (which has taken over many other aspects of the day that are just as much a part of the factual story). And all of us, regardless of how truthful we try to be, see the past through the prism of who we are in the present. I cannot render my Pentecostal upbringing truthfully in an objective sense because the trauma that it caused me was manna to others. I can "perhaps" my way through attempted understanding of what others found in those revival meetings, and I can render my own emotional experience accurately, but those memories will always be colored by my departure from faith later on. Had I remained a Pentecostal into adulthood, I would reconstruct and interpret those moments differently.
PS: There are two things I absolutely love about David, in which he swims against the tide of the zeitgeist— he is a compulsive do-gooder and a compulsive truth-teller. He is tortured by the fact that he cannot recall the meteorological details of that day in the Hamptons. Since David must give us all the truth all the time, it drives him crazy that he can't give us such details and be truthful. That means that this is a story that David wrote, unpolluted by current literary convention.
Well, obviously David felt frustrated enough about his inability to recall the weather that he felt compelled point it out. Obviously not being able to recall the weather felt bad to him. I used an extreme adjective to describe his frustration.
Thanks to everyone for this discussion about craft as Joshua called it. I'm more comfortable with sticking to what i can remember with confidence. And even then, as my brother Samuel who is a public defender would tell you, confident eyewitness accounts, where everything is at stake, are often wrong.
Here I know what was said and I recall the reactions.
I could have added other details to set the scene, but I wanted to preserve anonymity.
But this discussion has reinforced the valuable work that a few details can do and where I have the opportunity and the memory to add them, I will!
So again, thanks for making the comments so lively and interesting.
Joshua, be strong, be yourself, keep doing the great good you do. I'm used to being not in step. My mom used to tell me on a regular basis, and we both knew it was true: “Kathleen, you're weird.”
Point well taken, but stylistics are also a factor. There was a time when added verbiage was seen as clutter. If we busy ourselves interrogating the scene a range of conclusions about the weather arrives with some constraints. But if he were so inclined David could’ve played off that to good effect and emphasized the nastiness of the anonymous heavy: ‘...as we huddled on the porch sheltering from the gale the billionaire madman arrived and delivered his verdict...’ or something like that.
The point of the story, as you put it, had nothing to do with the Hamptons. While I might share your feeling about polluting the historical record, this was not about an historical record or about the weather or the breeze. In fact, the lack of memory of the weather in that moment quite possibly makes the point of the impact of the buffoon's behavior.
It was ten years ago, and I didn't want to make up what I didn't remember. Everything else in the post was in my memory.
The most salient features to me of that part of the world when the weather's good are the clarity of the air and the expansiveness of the sky. But I don't remember if the weather was good.
I suppose I could have added a sentence such as "When the weather is good...."
Thank you, David! I hope it wasn't rude of me to ask. Your point and Kathleen's response above have now made me want to write about invention in memoir. My feeling is that if you've been to the Hamptons, or to a particular friend's place, multiple times, you likely have reliable memories of that setting that don't have to be precisely linked to the moment you're reconstructing to be truthful. In that sense, what you'd be doing is allowing a reader to linger longer in the narrative dream, focusing on the story you're wanting to tell about the billionaire. I don't think the stakes of describing a particular slant of light that you remember from a different day as part of this memory would be terribly high, in terms of reliability. But the impact on the scene could be high.
And for the purists all it takes is a phrase like "The sky might have been overcast that day..." But I'll save the rest for another time :)
One of the wonderful things about writing is that we can each choose how we write and what we write. One of the wonderful things about reading is that we can each choose what we read. Have at it as you will.
FWIW I loved reading about what you didn’t remember. I can relate to that fuzziness of mind. It also told me that the weather wasn’t important that day. The thing that struck you was a lightening bolt in one word, moocher.
I think your suggestion misses the point and, perhaps, exactly why David didn't remember. It was irrelevant to the moment and David was focused on the experience and sharing that with us. It was not about the Hamptons at all. What you are describing would have been a different writing entirely.
I thought it was refreshing and rhetorically strong for him to say he didn't remember those things. He took his time pausing to enumerate several aspects of the environment he wouldn't be telling about, which allows us to fill it in and imagine for ourselves what it might have been without needing him to tell us how it actually was, which, at any rate, isn't essential to the storytelling. I thought it was a nice meta-moment, where he acknowledges that he is telling us a story from memory and that these sorts of details might be expected at this moment in the storytelling, and he won't be providing them. It worked for me!
David, I found that you DID paint the scene of the weather with your artful “I don’t remember... “ and then enumerating specifics. It’s a clever technique... !
I'm just thinking about how rare this occurrence was: It makes me think of the only time a sitting American president was arrested and taken for booking. President Ulysses Grant, a lover of fast horses, was arrested in Washington, DC, for driving his carriage over the speed limit and was taken to the police station. He paid his fine.
What a rare opportunity to step on a billionaire's ego and make him small, an opportunity arises usually only with waitresses and desk clerks!
Two enthusiasts in deep conversation are likely to be rude to others, but the facts that the billionaire was involved is a one in a million happenstance. That is why royalty are announced before they enter a room to prevent this sort of social crack up.
Also, there have been many blessed instances of marriage where both parties felt they were getting more out of the arrangement than they could possibly give to it. Both parties just might feel like moochers. So much nicer than the opposite set of feelings.
Also, I'm sure your Hampton Friends felt enriched by your presence. What was the alternative? Sitting alone in a nice beach house with no fresh amusement whatsoever?
An example of astonishingly bad and petty behaviour. Sadly, there are always examples of people who believe that they are entitled to a certain position in society, and others are not.
The elaborate manners adopted by Victorian's in the 19th Century were designed to show who 'belonged' in higher society. If you made vast amounts of money you may have been reluctantly admitted to the sidelines. But since you were not tutored from childhood in the subtleties of upper class behaviour and manners, your ignorance made sure you never fit in.
Moocher. What a superlatively imprecise, yet hurtful word. Did he mean you were a parasite? One presumes that is his intention, yet friendship is not parasitism. In its generally accepted form it is mutually beneficial exchange. The interloper could have called you friends, as in "I see you have friends, of whom I don't approve." But that would have inserted him into the transaction. By calling you a moocher he avoided doing that but still inserted his own value judgement. A perfectly horrid thing to do. He sounds like someone who is insecure but whose insecurity intrudes on others in a painful manner for no apparent reason. Would be this someone who went into politics? He reminds me of politicians i have known.
