Donkeys

November 27, 2025

Susan Orlean, great writer and delightful human, on the best gift one could give her:

My dream gift is a donkey. I feel like it’s an obvious good gift. Maybe not everybody feels that way, but my husband, who is a great gift giver, knew that I really wanted a donkey, and I received a donkey IOU from him a few years ago for my birthday. At that time, we were living on a farm in Hudson Valley, so it wasn’t as nutty an idea as it sounds. I just thought it was the most amazing gift.

One wrinkle is that donkeys live for a really long time, like 40 years. And so the thought of the commitment to a 40-year relationship with a donkey got me very nervous. I kept putting it off. Then we moved to L.A., and it’s not an ideal place for a donkey. So it remains a “to be fulfilled” gift.

Use It in a Sentence

August 5, 2025

The so-called “Persian flaw” refers to the way traditional Persian-carpet weavers would deliberately include a flaw in their rugs to acknowledge that only God was perfect. 

More Weird Lookalikes!

April 27, 2025

Mark Hoppus from Blink 182 and Rod Dreher, formerly of the American Conservative.

Desert Rose

March 6, 2025

Guys, remember when the Syrian government was overthrown?  Me neither!  There have been so many awful and engrossing news stories since then––the wildfires in Los Angeles, the inauguration and the return of Trump, the global wars still raging––that my puny, addled brain can barely recollect the experience of reading the news the day Syrian rebels swiftly and easily captured Damascus.  

But apparently my long-term memory is, unlike my short-term one, in decent shape, because whenever I hear the al-Assad name I think: how’s Joan Juliet Buck doing?

In case you missed it, here’s the background: Joan Juliet Buck was a well-respected if eccentric writer for Vogue who, in 2011, took an assignment from her editor to write a profile of Asma al-Assad, the British-born wife of then-Syrian president (he was president in 2011, when Buck profiled his wife, not when they met).  In her retelling of this afterward, she was uneasy from the get-go.  “Absolutely not,” she wrote in an essay for Newsweek. “I don’t want to meet the Assads, and they don’t want to meet a Jew.”   Nevertheless, she said it was “more interesting” than her usual assignments profiling models and actresses, and she was eager to see the antiquities in Syria, so she went.

You can probably guess what happened next.  Shortly after Buck’s article came out, the brutal Syrian Civil War began, during which al-Assad killed many Syrians.  Scrambling for a justification for printing a glossy profile of a woman married to a mass murderer, Vogue threw Buck under the bus, even though anyone in or around publishing would––should––have recognized that the buck didn’t stop with her, and Vogue would have had to be complicit in many ways, if not the sole reason for such a misstep.  

Regardless, Buck’s article vanished from the Internet, and her contract wasn’t renewed.  As of 2017, she was living in a rented apartment in Rhinebeck, New York and working on her memoir from the basement of a local library.  

I’ve long been curious about what happens to documents deemed no longer reliable because of social reasons, like this, or because they’ve been found unreliable due to plagiarism or authorial dishonesty.  (For a long time, I was obsessed with wondering who would actively choose to read James Frey’s A Million Little Pieces post-Oprah debacle, and what that person’s experience of the book would be.)  So naturally I went on Ebay to track down a copy of Vogue’s Power Issue from March 2011.  (Don’t worry––it wasn’t that expensive.)  

My first thought upon receiving it is how weird it was to hold a bulky magazine like this again, actually.  Given how much we’ve moved away from print in recent years, and how most of the publications I now do read IRL are slim or literary journals (so therefore kind of thick but much smaller), I had a shocking jolt of recollection––I wouldn’t call it nostalgia, really, because it wasn’t entirely pleasant––when I flipped through what felt like dozens of pages of ads before I even got to the table of contents.  As a person who can fetishize the analog, I was sort of surprised to find I didn’t actually miss this tactile experience.  

