I think there tend to be two ways to

know the novelist George Saunders. One

is through his amazing novels and short

story collections. Uh Lincoln and the

Bardau is I think one of my favorite

books of all time. The other is in his

public-f facing role as one of America's

leading prophets proitizers of kindness.

And this role is built on the virality

of this beautiful commencement speech he

gave some years ago about kindness. who

in your life endure ever most fondly

with the most undeniable feelings of

warmth.

And those who were kindest to you, I bet

it's a little fasil maybe and certainly

hard to implement, but I say as a goal

in life, you could do worse than try to

be kinder. I've talked to Saunders about

that speech. He was on the show in 2021

in an episode that many people tell me

is their favorite. And I've always

thought of Saunders a little bit in that

that mode, the kindness guy. But reading

his new novel, Vigil, which is about an

oil tycoon on his deathbed being visited

by angels and people from his past,

trying to get him to reassess his own

life, began to realize that Saunders is

more interested in something else now.

Not kindness, but the question of

judgment,

not just how do we treat others, but how

do we understand our own lives? But in

this book, you can feel Saunders

searching for bigger, darker game. This

is a book about sin and judgment. It's

about free will and whether or not we

have it. And in it, there is some

there's a very fundamental tension

between the side of Saunders that does

not want to judge. It wants to explain

who we are in terms of the conditions we

came from, which is a stance of very

deep compassion.

and the side of him that thinks judgment

is necessary. That sin needs to be

recognized and that you cannot have

truth if you are not willing to open up

to ideas of fundamental wrongdoing. And

so I wanted to renegotiate some of these

questions with Saunders. I wanted to see

for him right now in this moment, what

lies beyond kindness? As always, my

email escort ny times.com.

George Saunders, welcome back to the

show.

>> It's so nice to be here. Thanks for

having me.

>> So, there's a moment in your new book,

Visual, where one of the main characters

is on his deathbed, and he offers this

prayer. He says, "Thank you, Lord. Thank

you for making me who I was and not some

little squirming, powerless ninkham

poop.

Thank you for making me unique, one of a

kind, incomparable, victorious.

Tell me about that prayer.

>> Well, he's a guy who has uh been driven

by ambition his whole life and it served

him pretty well. You know, he's a big

really powerful oil executive. He had

some, as I imagined him, some early kind

of uh insecurity instillers and then his

whole life he was working against that

to try to sort of assert himself and

give himself enough power that he'd

never feel that again. And he did it.

And I think he's just kind of turning to

God and saying, "I'm correct, aren't I?

Like I I did it right. Uh that's why you

gave me all this power." Yes. He hears

God saying, "You did great." you know,

so it's a it's a uh from my perspective

a moment of extreme delusion, you know,

where he he's getting exactly the wrong

message from the moment he's in. But um

you know, from my own experience of

being a person, you you develop a

certain approach to life to kind of keep

anxiety at bay, uh to sort of solidify

your view of yourself to make it easier

to get through life. And then it's

really hard to, you know, to peel that

away. he has an opportunity to maybe

have a different perspective on his life

and he just passes. Do you think there's

a a question inside of that, a question

that maybe feels very culturally

relevant to me right now, which is

whether the greatness that the world

rewards,

the power that the world offers

is something to be

lauded or is actually something to be

feared and ashamed of?

>> Well, I think it's something to look a

scance at. Even if I mean I think

everybody to a greater or lesser extent

is involved in that of trying to get

over in some way you know uh you know

trying to push back on the natural fear

that we have of of being out of control

and being life but I think what what

should be becoming clear to us is that

if you say power is everything if if I

get that power I'm safe that's

completely BS and there's there's not a

world where one person could have so

much power as to be above uh suffering

there just isn't. So I think our culture

is in a particular moment where we have

sort of forgotten that for various

reasons. So it's easy for politically

and maybe personally to think if I just

get enough of this thing this power then

I'm safe but that's uh you know clearly

delusional

>> and of this validation. I was thinking

about reading that you you have a a

safer form of social acclaim. you're a a

novelist and a writer and very beloved

and people quote your your work on

kindness and so there's a lot of social

praise that has come into you. Um I have

my own version of this and it can be I

think pretty easy if you're having a

moment of self-doubt

to fall back on these things the world

has told you about yourself. So I I

wondered when I read this whether any

part of you identified

>> with with that prayer the feelings

within it. Oh, I mean, and when you

write a book like this, everybody is you

and you both believe in them and you

think they're full of it. That's the

whole game of being a novelist. So, in

that part, I remember thinking, okay,

George, if you were on your deathbed and

some evidence was presented that you

wasted your life, what would your

response be? And of course, you want to

think it would be, oh, I am corrected.

But in fact, you double down. you say,

"Yeah, but you know, I you know, I wrote

books, you know, and so so that's a big

big uh danger, I think, for for anybody

and certainly for me, you the praise

comes in and you accept it very happily

and it inflates you. The blame comes in

and you don't accept it quite so easily

and you deflect it, you know."

>> I find it to be the opposite, actually.

>> Oh, no. Right. That's right. That's a

good point.

The pra the praise goes off the the back

like one off a duck and then it's like

you get one mean comment and you're

thinking about it for two weeks.

>> Yes. Yes. But but for sure and one of

the the cool things about getting older

actually is that you you realize that

everything in the universe is giving you

the memo that you're temporary, you

know, and that you're on the way out.

Your your hairline, your you know your

body, the way you feel. Um but then in a

moment where you get praise that

information contradicts that somehow and

the ego goes oh we are important you

know we are permanent I'm still growing

in import and you know so I was actually

thinking about a a different moment in

your life as I was reading the book

because obviously it's about Kijiji boon

an oil company CEO but you worked early

in your life as a geoysical prospector

>> what what is a geohysical prospector

>> well uh I I was trained at the Colorado

School of Mines in Golden and um that

what we would do is we'd go into an area

where there might be oil and then we'd

uh plant a a dynamite charge 10 or 15 ft

underground, blow it off and then with a

sort of sophisticated uh system of

sensors, we would record the sound waves

as they came back up and then that could

be um used in these complex computer

things to predict the um the sort of

three-dimensional topography underground

which and in turn could be used to

locate wells.

>> Yeah.

>> How did you get into that?

>> Uh well, I went I trained for it. I

mean, it was I was the geophysics major.

>> Yeah, I figured.

>> Yeah, I just thought I

>> They don't just send you out dynamite.

>> And that was at that time in the 80s.

That was kind of what they were teaching

at the school of mines in in in

geophysics. So um yeah, highly

mathematical and technical and um and it

was kind of be I mean one of the things

that happened that was kind of life

informing was I was kind of a a trainee

and I was in a a room and they're having

a a meeting in the next room of the kind

of higher-ups

and it became clear I could over hear it

that the the grid that we were using to

submit our drilling recommendations and

the the grid that the National Oil

Company of IND Indonesia was using were

different. So we would say drill here

and they would take it onto their map

and drill in a completely randomized

location. And so as the conversation

unfolded I I'm like everybody's getting

kind of awkwardly quiet in there, you

know. And then there was a kind of a

group agreement that this was

unfortunate but but it could be

overlooked and we wouldn't it wouldn't

go any further up the line. So for like

10 years they've been drilling they've

been spending millions of dollars on

this information and then randomizing it

and drilling anyway and then we just

they just decided to to keep it quiet.

