The Melting Room

I wish I could remember how my family ended up in this nearly-empty restaurant one rainy night. Maybe we were coming back from a long car trip, and we were hungry and cranky, and my father pulled off the road at the first restaurant that looked family-friendly. The restaurant was attached to a shabby motel, and we had to walk through a hallway to get into it. Just before we turned the corner, I sensed something strange on my right. I glanced over and saw a plain wooden door with glued-on plastic letters that spelled out MELTING ROOM B.

I couldn’t concentrate on my meal. All I could think about was what could possibly be behind that door. What would a motel need to melt? And why would it need not one, but two or more rooms to do it in? Were the motel guests using or consuming something that came from the melting room? Was I? Did my school have melting rooms too, and I’d just never noticed them?

My questions became moot when, on our way out of the restaurant, I noticed another door with the same type of glued-on plastic letters. It said MEETING ROOM A.

As satisfying as it was to have the mystery solved, I was disappointed to have the melting room taken away from me. The thought of it had been tantalizing, as if something from a horror movie had suddenly appeared in the real world, and I was the hero who discovered that something isn’t right.

In fact, the melting room never really went away — it still exists in the parallel universe of my imagination. I wonder whether other people have a personal world populated by people and things that seem to have some kind of existence, even if not a physical one.

My parallel universe grew larger when I entered college. Each of us was given a book called the Freshman Herald, filled with head shots, hometowns, and birthdates of everyone in the incoming class. (This was back when “facebook” really meant a book with faces in it.) Like many other lonely first-year students, I leafed through the book often, looking at the people I might encounter and forming impressions of who they were. One face stuck with me in particular: a young woman with honest eyes and a kind smile, her head at an inviting tilt, her hair illuminated by sunlight falling through leaves. The fact of her being somewhere on campus made me feel all warm inside. I hoped that I would someday find out how it felt to be in her presence.

As it turned out, I didn’t meet her until two or three years later. She was a perfectly fine person — I liked her immediately — but she didn’t have the gentle aura and sincere smile of the girl in the picture. Her voice was wrong, her manner was wrong, her physical presence was wrong. Without the halo of sunlight, even her hair was wrong. I felt the same mix of emotions that I’d had on that night when I left the restaurant: relief that my curiosity was satisfied, but sadness that the person I’d been connecting with for so long was imaginary. In this case, it was more than sadness. It felt something like grief.

As with the melting room, though, I took solace in knowing that since the person in the photo had never really existed, she couldn’t be taken away. I still felt all warm inside when I looked at her picture. Even now, I think of her as two different people who happened to live in two different universes.

Living with this sort of cognitive dissonance becomes more complicated when morality enters the picture. Consider the case of Bill Cosby. I was seven years old when I first heard a recording of Cosby’s “Noah” routine, in which God informs Noah that he’s going to destroy the world, and that Noah therefore needs to build an ark. (Noah: “Right…. What’s an ark?”) I thought it was hilarious, especially given my already developing skepticism about religion.1 Although I never followed Cosby’s career very closely, I always enjoyed encountering him on TV — guest-hosting for Johnny Carson, repping Jello pudding, embodying the world’s most admirable father figure on “The Cosby Show” — and always felt like the world was a better place as a result of his being in it.

When it eventually came to light that he was, in fact, a despicable man with a long history of drugging and raping women, my warm feelings toward him naturally turned brutally cold. Yet the knowledge that Cosby was a monster can’t erase the many years in which I experienced him as a benign and genuinely funny presence. Is it OK that the benevolent Cosby still exists as a cherished inhabitant of one mental universe, while the vile Cosby casts his shadow over another? Can I still look back fondly on the brilliant early films of Woody Allen or the insightful comedy routines of Louis C.K. while acknowledging that those men never existed as I imagined them?

The universe where the melting room exists isn’t necessarily a better one. (The melting room itself remains pretty creepy.) And unlike the “real” universe, it will cease to exist when my life ends. But as long as I can still derive pleasure from visiting it, I have no wish to abandon it.


Read Me 4 comments

Fair Minded

One of the highlights of my childhood was my visit to the 1964–65 New York World’s Fair. There was the Sinclair exhibit with its life-size dinosaurs, and Ford’s Magic Skyway, where you could watch the entire history of the human race go by from the comfort of a self-driving Mustang convertible. There was the Illinois pavilion, where Disney’s audio-animatronic Abraham Lincoln miraculously stood up and gave a speech, and the IBM pavilion, where the audience was hydraulically lifted into a giant egg and dazzled by an immersive multimedia show.  There was DuPont’s “Wonderful World of Chemistry,” in which live actors sang, danced, and interacted with filmed actors projected onto moving screens. And there were technological innovations that I’d never seen before: color TV, “Touch-Tone” phones with buttons instead of dials, and IBM Selectric typewriters, where the type element moved along a track while the carriage stood still.