At the time I purchased it earlier this year, you couldn’t find the article itself anywhere online, although a friend told me she’d heard Gawker had a copy up for a while.  You could, however, find recounting of the debacle like this one, which quoted or paraphrased the piece in a few places, including the Guardian (here).  Most of those articles about the article focused on the rather gauzy, Vogue-appropriate physical descriptions of the first lady, which play pretty, uh, poorly in retrospect.  “[G]lamorous, young, and very chic… [A] thin, long-limbed beauty,” Buck calls the woman currently believed to be holed up in some opulent Moscow apartment.  

I agree that a lot of her descriptions read as unsavory in the light of the present, but actually, the article isn’t as glowing as many of Buck’s detractors made it out to be.  Right in the second paragraph, she calls out the assumption of Syria’s safety as based upon the fact that its government “conducts intense physical and electronic surveillance” of Syrians and foreigners alike.  When the first lady feeds Buck a bunch of bromides about coexistence in Syria, Buck segues into a description of the desolate Jewish quarter in Damascus.  

By far the weirdest and saddest thing in the piece is not Buck commenting on Mrs. al-Assa’s quiet luxury or whatever; it’s her description of their visit to one of the Massar centers, youth civic centers where kids are, on that day, learning music and chess on computers.  Then:

“Asma al-Assad stands to watch a laborious debate about how–-and whether––to standardize the Arabic spelling of the word Syria.  Then she throws out a curveball.  ‘I’ve been advised that we have to close down this center so as to open another one somewhere else,’ she says.  Kids mouths drop open.  Some repress tears.  Others are furious.  One boy chooses altruism: ‘That’s ok.  We know how to do it now; we’ll help them.”

Then the first lady announces, ‘That wasn’t true.  I just wanted to see how much you care about Massar.’

As the pilot expertly avoids sheet lightning above the snow-flecked desert on the way back, she explains, ‘There was a little bit of formality in what they were saying to me… Tricks like this help––they became alive, they became passionate.’”

Tricking refugee children into believing a major source of support is about to disappear: this is jaw-droppingly insane!  Buck touched upon this in her Newsweek piece, but it doesn’t pop up much elsewhere that I’ve seen, and I mean honestly, just getting that in there I think makes Asma come off really poorly.  Am I wrong on this?

Anyway if you want to see the thing in full reach out to me, I’ll just scan this sucker and send it along! 

The Best New Year’s Blessings

November 6, 2024

(A bit delayed but still good!)

From AC:


I hope the next year is good for the world in all the usual ways but
for you specifically I hope:
a) you acquire some sort of fabulous maximalist garment
b) you discover that someone “cool” really likes your work
c) you discover an interesting but non-creepy secret about your house

Where Does the Hole Go When You Eat a Bagel?

October 9, 2024

A ruler once had an astronomically expensive horse and kept a close watch on it at all times. One day, he rode to another city and led it into the stable. At the stable entrance he posted a guard to make sure it wouldn’t be stolen. So that guard would not doze off, the ruler advised him to busy himself in thought over various things. In the middle of the night, the ruler rose and went to the guard, finding him deep in thought.

“What are you thinking about?” the ruler asked.

“I am contemplating the question of where the wood goes when one hammers a nail into it.”

“Great,” said the ruler. You’re doing good thinking.”

A few hours later the ruler approached the guard again.

“What are you thinking about now?”

“I’m thinking about where the hole goes when you eat a bagel.”

“Wonderful,” said the ruler, and he went back to sleep.

In the early morning the ruler again found the guard lost in contemplation.

“What are you thinking about now?” the ruler asked him.

“I’m thinking about how it could be that with the stable closed and me sitting at the entrance with my thoughts, the horse could just disappear?”

When a person is caught up in their unnecessary ruminations, the evil inclination comes and steals their common sense.

–A Hasidic story, from a weekly parashah collection by Aaron Goldscheider

Shopping

August 15, 2024

Was making my very first ever order at Costco yesterday, clicked on the drop down menu and saw this. Why are so many people buying skeletons right now?!

Have Been Absent

August 11, 2024

Guys! I’ve been so absent that I forgot to note that I missed the FIFTEENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THIS BLOG. 15! Can you believe it?! The last anniversary parties were huge; this one was just me and coffee sorbet in bed. But it was great! Mazel tov to us for still being here.

