{"id":128626,"date":"2026-02-10T11:00:09","date_gmt":"2026-02-10T11:00:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/128626\/"},"modified":"2026-02-10T11:00:09","modified_gmt":"2026-02-10T11:00:09","slug":"opinion-george-saunders-on-anger-ambition-and-sin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/128626\/","title":{"rendered":"Opinion | George Saunders on Anger, Ambition and Sin"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"css-8hvvyd\">\u201cI think there tend to be two ways to know the novelist George Saunders. One is through his amazing novels and short story collections. \u201cLincoln in the Bardo\u201d is, I think, one of my favorite books of all time. The other is in his public facing role as one of America\u2019s leading prophets, proselytizers 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 do you remember most fondly, with the most undeniable feelings of warmth? Those who were kindest to you I bet. It\u2019s a little facile, maybe, and certainly hard to implement, but I\u2019d say as a goal in life you could do worse than try to be kinder. I\u2019ve 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\u2019ve always thought of Saunders a little bit in that mode, the kindness guy. But reading his new novel \u201cVigil,\u201d 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. I 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\u2019s about free will and whether or not we have it. And in it there is some. There\u2019s 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 ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com George Saunders, welcome back to the show. It\u2019s so nice to be here Thanks for having me. So there\u2019s 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 nincompoop. Thank you for making me unique. One of a kind, incomparable. Victorious tell me about that prayer. Well, he\u2019s a guy who has been driven by ambition his whole life, and it served him pretty well. He\u2019s a big, really powerful oil executive. He had some as I imagined him, some early kind of insecurity and stillers. And then his whole life, he was working against that to try to assert himself and give himself enough power that he\u2019d never feel that again. And he did it. And I think he\u2019s just kind of turning to God and saying, I\u2019m correct, aren\u2019t I. Like, I did it right. That\u2019s why you gave me all this power. Yes he hears God saying did great. So it\u2019s from my perspective, a moment of extreme delusion. Where he\u2019s getting exactly the wrong message from the moment he\u2019s in. But from my own experience of being a person, you develop a certain approach to life to keep anxiety at Bay, to solidify your view of yourself, to make it easier to get through life. And then it\u2019s really hard 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\u2019s 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\u2019s something to look askance 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 trying to push back on the natural fear that we have of being out of control and being in life. But I think what should be becoming clear to us is that if you say power is everything, if I get that power, I\u2019m safe. That\u2019s completely BS. And there\u2019s not a world where one person could have so much power as to be above suffering. There just isn\u2019t. So I think our culture is in a particular moment where we have forgotten that for various reasons. So it\u2019s easy for politically and maybe personally to think if I just get enough of this thing, this power, then I\u2019m safe. But that\u2019s clearly delusional. And if this validation I was thinking about reading that you have a safer form of social acclaim. You\u2019re a novelist and a writer and very beloved. And people quote your work on kindness. And so there\u2019s a lot of social praise that has come into you. I have my own version of this, and it can be I think, pretty easy if you\u2019re having a moment of self-doubt to fall back on these things. The world has told you about yourself. So I wondered, when I read this, whether any part of you identified without prayer, the feelings within it. I mean, when you write a book like this Everybody is and you both believe in them and you think they\u2019re full of it. That\u2019s the whole game of being a novelist. So in that part, I remember thinking, O.K, 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, what you double down, you say Yeah, but I wrote books. And so that\u2019s a big, big danger I think 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\u2019t accept it quite so easily and you deflect it. I find it to be the opposite, actually. Oh, no. That\u2019s right. That\u2019s a good point. The praise. The praise goes off the back. Well that\u2019s true. It\u2019s water off a duck. And then it\u2019s like you got one mean comment and you\u2019re thinking about it for two weeks. Yes, yes. But for sure. And one of the cool things about getting older, actually, is that you realize that everything in the universe is giving you the memo, that you\u2019re temporary and that you\u2019re on the way out. Your hairline, your body the way you feel. But then in a moment where you get praised, that information contradicts that somehow. And the ego goes, oh, we are important. We are permanent. I\u2019m still growing in import. And so I was actually thinking about a different moment in your life as I was reading the book because obviously it\u2019s about CJ Boone, an oil company CEO. But you worked early in your life as a geophysical prospector. What is a geophysical prospector? Well, I was trained at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden in that what we would do is we\u2019d go into an area where there might be oil, and then we\u2019d plant a dynamite charge 10 or 15 underground, blow it off, and then with of sophisticated system of sensors, we would record the sound waves as they came back up. And then that could be used in these complex computer things to predict the three dimensional topography underground, which then in turn could be used to locate Wells Yeah how did you get into that. Well, I trained for it. I mean, I was a geophysics major Yeah, I figured Yeah, yeah. I just thought I\u2019d try. They don\u2019t just send you out with dynamite. No and that was at that time in the 80s. That was kind of what they were teaching at the School of Mines in geophysics. So, yeah, highly mathematical and technical. And, and it was kind of I mean, one of the things that happened that was kind of life informing I was kind of a trainee and I was in a room and they were having a meeting in the next room of the higher UPS, and it became clear I could overhear it that the grid that we were using to submit our drilling recommendations and grid that the National oil company of 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 a conversation unfolded, I\u2019m like, oh, everybody\u2019s getting kind of awkwardly