David- I wonder why you felt the need to describe or label the man in your piece as a billionaire, because the character traits you describe could easily be found in any overly self important person filled with insensitivity and perhaps insecurity and a meanness of spirit. The source of his "brutish" behavior and his lack of interest in reading (and, probably, certain types of learning) does not necessarily correlate just to billionaires, although there is no question that in every strata- including writers of well received literature, self importance and entitlement can creep into the psyche of one who achieves great success. This is as true at the easel as on the playing field, on the stage or in the science lab . These traits are well found with people of less financial success, as well, but you have clearly fixated on his economic achievements, as if to condemn all billionaires, or the class of billionaires as necessarily brutish, insensitive or incurious about literature, and perhaps, the broader "arts". While it is true that many billionaires achieved great wealth (assuming it was not inherited) by an extraordinary focus and determination that may have limited how "well rounded" they are, a great many others achieved success precisely because of extraordinary talent at making sense of the complexity of the world and being open to new ideas and experiences which they have translated to great success. While talent and intelligence are not simply correlated to great success, you seem to be suggesting the the "billionaire class" is necessarily boorish, insensitive, self important, and generally unappealing, whereas my observation is that many of the most successful people in the world are so successful precisely because of their ability to work with people and inspire others in the common purpose of their enterprise. Perhaps you could explain why, of all the ways you could have characterized this unlikeable person, you labelled his financial achievements rather than his off-putting personality traits, because those traits are sadly found in abundance in every economic strata of our society and in every level of achievement. I couldn't help but wonder if you had unwittingly become an accomplice of those who would suggest that if you are rich, then by definition you must have stolen or lied your way to the top. My experience is that many, but certainly not all people of great success achieved their success because of high moral character and an unusual ability to inspire others to work in common purpose and that the larger the organization and success the more likely the leader had to be of high character and good personality or he (or she) would not have been able to inspire so many people to row in the same direction with common purpose to achieve so much. I am manifestly not trying to argue for the moral superiority of those who have achieved great success, nor that they are necessarily more likely to be of good manners, decent character or exhibit high-levels of sensitivity and intellectual depth and breadth. Such traits are found in every level of our society and at every level of economic success, but I would argue vehemently that achieving any level of great success, whether in science, politics, the arts, or even billionaire status in business does not more likely correlate with low morals, insensitivity, or boorishness, because sadly, there is enough of those traits to be spread throughout our society. Best Michael
I believe in this case, it was the person's wealth status that made him behave the way he did. Not all very wealthy people are entitled boors. And of course we tend to hear about the ones that are. The quiet ones aren't very interesting. That said, over the past few months, I've noticed a lot of very wealthy people behaving in what i consider unseemly ways. For example, all the wealthy or famous people who were part of Jeffrey Epstein's circle.
I'd include the wealthy people like Bill Ackman and Marc Rowan who have flailed about with their checkbooks. I thought what they did so publicly was bad behavior. Egos unchecked often lead people astray, and wealthy people are more likely than others to have their egos unchecked.
Finally, we should expect more from the wealthy and the privileged. They should be role models rather than fodder for gossip about their infidelities and outrageous behavior.
I had no problem with you describing the antagonist as a billionaire because I think it was relevant to the story. But I don't know if you adequately address Michael's other argument here about finding good/bad traits in every level of society.
"That said, over the past few months, I've noticed a lot of very wealthy people behaving in what i consider unseemly ways. For example, all the wealthy or famous people who were part of Jeffrey Epstein's circle."
What about non-billionaires who have acted unseemly over the past few months? Do you think billionaires have acted more unseemly than others over the past few months? And as you said, the media will only cover the billionaires acting poorly (survivorship bias / recency bias). How can we expect every member of any group of 3,000 people to act properly at all times? Take 3,000 priests or nurses or non-profit lawyers or Substack writers and cover them as closely as billionaires are covered, and I wonder what infidelity or outrageous behavior is uncovered among some of them.
"I'd include the wealthy people like Bill Ackman and Marc Rowan who have flailed about with their checkbooks. I thought what they did so publicly was bad behavior. Egos unchecked often lead people astray, and wealthy people are more likely than others to have their egos unchecked."
It's a stretch to argue what Bill Ackman and Marc Rowan did is in the same category as Jeffrey Epstein / infidelity / outrageous behavior. But either way, Bill Ackman and Marc Rowan used their assets (platforms and checkbooks) to fight for what they think is right. Don't other groups do the same thing with what's available to them whether through strikes or protests or speech or (smaller) checkbooks? Are you saying when billionaires do it, it's wrong? But what about other groups fighting for change? Are billionaires worse?
"Finally, we should expect more from the wealthy and the privileged. They should be role models rather than fodder for gossip about their infidelities and outrageous behavior."
Here you are attributing the fault to billionaires when the media (and I guess society) is to blame as well for covering the poor behavior more than the good behavior of billionaires. And, why should we expect less gossip / infidelity / outrageous behavior from the wealthy and the privileged than other classes? What groups of people would you have us excuse more infidelity / outrageous behavior from, for example?
I don't have the data to refute your or Michael's assertion that bad behavior is just as likely at any strata of society.
I do think, however, that with great wealth or fame or influence comes greater responsibility to be a role model than the average person. That's a values comment, and it's debatable.
I also believe that when you have power to influence, you should be more careful of what you say and how you act. When I was Chair of RCS. I was very careful about what I said about everything, because I knew that my words carried more weight merely because of my position.
I agree that the people who consorted with Epstein are in a different category than Ackman or Rowan, and I should have made that clear.
Your post and subsequent responses have clearly struck a nerve, generating a record response for good reason. Kudos to Andrew for his insightful rebuttal. It’s evident that interpretations of a writer's intent can vary, with some readers perceiving unintended biases or perspectives.
Your article’s repetitive use of "billionaire" as the sole descriptor for the main subject (15 times by my count) is striking. Josh Blumenthal writes in his comment "I did not get the impression that he was attacking an entire group". I respectfully disagree. Had another author used the term “Jew” 15 times or “Black man” 15 times, a reader could reasonably conclude the author was an antisemite or racist (of course I am not suggesting anything remotely like this in your case), and I do think you are making an attack on the billionaire class (whether intended or not), even if you are not accusing EVERY member of that class of the kind of behavior you cite. One might infer a critique of the insensitivity, entitlement self-importance and perhaps even boorishness often exhibited by those with great wealth (or success, fame or power). While not every billionaire may embody these traits, it seems you are railing against behavior you have too often observed from too many billionaires. Sometimes such types of critiques can be amplified by unconscious jealousies, envies or even a reflection of the road not taken. Or perhaps such antipathy can be exaggerated when one sees in others the price paid to succumbing to the false idols of wealth, fame, success or power. You strike me as the very opposite of one with such jealousies or envy, but in my case, sometimes I am more attuned to the failings of those who have succeeded where I have not.
Your words provide an opportunity to reflect on the darker side of wealth and fame, where entitlement and misplaced arrogance can emerge. You mention in your reply Marc Rowan’s and Bill Ackman’s activism at Penn and Harvard, respectively, regarding both institutions failure to provide moral clarity about the rampant antisemitism exploding on their campus, and their failure to protect all of the members of their communities from growing threats including many frightened Jewish students. Your comments suggest the moral obligations and expected behavior of the wealthy. One is reminded of the notion of 'Noblesse Oblige,' suggesting that those with considerable wealth should demonstrate higher ethical standards
Interestingly, I suspect we might be largely in agreement that with fame, wealth, success and/or power comes a greater responsibility to act morally, sensitively, and to exercise power sparingly and for good purpose. We both likely rail against the dangers and distasteful pitfalls of entitlement, even though we might have nuanced differences here or there about what constitutes such behavior. But apparently where we might differ is with respect to Rowan’s and Ackman’s attempt to censure institutions they clearly care about (and to which they have been major benefactors) for behavior they and so many others found at odds with those institutions’ stated values (and rules). I find Bill Ackman's recent op-ed in the Free Press on Jan 3rd: https://open.substack.com/pub/bariweiss/p/bill-ackman-how-to-fix-harvard?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web quite commendable.