I always think about fun things I want to write/note on here, but then I get busy and can’t do them. This, from a woman who once said she hated nothing more than seeing a ghost blog on the Internet. I have two ideas that I can maybe whip up in in the next few weeks, if things get calmer, but then again:

In the meantime, I was reading the transcript of this Ezra Klein interview with Jud Brewer, a Brown University neuroscientist and mindfulness advocate, and though I am neither a big fan of Ezra Klein nor of mindfulness, I found this part funny:

EZRA KLEIN: There’s a study you reference in the book, “A Wandering Mind Is an Unhappy Mind.” Can you tell me a bit about that?

JUD BREWER: Yes, this is one of the first studies that I’m aware of that actually used smartphones. So this is back in 2010 when the iPhone was first being rolled out. And there was a couple of researchers at Harvard — I think it was Killingsworth and Gilbert — where they basically just pinged people on their phone and asked them about — basically, what are you doing and how happy are you? And what they found was that on average people’s minds were wandering to the past or the future — ready for this — 47 percent of waking life. [LAUGHS] I just want to let that settle in. Almost of 50 percent waking life we are not present. Wow.

EZRA KLEIN: That seems low to me.

OK Well He’s Not Wrong

May 14, 2024

As a lover of literature and writing, I still have to admit SBF has a point here.

“By high school Sam [Bankman-Fried] had decided that he just didn’t like school, which was odd for a person who would finish at the top of his class. He’d also decided that at least some of the fault lay not with him but with school. English class, for instance . His doubts about English class dated back to the sixth grade. That was when the teachers had stopped worrying about simple literacy and turned their attention to deeper questions. ‘As soon as English class went from ‘can you read a book’ to writing an essay about a book, I completely lost interest,’ recalled Sam. He found literary criticism bizarre: who cared what you felt or thought about a story? The story was the story, with no provable right or wrong way to read it. ‘If they said to talk about what you like or don’t like, okay, I would do that,’ he said. That’s not what they were asking him to do, however. They were asking him to interpret the book, and then judging him on this interpretations… “

“‘I objected to the fundamental reality of the entire class,’ said Sam of English. ‘All of a sudden I was being told I was wrong––about a thing it was impossible to be wrong about. The thing that offended me is that it wasn’t honest with itself. It was subjectivity framed as objectivity. All the grading was arbitrary. I don’t even know how you grade it. I disagreed with the implicit factual claims behind the things that got good grades.'”

~Michael Lewis, Going Infinite: The Rise and Fall of a New Tycoon

Fake McFake Face

April 28, 2024

This is a two part series, subtitled “Things I’m Pretty Sure Are Fake But Can’t Prove,” which just about sums it up. This first one will be long, and the second, because it’s kind of a live issue, much shorter.

One of the things I used to write about a lot––like professionally, not really here as much––is the Sad Girl Lit of the 90s, including titles like Prozac Nation and Wasted . I can’t really say whether there’s a pipeline here, but my theory is one gateway drug to this genre is Sad Kid Lit. I don’t think this is a thriving genre anymore, but Sad Kid Lit were stories about “disturbed” (the parlance of the time) children with diagnoses like autism, trauma, elective mutism, and so on, often (but not always) written from the perspective of the healers who rescued them from this darkness. And the uncontested queen of this genre is Torey Hayden.

Hayden is a special education teacher, with a focus on elective mutism, who was born in Montana and worked largely in and around the Midwest and the Pacific Northwest, at clinics and in school settings. In 1980, she published her first book, One Child, about a little girl named Sheila who was a student of hers. Per the book synopsis, Sheila “never spoke, she never cried and her eyes were filled with hate.” But then Hayden put in extra time coaxing the girl out of her shell, including even saving her from her mother’s rapist boyfriend (IIRC––I haven’t read it in over twenty years), and then Sheila thrived (short version). The book was a big hit––it was reprinted as recently as 2016––and made Hayden at least somewhat famous. For some godforsaken reason, my teacher let me do an oral book report on it in the seventh grade, even though it included at least one episode of child rape. But hey, it was the nineties––things were different then.