As I got older, my wondrous memories of that fair led me to be interested in another exposition that once had been held on the same site: the 1939-40 World’s Fair. Unlike the later fair, which was a hodgepodge of futuristic architectural styles, the 1939 fair was a visual delight, featuring Art Deco graphics and clean Modernist architecture. It had an overarching theme — “The World of Tomorrow” — intended to lift the spirits of a population that had weathered the Great Depression and was looking ahead to a better and more prosperous world. Its most famous exhibit was General Motors’ Futurama, which displayed an imagined model city of 1960, with gleaming suburbs connected by a network of fast, efficient highways (a new idea at the time). I’ve watched films taken at the fair and seen exhibits of its relics, but I’ve always wished I could have experienced it in person.

One reason for my emotional attachment to that fair was that my mother had been there. I remembered her stories about the majestic size of the fair’s centerpiece, the Trylon and Perisphere; about seeing television for the first time; about being introduced to nylon stockings; and about trying out a new type of pen, the ballpoint, which didn’t have to be dipped in ink. Compared to those things, push-button phones and improved typewriters felt trivial.

A few years before her death, I told my mother about how I’d been influenced by her descriptions of the 1939 fair when I was growing up. I expected her to lapse into warm reminiscences, but instead she looked at me like I was crazy.

“What are you talking about?” she said. “I never went to that fair. I was five years old! Even if I had gone, I wouldn’t have paid attention to things like pens and nylon stockings.”

I quickly did the math, and was stunned to realize that she was indeed five years old in 1939. Evidently, she had never told the stories that I so clearly remembered her telling. I still have no idea where those false memories came from.

That conversation left me shaken. What other memories, what other explanatory stories, were pure inventions? So much of my sense of who I am comes from remembered events and conversations. How can I be sure that any of them are real?

The answer is that I can’t — especially now that all of the members of my immediate family are gone. Other than me, there are no surviving witnesses to my childhood. There is no objective reality about my formative years; there is only what’s in my head. The stories that form the basis for much of what I’ve written in my blog posts may be entirely fictional.

My only consolation is that if they are fiction, they’re pretty good fiction. I don’t think I have the skill to have made them up consciously. Perhaps I’m not a product of my past; I’m just a product of what my current brain thinks was my past. If so, that doesn’t stop me from drawing lessons from it.

Still, who would have thought that The World of Yesterday was as much a product of imagination as The World of Tomorrow?

Read Me 1 comment

Skipping and Jumping

As with pretty much everything else I do, I’m self-taught in computer coding, so figuring things out sometimes takes a while. The animated illustration in my post “Crossing a Line” looks simple, but writing the JavaScript that makes it work took three days. (Part of the difficulty was that it has randomness built into it, so that in the diagram — as in life — the action never repeats.)

For the most part, I enjoy the challenge, but there are times when it’s immensely frustrating. There will be a block of code that’s relatively simple and absolutely ought to work, but doesn’t. I’ll stare at every character and say, “Yup, that’s right,” and retrace the logic in my head and say, “Uh-huh, that makes sense,” and yet the code just stares back at me. I could blame this on my own ineptitude, except that professional programmers tell me that they encounter the same thing.

What amplifies the frustration is that I know that eventually I will solve the problem, since I always have in the past. The answer is right in front of me; I just haven’t discovered it yet. At times like that, I often wish that I could just skip the useless hours and jump ahead to the time when the problem has been solved, so I can get back to doing productive work.

The idea of jumping ahead in time has always had special interest for me, because it feels almost tangible: If I know that a particular moment in the future is going to happen, why can’t I just go there? We’re all accustomed to cuts in movies, where the time and place change in an instant, so I imagine it shouldn’t be too jarring for it to happen in real life. I don’t want to change the future; I just want to do some judicious editing.

But an interesting philosophical problem emerges when I ask myself what it would actually mean to jump ahead in time. The jump isn’t something that I could perceive while it’s happening, since it would be instantaneous. I’d only be aware of it once it’s happened. Therefore, “skipping ahead” is something that can be experienced only in memory: I’d remember sitting at my computer staring at a block of code that’s not working, and then seeing a moment later that the code has been rewritten (most likely in a stupidly obvious way) and is now working smoothly.

In that case, it seems like “skipping ahead” is an illusion that could actually be accomplished retroactively. If we imagine that there were some way to surgically operate on my memory so that the problem-solving hours could be removed, my post-operative experience would be indistinguishable from one in which time itself had somehow been edited. From my perspective, it would appear that I’d actually jumped a few hours into the future.