His words were, to my mind, courageous and reflected a very legitimate use of the power base from which he operates. His willingness to use his influence to address societal issues like DEI, racism and antisemitism, despite the potential backlash, is a notable example of, to my mind, using power responsibly. Yet, his case also illustrates the complexity and risks involved in exercising such power, and his wife is now paying the price. I do not have enough information to compare and contrast accusations of her plagiarism vs former President Gay’s, and if she is guilty of what she has been accused of, she, too, should pay whatever price would be the norm for such transgressions, but regardless, one has to admire Ackman’s courage to take such a stance, even if his family is now paying a heavy price.
Your article seems to relate more directly on the behavior and responsibilities of the wealthy, but prompts a broader discussion about the role of the wealthy in society and the varied impacts of their actions on broader societal issues. In a moment in time where the concentration of wealth has reached epic proportions and less than 10 (and maybe even just 3) individuals have wealth equal to the bottom half of all Americans (150 million people), I think you really have stimulated a line of inquiry about what level of wealth concentration might be ideal, and what do we really have the right to expect from the wealthy few?
Do we really want Elon Musk determining our foreign policy because he has the unilateral power to determine when Ukraine can or can’t attack Russia to save itself. Do we really want him to control the platform which could allow a future President Trump to destroy the very democracy that brought him to power?
Whether intended or not, your article raises in me concerns about the sustainability of a society where wealth is excessively concentrated, potentially undermining democratic values and societal progress. This concentration of wealth and power poses significant risks and challenges, demanding thoughtful consideration about our expectations of the powerful elite and the necessary safeguards that might be appropriate, despite the fact that I still believe capitalism to be the better system for societal progress.
Whether intended or not, your article has sparked important questions about wealth, responsibility, and the distribution of power within our society- not just what manners and levels of sensitivity we can expect from those with the most.
Thank you for this comment. It's helped me with the post I'm currently writing. One of the "bugs" in our current capitalist system is the growth of inequality. The fact of that can only be addressed by policy––a more progressive tax code and a stronger safety net. But a potentially large cause of negative feelings about the economy goes beyond the statistics of inequality and has to do with "invidious comparison" with the wealthy as they present themselves through their behavior and through social media. If young girls are being so adversely affected by seeing impossible standards of beauty all the time, then couldn't the same be said of the instagram posts and overall media coverage of the very wealthy adversely affecting the perceptions of the non wealthy?
I see David has replied and I'll read that, but I did not get the impression that he was attacking an entire group. Had he described the idiot as tall, would he have been talking about all tall men? I think it is a leap to assume his intention, particularly with such certainty.
Great comment. So true. The superintendent in my MIL’s apartment building is an arrogant prick. They come in all shapes, colors, religions and economic status.
We were all shocked by the comment. And my wife and I recall "Mr. B." leaving very quickly. We were all at a loss for a response. And it may be that our friends took him aside later. We were happy to put as much time distance between the comment and us.
David, excellent piece once again. I have never had anything much for anyone to mooch except for tools. I was a professional farrier for many years and the "tools of the trade" are expensive. People would always try to borrow them to shoe their own horses because my tools were so much better than theirs. I'm being quite serious.
One gentleman who I liked a great deal as a customer called me to borrow tools because he didn't want to pay me for just one horse, and he had seen me do it enough that he felt confident he could do it by himself. I politely said no and asked what he thought our local contractor would say if my friend asked to borrow his tools to renovate his kitchen. "Probably tell me to go to hell." was the reply.
I laughed.
You have jogged my memory about a time we had dinner at a wealthy customers house. Im going to write about it in my blog for next week. Thanks again for the piece.
I love when a comments section becomes as good as the essay itself, and opens it out into a discussion of craft and license and characterization. I’m with Joshua that a memoirist/personal essayist should have the license to create the atmosphere conducive to a story that is rooted in fact.
Agreed! What Saturday morning cartoons were a generation ago, David's comment section is on Saturday mornings for writers today. Grown-up fun. I'll put in a word for both Josh and Kathleen. Yes to atmosphere for a personal essayist, and also yes to accuracy with facts for historians. A few cues in the text (as Josh suggested last) can let us in on the stretcher if, David, you ever drag in any high, thin clouds or other scenery. I won't hold it against you. :-)
Haha. David, I'm expecting Mrs. Jellyby next week...she's perfect for you. (Take that as a challenge.) Problem here is a) you're too decent and b) like it or not, you expected a higher level of behavior from someone so. successful. You should not have. I, on the other hand, am not so nice. I would have responded, "And here he is, the self-important asshole." (I must confess that my refusal to not confront this sort of behavior makes me a great trial to my wife and likely has cost us numerous invitations.) I hate to refer to my own work...kind of...but just three days ago I wrote about how Democrats must learn to confront similar behavior from the Evangelical community. The other thing is that you were stunned by such overt rudeness...because that, in the end, is all it was...from someone convinced that wealth gave him the freedom to behave any way he pleased. Hmmm, where have we seen that before? But civility, and generosity for that matter, have nothing to do with net worth--they have a lot more to do with how comfortable a person is in his or her own skin. You are. He isn't.
The French have a great saying for what you wished later you'd had the presence of mind to say: L'esprit de l'escalier. Staircase wit. Sounds better in french!
Dickens' takedown of performative charity is great. There's also Mrs. Pardiggle who visits the poor, but does nothing for them, except annoy them with questions.
Dickens used to walk the streets of London, sometimes all night and said his characters were pulling at his coattails. Also, he could not write a character without getting the name first.
As to the other, when dealing with jerks, its vital to take their move away. In this case, it's his money, but sometimes it can be looks or celebrity. Got to let them know it doesn't matter. I have never met a bully who was not an insecure coward underneath.
Interesting piece, David. It seems to me your story isn't really about mooching, however, but about how the rich feel about people who benefit from their wealth. In this sense, "moochers" are both the "untouchables" of your world and, at the same time, the people who provide many rich people with a twisted sense of self-worth. (Your story is also about jealousy btw, which is a whole other topic!)
As an outside observer of this phenomena who has sometimes been caught in the crossfire, allow me to offer a story and a question. I'll start with the question. What is the line between being a "moocher" and the natural give and take of family and community? And - now I'm going to twist the question - how does the fear of being seen as a "moocher" impact family and friends' ability to be in community with wealthy people, and vice versa?
And here is my somewhat similar / somewhat different story. Sixteen years ago, a probable-billionaire offered my husband and me a great and unexpected gift - to host our wedding at his estate. My husband's father, a master craftsman who had recently died, had spent many years helping build the estate, so my husband accepted the offer with great joy.
And here is where the chalice became poisoned. We met before the wedding to discuss logistics and dates. At the end of the meeting, the probable-billionaire cautioned us, almost off-hand "Now, don't expect us to pay for the rest of your wedding." Of course, just as we never would have asked to have the wedding at his estate, such a thing would never have occurred to us.
From that time on, this great gift became a weight around our necks. In one casual sentence, we had moved from a young couple receiving a mitzvah on behalf of a beloved and recently departed friend, to moochers with our hats out begging for more.
In another ironic twist, we wound up supporting my husband's father's business for many years at great financial cost to ourselves. We did it because my husband couldn't bear to let this man who had been his father's close friend down by closing it. The day this business relationship ended was one of the best days of our life.