So Kafka

>> So what was that does sound very

Kofka-esque.

>> So what was and what is your

relationship to oil to energy to this

fundamental engine of human existence

and

>> I use that

>> progress and destruction.

>> Yeah. I mean, I have a kind of a um at

that time it was very simple. I mean, it

was just an adventure. And at that time,

I think people weren't really talking

climate change much. There was some

sense that I saw firsthand of the the uh

that that we were kind of running rough

shot over the environment in that area

and also kind of over the culture. We

were just sort of imperialists, you

know. Um, but mostly for me it was just

thrilling, you know, to we would go into

these rainforests where no one had ever

set foot and we'd uh drill these or not

drill, but we'd have the local guys cut

a very narrow path and we'd go in and

there were tigers and it was, you know,

for a 22-year-old, it was a thrill. So,

I, you know, I used that in the book

just to get a way into his mind, like

somebody who feels positively about this

endeavor. And I could see if I'd been a

little more talented at it, I might

have, you know, become an executive and

those early feelings of tribal pride

would probably have just grown grown and

grown. You know, I I want to come back

to the tribal pride. But but before

that, so KJ Boon, oil company CEO, as I

mentioned,

did you research him? Is he based on

anyone for you? How did you put yourself

in the mind of a

robber baron of sorts?

>> Right. Right. What I do is I research a

bunch for a month. I just read

everything I can find and then I take

notes and then I just put it away. And

the the purpose of that is not to ever

give someone's biography or to have a

real life basis but just so that the

invention is within the realm of the

plausible and for the voice and the

attitude. I'm always trying to find a

correlary to that person in my mind

uh

and then try to build that correlary

out. So with him taking that early oil

experience uh also kind of superimposing

my writing life, the pride I feel in

that and the uh investment I have in

that uh and then just sort of growing

that out line by line. And so the game

is to kind of

um make sure that with each one of those

you've done them the the service of

really listening and uh really trying to

um inhabit the world through their point

of view. Next.

>> What are the years you're writing this

book?

>> What are the years?

>> Yeah. What are you writing?

>> Kind of the last three. The last three

years.

>> So, the last three years, I think

specifically,

have been

a fight over what we should think

>> about

the quote unquote great men of history.

You know, what should you think about?

And this goes back before the last three

years, but but the last decade, let's

call, which is certainly, I think, in

your head. What should you think about

the founding fathers of this country?

>> What should you think about somebody

with a personality of Donald Trump?

Clearly, a a man who has bent the river

of history himself, Elon Musk, Mark

Zuckerberg,

uh

you I just said the Frick Gallery, and I

mean, what a beautiful gallery. And then

you read a little bit about Henry Frick

and you know there's a lot of it's built

on some blood.

>> Yeah. you know, that incredible uh

museum,

you know, and there's both the critique

of them and then also in the period in

which you're writing, specifically the

backlash to that critique,

>> the the backlash to the idea that that

we have swept away the need for these

conquerors,

these human beings who are engines of a

certain kind of progress. And you may

not like what that progress requires,

but that is how we have America. That is

how we'll one day go to Mars. That is

how we got to the moon. That it's not

all nice. And you know, but but there

has been, I think, a cultural,

you know, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, it

felt like the critique was winning. Now

it feels like a very joined

>> Yeah.

>> battle. And I'm curious how how all this

was sitting in your mind during it.

>> Watch me evade this question. Uh no

because for me that that kind of

question puts my head in a spin. Your

question is very good and I and it is in

my heart but for me the way to work it

out is on the page. So so the thing is I

I think a person can access more truth

with um

as he seeks greater specificity.

The specificity has to be in a in a

local. So, so when I think about the

great men of history in general, I don't

come up with much that any drunk uncle

at a party couldn't come up with. But if

I if I if I locate in the person of this

KJ Boone, then I can kind of work

through it.

>> Well, let's talk about the way you work

it out on the page because I think we're

not saying something different. I just

see you working out what actually feels

to me like a very live social argument

>> on the page. I'd like to have you read

uh much of the book is is an argument

between Boon and his critics

in the form of angels and visitations at

the time of his death. And I want to

have you read this section on page 18.

There's a story often told. Perhaps

you've heard this one. Don't stop me if

you have though. Haha. I dearly love to

tell it. Little boy's growing. Doesn't

like cars because of the pollution. You

know where this one's going, I bet. The

father pulls the car over to the side of

the road. Then I suppose you'll want to

walk. End of objections from Elkdo. Your

choice. Shock. Dying in the back of a

horse cart stuck in the mud or zinging

toward help. Aircon blasting. Anyone

with a lick of sense would choose the

latter. We had the world had. That was

what was so damn stupid about it. People

forgot the empty larder. Forgot drought.

Forgot famine. Forgot what it was like

to be at the mercy of the world. forgot

what it was like to be at the mercy of

the world. Th this is part of his

self-conception. He is one of these

people

who have removed to some degree humanity

from the mercy of the world.

>> Te tell me about the feelings, the the

argument, the the life experience you're

you're channeling there. Well,

there was a time uh when I was in my 20s

that uh my dad had a restaurant and it

burned down, so things were rough and uh

we were living in Texas and um I just

got that first sense that in our country

if if things got tough below a certain

level, nobody was coming, you know,

except your friends and family. And that

uh that landed on me. I mean I was kind

of a upbeat optimistic at that time a

rand kind of guy but still it it landed.

And then many years later when we had

our family um and we you know we didn't

have any money saved. We were just kind

of going paycheck to paycheck. That

feeling kind of came back almost like a

flashback. Oh god. you know, um, for all

of the kind of surface glitter of the

culture, if you drop below a certain

level, you're an embarrassment and and,

uh, there's no, the cavalry isn't

coming. So, I think uh, and I'll add a

third thing. There was a when I first

got out of college, there was a friend

of mine in from high school and uh I

went to visit him and he was living in

his mom's basement and he had a good job

and uh very like attractive, intelligent

guy and uh the the question kind of

hovered up like why are you still at

your mom's you know and he said that

he'd had uh certain experiences when he

was young and they were very poor that

were quite humiliating for him and he'd

internalized him and he said, "I'm not

moving out of this basement until I'm a

millionaire." And and it really struck

me because he he was not somebody who

was at all offc center or um uh

deficient in any way. He was high

achieving guy, but that early pain had

had stung him, you know. So, I think

that's what what this guy's tapping

into. Uh maybe in a more general sense,

I think that's what I mean that's what

capitalism is about really. I mean, it's

beautiful if you're above the line and

if you're below the line, uh,

capitalism, uh, what's that line that

Harry? Capital line, capitalism plunders

the sensuality of the body. So, that's I

I thought, well, if I want to have a

motivation for him that isn't easily

dismissed, that's a pretty good one. And

I I could feel it. I could visually feel

it.

>> Let me actually try to argue that even

more strongly than than you did. That

that last line you just made me think

about it because I actually agree that

capitalism can plunder the sensuality of

the body. I I think

you know if you're working in lithium

mining in unsafe conditions to feed the

world's desire for you know various

electronics you know the sensuality of

your body is being pretty plundered. On

the other hand you know what plunders

the centrality of the body is half of

all human beings dying before they're 15

years old. and a quarter them before

they're one year old. It was interesting

to me that in that answer you sort of

went towards the question of of money

and the social safety net, right? which

I even understood in the way you wrote

this, you're talking about something

much more fundamental,

which is

to what degree do we live insulated from

nature by technology

versus to what degree are we at the

mercy of nature? To what degree do we

control the world, which is what we're

always trying to do as human beings, for

better and for worse, versus to what

degree does the world control us? I

mean, you know, the the lines are dying

in the back of a horse cart stuck in the

mud or zinging toward help, air con, air

conditioning,

blasting.