quiet in there. And then there was a kind of a group agreement that this was unfortunate, but it could be overlooked and it wouldn\u2019t go any further up the line. So for 10 years they\u2019ve been drilling, they\u2019ve been spending millions of dollars on this information and then randomizing it and drilling anyway. And then they just decided to keep it quiet. So it was Kafka. So what was Yeah, it does sound very Kafka esque. So what was and what is your relationship to oil, to energy, to this fundamental engine of human existence and use it progress and destruction Yeah I mean, I have at that time it was very simple. I mean, it was just an adventure. And at that time, I think people weren\u2019t really talking climate change much. There was some sense that I saw firsthand of that we were kind of running roughshod over the environment in that area and also of over the culture. We were just imperialist. But mostly for me, it was just thrilling. We would go into these rainforests where no one had ever set foot and we\u2019d drill these or not drill, but we have the local guys cut a very narrow path and we\u2019d go in and there were Tigers. And it was for a 22-year-old, it was a thrill. So I used that in the book just to get away into his mind somebody who feels positively about this endeavor. And I could see if I\u2019d been a little more talented at it. I might have, become an executive. And those early feelings of tribal pride would probably have just grown and grown. I want to come back to the tribal pride, but before that. So CJ Boone, oil well, 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. 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 purpose of that is not to ever give someone\u2019s 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\u2019m always trying to find a corollary to that person in my mind. And then try to build that corollary out. So with him taking that early oil experience, also kind of superimposing my writing life, the pride I feel in that and the investment I have in that, and then just growing that out line by line. And so the game is to make sure that with each one of those, you\u2019ve done them the service of really listening and really trying to inhabit the world through their point of view. What are the years you\u2019re writing this book. What are the years. What are you writing. Kind of the last three. The last three. So the last three years, I think specifically, have been a fight over what we should think about quote unquote, great men of history. What should you think about. And this goes back before the last few years, but the last decade, let\u2019s call it, 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 man who is bent the river of history himself, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg. I was just at the Frick gallery I mean, what a beautiful gallery. And then you read a little bit about Henry Frick and there\u2019s a lot of it\u2019s built on some blood Yeah, that incredible museum, and there\u2019s both the critique of them. And then also in the period in which you\u2019re writing, specifically the backlash to that critique, the backlash to the idea 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. What that progress requires, but that is how we have America. That is how one day go to Mars. That is how we got to the moon, that it\u2019s not all nice and but there has been, I think, a cultural five years ago, 10 years ago, it felt like the critique was winning. Now it feels a very joined lined up for battle. And I\u2019m curious how all this was sitting in your mind during it. If it was, watch me evade this question. No, because for me, that kind of question puts my head in a spin. Your question is very good. And it is in my heart. But for me to way to work it out is on the page. So the thing is, I think a person can access more truth with. As he seeks greater specificity. The specificity has to be in a locale. So when I think about the great men of history in general, I don\u2019t come up with much that any drunk uncle at a party couldn\u2019t come up with. But if I locate it in the person of this CJ Boone, then I can work through it. Well, let\u2019s talk about the way you work it out on the page, because I think we\u2019re not saying something different. I just see you working out what actually feels to me a very live social argument on the page. I\u2019d like to have you read much of the book is an argument between Boone 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 was a story often told. Perhaps you\u2019ve heard this one. Don\u2019t stop me if you have, though I dearly love to tell it. Little boys grousing doesn\u2019t like cars because of the pollution. Where this one was going. I bet the father pulls the car over to the side of the road. Then I suppose you\u2019ll want to walk. End of objections from L, kiddo. Your choice. Jack 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. This is part of his self-conception. He self-conception. He is one of these people who have removed to some degree humanity from the mercy of the world. Tell me about the feelings, the argument, the life experience you\u2019re channeling there. Well there was a time when I was in my 20s that my dad had a restaurant, and it burned down. So things were rough, and we were living in Texas, and I just got that first sense that in our country, if things got tough below a certain level, nobody was coming except your friends and family and that landed on me. I mean, I was kind of a upbeat, optimistic at that time, Ayn Rand kind of guy. But still it landed. And then many years later, when we had our family and we didn\u2019t 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. For all of the kind of surface glitter of the culture, if you drop below a certain level, you\u2019re an embarrassment. And there\u2019s no the cavalry isn\u2019t coming. So I think and now I\u2019ll add a third thing. There was when I first got out of college, there was a friend of mine from high school, and I went to visit him, and he was living in his mom\u2019s basement, and he had a good job and very attractive, intelligent guy. And the question hovered over like, why are you still at your mom\u2019s. And he said that he\u2019d had certain experiences when he was young and they were very poor that were quite humiliating for him. And he\u2019d internalize them. And he said, I\u2019m not moving out of this basement until I\u2019m a millionaire. And that really struck me, because he was not somebody who was at all off center or deficient in any way. He was high achieving guy. But that early pain had had stung him. So I think that\u2019s what this guy is tapping into. Maybe in a more general sense, I think that\u2019s what I mean. That\u2019s what capitalism is about, really. I mean, it\u2019s beautiful if you\u2019re above the line and if your below the line. Capitalism was that line that capitalism, capitalism plunders the sensuality of the body. So