Of course, that raises the question of which person is me — the one who does all the frustrating work and then has his memory operated on, or the one who experiences a painless jump? Ideally, I’d want to identify with the latter me, the one who doesn’t even recognize that the former me (or at least a few difficult hours in the life of the former me) ever existed.

But there’s no reason why I shouldn’t equally identify with the former me, the one who actually did the work. That me has already spent the time fretting and experimenting and eventually solving the problem, so how would it benefit him to have that time surgically removed from his memory? He’s already at the point where his memory would resume, so why not just get on with further coding?

So it turns out that the operating-on-the-brain solution really is no different from the idea of physically jumping ahead in time (whatever that might mean). In either case, someone is going to go through the mental agitation that leads up to solving the problem, and either way, that person has to be me. Consider that fantasy dashed, then.

As a postscript, have I mentioned that I was a philosophy major in college? Engaging in philosophy requires conducting this sort of thought experiment all the time — going around in circles as you try to come up with an answer to a philosophical question. If I’m going to have this frustrating experience of working on a problem, I’d rather do it with computer code, because at least I have something concrete to show for it at the end.

Read Me 7 comments

Crossing a Line

dashes gradient
I recently learned a photo-retouching technique called “frequency separation.” It ingeniously reduces the time needed to do complex cleanup work on a photo from hours to minutes. Seeing it was a revelation. There suddenly appeared a dividing line in my mind: Here is how I used to work in Photoshop, and here is how I will work in Photoshop for the rest of my life.

I imagine that we all have those moments when the dividing line appears. Sometimes they’re major events, but often they’re just little ones. I remember the night in the shower when I discovered that the remaining sliver of an almost-used-up bar of soap could be “welded” to a new bar of soap, eliminating the awkwardness of having to use the flimsy remnant. I remember the day in the kitchen when I found that I could make a lasagna with noodles that hadn’t been precooked, and it would turn out just fine.

Although those two discoveries happened on my own, much of the time these life-changing moments involve other people. The one I remember best happened about 40 years ago, during a particularly frigid winter in New Jersey. I was telling someone — she could hardly be called a friend; she was more of a casual acquaintance — that I didn’t go outside unless I had to, because I found the intense cold so uncomfortable. “I used to feel that way too!” she said. “But then I got a down coat, and the cold didn’t bother me so much.”

I’d obviously heard of down coats, but it had never occurred to me to buy one. Nobody wore down In the time and place where I grew up, so its existence just wasn’t on my radar. But on this young woman’s advice, I bought a down coat — and sure enough, going out in the cold wasn’t torture anymore.

This may seem like a minor thing, but at the time, it brought about an unexpected epiphany: People affect each other’s lives.

Until then, I’d always imagined the world to resemble the illustration at the top of this post: People’s lives proceed in basically parallel lines. Sometimes the lines move closer together, sometimes they cross, and sometimes they uncross again. But I’d never really considered that when the lines cross, that crossing might alter the lines. As a result of my encountering another person, my life can change in some way. The line takes on a different hue.

For me, those encounters have most often happened at parties. There was the party in college where I casually mentioned that I had experience as a mime, and a couple of students who ran a campus theater offered me the chance to do a show. That led to the founding of the Princeton Mime Company, which lasted for another twenty years.

There was the party for faculty members of an electronic arts school, where a guy mentioned that a publisher was looking for someone who could write about Macromedia Director. That was the start of my lucrative stint as an author of computer books.

Then there was the wrap party after the taping of a public-access TV show, where I met a charming young woman who had just moved into town. I offered to show her around. Her name was Debra, and I ended up marrying her.

Not all of the line crossings are that momentous. During a visit to a friend’s house, Debra and I saw our friend pick up a banana and eat it upside-down, with the stem end in her hand. When we commented on it, she said, “That’s the way monkeys eat them. They’re easier to open and hold that way.” We tried it, and she was right. Since that day, we’ve both eaten our bananas upside-down.

Probably the most amazing of these life-altering line crossings are the ones where nothing really happens at all. You have a passing encounter with a stranger, and your eyes meet for some reason, and you remember that moment for the rest of your life.

Or perhaps your eyes don’t have to meet at all. In the movie Citizen Kane, the elderly ex-newspaperman Bernstein reminisces during an interview:

One day, back in 1896, I was crossing over to Jersey on the ferry, and as we pulled out, there was another ferry pulling in, and on it there was a girl waiting to get off. A white dress she had on. She was carrying a white parasol. I only saw her for one second. She didn’t see me at all, but I’ll bet a month hasn’t gone by since that I haven’t thought of that girl.

Even at the most depressed times in my life, the thing that always kept me going is the joy of unpredictability. You never know whose line is going to cross yours, and perhaps change it forever.