Back in the day, I read a lot of Hayden thirteen books, except for the fiction ones, IIRC. They follow a fairly predictable pattern: Hayden enters a new environment––a new classroom, a new clinic, etc.––sees a “gem” underneath one child’s hardened or bewildering exterior (pity the poor average autistic child in her class!) and then the child is cured of his or her issues. The one that I remembered the best––nay, vividly––was called Ghost Girl: The True Story of a Child in Peril –- And the Teacher Who Saved Her. The setting this time is a small podunk town somewhere in a Plains state; Hayden has moved here, somewhat inexplicably, for a change of scenery after a stint at a clinic in a nearby larger city (she doesn’t use its real name, but it has an Omaha vibe)? She presides over a classroom of just a handful of children, one of whom is Jade Ekdahl, a selective mute who lives up the street from the school, who dresses in a slovenly way, has abhorrent posture (she’s described as being basically bent over at the waist), and is notorious for breaking the will of her previous teachers with her refusal to speak (the teacher just before Torey committed suicide, and it’s heavily implied it was because she was so despairing over her inability to make Jade talk). Hayden also mentions an awkward number of times that Jade is sort of “erotic” looking for a child.

Meanwhile, Torey saunters in, literally asks Jade two questions, and the girl responds. I can’t exactly fault Hayden for this: she says in all her nonfiction books, she has to go to some lengths to disguise the people in it. Plus, it’s a book: if it was a really protracted process, it might make the text prohibitively lengthy to tell the whole version. Still, the shortened one does really play into this whole Neurotypical Savior thing Hayden has going on.

Anyway, after Hayden breaks Jade’s spell, Jade starts to reveal little things to her, things that sound impossible, like that characters from the TV show Dallas kidnap her at night and sodomize her, and that she had a friend named Tashee who was sacrificed on an altar in front of a group of people, and that her cat was murdered on top of her Jade’s body and its guts spilled over her.

By chance, while visiting an ex-boyfriend in the city, Hayden learns that one of the symbols Jade has drawn at school has occult significance, so she starts to wonder––aloud to her boyfriend, then floated to others at the school––if Jade is being abused in a ritualistic way. This suspicion is doubled when she catches Jade about to perform a very *adult* act on a profoundly autistic classmate of hers. Hayden has met Jade’s parents and found them odd (for example, they’ve never hired a babysitter for their three daughters, for any length of time) but largely harmless; plus, Jade has always said they were asleep or otherwise not there when she and her friend, and later sisters, were abused. So that would mean a mysterious cabal of Satanists are kidnapping the Ekdahl girls and molesting them at night, murdering other kids and animals and somehow doing all of this undetected. Sure.

She spends an egregiously long (IMO) time waffling with the idea of whether or not to report suspected abuse and indulging this idea that it might be occult-related. (Also to file under “it was a different time”: the near-fellatio––which involved biting––was solved by Hayden apologizing to the boy’s mother and that was that.) Finally, with a little condensing from me here, it’s revealed that Jade’s younger sister, who appears developmentally normal, has a scar carved onto her in a shape similar to the one Jade draws, of a circle with an x inside of it. Even though Jade’s sister tells Hayden Jade carved it onto her, Hayden summons the principal and the two agree to report the abuse.

As an adult, when I thought of this book, I couldn’t remember the exact details of the ending, only that it was anticlimactic in some way. When I read it again, to write this, I remembered why: though Hayden, despite describing herself as torn many times, clearly is favoring the Satanic explanation for Jade’s behavior and stories, no evidence for this was ever found. I remember being distinctly disappointed because, more baldly than Hayden, I completely believed Jade’s story and was incensed they couldn’t prove it. Still, even without concrete evidence of abuse, all the kids are removed from the home––another era!––and placed in foster care. Some time later, their dad is arrested for molesting a young girl, and so this seems to validate some of Jade’s claims but not the hardcore ritual stuff. (For example, they could never find any evidence of Tashee, the girl supposedly murdered by the coven, ever existing.)