I thought, well, if I want to have a motivation for him that isn\u2019t easily dismissed, that\u2019s a pretty good one. And I could feel it. I could really feel it. Let me actually try to argue that even more strongly than you did that last line, you just made me think about it, because I actually agree that capitalism can plunder the sensuality of the body. I think if you\u2019re working in lithium mining, in unsafe conditions to feed the world\u2019s desire for various electronics. The sensuality of your body is being pretty plundered. On the other hand, what plunders the sensuality of the body is half of all human beings dying before their 15 years old, and a quarter of them before their one-year-old. It was interesting to me in that answer, you went towards the question of money and the social safety net. Which I even understood in the way you wrote this. You 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\u2019re always trying to do as human beings, for better and for worse versus to what degree does the world control us. I mean, the lines are dying in the back of a horse cart, stuck in the mud or zinging toward help. Aircon air conditioning. Blasting your book talks a lot about 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\u2019s partially because we are so much better at building and getting emergency response to places and telling people where to go. And so there\u2019s this really deep, Janus faced nature to this modernity we\u2019ve built. And yet I think we also look around at it and think something\u2019s gone terribly wrong Yeah. I mean, again, in the local sense. I think about when our kids were little and I was working, and it was a great job to find a tech writer. And this is maybe a fact of contemporary life. For 10 hours a day, I was doing something that had no relation to anything that I cared about except providing for. So within that workspace, I would do whatever I was photocopying. I was mopping up spills. I mean, it didn\u2019t really matter. Writing technical reports. And so when I think about that plundering of the body, I think of that now again, it\u2019s part of this huge system that you\u2019re alluding to. But I think for the individual the journey through capitalism and especially, I think in my lifetime, it\u2019s become one of increasingly handing over everything to sustenance. And as corporations become so powerful, the feeling that one should naturally give up more of one\u2019s private space, more of one\u2019s peace of mind in order to live within the system. I feel that\u2019s something that\u2019s really happened in my lifetime. I want to have you read one more part from actually that same page that I think also gets at an interesting way in which you make this argument through his voice. This is from whereas nowadays to just magically appear. Whereas nowadays folks padded past climate controlled cases of out-of-season vegetables and fish from faraway 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 Bering Strait. Loaves of woven bread from Ferrara. All this is my right. When what it was a goddamn miracle. How would that bounty made its way here. Did it walk just magically appear. Go Waltz on someone else\u2019s feet, Henry. 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\u2019re inhabiting Boone\u2019s voice is. Get the idea. It\u2019s not a right. It\u2019s not a miracle. We want it to be a miracle. What it is a supply chain. And nobody wants a supply chain. I was thinking when our kids were little, we lived in Syracuse and there was this incredible store called Wegmans. And you\u2019d go in there, and it was just. It was like Bosch painting of bounty. And so, yeah, I mean, I\u2019m big into contradictions. And so the idea that all of that, doesn\u2019t just magically appear. I agree with him. Part of me that I summon there was the part that says, yeah, well, O.K, let\u2019s get rid of oil. Let\u2019s see what happens. And the real life corollaries of these guys, they made a lot of hay out of that idea that if we eliminate oil, which I don\u2019t think anyone\u2019s really calling for that. But if you do that end up with the punishment of the poor primarily. That was one of the big lines in the 90s. Who suffers the most. The poor. If you disrupt the supply chains, disrupt things as they are, the rich people are going to do O.K, but the poor are going to suffer. That was the line. Anyway one of the things I thought about reading that because I struggle with these questions. I mean, I wrote a book about abundance, which is all about technological prosperity, but also about in some ways, the ways it can go wrong if you have the abundance of the wrong thing, abundance of fossil fuel, you will choke on the air. One of the things that makes my stomach turn right is you\u2019re usually not getting animals feeding in Meadows under Mountain ranges. You\u2019re 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\u2019s not just complicity. I think that\u2019s too small. It\u2019s 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 somebody who thinks about some of those questions, you\u2019re so often dealing with the power of what we want, even if we don\u2019t really want to know how we get it. And let me O.K. So I think we have maybe different approaches based on our abilities and 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 just the individual person. When I say I want there\u2019s a lot of errors in that already. What\u2019s if you look deeply into it from any of the great traditions, the self is a temporary illusion that appears at maybe at birth or maybe a little after birth. Some people think and so from the very beginning, if you define AI the way we conventionally do, from the minute we open our eyes in the world, there\u2019s a problem, because my wanting means at some level I\u2019m taking from you. Or it could mean we\u2019re cooperating, but mostly it means I\u2019m. I\u2019m protecting that perimeter that makes AI makes me. There\u2019s a great error in that from the very beginning. That, of course, is Darwinian. And we can\u2019t 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, when you go looking for what that AI consists of you, there\u2019s nothing there. It\u2019s an illusion that we create with. I think philosophers and Buddhists would say with thought make you reify Ezra, by thinking, I\u2019ve got to put a sweater on and I like this one, and whatever, I\u2019m going to do my show that you think that. So it\u2019s totally natural. And, you can\u2019t get around it. But from the minute you have that construction, you\u2019re making a fundamental error because you\u2019re not. You\u2019re not centrally, not permanent, but also the construction of the eye is a neurological thing that is very fraught with illusion. It tells us that we\u2019re perceiving correctly, but we\u2019re constructing in every instant. So, I mean, it sounds very Woo Woo, but the truth is that that\u2019s where a lot of the big