Your book talks a lot about, you know,

the death from natural disasters that

are worsened by climate change, but I

think the numbers are something like we

have a fifth as many deaths from natural

disasters as we did in 1960. That's

partially because we are so much better

at building and getting emergency

response to places and telling people

where to go and and so there's this

really deep Janisfaced nature to this

modernity we've built and yet I think we

also look around it and think

something's gone terribly wrong.

>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean I I again I for in

the local sense um

I think about the uh when when our kids

were little and I was working and it was

a great job fine tech writer you know um

but and this is maybe a fact of

contemporary life for 10 hours a day I

was doing something it had no relation

to anything that I cared about except

providing for you know so within that

workspace I would do whatever I was

photocopying I was you know mopping up

spills. I mean, what it didn't really

matter. Uh, writing technical reports.

And so, when I when I think about that

plundering of the body, I think of that.

Now, again, it's it's part of this huge

system that you're alluding to. Um but I

think for the for the individual the uh

the journey through capitalism and

especially I think in my lifetime it's

become one of increasingly handing over

everything to the to the u to sustenance

and as as as corporations become uh so

powerful the feeling that one should

naturally give up more of one's private

space more of one's peace of mind uh in

order to to sort of live within the

system. I I feel that's a that's

something that's really happened in my

lifetime.

>> I want to have you read one more part

from actually that same page

uh that I think get also gets it an

interesting way in which you make this

argument through his voice. Um this is

from whereas nowadays to just magically

appear,

>> right?

Whereas nowadays, folks padded past

climate controlled cases of out ofse

vegetables and fish from far away seas

and meat from animals who fed in meadows

under mountain ranges whose names a

person could hardly pronounce, thinking,

"Yap, yap, yap, big deal. Pork from

Denmark, salmon from the Bearing

Straight, loaves of woven bread from

Ferrar. All this is my right." When what

it was was a goddamn miracle. How would

that bounty make its way here? Did it

walk just magically appear? Go walt on

someone else's feet, Henry. I I was so

struck by that phrase, all of this is my

right.

And

I feel like the thing you do really

effectively when you're inhabiting

Boon's voice is get at the idea it's not

a right. It's not a miracle. We want it

to be a miracle. What it is is a supply

chain.

>> Right. And nobody wants a supply chain.

>> Right. Right. I was thinking when our

kids were little, we lived in Syracuse

and there's this incredible uh uh store

called Wegman's and you'd go in there

and it was just it was like Bosch

painting of bounty, you know, and um so

yeah, I mean I I'm I'm big into

contradictions and so the the idea that

all of that, you know, it doesn't just

magically appear. I agree with him, you

know. Um part of me that I summon there

was the part that says, "Yeah, well,

okay, let's let's get rid of oil. Let's

see what happens." you know and and you

know and these the real life corers of

these guys they they made a a lot of hay

out of that idea that if we um eliminate

oil which I don't think anyone's really

calling for that but if you do that um

you end up with the uh punishment of the

poor primarily that was one of the big

lines in the '90s you know the who

suffers the most the poor if you if you

disrupt the supply chains disrupt things

as they are the rich people are going to

okay but the poor are going to suffer

that was that was the line anyway

>> one of the things I thought about

reading that because I struggle with

these questions. I mean, I I wrote a

book about abundance, which is all about

technological prosperity, but also

about, you know, in some ways the ways

it can go wrong. If you have the

abundance of the wrong thing,

>> right, abundance of fossil fuel, you

will choke on the air.

>> One of the things that makes my stomach

turn, right, is you're usually not

getting animals feeding in meadows under

mountain rages. getting animals in a

hellish industrial

factory that you cannot even imagine and

that we often make it illegal to look

into because if people knew what we were

doing to the animals we kill for food,

they would stop eating that meat. But I

thought a thing you were playing with

and you can tell me if this is right or

wrong.

It's not just complicity. I think that's

too small. It's desire. We talk about

the great men of history, but at least

under capitalism, you have the great

wants of society. There needs to be a

match between what is provided and what

is desired.

But, you know, somebody who thinks about

some of those questions, you're so often

dealing with

the power of what we want, even if we

don't really want to know how we get it.

>> Yes. And let me Okay. So I think we have

maybe different approaches based on our

abilities and my my um my ability to

think larger and more abstract is not so

good. So for me when I think about I

agree with what you say about wants. And

so what I think is within the individual

person as personified in a character or

or just the individual person. Um

when I say I want there's a lot of

errors in that already. You know what's

what's the eye? If you um look deeply

into it from any of the great

traditions, the uh the self is a is a

temporary illusion that appears at at

maybe at birth or maybe a little after

birth some people think you know and uh

and so from the very beginning if you

define I the way we conventionally do

from the minute we open our eyes in the

world uh there's a problem because my

wanting means at some level I'm taking

from you or it could mean we're

cooperating but mostly it means I'm I'm

protecting that perimeter that makes I

makes me uh there's a great error in

that from the very beginning that of

course is Darwinian and we can't we

can't get around it but when you start

from that point of view all the problems

come from that

>> wait but hold on I want to know what the

error was the error is that in fact uh

you know when you go looking for what

that eye consists of you there's not

there's nothing there It's it's an

illusion that we create with with I

think philosophers and Buddhists would

say thought. You you make you reify Ezra

by thinking I got to put a sweater on,

you know, and I like this one and

whatever. Uh I'm going to do my show

that you you think that. So it's totally

natural and no, you know, you can't get

around it. Um but from the minute you

you have that construction you're making

a fundamental error because you're not

um uh all you know you're not center

permanent but but also the the

construction of the eye is a

neurological thing that is very fraught

with illusion. It's it tells us that

we're perceiving correctly but we're

constructing in every instant. So I mean

it sounds very woowoo but the truth is

that that's where a lot of the um the

big problems come from because that

central delusion gets multiplied. So

when we think about power okay what is

what what would power look like if we

had the correct understanding of our our

sort of being well it would have a lot

to do with cooperation first because the

idea that you and I are separate is

actually demonstrabably false if you

look on a small a cellular level it's

just a bunch of molecules. So, um, I

think the big struggle of of the human

race is can we figure out a way to make

an accommodation with the essential

truth that that actually this illusion

of self isn't true. What would that

community look like? And so that so

when I'm thinking about characters, I'm

thinking about that really. You know,

this person has certain desires.

uh how do those desires square with sort

of metaphysical reality and then how

does how's that character's actions uh

get him into trouble because he is

acting on that delusion of of a central

self if that makes sense.

>> How how do you think about that? And and

I'm going to not let us get too deep

into the Buddhism here because I love

talking

>> and also because I'm not I don't really

know that much about it. I

>> I love talking to you about the Buddhism

but I'm going to take it in another

direction in a second. Good luck.