And the funny thing is, I'd bet you anything all that time this man thought we were the ones mooching off of him!
That story is so interesting in so many ways. "Poisoned chalice" is a perfect way to describe how a generous gesture can be ruined by an off hand remark. It's a great object lesson to remember to be gracious in doing any favor or giving any gift. No caveats!
I believe this perfectly describes the fundamental schism within America’s elite...eerily so...the unread, overzealous capitalists and the well read reluctant capitalists...
David - thank you for once again beautifully weaving together personal experience, universal experience & the wisdoms of writers / philosophers past. You inspire me to think and write and that is a priceless gift - thank you!
With respect to your query - yes - I’ve encountered many people - from all walks of life - like the boorish Mr. B and I always wonder - what happened to them on the playground? Did they have sand thrown at them from the sandbox? Were they the sand throwers and bullied at home? What happened to make them think ill of others and so insecure.
In Mr B’s case I’m so curious if he made his wealth driven by an insatiable need to stand out and feel big or was he born to it and made to feel as if it is what made him “him”. vs part of who he is; the former being a very fragile and hollow place to inhabit.
Regardless - thank you for treating me - and all of us - to another Saturday am deep think!
David, I have good news from the Oxford English Dictionary. Naturally, I became curious about the origins of the ugly word "mooch." It sounds like something very old. It is! In the 14th-15th centuries, some texts used the word "mooch" meaning "to be miserly," "to be a hoarder." A manuscript called "Handlyng Synne" (Handling Sin) said this of Avarice: "whan he muccheþ pryuyly Þat many man myȝt lyue by." If your billionaire hoarded (mooched) what many a man might live by, he is the mooch or moocher. Thank you, OED.
BTW, I enjoyed the back-and-forth between the story and Dickens. Skimpole! Shudders.
to return the favor, and you may already know this, but I looked up the word "spruce," used to mean all in good order and it comes from the high quality of Prussian leather in the 1500s.
Nice piece David. A side note to your billionaire encounter, but reading of Skimpole, whom I had completely forgotten about ( Bleak House was a high school read for me, mandated by The Powers That Be, and not nearly as interesting as almost anything else that happens in high school) reminded me of J.P. Donleavy’s “The Ginger Man”. It’s been “a while” (cough, er, Undergrad) since I have read that one too, but he really took the mooching life to a new level, as I recall. I suspect literature is full of that kind of character, fun as they are. Cheers.
That moocher was a childhood friend of my fathers from Harvard. He latched onto Donleavy because my parents were too poor and had children. He taught me to call myself a “phallic female” when I was three. He mooched but his stories were incredible!
Extremes of wealth, fame, and beauty can all be intimidating. To use an example of being tongue tied by fame, I was once introduced at a reception to PM Margaret Thatcher . She said "How do you do" My brilliant reply was to imitate a recording device and respond with my own "How do you do?' She quickly moved on.
Guess what — Margaret Thatcher and Elizabeth Windsor only had to do that about five million times in their lives. I think they were more than happy with a simple, "How do you do."
Billionaire [herein, "B"] slams the front door of the Friends' house and stomps down the steps of the broad front portico. coming down the steps, he swipes at and kills a white cabbage butterfly. Muttering darkly, his face slightly twitching and sheened with sweat, he lodges his bullish body into the front seat of his car ("It's a McLaren, special ordered -- I'm one of only five people in the fucking world who owns this car. It cost $4 million, but so the fuck what?"). To the west, the sun is almost down, casting a gorgeous and generous mess of color somewhere over Sag Harbor, making this the 19,897th sunset in a row that B has pointedly not noticed ("I'm gonna waste my fucking time looking at what? The sky??"). .
B continues to mutter as he drives at a heedless rate of speed toward East Hampton village.
"Do those fucking Moochers know how much I'm worth? And that fucking actor. Probably he's a feggellah."
B places a call.
"Good evening, Nic and Toni's"
"It's [B]."
"Oh! Hello, Mr. B! How are you, what can we --"
"Listen: I'm coming in tonight."
"Great! Your usual table? We're a little busy, but what time --"
"You don't understand. I'm coming in -- and I want to be alone."
[pause]
"Juist you, tonight, well, of course that's not a prob --"
"Listen: shut up and listen. I'm coming in alone and I want to BE alone when I get there. Meaning: no one else."
[pause]
"Mr. B, we have 72 people seated here now, and we're pretty much fully --"
"I . . . said . . . EVERYONE!!!!" [a la Gary Oldman in the Professional] "Everyone leaves! I don't care how many MOOCHERS you got there."
[very uncomfortable pause]
"Mr. B, that's just not --"
B. speaks very quietly and slowly:
"$10,000 for each Moocher you get the fuck out of there. $10,000. "
[pause]
"One minute Mr. B. . . . "
[pause]
"Yes, sir. that will be fine. We will expect you soon?"
"I'll get there when I get there. I want a roast chicken. And one more thing."
"Sir?"
"Those Roberteses? There's never a table for those Moochers at your place, do you understand?"
[pause . . .sigh]
"Yessir, Mr. B."
The McLaren continues westward toward the unseen dying sun.
Compassionate backstory for B. How cruelty is made.
Isabel,
My brother and you have taken Mr. B. to a whole new level! I loved this.
Those cornfields are a scary setting. I'm a Stephen King (older stuff) groupie so inevitably Children of the Corn came to mind. But you made it eerie and frightening without needing the evil kids!
I saw my brother last night, and we were talking about your comment. He said you succeeded in making him feel sorry for "Mr. B." and we both agreed that was quite a writerly feat!
Very good. This made me laugh!
The unseen dying sun. Bravo! What a scene.
Or he just got in his car and called someone who would massage his ego and fawn over him until he got to some place where people would do the same and he could forget the incident, though we'd like to think he remained tormented by it.
But I can really see the B doing it this way so that his sense of power was fully restored.
in his mind
Now, that's art, Samuel. Definitely putting lipstick on the story.
Was that stream of consciousness writing? Either way, it was brilliant.
Thank you for laying down the challenge that @Samuel Roberts so splendidly took up!
You ask and you are answered, below.
I'm trying to encourage my brother to write a guest post!
See below!
I enjoyed this, David. Nicely structured! Vividly rendered. Good reminder of how difficult it can be to resist others' distorted representations of us, even if we know, intellectually, that the exchange is more about the other person's baggage than about us.
I'm dodging your mooching question with a craft one: why not give us the time of day and the ocean breeze and the particular slant of sun? Why not just paint the scene without calling attention to what you don't remember? My own feeling is that a little invention in scenes like this is not only permissible, but actually essential to drawing a reader into the emotional truth of a memory. I've never been to the Hamptons. Why not take me there?
Thanks Maureen,
I could have added the general natural appeal of the area: the clarity of the air and the expanse and light of the sky when the weather is good. The light is what attracted so many artists to spend time there.
David, it was your story to tell as you wished and I, for one, thought you did it well. There were many things I'm sure you could have done, but I think your choices and decisions, to whatever extent they were conscious (or not), were excellent for this story.
David is a painfully accurate and honest in his communication. That's sets him apart from the modern ethos and one of the things many of us value so highly in him.
Professionally speaking, what you are suggesting is polluting the historical record and that drives us professional historians purely C*R*A*Z*Y. When we spot an attempt at being “atmospheric” we instantly wonder what else is being phonied up.