problems come from, because that central delusion gets multiplied. So when we think about power, O.K, what would power look like if we had the correct understanding of our being. Well, it would have a lot to do with cooperation first, because the idea that you and I are separate is actually demonstrably false. If you look on a cellular level, it\u2019s just a bunch of molecules. So I think the big struggle of the human race is, can we figure out a way to make an accommodation with the essential truth that actually this illusion of self isn\u2019t true. What would that community look like. And so that. So when I\u2019m thinking about characters, I\u2019m thinking about that really. This person has certain desires. How do those desires square with metaphysical reality. And then how does that character\u2019s actions get him into trouble. Because he is acting on that delusion of a central self, if that makes sense. How do you think about that. And I\u2019m going to not let us get too deep into the Buddhism here, because I love talking with you, because I don\u2019t really know that much about it. I love talk with you about Buddhism, but I\u2019m 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 and he looks good in it, by the way. It\u2019s O.K. It\u2019s not. I need some New sweaters. I am cold. You\u2019re not cold. The other people in this room are cold that myself might be empty, but it is me. And that wants to not be cold. I am having an experience that the other selves are not, of course. And as interdependent and connected to everything as I may be, I do want things. I want them all the time. No Of course. Of course. And I mean, that\u2019s really what the book is about. There\u2019s a relative truth, of course. What we want. And it\u2019s beautiful to what we want to a certain extent. But on the absolute sense, it isn\u2019t true to the extent that we go through life embracing that illusion wholeheartedly, I think we cause suffering. And of course, there\u2019s 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 I think that\u2019s where we get into spiritual ideas and. Well, let\u2019s do that. Because one thing that struck me about this book, you were talking about the great traditions a moment ago. And in past conversations, we\u2019ve talked a lot about and meditation and Buddhism. There was a deep 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. You say in the book that Boone\u2019s 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. Sin is what we were just talking about. This is not the Catholic understanding, but my understanding is sin just means you\u2019re out of step with truth, whatever it might be. And the world has a way of either internally or from outside of punishing sin in that way. So again, if I think I\u2019m a really tough guy and I\u2019m still me and I go out and challenge somebody and I get my ass kicked, that\u2019s. I\u2019ve committed a sin. The sin of misunderstanding who I am. And then there\u2019s a punishment. So for me in the book, the sin is just being out of touch with the way things actually are. That\u2019s it. And so the again in Buddhism, karma. But what that really means is cause and effect. So basically, the view is cause and effect is absolutely undeniable. When you do something there\u2019s a reaction. Now the karmic tragedy part of it is that we aren\u2019t very good at predicting causes from effect. We think this action will cause this reaction. But we\u2019re often so wrong. So, so cause and effect is God. Basically, God acts by cause and effect and in every moment. If we\u2019re out of alignment with cause and effect, we suffer some. It may not be overt, but we suffer. That\u2019s what my idea of sin is now. I\u2019m thinking about your idea of truth. It sounds like what you were saying. Sorry I want to be. I\u2019m just. I\u2019m 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. There\u2019s a truth to cause and effect. And if you\u2019re out of alignment with it Yeah truth would be just. What is it. What is. So whatever you do, whatever your action is, the universe reacts to it as it however it likes. And to the extent that we can posit what that is, we\u2019re in alignment with truth. And if we\u2019re not then we\u2019re out of alignment with truth. It\u2019s 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. The other big idea, alongside sin that keeps coming up in the book, use the phrase an inevitable occurrence seven times. And there\u2019s 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 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\u2019ve become. Yes that\u2019s exactly the tension of the book. Thank you. So Yes so Jill had an experience at her own death, and the experience was that she spontaneously inhabited the mind of the person responsible for her death. So this was kind of like she\u2019s had on the costume of her Jill self her whole life. And of course, 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 would have been in real life, would have been quite disgusting to her. And from that point of view, she\u2019s like, oh, O.K, I understand him, I am, I am him. And so this leads to this idea that from his point of view, he. And given that time only goes in one direction, how could he be any different than he is. It\u2019s kind of an absurd thing to say. He\u2019s done. So if he could have been more understanding, why wasn\u2019t he. So again, time going in one direction. He\u2019s finished. He was what he was. And that kind of complexity is what she feels that in a certain way, you\u2019re. We understand that height, for example, is not negotiable. You didn\u2019t choose to be the height you are. I think we also understand intelligence. 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, which is true. But even there, there\u2019s a limit to it. And I would say, if you think of it in calculus terms if I want to improve my physical shape, for example, which would be a good idea. You look great. Thanks yeah. Don\u2019t say this, but if you. But if you want us to do that O.K. So, you have to go to the gym. You\u2019re going to find out that 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 birth. Now, I think people sometimes struggle with this and I struggle with it. But the idea is this. If you could imagine somebody that you cared about and maybe you had a fraught relationship with that person, they just died and they\u2019re lying there in front of you and you say, I wish he\u2019d been more X. I wish he\u2019d been more understanding. If he should have been more articulate, why wasn\u2019t he. And I think if we dig deeply enough into it. In this absolute sense, you\u2019ll find that there is a kind of inevitability to that now. That\u2019s Jill\u2019s point of view. What she\u2019s doing is saying it\u2019s fine. Whatever you did is fine. Just leave the self and all is forgiven. It\u2019s kind of my point of view, but as I wrote the book, I got more and more skeptical about it