>> As you were saying, as you were saying,

when the empty self that is Ezra puts on

a sweater,

>> it looks good in it. By the way,

>> it's okay. It's not. I I I need some new

sweaters. Uh

I am cold.

>> You're not cold.

Uh the other people in this room are

cold. That you know, myself might be

empty,

>> but it is me,

>> you know, and that that wants to not be

cold. I am having an experience

>> that the other selves are not. And as

interdependent and connected to

everything as I may be,

>> I do want things. I want them all the

time,

>> right? No. Of course. And I mean, that's

really what the book is about. There's

there's a relative truth.

>> Of course, you know, we we want what we

want, and it's beautiful to want what we

want to a certain extent, but on the

absolute sense, it isn't true. So the

extent that we go through life embracing

that uh illusion wholeheartedly I think

we cause some suffering and of course

there's a position where you can go yeah

I want to wear my sweater and also I

recognize that this self is something

that my mind is creating and and I think

that's where we get into um you know

spiritual ideas and

>> well let's do that okay because one

thing that struck me about this book you

were talking about the great traditions

a moment ago and in past conversations

we've talked a lot about you and I

meditation and and Buddhism

there was a deep cathol Catholicism in

this book

>> and you grew up Catholic but

>> you said that the central problem of the

book is what to do with the sinner in

the bed.

>> Um you say in the book that Boon's quote

sins were grievous and so I want to

start with the word sin.

>> How do you understand sin and what is

your relationship to the idea of sin?

>> I think sin is what we were just talking

about. This is not the Catholic

understanding, but my understanding is

sin just means you're out of step with

truth,

whatever it might be. And the world has

a way of of uh um either internally or

from ex from outside of of punishing sin

in that way, you know. So again, if I

think um you know, if I think I'm a

really tough guy and I'm still me and I

go out and challenge somebody and I get

my ass kicked, that's I've committed a

sin. The sin of misunderstanding who who

I am. And then there's a punishment. So

for me in in the book that sin is just

um uh being out of touch with the way

things actually are. That's that's it,

you know. And so so the um again in

Buddhism karma, but what that really

means is cause and effect. So so

basically the the view is cause and

effect is absolutely undeniable. When

you do something, there's a reaction.

Now, the the sort of comic tragedy part

of it is that we don't we aren't very

good at predicting causes from effect.

We think this action will cause this

reaction, but we're often so wrong. So,

so cause and effect is is God basically.

God acts by cause and effect. And in

every moment, if we're out of alignment

with cause and effect, we suffer some,

you know, we may it may not be overt,

but we but we suffer. That's that's what

my idea of sin is. Now

I I'm thinking about your idea of truth.

It sounds like what you were saying.

So I want to be I'm I'm just I'm I'm

processing what you just said.

Cause and effect is God. Cause and

effect in this vision of the world is

also a form of truth. Right? There's a

truth to cause and effect. And if you're

out of alignment with it,

>> yeah, truth would be just what is what

is. So whatever whatever you do,

whatever your action is, uh the the

universe reacts to it as it however it

likes and uh to the extent that we can

posit what that is, we're in alignment

with truth and if we're not, then we're

out of line with truth. It's interesting

because it did feel to me that there was

a tension in the book between

a much more traditional idea of sin and

choices made and repentance needed. In

fact, particularly repentance needed

through good works.

>> And then what I would call a more

Buddhist

concept of everything is cause and

effect. Everything is karmic and

conditioned

and must be looked at non-judgmentally

and compassionately. That the other big

idea alongside sin that keeps coming up

in the book use a phrase an inevitable

occurrence seven times. And there's this

one in which the angel Jill describes

looking at the soul and the life of the

man who murdered her. And she says, "He

came to seem, if I may say it this way,

inevitable, an inevitable occurrence

upon which, therefore, it would be

impossible, even ludicrous, to pass

judgment. Who else could he have been

but who he was?" And and I feel like

there is this tension between

there is sin and we should pass judgment

on it and people should be judged and

they must repent.

And who could we be but who we are? How

can you ask somebody to be anybody but

the person they've become?

>> Yes, that's exactly the the tension of

the book. Thank you. So, um but so yes,

so Jill had an experience at her own

death and the experience was that she uh

spontaneously inhabited the mind of the

person responsible for her death. So,

this was kind of like she's had on the

costume of her Jill self her whole life.

And of course, like we do, she mistook

that for the universe. Things are her

qualia

was the universe. Then in that split

second, she took that costume off, put

on the costume of this kind of repellent

person who was quite you would have in

real life would have been quite

disgusting to her. And from that point

of view, she's like, "Oh, okay. I

understand him. I am I I am him." Uh and

so this leads to this idea that um from

his point of view

he and and given that time only goes in

one direction, how could he be any

different than he is? It's kind of an

absurd thing to say. He's done, you

know? So if he could have been more

understanding, why wasn't he? So again,

time going in one direction, he's

finished.

He he was what he was. And um that kind

of complexity is what she feels that in

a certain way you're you're um we

understand that height for example is

not negotiable. You didn't choose to be

the height you are. Um we I think we

also understand intelligence. You you

got the intelligence you wanted.

But then we get into some murky areas

when people say well you could work

harder. You could work at it and freedom

of choice you know which is which is

true. But even there there's a there's a

limit to it. And I would say if you

think of it in sort of calculus terms,

um if I want to improve uh my physical

shape, for example, which would be a

good idea,

>> you you look great.

>> Thank you. Don't don't say this.

>> It's layers. It's layers. But but if you

but if you if you if you wanted to do

that, okay, so you know you have to go

to the gym, but you're going to find out

that you're you have certain built-in

limitations. Your body and your muscle

type, all that kind of thing, but also

your willpower, your interest. So my

thought is that even those things are

kind of pre-given to you at at birth.

Now I think people sometimes struggle

with this and I struggle with it. But

the idea is this. If you if you could

imagine somebody that you cared about

and maybe you had a fraught relationship

with that person, they just died and

they're lying there in front of you

and you say, "Ah, I wish he'd been more

ex I wish he'd been more understanding.

if he should have been more articulate,

why wasn't he? And I think if we dig

deeply enough into it in this absolute

sense, you'll find that there is a kind

of inevitability to that. Now, that's

Jill's point of view. What she's doing

is saying it's fine. Whatever you did is

fine. Just leave the self and all is

forgiven. It's kind of my point of view,

but as I wrote the book, I got more and

more skeptical about it as I as I

examined it. The There's a guy in the

book called The Frenchman. His point of

view is [ __ ] Don't give me that.

You know, we're when that guy was alive,

somebody could have kicked his butt

enough to get him to be more of quantity

X. So, he's urging her to get after Boon

and do whatever is necessary to get him

in relation to truth. The Frenchman

saying he's still breathing. So, you you

have a chance if you approach it

skillfully to put him in alignment with

truth. And that's that's where the

salvation would come from. Even though

he can't move, he's never going to move

again. If if his mind could be correctly

aligned, you saved him.

>> Do you believe in free will?

>> Um, depends where he put the point of

view.

>> Do you believe in free will?

>> Depend at this moment. I mean, in terms

of like I don't know what I'm going to

do when I leave here, that feels like

free will. I think if you could run the

whole clock of reality from the

beginning, you'd see that the decision I

made was c was of of course pre-enccoded

by everything that came before. So, the

book was me kind of looking at that

question and I don't know. I mean,

except move the point of view around.