Read Me 5 comments

The Freeway Problem

A friend and I were at a café, talking about the three typical ways of learning: visual, auditory, and kinesthetic. A visual learner absorbs information by seeing, reading, or writing it; an auditory learner absorbs information by hearing or saying it; and a kinesthetic learner absorbs information by physically engaging in a task. People generally make use of all three modalities, but each of us tends to have one that predominates.

“Which are you?” she asked.

“I’m kinesthetic,” I said. “I usually learn best by doing.”

“No way you’re kinesthetic,” she said. “Kinesthetic people go out and use their bodies — they hike; they swim; they ski. You never even leave the house.”

She clearly knew me well. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the place where I could most often be found was sitting at my desk. Unless I had some specific reason to go out — to attend the theater or a concert, to spend time with a friend, or to go to work — my default was to stay home, sometimes for days at a time. As far as “doing” things, most of the tasks I engaged in, and certainly the ones I learned the most from, were done on my computer.

Does work accomplished electronically count as “doing”? I don’t know what the experts would say, but I’d claim that it does. In the early days of audiovisual production, I used to write in longhand, edit reel-to-reel tape with a razor blade, and use an X-Acto knife and hot wax to prepare mechanicals for printing. By the turn of the current century, I was doing all of those tasks on a screen. Either way, my learning process was the same: I’d observe how others accomplished a task, try it myself, and learn by trial and error. If my original learning style was kinesthetic, I’d have to say that my later-in-life learning was as well.

Even my way of engaging with written material is basically kinesthetic. When I worked in educational publishing, one of my responsibilities was to hire freelance writers to draft classroom materials. It often happened that after a writer submitted a manuscript, I’d read through it, decide it was OK, and give my approval for the writer to be paid. Then, when I sat down to edit what they had written, I’d find myself correcting a single sentence, then finding another sentence related to that one that had to be changed as a result, and eventually discovering whole chains of reasoning that didn’t make any sense. In essence, I couldn’t really see what the writer had been saying until I was inside the piece of writing, palpably pulling out words and sentences and replacing them with others.

If you’re willing to concede that kinesthetic learning can apply to virtual activities as well as physical ones, then I’d have to say that my entire approach to life is kinesthetic. It’s difficult for me to accept anything as real unless I’ve personally experienced it. If what I know intellectually is different from my own experience, I automatically give more weight to my experience.

I remember telling my psychotherapist about a worksite I would pass each day on my way to and from teaching, where a construction crew was building a highway overpass. As I watched the project progress over the course of a year, I had the sense that I was seeing something that was impossible.

“What do you mean by ‘impossible’?” he asked.

What I meant, I said, was that in my experience, something like that overpass couldn’t be built. Each member of the crew was a human being, and humans like me are fallible. Nothing I ever do or make comes out right the first time, and even repeated attempts can never result in anything perfect. People have good days and bad days, and on their bad days, when they’re unmotivated or preoccupied, they tend to do things sloppily or incompletely. On top of that, a project on such a large scale requires cooperation among many people, and we all know that interpersonal communication doesn’t work very well. Words are ineffective and subject to misinterpretation. Information passed from one person to another is bound to degrade. People’s feelings about one another affect their ability to work together. Plans made with even the best of expertise can never anticipate all of the real-world contingencies. Under those circumstances, how could anything as massive and complex as a freeway overpass be built?

My therapist took that as an opportunity to explain to me, in some detail, the process by which civil engineering projects are designed and constructed. His explanation was useless. I had to tell him that of course I understood the meaning of the words he was saying, and that they made perfect sense, but that they didn’t constitute a picture that felt real. Of course I know that a freeway overpass can be built; I drive on them all the time! But the process that he was describing seemed like magic to me.

He and I came to refer to this as “the freeway problem,” which severely limits my ability to participate in the world. For me, every institution — from business to government to community — feels like a freeway overpass. I see an input and an output, but what happens in between is a black box, essentially unknowable, because nothing I can imagine in there seems possible. Those who understand the inner workings of the black box try to explain it to me, but there’s nothing in my experience that matches up with their explanations. If I can’t feel it in my body, I can’t take it in. That’s why I tend to be most comfortable with jobs where I can do everything myself. As a faculty member at Chabot College, I was supposed to be heavily involved in the process of self-governance, and minutely aware of the details of how the institution functioned. Most of the meetings I had to attend dealt with large-scale organizational issues. It all went over my head, as if I were trying to watch a foreign-language movie without subtitles. The only place I felt comfortable and competent was in my classroom, where everything I was responsible for was physically present. I understand that most people don’t feel this way, but even that fact doesn’t feel tangible to me.

Read Me 2 comments