When I started thinking about this book recently, it occurred to me that it must be totally made up, despite it being classified as nonfiction. It seems really odd that a teacher––a really good one, supposedly––would toy with this whole sordid theory for a long period of time without calling in the authorities. It seems even odder that someone would write this book at the height of the Satanic Panic and not once mention the McMartin Preschool trials, which overlapped exactly and were huge news (the McMartin scandal began in 1983 but the trials took place from 1987-1990; Ghost Girl was published in 1991, which means she would have been writing it as the trials were winding down.) The most she does is include a paragraph in the afterword in which she subtly lends credence to the idea of Satanic ritual abuse: “[The reports of abuse] are not only quite consistent among even very young children, but they are widespread, occurring in vastly separated parts of the United States, as well as Canada, Great Britain, and continental Europe,” she writes. “… [D]espite the elusive nature of ‘concrete evidence,’ a large body of people have chosen to believe these children.” This “large body of people,” she implies, are therapists, doctors and others from the “medical community,” thus pitting them against the bad meanies in law enforcement who have such pesky requirements like “evidence.” This is one of many, many instances in the book in which she rather transparently lends credibility to the whole Satanic thing, painting it as the kind and child-centered option, or just at least as baseline plausible, even though by the early nineties the panic was definitively beginning to wane. In 1991, a report was released by an FBI agent who dealt with many of these cases in which he explained his broad skepticism; two years later, the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect revealed research that stated they couldn’t corroborate a single one of the roughly 12,000 reported cases of Satanic ritual abuse.

So after some time sitting with it post-re-read, I don’t know that I still feel like she made the whole thing up. On her website, she describes a fairly laborious process of ensuring she is behaving ethically when writing about real people. “My experience is that one needs an extremely comprehensive consent form to deal with these kinds of eventualities, so if you plan to write about real people, my best advice is to get a good lawyer first!” Presumably these consent forms exist somewhere in Hayden’s archives or her publishers’, and it would take a really calculating person to write something like the above when such forms didn’t exist anywhere, and I don’t like to imagine this kind of personality type unless it seems warranted (see next entry in this series). I mean, stranger things have happened than this lie––see: JT LeRoy––but I wouldn’t put money on it. As a person who writes nonfiction, I also am very sympathetic to the complications of writing about your own life when it means depicting other people who may or may not be so keen to be in a book. There’s really no way to win there, unless you get everyone’s written consent and refuse their right to fact check/read over anything (because then it would get too murky). So I think it’s quite likely at least some of the story in Ghost Girl is true, but the odd, or perhaps fortuitous, timing of it, the babe-in-the-woods quality to Hayden as narrator especially vis-a-vis Satanism, the use of stock types (savior teacher, manic pixie disturbed child) makes one raise eyebrows a bit.

Here are some plausible explanations, as I see it:

  1. She did have a real student like Jade, but the Satanic stuff was very much downplayed in the actual case. Sensing an opportunity to ride the coattails of current events, Hayden emphasized them in the book, perhaps with all parties involved (i.e. publishers and Hayden herself) telling themselves that by doing this they were obscuring the details so much that people wouldn’t recognize themselves as characters.
  2. Jade was being abused by her father, and also was mentally ill in some way (whether as a result of this abuse or a birth trauma, as was her mother’s explanation; either seems possible to me) and saw some of the news footage of McMartin Preschool or another Satanic ritual abuse story and it became woven into her fantasy life/she used those details to create an outlandish story that at once revealed the abuse but also not have to name her actual abuser.

Or some combination of the two.

As one poster on Reddit said, it’s kind of surprising, given Hayden’s fame, that none of her former students have ever spoken out about their experiences, just generally and with her specifically. It’s either a testament to them/her treatment that they never felt the need, or deeply suspicious, or just the way it’s all panned out. All this to say, I’d be extremely curious if any of these kids surfaced! You know how to find me!