That's the book in in uh some people

that I've talked to, they're reading the

book and they think I'm endorsing Jill's

position, which I'm 100% not.

>> I'm going to stand free will for a

moment.

If you asked me seven years ago,

my um older son is about to turn seven,

I would have told you that

I believe that the

space of decision-m that can truly be

called free will is not absent, but is

incredibly

more narrow than we like to think it is.

And now having had two kids

and seen how much they were themselves

from the first moment, I believe it is

even more narrow than that,

>> right?

>> And it's not that we don't make choices,

but as you were saying when you were

saying if you want to change your shape,

you go to the gym and you know, you're

limited by things like willpower.

Willpower does not seem to me to be

something that we choose to generate,

>> right?

>> And it again, it's not that I make I

feel like I make a lot of decisions in a

day

>> that I could make better or worse,

>> but the me who makes them is much more

conditioned.

>> Yeah. And I think when you love somebody

like you love your kids, that it it

becomes kind of beautifully true.

>> It becomes beautiful. Yes. if a if if

your your the person that you love has

this tendency, the judgment kind of goes

away. It's just something to to

accommodate and even be fond of, you

know. So, I think that's that's kind of

Jill's thing. And she came to it in a

moment of kind of trauma and

inspiration. And you know how sometimes

you have such a peak experience that you

attempt to recreate it or you think,

well, that felt so deep to me, it must

be true. And that that's how I

understand her. she's got that she's had

that experience and now in her um horror

really to find that at 22 she's dead you

know she's clinging to that idea and

she's in a sense hiding behind it so I

think that's that's why I kind of loved

about her was that she she's in a real

fix you know but I I see her as

primarily kind of fearful you know

fearful to come out of that position

Jill's fundamental

purpose is comfort

she is there to comfort. The mission she

has been given or the salvation she has

been given is to comfort. What does

comfort mean to you? Truth. You know, if

you and I are in uh a cabin and we can

hear there are wolves outside,

you know, if I say it's cool. They're,

you know, they're probably, you know,

dogs, that's not comfort. But if we look

at each other and go, "Fuck these.

There's wolves." That's that's comfort.

But she but she doesn't have the

capability to communicate that to him.

skeptical of this. I'm trying to think

about this that comfort is truth.

>> Yeah.

>> I don't want to say I've never been

comforted by the truth.

>> You think that I have more often been

comfortable.

>> But you seek comfort for it in your work

every day. You you don't you you come

into work and you try to get to the

bottom of complicated things and you're

seeking comfort.

>> I don't find it comfortable.

>> No, you but you're seeking you you're in

in um biological you're you're seeking

homeostasis.

>> That might be right. You know, you you

you want you want to you want to calm

yourself, comfort yourself by getting in

closer relation to the truth so the

world doesn't seem so anarchic.

>> I think comfort I'm just thinking about

this now. I just am interested in this

topic.

I was going to ask you in a moment about

the idea of grace and your relationship

to grace.

>> But I think for me, I think about

comforting my children. I think about

being comforted by my mother.

that comfort

seems closer to grace to me and and and

what Jill seems to define grace without

>> I I think of grace and I'm not Christian

I'm not Catholic and grace is one of

these ideas that I find very beautiful

without find without feeling like I have

a deep understanding of it so I want to

be honest about where I'm coming from

here but I understand grace is for as at

its core that there is

a love God or the universe has for you

>> that has nothing to do with what you've

done that does not judge you that exists

despite all the reasons you may not have

earned it and it will always be there

for you and that that's can I say that's

the inverse or the the shadow side of of

this elevation idea Joe believes in that

>> why don't you describe the elevation

idea then I'd like to hear your your

desri description of of

>> well well Jill elevations how Jill

refers to this uh luminous event that

she had and her death where she

understands people as as inevitable

occurrences but that is another way I

think I haven't really thought through

this but of of saying grace that

everything is okay that that that

ultimately you're not to blame and

you're not to praise you're just uh an

embodiment of God's will something like

that you know

>> but I I guess I took elevation

It almost had a coldness to it that this

you're an inevitable occurrence

>> is very different than you are loved.

>> I'm not sure because if you if you think

of now this is getting a little deep but

I think if you say

>> um

>> my hope

>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean here's a question.

When you have you ever been comforted by

a falsehood?

>> Yes. Which one? When I was young I had a

terrible fear of vomiting.

And night after night, I would ask my

parents to promise me before I went to

sleep that I wouldn't throw up.

>> And in that time, I was comforted by

that.

>> And did it work?

>> I did not throw up in those years.

>> So, they were telling you the truth.

>> Um although right now, one of my uh you

know, I never even made this connection

till until uh the second. But but one of

my um sons asked me to do like a little

spell every night to keep away bad

dreams.

>> And it has not always worked. It's just

a little like a rhyme.

>> But I think but he's comfort. He asked

me for it every night anyway

>> cuz you're working on it together. In a

sense what you're saying is all will be

well,

>> you know. And I think that that's the

form of you extending grace to him,

which isn't exactly truthful. The spell

isn't exactly truthful, but the the the

uh substrate or the the sort of

foundation of the of the spell is true.

I think to bring it back to comfort

which I again I think is related for me

to grace but here's how I describe

comfort um the fundamental exchange of

comfort

when I think I offer to my children or

when it's been offered to me or when I

offer to it is somebody sitting there

no matter what is happening with you and

saying I am here and I love you. Yeah,

>> that's it.

>> Right. That is what comforts another

human being. And I think of Jill doing

that in this book, right? You are dying

and I am here

>> and on some level I love you.

>> Yeah.

>> And it's not that it is I mean the love

has to be true or it's better if it's

true, I think.

>> But it's not so much about being in a in

a space of truth or a space of falsehood

so much as a space of there's there is

presence here.

>> There is. But where she gets into

trouble, and again I discovered this

about halfway through. If you say if if

you are beating the [ __ ] out of another

human being, and I say to you, Ezra, I'm

here and I love you.

That's [ __ ] That's false. So So you

you I think in her situation, she says,

"I'm here and I love you and I don't

care what you did." Okay. Now, from his

point of view, I'd say Kabun does. He

knows what he did and he cares. And as

the book goes on, he's increasingly

tormented by this this denial. So I

think in there certainly saying I love

you, I'm here is 100% beautiful in the

right condition. But you it also her her

problem is I think she's got um she's

got a bit of denial built into herself

too. So you know, for example, the end

condition, let's say that he was a a

murdering rapist and she came down to

his bed and said, "I'm here." You know,

that that somehow doesn't seem

sufficient. although by her definition

definition it is. So, so this is where

the book really exploded into being

interesting to me because I don't really

know the answer to these things and of

course

>> is that murdering rape is an inevitable

occurrence and so cannot be judged or

>> right and she would I think she would

say in her peak uh elevation she'd say

yeah yeah but we feel I mean I think in

the book um readers have talked to me

about in the middle section like god

Jill you're pissing me off you know

that's a result of the fact that she

isn't really giving comfort she's doing

what in Buddhism we go idiot compassion,

you know, where like somebody drives a

spike to your head and you say, "Thanks

for the coat rack." That that thing. So

So she's not really doing what she

claims to be doing. That that's I think

the the kind of um uh her her kind of

sin or her tragedy is that she she I

think she had a genuine insight, but

when you go to apply it, it it's going

to take a little less autopilot than

she's on. You know, it's this is such a

weird thing to say to a person sitting

in front of you.