I also appreciate David's honesty! And I don't want to hijack the comment thread, but what you're suggesting -- that conjuring a physical scene in memoir is "polluting the historical record" -- is pretty extreme. Memoir is not the same as history. There are many who take excessive liberties with emotional truth, but what I'm suggesting here is just to conjure the Hamptons setting truthfully rather than calling attention to what can't be remembered (which isn't actually the point of the story).
I realize that my perspective as a professional historian is not commonly held. But evaluating written evidence is what we do. And we first thing we ask ourselves is how much sauce was poured over these potatoes? In addition, we regard memoirs as potentially critical parts of the historical record, depending on how fact-based they are.
If I were not convinced that David was telling me his honest truth in every word he wrote, I wouldn't bother reading him. I also regard him a rare human being whose memory is an excellent guide to what happened, rather than an editing device.
I know it is fashionable today for psychologists to stress how people often reshape their memories. Like psychological trends in general, I think this overstresses one half of a picture. There are other people who have the problem of remembering too damn well.
The reason why I love David telling us that he could not remember the weather, is because that confirms his extreme and marvelous commitment to telling the exact truth all the time. To trade that evidence of his truth telling commitment for a literary ornament of a few phony details about the weather would be criminal IMO.
What I have realized and is very reassuring, is that I know David will not give up his truth telling because someone encourages him to add trivial phony details to his stories to make them more engaging.
The psychological phenomenon of "confabulation" is interesting: also known as "honest lying", it's the process of gap-filling that we more or less constantly practice -- we do not have a precise memory of events, but we believe that it "must have happened" a certain way. On the other end of the range, those folks who "remember too damn well" evokes the (memorable!) story by Borges, "Funes the Memorious", about a young man who relegates himself permanently to a cot in a dark room because he is wickedly cursed with having a perfect memory: once he perceives a detail, no matter how trivial, he cannto forget it, and it stays lodged in his brain along with a billion other such memories: "He knew by heart the forms of the southern clouds at dawn on the 30th of April, 1882, and could compare them in his memory with the mottled streaks on a book in Spanish binding he had only seen once and with the outlines of the foam raised by an oar in the Rio Negro the night before the Quebracho uprising."
Thanks for your contribution.
I agree that the so-called photographic memory is a reality.
I was once accused of having a phonographic memory because I knew the 3rd and 4th verses of hundreds of songs.
Wow, I did not know that Borges story. Must read it!
Memoirists often artfully play with confabulation. Teresa Jordan begins a chapter of her memoir "Riding the White Horse Home" by vividly describing her father being trampled by a bull, then revealing that the event happened before her birth, but that she'd heard the story so many times that she'd come to imagine herself there at the edge of the corral, watching.
To remember is to reconstruct and to interpret. Even Borges's Funes, if he were to wrangle a narrative out of those vivid memories, would have to contend with tone, with which details to emphasize and which (if any) to exclude. There would need to be a theme, such as David's emphasis on mooching here (which has taken over many other aspects of the day that are just as much a part of the factual story). And all of us, regardless of how truthful we try to be, see the past through the prism of who we are in the present. I cannot render my Pentecostal upbringing truthfully in an objective sense because the trauma that it caused me was manna to others. I can "perhaps" my way through attempted understanding of what others found in those revival meetings, and I can render my own emotional experience accurately, but those memories will always be colored by my departure from faith later on. Had I remained a Pentecostal into adulthood, I would reconstruct and interpret those moments differently.
PS: There are two things I absolutely love about David, in which he swims against the tide of the zeitgeist— he is a compulsive do-gooder and a compulsive truth-teller. He is tortured by the fact that he cannot recall the meteorological details of that day in the Hamptons. Since David must give us all the truth all the time, it drives him crazy that he can't give us such details and be truthful. That means that this is a story that David wrote, unpolluted by current literary convention.
Well, obviously David felt frustrated enough about his inability to recall the weather that he felt compelled point it out. Obviously not being able to recall the weather felt bad to him. I used an extreme adjective to describe his frustration.
Thanks to everyone for this discussion about craft as Joshua called it. I'm more comfortable with sticking to what i can remember with confidence. And even then, as my brother Samuel who is a public defender would tell you, confident eyewitness accounts, where everything is at stake, are often wrong.
Here I know what was said and I recall the reactions.
I could have added other details to set the scene, but I wanted to preserve anonymity.
But this discussion has reinforced the valuable work that a few details can do and where I have the opportunity and the memory to add them, I will!
So again, thanks for making the comments so lively and interesting.
Exactly.
Joshua, be strong, be yourself, keep doing the great good you do. I'm used to being not in step. My mom used to tell me on a regular basis, and we both knew it was true: “Kathleen, you're weird.”
Point well taken, but stylistics are also a factor. There was a time when added verbiage was seen as clutter. If we busy ourselves interrogating the scene a range of conclusions about the weather arrives with some constraints. But if he were so inclined David could’ve played off that to good effect and emphasized the nastiness of the anonymous heavy: ‘...as we huddled on the porch sheltering from the gale the billionaire madman arrived and delivered his verdict...’ or something like that.
The point of the story, as you put it, had nothing to do with the Hamptons. While I might share your feeling about polluting the historical record, this was not about an historical record or about the weather or the breeze. In fact, the lack of memory of the weather in that moment quite possibly makes the point of the impact of the buffoon's behavior.
It's a good question.
It was ten years ago, and I didn't want to make up what I didn't remember. Everything else in the post was in my memory.
The most salient features to me of that part of the world when the weather's good are the clarity of the air and the expansiveness of the sky. But I don't remember if the weather was good.
I suppose I could have added a sentence such as "When the weather is good...."
Next time! And thanks!
Thank you, David! I hope it wasn't rude of me to ask. Your point and Kathleen's response above have now made me want to write about invention in memoir. My feeling is that if you've been to the Hamptons, or to a particular friend's place, multiple times, you likely have reliable memories of that setting that don't have to be precisely linked to the moment you're reconstructing to be truthful. In that sense, what you'd be doing is allowing a reader to linger longer in the narrative dream, focusing on the story you're wanting to tell about the billionaire. I don't think the stakes of describing a particular slant of light that you remember from a different day as part of this memory would be terribly high, in terms of reliability. But the impact on the scene could be high.
And for the purists all it takes is a phrase like "The sky might have been overcast that day..." But I'll save the rest for another time :)
One of the wonderful things about writing is that we can each choose how we write and what we write. One of the wonderful things about reading is that we can each choose what we read. Have at it as you will.
So true. Once the words are out there...
FWIW I loved reading about what you didn’t remember. I can relate to that fuzziness of mind. It also told me that the weather wasn’t important that day. The thing that struck you was a lightening bolt in one word, moocher.
I think your suggestion misses the point and, perhaps, exactly why David didn't remember. It was irrelevant to the moment and David was focused on the experience and sharing that with us. It was not about the Hamptons at all. What you are describing would have been a different writing entirely.
I thought it was refreshing and rhetorically strong for him to say he didn't remember those things. He took his time pausing to enumerate several aspects of the environment he wouldn't be telling about, which allows us to fill it in and imagine for ourselves what it might have been without needing him to tell us how it actually was, which, at any rate, isn't essential to the storytelling. I thought it was a nice meta-moment, where he acknowledges that he is telling us a story from memory and that these sorts of details might be expected at this moment in the storytelling, and he won't be providing them. It worked for me!