as I examined it. There\u2019s a guy in the book called The Frenchman. His point of view is bullshit. Don\u2019t give me that. When that guy was alive, somebody could have kicked his butt enough to get him to be more of quantity X So he\u2019s urging her to get after boon and do whatever\u2019s necessary to get him in relation to truth. The Frenchman is saying he\u2019s still breathing. So you have a chance if you approach it skillfully to put him in alignment with truth. And that\u2019s where the Salvation would come from. Even though he can\u2019t move. He\u2019s never going to move again if his mind could be correctly aligned. You saved him. Do you believe in free will. Depends where you put the point of view. Do you believe in free will. At this moment, I mean, in terms of I don\u2019t know what I\u2019m 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\u2019d see that the decision I made was, of course, pre-encoded by everything that came before. So the book was me kind of looking at that question, and I don\u2019t know. I mean, except move the point of view around. That\u2019s the book in some people that I\u2019ve talked to. They\u2019re reading the book and they think I\u2019m endorsing Jill\u2019s position, which I\u2019m percent not. I\u2019m going to stand for you will, for a moment. If you ask me seven years ago, my older son is about to turn 7, I would have told you that I believe that the space of decision making 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 seeing how much they were themselves from the first moment, I believe it is even more narrow than that. And it\u2019s not that we don\u2019t 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\u2019re limited by things like willpower. Willpower does not seem to me to be something that we choose to generate. And again, it\u2019s not that 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. And I think when you love somebody like you love your kids, it becomes kind of beautifully true. It becomes beautiful. Yes if you\u2019re the person that you love has this tendency, the judgment kind of goes away. It\u2019s just something to accommodate and even be fond of. So I think that\u2019s kind of Jill\u2019s thing. And she came to it in a moment of trauma and inspiration. And 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\u2019s how I understand her. She\u2019s got that she\u2019s had that experience. And now, in her horror, really, to find that at 22, she\u2019s dead. She\u2019s clinging to that idea and she\u2019s in a sense hiding behind it. So I think that\u2019s why I kind of loved about her was that she\u2019s in a real fix, but I see her as primarily kind of fearful to come out of that position. Jill\u2019s 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 is does comfort mean to you. Truth if you and I are in a cabin and we can hear there wolves outside. If I say it\u2019s cool, they\u2019re probably dogs. That\u2019s not comfort. But if you look at each other and go, fuck, there\u2019s wolves, that\u2019s comfort. But she doesn\u2019t have the capability to communicate that to him. I\u2019m very skeptical of this. I\u2019m trying to think about this. The comfort is truth Yeah I don\u2019t want to say I\u2019ve never been comforted by the truth. Oh, but you. But you that I have more often been comforted. You seek comfort for it in your work every day. You don\u2019t. You come into work and you try to get to the bottom of complicated things, and you\u2019re seeking comfort. I don\u2019t find it comfortable, but you\u2019re seeking. You\u2019re in biological. You\u2019re seeking homeostasis. That might be right. No, you want to calm yourself and comfort yourself by getting in closer relation to the truth so the world doesn\u2019t seem so anarchic. I think comfort. I\u2019m just thinking about this now as I\u2019m 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 what Jill seems to be on divine grace. I think of grace. And I\u2019m not Christian. I\u2019m not Catholic. And Grace is one of these ideas that I find very beautiful without feeling like I have a deep understanding of it. So I want to be honest about where I\u2019m coming from here. But I understand grace as far at its core, that there is a love God or the universe has for you that has nothing to do with what you\u2019ve 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 can I say that\u2019s the inverse or the shadow side of this elevation idea. Jill believes in that. Why do you describe the elevation idea that I\u2019d like to hear description of well, well, Jill\u2019s elevation is how Jill refers to this luminous event that she had on her death, where she understands people as inevitable occurrences. But that is another way, I think. I haven\u2019t really thought through this, but of saying grace that everything is O.K, that ultimately you\u2019re not to blame and you\u2019re not to praise. You\u2019re just the embodiment of God\u2019s will. That something like that. But I guess I took elevation, it almost had a coldness to it, that this you\u2019re an inevitable occurrence is very different than you are loved. I\u2019m not sure. Because if you think of now, this is getting a little deep. But I think if you say it\u2019s my hope Yeah, yeah. I mean, here\u2019s 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\u2019t 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. Although right now one of my I never even made this connection until the second. But one of my sons asked me to do a little spell every night to keep away bad dreams. And it has not always worked. It\u2019s just a little like a rhyme, but I do. But I think. But he\u2019s comfort. He asked me for it every night anyway. Because you\u2019re working on it together. In a sense. What you\u2019re saying is all will be well. And I think that that\u2019s a form of you extending grace to him, which isn\u2019t exactly truthful. The spell isn\u2019t exactly truthful, but the substrate or the foundation of the spell is true, I think, to bring it back to comfort, which again, I think is related for me to grace. But here\u2019s how I describe comfort, the fundamental exchange of comfort when I think I offer to my children, or when it\u2019s 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\u2019s it. That is what comforts another human being. And I think of Jill doing that in this book. You are dying and I am here. And on some level, I love you Yeah and it\u2019s not that it is. I mean, the love has to be true or it\u2019s better if it\u2019s true, I think. But it\u2019s not so much about being in a space of truth or a space of falsehood, so much as a space of there is presence here. There is. But where she gets into trouble. And again, I discovered this about halfway through, if you say if you are beating the shit out of another human being, and I say to you, Ezra, I\u2019m here and I love you, that\u2019s bullshit. That\u2019s false. So I think in her situation, she