You you wrote something a while back in

a Substack conversation you were having

about how

you were talking about to what degree

should we judge people who who write

books and to what degree should their

moral failings change the way we we read

the book. And and I wish I had the quote

in front of me because I love the quote,

but but you said something along the

lines of

the person who wrote the book doesn't

exist.

Whoever even that person was in the

moment they were writing that book is

gone when they look up from channeling

that moment of inspiration. Who George

Saunders is right now is different than

who George Saunders was when he was

writing

>> page 112 of Vigil.

>> Yes.

>> And it's interesting because I'm hearing

you talk about sin and talking about it

as being out of alignment with truth and

just what is. And the book as I read it

certainly had a much more traditional

view of sin.

>> I mean the question of what is truth and

what is that's I mean who among us is

capable of understanding what is

actually unfolding in time. But the book

is very concerned. I mean there is Jill

who has this this elevation and this

belief that everybody is exactly who

they are. And then there is this idea of

sin that is

you chose you did horrible things. You

denied what you knew. You fooled other

people

>> and you justified it to yourself.

>> That that's the hinge of Yeah.

>> But but it feels like more than being

out of alignment with truth. I mean I

feel like there's a the world as it is

could be all kinds of different ways.

>> Um it feels like you you believe in

morality here.

>> Yeah. There's good and bad and evil and

and

>> in any in as we said in any physics

situation there is because in in the

specific of the book this guy spent many

many years knowing the truth and denying

it. Now the mechanism by which he did

that or the rationale is is interesting

but he knew that you know that climate

change was a thing and he he consciously

or unconsciously denied it. That's where

he was out of sync with truth. One of

the one of the books I had in mind while

I was writing this was uh death of Ivan

Illich by Toltoy. And in that book it's

it's a

much more modest sinner and his sin is

just that he he lived his life by the

credo that I just want to do what

everybody else is doing. I want to be

normal. So at the end of his life he's

get he gets stomach cancer and was based

on a real thing that Tulso's neighborh

supposedly screamed for four straight

days at the end of his life. And Tulsa

heard the story of like wow what would

make you do that? So in the book the guy

has this intense physical pain of course

uh but whole story is layered in this

idea that he's that Ivan is starting to

realize that he wasted his life by this

idea of being normal and uh there's a

beautiful moment where after many many

days of saying why am I suffering so

much when I lived the perfect life he

finally says kind of to God all right

maybe I didn't you know maybe I didn't I

lived out of alignment with truth

Um and at that point he begins this

rapid transformation.

Salvation in that moment is aligning

yourself with what you with what is

actually true. The truth is you lived

your life in the wrong way. And at some

point he says all right I can't I I

can't go back in time but I can start

now essentially. I can start being in

alignment with you. I didn't live in the

right way. And you can feel the the the

pain start to go out of them as soon.

So, so the idea that there's s there's

physical suffering and then there's the

suffering of denial on top of it, you

know, and we all know that like if your

leg hurts but you can't let it hurt, it

kind of hurts more, you know. So, so I

think that's what in the book the

Frenchman correctly posits that if they

could just get Boone to say, "Yeah, I

lied. I really did. I'm sorry." That

that would represent a better state of

being for him than the one in which he

actually dies and which he continues to

deny it. So that's the truth.

>> So before there's repentance, there has

to be acceptance.

>> I think there has to be. Yeah. You have

to be in relation to what you actually

did. Um and then so sin I mean know it's

it's a a word I brought from my Catholic

childhood. But now I understand it as I

mean it can be so infinite decimal.

You're feeling X and you say you're

feeling X prime

that's going to cause you a little pain.

You know that's the idea. And um yeah,

that's that's sin that and and that's

the sin. And now the the characters will

use that word.

>> The Frenchman, you know, he died in 1890

or something, so he's using it in a

traditional sense, but I think it's

compatible with this this other

>> I feel like the Frenchman was too hard

on himself in in his character. He's

somebody who helped invent the engine.

>> Right. Right.

>> And now he's haunting the world trying

to make everybody aware of how much

damage the engine has done. But

>> Yeah. No, you're exactly right.

>> I think the engine's pretty great. Well,

you know, and so does Jill. But one of

the the fun things about writing a book

for me and in this method I use is very

iter a lot of iteration and you know, so

I think early in the book, I thought

Jill was kind of right, you know, and

then as I kept revising it, the

Frenchman seemed to be right. And then I

started to see, oh, they're both kind of

out of their minds. They're dead. So the

Frenchman, he's he's very much kind of

neurotic in that way. you know, they're

these manic spirits who aren't quite

focused on they've got some truth in

them, but they're expressing it kind of

inefficiently and and poor KJ Boon is,

you know, these are his two guardian

angels and they're both kind of messups,

you know. So, so I thought he Yeah, I

think that in in the final analysis of

the book, I went, "Oh, this is so sad."

You know, he does need some help, but

neither of these people is willing to

give it to him. The Frenchman comes in

so hot and so angry that anybody would

resist him. and Jill assuages so in such

an sort of cozy way that nobody could

take correction from her either. So Boon

floats through and in in a sense he's

he's not he's not saved. Actually, I was

thinking about this um

this tension in the book because I think

it is one that we exist in in a very

intense way right now. the you know both

in our own lives, people around us but

but also politically, internationally

>> between

what is the path of truth of of of of

kindness? Is it to be

judgmental or is it to be understanding?

Is it to look at JD Vance and his

cruelties? And I'm not necessarily

asking you to comment on on JD Vance and

think, well, I've read your book and I

see how much trauma you went through as

a child and I understand that on some

level that all made you who you are

today and the cruelty you were

inflicting on others comes from a

insecurity and a fear and uh or is it to

say you're an adult man imbued with

enormous power who claims to be a

Catholic

like shape up.

>> Yeah. like be who you claim to be

and that's the book.

>> That's the book. Yeah. And and I think

that's

>> also the life.

>> Yeah. No, it it is. And I think the

answer is yes. You you do have to do

both. There there's a beautiful um uh

Buddhist teacher named Francesca

Fremantle and she has a talk that's on

uh Tibetan Book of the Dead and she has

the most mind-blowing answer because

what she says is there's no difference.

If if you have compassion for the

victims of this cruelty,

that's that's important. Of course,

protect them. But if you run around the

other side of the table and you say, she

says, the way she puts it is when you

think about the the karmic consequences

of the sins they're committing, the harm

that they're doing, she says, I wouldn't

wish that on my worst enemy. So if you

want if you want to um to help them if

you have any bandwidth for that then

what you would do is stop them you know

within your principles within your

nonviolence and you stop them then you

you save the victims and you save the

perpetrators. So I think in in a high

realm uh it's an identical act. It's

also true as you said that these people

aren't doing these horribly cruel things

out of nowhere. Uh but again I think you

know we we'd want to avoid that idiot

compassion of in somehow in our attempt

to understand them we enable them.

That's that's also a danger or or we

excuse them. Yes.

>> You have a line what and forgive me

because I don't have it in front of me.

It's something like specificity.