Thanks for that thoughtful answer Gillian. I'm glad it had that effect on you.
David, I found that you DID paint the scene of the weather with your artful “I don’t remember... “ and then enumerating specifics. It’s a clever technique... !
Thanks Debbie. I've loved this discussion about memoir/memory and details.
I'm just thinking about how rare this occurrence was: It makes me think of the only time a sitting American president was arrested and taken for booking. President Ulysses Grant, a lover of fast horses, was arrested in Washington, DC, for driving his carriage over the speed limit and was taken to the police station. He paid his fine.
What a rare opportunity to step on a billionaire's ego and make him small, an opportunity arises usually only with waitresses and desk clerks!
Two enthusiasts in deep conversation are likely to be rude to others, but the facts that the billionaire was involved is a one in a million happenstance. That is why royalty are announced before they enter a room to prevent this sort of social crack up.
Also, there have been many blessed instances of marriage where both parties felt they were getting more out of the arrangement than they could possibly give to it. Both parties just might feel like moochers. So much nicer than the opposite set of feelings.
Also, I'm sure your Hampton Friends felt enriched by your presence. What was the alternative? Sitting alone in a nice beach house with no fresh amusement whatsoever?
Thanks Kathleen. We certainly love entertaining guests and get joy from their enjoyment.
Also, i didn't know that about Grant. That's a really cool story.
An example of astonishingly bad and petty behaviour. Sadly, there are always examples of people who believe that they are entitled to a certain position in society, and others are not.
The elaborate manners adopted by Victorian's in the 19th Century were designed to show who 'belonged' in higher society. If you made vast amounts of money you may have been reluctantly admitted to the sidelines. But since you were not tutored from childhood in the subtleties of upper class behaviour and manners, your ignorance made sure you never fit in.
Thanks Kate,
I just finished reading Howards End, which is a master class in late Victorian social distinctions and many other subjects as well.
I love the book. Also the movie with Emma Thompson.
Moocher. What a superlatively imprecise, yet hurtful word. Did he mean you were a parasite? One presumes that is his intention, yet friendship is not parasitism. In its generally accepted form it is mutually beneficial exchange. The interloper could have called you friends, as in "I see you have friends, of whom I don't approve." But that would have inserted him into the transaction. By calling you a moocher he avoided doing that but still inserted his own value judgement. A perfectly horrid thing to do. He sounds like someone who is insecure but whose insecurity intrudes on others in a painful manner for no apparent reason. Would be this someone who went into politics? He reminds me of politicians i have known.
Not a politician! Bit he might remind you of some politicians.
David- I wonder why you felt the need to describe or label the man in your piece as a billionaire, because the character traits you describe could easily be found in any overly self important person filled with insensitivity and perhaps insecurity and a meanness of spirit. The source of his "brutish" behavior and his lack of interest in reading (and, probably, certain types of learning) does not necessarily correlate just to billionaires, although there is no question that in every strata- including writers of well received literature, self importance and entitlement can creep into the psyche of one who achieves great success. This is as true at the easel as on the playing field, on the stage or in the science lab . These traits are well found with people of less financial success, as well, but you have clearly fixated on his economic achievements, as if to condemn all billionaires, or the class of billionaires as necessarily brutish, insensitive or incurious about literature, and perhaps, the broader "arts". While it is true that many billionaires achieved great wealth (assuming it was not inherited) by an extraordinary focus and determination that may have limited how "well rounded" they are, a great many others achieved success precisely because of extraordinary talent at making sense of the complexity of the world and being open to new ideas and experiences which they have translated to great success. While talent and intelligence are not simply correlated to great success, you seem to be suggesting the the "billionaire class" is necessarily boorish, insensitive, self important, and generally unappealing, whereas my observation is that many of the most successful people in the world are so successful precisely because of their ability to work with people and inspire others in the common purpose of their enterprise. Perhaps you could explain why, of all the ways you could have characterized this unlikeable person, you labelled his financial achievements rather than his off-putting personality traits, because those traits are sadly found in abundance in every economic strata of our society and in every level of achievement. I couldn't help but wonder if you had unwittingly become an accomplice of those who would suggest that if you are rich, then by definition you must have stolen or lied your way to the top. My experience is that many, but certainly not all people of great success achieved their success because of high moral character and an unusual ability to inspire others to work in common purpose and that the larger the organization and success the more likely the leader had to be of high character and good personality or he (or she) would not have been able to inspire so many people to row in the same direction with common purpose to achieve so much. I am manifestly not trying to argue for the moral superiority of those who have achieved great success, nor that they are necessarily more likely to be of good manners, decent character or exhibit high-levels of sensitivity and intellectual depth and breadth. Such traits are found in every level of our society and at every level of economic success, but I would argue vehemently that achieving any level of great success, whether in science, politics, the arts, or even billionaire status in business does not more likely correlate with low morals, insensitivity, or boorishness, because sadly, there is enough of those traits to be spread throughout our society. Best Michael
Michael,
I believe in this case, it was the person's wealth status that made him behave the way he did. Not all very wealthy people are entitled boors. And of course we tend to hear about the ones that are. The quiet ones aren't very interesting. That said, over the past few months, I've noticed a lot of very wealthy people behaving in what i consider unseemly ways. For example, all the wealthy or famous people who were part of Jeffrey Epstein's circle.
I'd include the wealthy people like Bill Ackman and Marc Rowan who have flailed about with their checkbooks. I thought what they did so publicly was bad behavior. Egos unchecked often lead people astray, and wealthy people are more likely than others to have their egos unchecked.
Finally, we should expect more from the wealthy and the privileged. They should be role models rather than fodder for gossip about their infidelities and outrageous behavior.
I had no problem with you describing the antagonist as a billionaire because I think it was relevant to the story. But I don't know if you adequately address Michael's other argument here about finding good/bad traits in every level of society.
"That said, over the past few months, I've noticed a lot of very wealthy people behaving in what i consider unseemly ways. For example, all the wealthy or famous people who were part of Jeffrey Epstein's circle."
What about non-billionaires who have acted unseemly over the past few months? Do you think billionaires have acted more unseemly than others over the past few months? And as you said, the media will only cover the billionaires acting poorly (survivorship bias / recency bias). How can we expect every member of any group of 3,000 people to act properly at all times? Take 3,000 priests or nurses or non-profit lawyers or Substack writers and cover them as closely as billionaires are covered, and I wonder what infidelity or outrageous behavior is uncovered among some of them.
"I'd include the wealthy people like Bill Ackman and Marc Rowan who have flailed about with their checkbooks. I thought what they did so publicly was bad behavior. Egos unchecked often lead people astray, and wealthy people are more likely than others to have their egos unchecked."
It's a stretch to argue what Bill Ackman and Marc Rowan did is in the same category as Jeffrey Epstein / infidelity / outrageous behavior. But either way, Bill Ackman and Marc Rowan used their assets (platforms and checkbooks) to fight for what they think is right. Don't other groups do the same thing with what's available to them whether through strikes or protests or speech or (smaller) checkbooks? Are you saying when billionaires do it, it's wrong? But what about other groups fighting for change? Are billionaires worse?
