This happened a decade ago. The four of us were lounging on a porch overlooking the Atlantic, my wife and me and our two good friends who had invited us to stay the long weekend as their houseguests. I don’t recall the time of day or how brisk the ocean breeze was or the strength and slant of the sun. Or whether the four of us were reading or talking or just sitting with our own thoughts and listening to the gulls.
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'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.
David I so enjoyed this story. I really look forward to these pieces. A classic case of projection of insecurity. And so sad to think of how many other quiet moments this boorish billionaire has spoilt because they don’t belong completely to him. It would be a fun prompt to write the soliloquy in his head as he drove himself away, hot and muttering. Horrid as he is in real life, he’s compelling on the page. What’s his rosebud moment, I have to wonder.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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'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.
David I so enjoyed this story. I really look forward to these pieces. A classic case of projection of insecurity. And so sad to think of how many other quiet moments this boorish billionaire has spoilt because they don’t belong completely to him. It would be a fun prompt to write the soliloquy in his head as he drove himself away, hot and muttering. Horrid as he is in real life, he’s compelling on the page. What’s his rosebud moment, I have to wonder.
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
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
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.