It's how specificity and judgment are

opposed to each other. But but but what

is the

>> I think the idea and again I get this

from writing workshop more and then from

writing

>> I if if you move towards specificity

fil judgment goes away so in in a

workshop for example somebody will say

oh I think your story is boring you

can't work with that uh so then you ask

be more specific where where is it

boring and what do you mean by boring

and as you go through that process it

becomes diagnostic you know it's oh

actually there's there's a a thought

that's repeated three times in the

paragraph on page six. Oh, okay. Could

you choose one of those repetitions? And

a a a writer can hear that. They can

hear, oh, eliminate one repetition.

That's all good. Whereas, you're boring

is you know, less less appealing. I

mean, the example I've thought of before

is if you had um, you know, five

Republicans and five Democrats on the

town board and you asked them to discuss

immigration, you're going to get a fight

because they're all pre-programmed with

their media inputs and it's going to

just be just turn on MSNBC and Fox and

let them and everybody can go out and

have lunch and the TVs can fight. Um,

but if you said, "Okay, we've got

$10,000 to fix potholes in our little

town and we've got $20,000 worth of

potholes. what do we do? Suddenly the

the politics is gone, you know, you're

like, well, we should probably fix the

one in front of the ER and, you know, so

it becomes um and then as you start

talking about individual potholes, it's

just science, you know. So I think

that's that's what I mean by specificity

um squeezes out filled judgment. I mean,

you don't want to squeeze out judgment,

but you want to squeeze out that kind of

quality of

empty, agitated, abstract opining that

seems to be prevalent right now, which I

don't think really produces much except

anst.

>> Yeah. It's one of the reasons I loved

the central tension of the book because

I feel this tension every day right now

that

>> there is

wisdom and

grace and a path at times to a higher

version of myself in in trying to

understand and I took the specificity

point differently the specificity of

other people how they became who they

are how they're doing things that I

cannot imagine or supporting things

right forget the people doing them who I

think bear much more culpability just

people who are just voting for it.

>> Yes.

>> Um and I am angry at some of them and I

love them. I love them. Some of them

individually and then and then also as

you know my neighbors and my my my

countrymen.

And but if you go too far down that path

of just trying to explain how everything

becomes an inevitable occurrence, I do

think your ability to

make judgments and to work for a

different world can become compromised.

You know, Buddhism, Catholicism, all of

them, in addition to having practices of

how do I make it possible to love my

enemy? How do I understand that

everything has interdependent arising?

Also very tight moral codes about what

is right and what is wrong.

>> Sure. But I think all those things are

compatible if you if you I think the the

problem is when you start trying to

understand your enemy. Um okay I I come

from a scientific background. So for me

to say can you understand a geological

problem? Of course, there's no problem.

You and there's no um limit to the

lengths you can go to understand that

problem. It doesn't incriminate you. It

doesn't it doesn't involve you. So

likewise, if we if the goal was to try

to understand your enemies, I think the

point of that is it's kind of strategic.

I mean, if you're a football coach and

you're playing the other team, if if you

could inhabit the mind of the other

coach for five five minutes, that would

be unbelievably great.

>> I deeply agree with that.

>> Yeah. So, so, so the problem, but the

problem is I think in that process of

trying to understand, there's something

I certainly have it where as I try to

understand, I think I'm trying to quote

unquote empathize. That's where I think

it it gets a little for me personally,

it gets a little mushy because then you

start to feel a kind of uh

overinvestment

that then interferes with the judgment

that you have to have. Like this guy in

the book, he kind of is a pretty good

father, I think. Pretty good, maybe. We

don't really know, but he at least he

would say he is.

>> His daughter loves him. We can say that.

>> Yes, she does. And she's disappointed in

him. And he seems to love her. If I had

said, "Oh, he's evil. I don't want him.

He's going to be a terrible father." I

think that's a less convincing portrait

of him. So, for me, the empathy thing

both in a book, but when we're imagining

our political enemies, it it has to be

scientific. It has to be objective. And

then, um, you can you can get to where

you need to be emotionally. But I don't

I think that the feeling maybe on the

left especially is I'm going to

understand the Trump supporters and then

I won't have this anxiety about

disliking them. But you can understand

somebody deeply and dislike them or or

let's say oppose them. Uh and I think at

the highest level you can oppose

somebody in this way we're talking about

which is uh lacking fil judgment but

very firm. I think one of the strangest

political

delusions

that I see that does not seem to go away

is

the idea that people who do bad things

will present as bad people,

>> right?

>> It's the Corella Deville falsity.

>> Yeah, the Corella Deville falsity. Um,

you know, one of the things that

affected me a lot over the last year was

I read this book by Philipe Sanss called

the East West Street and and he was on

the show and it's a book about the

development of the concept of genocide

and war crimes and it's a book about the

Holocaust and you know he's writing it

at great length about among other people

the you know the the man Hitler puts in

charge of governing Poland.

And this person has an incredible

artistic sensitivity.

>> He truly loves art and music

and you know he's a beautiful player of

the piano

and

you know you you you read so much I mean

you've made arguments like this but I

wasn't thinking about it here about the

way art is supposed to you know enlarge

your soul and and then you you know the

the Nazis really cared about aesthetics.

Say what you will about that. They

really cared about

>> it. And I but I think I I don't think

I've ever made the argument that art

enlarges everyone's soul and will

therefore solve everything. I I think I

think of more like if you if you say um

you know somebody went into a gym and

said this doesn't work. There's still

chubby people in here. You know, it's

just just from my own experience.

>> I'm not I'm not accusing you of that

that claim. What I'm saying more is it

and and I've seen it you know I've seen

so many people go and meet with Donald

Trump and come be like, "Oh, he's really

charming and personable." I was like,

"Of course he's charming and personal."

Like, "What were you expecting?"

>> Right? But this is where the science

comes in because if if you go in and you

see he's charming and personable, you

just add it to your data set. Okay,

noted.

>> He's doing these incoherent things. He

seems to be kind of uh largely

incoherent in his in his views and in

his plans. He seems to have a terrific

mean streak. And when I talk to him,

he's so nice. Okay. So, now we have a

new portrait of the man, you know, and

and I think that would totally enable

one to uh oppose him. Better better than

if you had a a a character of him that

that didn't didn't uh comply with truth.

I don't I don't to me as a scientist, I

think, well, yeah, of course, you'd want

all the information you could have. And

if it's hard to process or it's

complicated, that's okay. That's just

part of the game, you know. So, I think

that's part of maybe the um there's so

much emotion right now, so much

agitation and fear. Uh, and that I think

that somehow for some reason that makes

people crave autopilot,

you know, a set of beliefs that's very

simple and is sturdy in every

circumstance. And that's not really what

human beings are good at. I mean, we

like it. We like it. And but out of that

comes violence and extremity. And I

would say that's what the right is doing

right now. They they they're somehow I

think they know they're looting the

house and they know the time is limited

and so they're agitated and they're on

autopilot and anybody who opposes them

is a leftist lunatic. You know, you you

have the the evidence of your senses

says this in Minneapolis is a murder.

They fictionalize the fact that he was

quoteunquote brandishing a gun. That's

panic, you know. That's panic. Um, but

it's it's also autopilot, you know,

because a person not on autopilot would

watch the damn video, you know, and

would adjust their viewpoint

accordingly. That's what intelligent

people do.

>> Or or it's it's funny. I wonder if it's

autopilot or

>> Well, one of the things it is is

autopilot.

>> It is a it is an attempt to impose

the domination that power can have over

other people on reality itself.