says, I\u2019m here and I love you and I don\u2019t care what you did. Now from his point of view, I\u2019d say does he knows what he did and he cares. And as the book goes on, he\u2019s increasingly tormented by this denial. So I think they\u2019re certainly saying, I love you, I\u2019m here is percent beautiful in the right condition. But it also her problem is I think she\u2019s got a bit of denial built into herself too. So for example, at the end condition, let\u2019s say that he was a murdering rapist and she came down to his bed and said, I\u2019m here. That somehow doesn\u2019t 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\u2019t really know the answer to these things. And of course, is that murdering rapist an inevitable occurrence. And so cannot be judged or right. And I think she would say in her peak elevation she\u2019d say, yeah, yeah. But we feel I mean, I think in the book readers have talked to me about in the middle section God, Jill, you\u2019re pissing me off. That\u2019s a result of the fact that she isn\u2019t really giving comfort. She\u2019s doing what. In Buddhism, we idiot compassion where somebody drives a spike through your head and you say, thanks for the coat rack, that thing. So she\u2019s not really doing what she claims to be doing. That\u2019s, I think, the kind of her kind of sin or her tragedy is that I think she had a genuine insight. But when you go to apply it, it\u2019s going to take a little less autopilot than she\u2019s on. This is such a weird thing to say to a person sitting in front of 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 write books, and to what degree should their moral failings change the way we read the book. And I wish I had the quote in front of me because I love the quote, but you said something along the lines of the person who wrote the book doesn\u2019t exist. Whoever 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. And it\u2019s interesting because I\u2019m 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\u2019s 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 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\u2019s the hinge of Yeah, yeah. And, but it feels like more than being out of alignment with truth. I mean, I feel like there\u2019s the world as it is. Could be all kinds of different ways. But it feels like you believe in morality here Yeah there was good and bad and evil and good in. As we said, in any specific situation there is because 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 interesting. But he knew that climate change was a thing and he consciously or unconsciously denied it. That\u2019s where he was out of sync with truth. One one of the books I had in mind while I was writing this was death of Ivan Ilyich by Tolstoy. And in that book. It\u2019s a much more modest sinner, and his sin is just that 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 gets stomach cancer and was based on a real thing that Tolstoy\u2019s neighbors supposedly screamed for four straight days at the end of his life until I heard this story, I was like, wow, what would make you do that. So in the book, the guy has this intense physical pain, of course, but Tolstoy has layered in this idea you that he\u2019s. That Ivan is starting to realize that he wasted his life by this idea of being normal. And there\u2019s 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 to God, all right, maybe I didn\u2019t maybe I didn\u2019t. I lived out of alignment with truth. 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 lived your life in the wrong way. And at some point he says, all right, I can\u2019t go back in time, but I can start now. Essentially, I can start being in alignment with truth. I didn\u2019t live in the right way. And you can feel the pain start to go out of him as soon. So the idea that there\u2019s physical suffering and then there\u2019s the suffering of denial on top of it, and we all know that if your leg hurts but you can\u2019t let it hurt, it kind of hurts more. So I think that\u2019s what in the book, the Frenchman correctly posits that if they could just get Boone to say, yeah, I lied, I really did. I\u2019m sorry 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\u2019s the truth. So before there\u2019s repentance, there has to be acceptance. I think there has to be Yeah, you have to be in relation to what you actually did. And then so sin it\u2019s a word I brought from my Catholic childhood. But now I understand it as I mean, it can be so infinitesimal. You\u2019re feeling x and you say you\u2019re feeling x prime. That\u2019s going to cause you a little pain. That\u2019s the idea. And yeah, that\u2019s sin and that\u2019s the sin. And now the characters will use that word, the Frenchman he died in 1890 or something. So he\u2019s using it in a traditional sense. But I think it\u2019s compatible with this. This other felt like the Frenchman was too hard on himself in his character. He\u2019s somebody who helped invent the engine. And now he\u2019s haunting the world, trying to make everybody aware of how much damage the engine has done. But yeah. No, you\u2019re exactly right. The engine is pretty great. And so does Jill. But one of the fun things about writing a book for me, and in this method, I use is a lot of iteration. And so I think early in the book, I thought Jill was kind of right. And then as I kept revising it, the Frenchman seemed to be right. And then I started to see, oh, they\u2019re both kind out of their minds. They\u2019re dead. So the Frenchman, he\u2019s very much neurotic in that way. There are these manic spirits who aren\u2019t quite focused on. They\u2019ve got some truth in them, but they\u2019re expressing inefficiently. And poor CJ Boone is these are his two guardian angels, and they\u2019re both kind of mess UPS. So, so I thought, yeah, I think that in the final analysis of the book, I went, oh, this is so sad. 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 of cozy way that nobody could take correction from her either. So Boone floats through and in a sense, he\u2019s not saved. Actually, I was thinking about this. This tension in the book because I think it is one that we exist in a very intense way right now. Both in our own lives, people around us, but also politically, internationally, between what is the path of truth 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\u2019m not necessarily asking you to comment on JD Vance and think, well, I\u2019ve 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\u2019re inflicting on others comes from a insecurity and a fear Q&amp;A or is it to say you\u2019re an adult man imbued with enormous power, who claims to be a Catholic like shape up Yeah, be who you claim to be. And that\u2019s the book. That\u2019s the book Yeah and I think it\u2019s also the life Yeah no, it is. And I think the answer is yes. You do have to do both. There\u2019s a beautiful Buddhist teacher named Francesca