"Finally, we should expect more from the wealthy and the privileged. They should be role models rather than fodder for gossip about their infidelities and outrageous behavior."
Here you are attributing the fault to billionaires when the media (and I guess society) is to blame as well for covering the poor behavior more than the good behavior of billionaires. And, why should we expect less gossip / infidelity / outrageous behavior from the wealthy and the privileged than other classes? What groups of people would you have us excuse more infidelity / outrageous behavior from, for example?
I don't have the data to refute your or Michael's assertion that bad behavior is just as likely at any strata of society.
I do think, however, that with great wealth or fame or influence comes greater responsibility to be a role model than the average person. That's a values comment, and it's debatable.
I also believe that when you have power to influence, you should be more careful of what you say and how you act. When I was Chair of RCS. I was very careful about what I said about everything, because I knew that my words carried more weight merely because of my position.
I agree that the people who consorted with Epstein are in a different category than Ackman or Rowan, and I should have made that clear.
David,
Your post and subsequent responses have clearly struck a nerve, generating a record response for good reason. Kudos to Andrew for his insightful rebuttal. It’s evident that interpretations of a writer's intent can vary, with some readers perceiving unintended biases or perspectives.
Your article’s repetitive use of "billionaire" as the sole descriptor for the main subject (15 times by my count) is striking. Josh Blumenthal writes in his comment "I did not get the impression that he was attacking an entire group". I respectfully disagree. Had another author used the term “Jew” 15 times or “Black man” 15 times, a reader could reasonably conclude the author was an antisemite or racist (of course I am not suggesting anything remotely like this in your case), and I do think you are making an attack on the billionaire class (whether intended or not), even if you are not accusing EVERY member of that class of the kind of behavior you cite. One might infer a critique of the insensitivity, entitlement self-importance and perhaps even boorishness often exhibited by those with great wealth (or success, fame or power). While not every billionaire may embody these traits, it seems you are railing against behavior you have too often observed from too many billionaires. Sometimes such types of critiques can be amplified by unconscious jealousies, envies or even a reflection of the road not taken. Or perhaps such antipathy can be exaggerated when one sees in others the price paid to succumbing to the false idols of wealth, fame, success or power. You strike me as the very opposite of one with such jealousies or envy, but in my case, sometimes I am more attuned to the failings of those who have succeeded where I have not.
Your words provide an opportunity to reflect on the darker side of wealth and fame, where entitlement and misplaced arrogance can emerge. You mention in your reply Marc Rowan’s and Bill Ackman’s activism at Penn and Harvard, respectively, regarding both institutions failure to provide moral clarity about the rampant antisemitism exploding on their campus, and their failure to protect all of the members of their communities from growing threats including many frightened Jewish students. Your comments suggest the moral obligations and expected behavior of the wealthy. One is reminded of the notion of 'Noblesse Oblige,' suggesting that those with considerable wealth should demonstrate higher ethical standards
Interestingly, I suspect we might be largely in agreement that with fame, wealth, success and/or power comes a greater responsibility to act morally, sensitively, and to exercise power sparingly and for good purpose. We both likely rail against the dangers and distasteful pitfalls of entitlement, even though we might have nuanced differences here or there about what constitutes such behavior. But apparently where we might differ is with respect to Rowan’s and Ackman’s attempt to censure institutions they clearly care about (and to which they have been major benefactors) for behavior they and so many others found at odds with those institutions’ stated values (and rules). I find Bill Ackman's recent op-ed in the Free Press on Jan 3rd: https://open.substack.com/pub/bariweiss/p/bill-ackman-how-to-fix-harvard?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web quite commendable.
His words were, to my mind, courageous and reflected a very legitimate use of the power base from which he operates. His willingness to use his influence to address societal issues like DEI, racism and antisemitism, despite the potential backlash, is a notable example of, to my mind, using power responsibly. Yet, his case also illustrates the complexity and risks involved in exercising such power, and his wife is now paying the price. I do not have enough information to compare and contrast accusations of her plagiarism vs former President Gay’s, and if she is guilty of what she has been accused of, she, too, should pay whatever price would be the norm for such transgressions, but regardless, one has to admire Ackman’s courage to take such a stance, even if his family is now paying a heavy price.
Your article seems to relate more directly on the behavior and responsibilities of the wealthy, but prompts a broader discussion about the role of the wealthy in society and the varied impacts of their actions on broader societal issues. In a moment in time where the concentration of wealth has reached epic proportions and less than 10 (and maybe even just 3) individuals have wealth equal to the bottom half of all Americans (150 million people), I think you really have stimulated a line of inquiry about what level of wealth concentration might be ideal, and what do we really have the right to expect from the wealthy few?
Do we really want Elon Musk determining our foreign policy because he has the unilateral power to determine when Ukraine can or can’t attack Russia to save itself. Do we really want him to control the platform which could allow a future President Trump to destroy the very democracy that brought him to power?
Whether intended or not, your article raises in me concerns about the sustainability of a society where wealth is excessively concentrated, potentially undermining democratic values and societal progress. This concentration of wealth and power poses significant risks and challenges, demanding thoughtful consideration about our expectations of the powerful elite and the necessary safeguards that might be appropriate, despite the fact that I still believe capitalism to be the better system for societal progress.
Whether intended or not, your article has sparked important questions about wealth, responsibility, and the distribution of power within our society- not just what manners and levels of sensitivity we can expect from those with the most.
Best Michael
Michael,
Thank you for this comment. It's helped me with the post I'm currently writing. One of the "bugs" in our current capitalist system is the growth of inequality. The fact of that can only be addressed by policy––a more progressive tax code and a stronger safety net. But a potentially large cause of negative feelings about the economy goes beyond the statistics of inequality and has to do with "invidious comparison" with the wealthy as they present themselves through their behavior and through social media. If young girls are being so adversely affected by seeing impossible standards of beauty all the time, then couldn't the same be said of the instagram posts and overall media coverage of the very wealthy adversely affecting the perceptions of the non wealthy?
More to come on this.
Best,
David
I know Roberts is a common name but just have to ask— are you guys related?
That's my son. Keeping me in line!
I just like to give him a hard time, always with love!
That is hilarious!! Nice to meet you, Andrew. Loved the bar mitzvah story.
I see David has replied and I'll read that, but I did not get the impression that he was attacking an entire group. Had he described the idiot as tall, would he have been talking about all tall men? I think it is a leap to assume his intention, particularly with such certainty.
Great comment. So true. The superintendent in my MIL’s apartment building is an arrogant prick. They come in all shapes, colors, religions and economic status.
Great point! If a child misbehaved at my home I would explain our rules. Billionaire boy needed some lessons in manners.
We were all shocked by the comment. And my wife and I recall "Mr. B." leaving very quickly. We were all at a loss for a response. And it may be that our friends took him aside later. We were happy to put as much time distance between the comment and us.
David, excellent piece once again. I have never had anything much for anyone to mooch except for tools. I was a professional farrier for many years and the "tools of the trade" are expensive. People would always try to borrow them to shoe their own horses because my tools were so much better than theirs. I'm being quite serious.
One gentleman who I liked a great deal as a customer called me to borrow tools because he didn't want to pay me for just one horse, and he had seen me do it enough that he felt confident he could do it by himself. I politely said no and asked what he thought our local contractor would say if my friend asked to borrow his tools to renovate his kitchen. "Probably tell me to go to hell." was the reply.