>> Yeah. When I when I see that when I see

when I am lied to in that way, I

understand it as an act of domination.

>> 100%.

>> They do not expect me to believe it.

>> Right. Well, you know what it's like?

It's it's like if you went into a really

nice restaurant and somebody the waiter

brought you three turds on a tray.

>> Yeah.

>> And put it down. Enjoy.

There's a kind of a disbelief that he

just did that. If you don't stand up and

say, "Get this get these turds out of

here, you know, bring me my lasagna,"

then he's won. And if he keeps bringing

the turds and you don't call him on it,

then you you erode. Your your belief in

truth erodess and you start to shrink

and pretty soon they're, you know, all

bets are off. So, I think that's where

um and now what what amazes me is that

they want that and they know how to do

it. that I that's the part that if I was

going to write a book about this time I

would try I would really want to

understand because as you said I don't

think that they I don't think anyone

gets up in the morning goes yeahhuh time

to be evil I don't think I mean there

are probably some sociopaths and so on

but mostly I think J Vance wakes up in

the morning and he feels like a good

Catholic and that's fascinating to me I

don't quite I don't

>> despite being repeatedly rebuked by

popes

>> yes in the just couple years after he

turned Catholic

>> it is interesting and if as as a writer.

That's such rich stuff to go towards

that which you don't understand and and

and vow not to falsify it in either

direction. Just look at it. Look at it.

Look at it. Um that's rich. You know,

you're for a long time you've been known

as the the kindness guy. You gave this

famous speech. Yes. See, there it is.

>> And I can see you in interviews recently

pushing back on it. I can see the way

you've become very uncomfortable with

it.

And I was thinking as we were talking

that, you know, compared to other times

when I've spoken to you,

it feels to me like the

concept of the the virtue, the practice

you are circling has changed. It's

truth. You you you've developed a view

about truth that is lying at the core of

what you're doing certainly in this

conversation.

>> I think so. Yeah. I mean the the the the

kindest thing it it I made that one

speech, you know, and and I I stand

behind it, but it was kind of a simple

>> It's your fault for making it good, man.

>> Right. No, the speech says the speech

says I I suck at kindness and it's it's

too bad, you know. So then, of course,

the way that things work is you talk

about if we had to talk about

>> squirrels and I and I said I really love

squirrels. That's going to show up in

the next seven interviews. So let's talk

about your relation to squirrels. So, so

it does kind of it sort of replicates,

you know, and I'm uh certainly for

kindness and I try to be nice and I try

to have good good public manners, but um

then I'm in truth it starts to work into

people's interpretation of your work as

if that's what I'm trying to do is model

kindness in my work, which is so far

from the truth of

>> your work has always had a bite. Um

what's your relationship

to anger?

>> I have it all the time. I've had a like

a rough couple years and we have a lot

of illness in the family and the dog

sick and all kinds of weird things and

most days I'm just a little agitated and

kind of uh

um entitled and pissed off. You know, a

lot of days I'm I'm struggling with

that. So in in the Buddhist tradition

that's a course I mean you have negative

emotions who doesn't and the whole thing

is to try to work with those somehow

maybe and in some traditions you could

take a negative emotion and convert it

to a positive emotion. So I I mean this

is the thing about this kindness

stickick that bugs me is I can be

struggling through a day with say with

our sick dog and what I'm doing all day

is just trying to be do the right thing

for her and uh interrupt

narratives of anxiety that I'm having

about what I should be doing, how how

how long do I have to do this before I

have to rush off? Uh that's a whole day.

And then you then you get on a call and

someone says tell me about your approach

to kindness. You know, it it seems so

hypocritical that and it seems so

partial, you know, because yes, kindness

of course and and empathy and all that

stuff, but if you are an adult, that

stuff has to take place on a much higher

level than just intending to be kind. I

I've been in my uh own period of change

and growth and rupture and and part of

that has been actually

developing a closer relationship to

anger

>> that in there are many ways in which I

have found trying to be kind sort of cut

me off from my own like anger was so

much more frightening an emotion to me

certainly to say nothing of an action

than than kindness but there were things

I wasn't seeing because I wasn't

allowing that in

>> and part of what I've been going through

personally is

letting myself feel if not act on you

know more of my own negative emotions

because there is truth in them too 100%.

>> So so tell me about the relationship for

you between anger between fury between

judgment and and truth.

>> Well I think and first of all I think

>> um I have a I had maybe still have a

misunderstanding of kindness being

niceness. Kindness is a deep concept and

it's not about nice. is I think it's

about being beneficial in the moment

you're in. So, so kindness

uh wouldn't have to be tidy and mincing,

you know, it's it's something else. It's

and so I almost like feel like striking

that word from my personal vocabulary

because it's confusing. But so if you

have anger, then I would say the primary

thing is to go, yeah, you know, it's

almost like if you had hunger, what

would it be like to go, oh no, I'm I'm

not hungry because that's not virtuous.

You're hungry. That's all right. And

then so if if you're angry then I think

the idea would be to think about uh

well one controlling it I mean that

that's okay it's okay to control your

anger and then also to think about the

source of it and so on all those kind of

things that we all do that could be

construed as ultimately a form of

kindness because you're dealing with

what is truth. You know I had a young

woman come up at this event and she said

um I'm I can't write because I'm so

anxious and she was so so sweet and so

heartfelt about it. And you could see

she was really struggling. And I

thought, well, okay. And I said, well,

what if you if you said

>> if I wasn't so anxious, I couldn't

write.

>> That's what I said. That's what I said.

I said, actually, you're anxiety. Let's

just not call it that. Let's turn a

little bit and call it um beautiful high

standards.

Can you think of it that way? You know,

she go, well, maybe. I said, yeah, cuz

you you're anxious because you love this

form so much, you don't want to mess it

up. That's good. You know, uh so anyway,

that that whole process of taking anger

going, yeah, of course, I'm pissed off.

you know, and in my work, that's exactly

what I'm doing. I think I'm taking

darkness and neurosis and OCD and anger

and all that stuff and then putting it

on the page and trying to trying to work

with it.

>> I find anxiety a lot easier to feel than

anger. Um,

>> and a lot easier to talk about than

anger because anxiety is like I am

feeling, you know, that that elicits

sympathy as opposed to a little

glamorous in a way. Anxiety is a little

>> Well, it's also become trendy. I agree

with that. But but what you just made me

think of with that that conversation you

had with that woman is over the years

I've looked very deeply into my own

anxiety.

What I always notice to be at its very

bottom is energy.

>> Yes.

>> And I really don't think I could do my

work like a a a large amount of my work

is um the energy in me that becomes

anxiety just harnessed to productivity.

I think it was the I think it was I

don't remember who said it but maybe

Tina Feay said that you you could say

I'm nervous or you could say I'm excited

and and they're they're similar. The

writers I work with at Syracuse. You

can't uh

truncate them. You you can't say don't

be what you are. But you can say can can

we together reconceptualize that thing

that you're naming in a negative way.

Just turn it slightly and see if it's

not a virtue because it has to be. You

know, for a person to write a a book

that's powerful, they have to take

everything that they have and even the

stuff that they've habitually labeled as

negative can be turned. So, anger, well,

really in some situations, anger is just

an appropriate reaction to injustice or

or to misalignment, a misalignment. But

for me, writing, that's that's what