Fremantle, and she has a talk that\u2019s on the Tibetan Book of the Dead. And she has the most mind blowing answer, because what she says is there\u2019s no difference if you have compassion for the victims of this cruelty, that\u2019s important, of course, protect them. But if you run around to the other side of the table and you say, she says, the way she puts it is when you think about the karmic consequences of the sins, they\u2019re are committing, the harm that they\u2019re doing, she says. I wouldn\u2019t wish that on my worst enemy. So if you want if you want to help them, if you have any bandwidth for that, then what you would do is stop them, within your principles, within your nonviolence, and you stop them. Then you save the victims and you save the perpetrators. So I think in a higher realm, it\u2019s an identical act. It\u2019s also true, as you said, that these people aren\u2019t doing these horribly cruel things out of nowhere. But again, I think we\u2019d want to avoid that idiot compassion of and somehow, in our attempt to understand them, we enable them. That\u2019s also a danger. We introduce them or we excuse them. Yes you have a line. And forgive me because I don\u2019t have it in front of me. It\u2019s something like specificity. It\u2019s how specificity and judgment are opposed to each other. But what is I think the idea and again, I get this from writing workshop and then from writing if you move towards specificity, facile judgment goes away. So in a workshop, for example, somebody will say, oh, I think your story\u2019s boring. You can\u2019t work with that. So then you ask, be more specific. Where is it boring. And what do you mean by boring. And as you go through that process, it becomes diagnostic. It\u2019s oh, actually, there\u2019s a thought that\u2019s repeated three times in the paragraph on page 6. Oh, O.K. Could you choose one of those repetitions. And a writer can hear that. They can hear. Oh eliminate one repetition. That\u2019s all good. Whereas you\u2019re boring is less appealing. I mean, the example I thought of before is if you had five Republicans and 5 Democrats on the town board and you asked them to discuss immigration. You\u2019re going to get a fight because they\u2019re all pre-programmed with their media inputs, and it\u2019s going to just be just turn on MSNBC and Fox and let them and everybody can go and have lunch, and the TVs can fight. But if you said, O.K, we\u2019ve got $10,000 to fix potholes in our little town and we\u2019ve got $20,000 worth of potholes, what do we do. Suddenly the politics is gone. You\u2019re like, well, we should probably fix the one in front of the ER. And so it becomes and then as you start talking about individual potholes, it\u2019s just science. So I think that\u2019s what I mean by specificity squeezes out facile judgment. I mean, you don\u2019t 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\u2019t think really produces much except angst Yeah, it\u2019s 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 trying to understand, and I took the specificity point differently. The specificity of other people, how they became who they are, how they are doing things that I cannot imagine, or supporting things. Forget the people doing them who I think bear much more culpability. Just people who are just voting for it. And I am angry at some of them. And I love them. I love them, some of them individually \u201cAnd then And then also, as my neighbors and my countrymen. 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. 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 a very tight moral codes about what is right and what is wrong. Sure, but I think all those things are compatible. If you. I think that the problem is when you start trying to understand your enemy. O.K I come from a scientific background. So for me to say, can you understand a geological problem. Of course, there\u2019s no problem and there\u2019s no limit to the lengths you can go to understand that problem. It doesn\u2019t incriminate you. It doesn\u2019t. It doesn\u2019t involve you. So likewise, if the goal was to try to understand your enemies, I think the point of that is it\u2019s kind of strategic. I mean, if you\u2019re a football coach and you\u2019re playing a team, if you could inhabit the mind of the other coach for five minutes, that would be unbelievably great. I deeply agree with that. So the problem. But the problem is, I think in that process of trying to understand there\u2019s something I certainly have it where as I try to understand, I think I\u2019m trying to quote unquote, empathize. That\u2019s where I think it gets a little for me personally. It gets a little mushy because then you start to feel a kind of a 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\u2019t really know. But he at least he would say he is. His daughter loves him. We can say that. Yes, she does. And she\u2019s disappointed in him and he seems to love her. If I had said, oh, he\u2019s evil, I don\u2019t want him. He\u2019s going to be a terrible father. I think that\u2019s a less convincing portrait of him. So for me, the empathy thing, both in a book. But when we\u2019re imagining our political enemies, it has to be scientific, it has to be objective. And then you can get to where you need to be emotionally. But I think that the feeling maybe on the left especially is I\u2019m going to understand the Trump supporters and then I won\u2019t have this anxiety about disliking them. But you can understand somebody deeply and dislike them or let\u2019s say, oppose them. And I think at the highest level you can oppose somebody in this way, we\u2019re talking about, which is lacking facile 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. It\u2019s the Cruella Vil falsity Yeah, the Cruella Vil falsity. One of the things that affected me a lot over the last year was I read this book by Philippe sands called East West Street, and he was on the show, and it\u2019s a book about the development of the concept of genocide and war crimes, and it\u2019s a book about the Holocaust. And he\u2019s writing it at great length about, among other people, the man Hitler puts in charge of governing Poland. And this person has an incredible artistic sensitivity. He truly loves art and music, and he\u2019s a beautiful player of the piano. And, you read so much. I mean, you\u2019ve made arguments like this, but I wasn\u2019t thinking about it here, about the way art is supposed to enlarge your soul. And then the Nazis really cared about aesthetics. Say what you will about them. They really cared about aesthetics. But I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve ever made the argument that art enlarges everyone\u2019s soul and will therefore solve everything. I think of it more if you say, if somebody went into a gym and said, this doesn\u2019t work. They\u2019re still chubby people in here. It\u2019s just from my own experience, I\u2019m not accusing you