I laughed.
You have jogged my memory about a time we had dinner at a wealthy customers house. Im going to write about it in my blog for next week. Thanks again for the piece.
Cheers
John
Well, I just subscribed because I want to hear the story!
You were quite right to refuse the tools, not only for your own sake, but probably for the sake of their horses.
It will show up next Saturday at 5:30am MST and thank you so much for subscribing!
I love when a comments section becomes as good as the essay itself, and opens it out into a discussion of craft and license and characterization. I’m with Joshua that a memoirist/personal essayist should have the license to create the atmosphere conducive to a story that is rooted in fact.
Agreed! What Saturday morning cartoons were a generation ago, David's comment section is on Saturday mornings for writers today. Grown-up fun. I'll put in a word for both Josh and Kathleen. Yes to atmosphere for a personal essayist, and also yes to accuracy with facts for historians. A few cues in the text (as Josh suggested last) can let us in on the stretcher if, David, you ever drag in any high, thin clouds or other scenery. I won't hold it against you. :-)
He has such license, just decided not to use it. I have a license to drive, but sometimes I choose to walk.
Haha. David, I'm expecting Mrs. Jellyby next week...she's perfect for you. (Take that as a challenge.) Problem here is a) you're too decent and b) like it or not, you expected a higher level of behavior from someone so. successful. You should not have. I, on the other hand, am not so nice. I would have responded, "And here he is, the self-important asshole." (I must confess that my refusal to not confront this sort of behavior makes me a great trial to my wife and likely has cost us numerous invitations.) I hate to refer to my own work...kind of...but just three days ago I wrote about how Democrats must learn to confront similar behavior from the Evangelical community. The other thing is that you were stunned by such overt rudeness...because that, in the end, is all it was...from someone convinced that wealth gave him the freedom to behave any way he pleased. Hmmm, where have we seen that before? But civility, and generosity for that matter, have nothing to do with net worth--they have a lot more to do with how comfortable a person is in his or her own skin. You are. He isn't.
"Hmmm, where have we seen that before?" I confess to having a specific bullish head and voice in mind in this story.
Yes. Did seem like a teaser...
Not him. But i see the resemblance!
The French have a great saying for what you wished later you'd had the presence of mind to say: L'esprit de l'escalier. Staircase wit. Sounds better in french!
Dickens' takedown of performative charity is great. There's also Mrs. Pardiggle who visits the poor, but does nothing for them, except annoy them with questions.
Dickens used to walk the streets of London, sometimes all night and said his characters were pulling at his coattails. Also, he could not write a character without getting the name first.
As to the other, when dealing with jerks, its vital to take their move away. In this case, it's his money, but sometimes it can be looks or celebrity. Got to let them know it doesn't matter. I have never met a bully who was not an insecure coward underneath.
Interesting piece, David. It seems to me your story isn't really about mooching, however, but about how the rich feel about people who benefit from their wealth. In this sense, "moochers" are both the "untouchables" of your world and, at the same time, the people who provide many rich people with a twisted sense of self-worth. (Your story is also about jealousy btw, which is a whole other topic!)
As an outside observer of this phenomena who has sometimes been caught in the crossfire, allow me to offer a story and a question. I'll start with the question. What is the line between being a "moocher" and the natural give and take of family and community? And - now I'm going to twist the question - how does the fear of being seen as a "moocher" impact family and friends' ability to be in community with wealthy people, and vice versa?
And here is my somewhat similar / somewhat different story. Sixteen years ago, a probable-billionaire offered my husband and me a great and unexpected gift - to host our wedding at his estate. My husband's father, a master craftsman who had recently died, had spent many years helping build the estate, so my husband accepted the offer with great joy.
And here is where the chalice became poisoned. We met before the wedding to discuss logistics and dates. At the end of the meeting, the probable-billionaire cautioned us, almost off-hand "Now, don't expect us to pay for the rest of your wedding." Of course, just as we never would have asked to have the wedding at his estate, such a thing would never have occurred to us.
From that time on, this great gift became a weight around our necks. In one casual sentence, we had moved from a young couple receiving a mitzvah on behalf of a beloved and recently departed friend, to moochers with our hats out begging for more.
In another ironic twist, we wound up supporting my husband's father's business for many years at great financial cost to ourselves. We did it because my husband couldn't bear to let this man who had been his father's close friend down by closing it. The day this business relationship ended was one of the best days of our life.
And the funny thing is, I'd bet you anything all that time this man thought we were the ones mooching off of him!
That story is so interesting in so many ways. "Poisoned chalice" is a perfect way to describe how a generous gesture can be ruined by an off hand remark. It's a great object lesson to remember to be gracious in doing any favor or giving any gift. No caveats!
I believe this perfectly describes the fundamental schism within America’s elite...eerily so...the unread, overzealous capitalists and the well read reluctant capitalists...
The Reluctant Capitalist is a great title for a Substack!
David - thank you for once again beautifully weaving together personal experience, universal experience & the wisdoms of writers / philosophers past. You inspire me to think and write and that is a priceless gift - thank you!
With respect to your query - yes - I’ve encountered many people - from all walks of life - like the boorish Mr. B and I always wonder - what happened to them on the playground? Did they have sand thrown at them from the sandbox? Were they the sand throwers and bullied at home? What happened to make them think ill of others and so insecure.
In Mr B’s case I’m so curious if he made his wealth driven by an insatiable need to stand out and feel big or was he born to it and made to feel as if it is what made him “him”. vs part of who he is; the former being a very fragile and hollow place to inhabit.
Regardless - thank you for treating me - and all of us - to another Saturday am deep think!
With great wealth comes great judgment. Thanks for this fascinating vignette....
David, I have good news from the Oxford English Dictionary. Naturally, I became curious about the origins of the ugly word "mooch." It sounds like something very old. It is! In the 14th-15th centuries, some texts used the word "mooch" meaning "to be miserly," "to be a hoarder." A manuscript called "Handlyng Synne" (Handling Sin) said this of Avarice: "whan he muccheþ pryuyly Þat many man myȝt lyue by." If your billionaire hoarded (mooched) what many a man might live by, he is the mooch or moocher. Thank you, OED.
BTW, I enjoyed the back-and-forth between the story and Dickens. Skimpole! Shudders.
Thanks for the etymology Tara.
to return the favor, and you may already know this, but I looked up the word "spruce," used to mean all in good order and it comes from the high quality of Prussian leather in the 1500s.
I would not have guessed that! Thank you. 😄
Nice piece David. A side note to your billionaire encounter, but reading of Skimpole, whom I had completely forgotten about ( Bleak House was a high school read for me, mandated by The Powers That Be, and not nearly as interesting as almost anything else that happens in high school) reminded me of J.P. Donleavy’s “The Ginger Man”. It’s been “a while” (cough, er, Undergrad) since I have read that one too, but he really took the mooching life to a new level, as I recall. I suspect literature is full of that kind of character, fun as they are. Cheers.
Thanks Geoff,
I'll have to check that out. I've heard of that book and favorably so.
That moocher was a childhood friend of my fathers from Harvard. He latched onto Donleavy because my parents were too poor and had children. He taught me to call myself a “phallic female” when I was three. He mooched but his stories were incredible!