of that claim. What I\u2019m saying more is it and I\u2019ve seen it. I\u2019ve seen so many people go and meet with Donald Trump and come and be like, oh, he\u2019s really charming and personable. And I\u2019m like, of course he\u2019s charming and personable. Like, what were you expecting. But this is where the science comes in. Because if you go in and you see he\u2019s charming and personable just add it to your data set. O.K noted. He\u2019s doing these incoherent things. He seems to be kind of largely incoherent in his views and in his plans. He seems to have a terrific, mean streak. And when I talk to him, he\u2019s so nice. O.K, so now we have a New portrait of the man, and I think that would totally enable one to oppose him. Better better than if you had a caricature of him that didn\u2019t comply with truth. I don\u2019t to me, as a scientist, I mean. Well, yeah, of course, want all the information you could have. And if it\u2019s hard to process or it\u2019s complicated, that\u2019s O.K. That\u2019s just part of the game. So I think that\u2019s part of maybe there\u2019s so much emotion right now, so much agitation and fear. And I think that somehow for some reason, that makes people crave autopilot, a set of beliefs that\u2019s very simple and is sturdy in every circumstance. And that\u2019s not really what human beings are good at. I mean, we like it, we like it. But out of that comes violence and extremity. And I would say that\u2019s what the right is doing right now. They somehow I think they know they\u2019re looting the House and they know their time is limited. And so they\u2019re agitated and they\u2019re on autopilot. And anybody who opposes them is a leftist lunatic. You have the evidence of your senses. Says this in Minneapolis is a murder. They fictionalize the fact that he was, quote unquote, brandishing a gun. That\u2019s panic. That\u2019s panic. But it\u2019s also autopilot, because a person not on autopilot would watch the damn video, and would adjust their viewpoint accordingly. That\u2019s what intelligent people do. Or it\u2019s funny. I wonder if it\u2019s autopilot or. Well, one of the things it is autopilot. It is an attempt to impose is the domination that power can have over other people on reality itself Yeah when I see that, when I see when I am lied to in that way, I understand it as an act of domination. Percent they do not expect me to believe it. Well, what it\u2019s like. It\u2019s like if you went into a really nice restaurant and somebody. The waiter brought you three turds on a tray and put it down. Enjoy there\u2019s a kind of a disbelief that he just did that. If you don\u2019t stand up and say, get this, get these turds out of here, bring me my lasagna, then he\u2019s one. And if he keeps bringing the turds and you don\u2019t call him on it, then you erode your belief in truth erodes and you start to shrink. And pretty soon they\u2019re all bets are off. So I think that\u2019s where. And now what amazes me is that they want that and they know how to do it, that\u2019s 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\u2019t think that they I don\u2019t think anyone gets up in the morning and goes, yeah, ha, time to be evil. I don\u2019t think so. I mean, there are probably some sociopaths and so on, but mostly I think JD Vance wakes up in the morning and he feels like a good Catholic. And that\u2019s fascinating to me. I don\u2019t despite being repeatedly rebuked by popes in the past. But I mean, a couple of years after he turned Catholic. It is interesting. And as a writer, that\u2019s such rich stuff to go towards that which you don\u2019t understand and vow not to falsify it in either direction. Just look at it, look at it, look at it. That\u2019s rich. You\u2019re For a long time, you\u2019ve been known as the kindness guy. You gave this famous speech Yeah see, there it is. And I can see you in interviews recently pushing back on it. I can see the way you\u2019ve become very uncomfortable with it. And I was thinking as we were talking that compared to other times when I\u2019ve spoken to you, it feels to me like the concept of the virtue, the practice you are circling has changed its truth. You\u2019ve developed a view about truth that is lying at the core of what you\u2019re doing. Certainly in this conversation, I think so, yeah. I mean, the kindness thing. I made that one speech, and I stand behind it, but it was kind of a simple it\u2019s your fault for making a good man, right. No, nobody did that. The speech says the speech says I suck at kindness and it\u2019s too bad. So then, of course, the way that things work is you talk about if we had to talk about squirrels and I said, I really love squirrels, that\u2019s going to show up in the next seven interviews. So let\u2019s talk about your relation to squirrels. So it does kind of it replicates and I\u2019m certainly for kindness and I try to be nice and I try to have good public manners. But then I\u2019m in truth. It starts to work into people\u2019s interpretation of your work. As if that\u2019s what I\u2019m trying to do is model kindness in my work, which is so far from the truth of what your work has always had a bite. What\u2019s your relationship to anger. I have it all the time. I\u2019ve had a rough couple of years and a lot of illness in the family and a dog sick and all kinds of weird things. And most days I\u2019m just a little agitated and. Entitled and pissed off. A lot of days I\u2019m struggling with that. So in the Buddhist tradition, that\u2019s a course. I mean, you have negative emotions. Who doesn\u2019t. And the whole thing is to try to work with those somehow. Maybe in some traditions you could take a negative emotion and convert it to a positive emotion. So, I mean, this is a thing about this kind of shtick that bugs me is I can be struggling through a day with say, with our sick dog. And what I\u2019m doing all day is just trying to be do the right thing for her and interrupt narratives of anxiety that I\u2019m having about what I should be doing. How long do I have to do this before I have to rush off. That\u2019s a whole day. And then you get on a call and someone says, tell me about your approach to kindness. It seems so hypocritical that. And it seems so partial, because yes, kindness, of course, 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\u2019ve been in my own period of change and growth and rupture, 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 cut me off from my own anger was so much more frightening and emotion to me, certainly to say nothing of an action than kindness. But there were things I wasn\u2019t seeing because I wasn\u2019t allowing that in. And part of what I\u2019ve been going through personally is letting myself feel. If not, act on, more of my own negative emotions because there is truth in them too. Percent so. So tell me about the relationship for you between anger, between fury, between judgment and truth. Well, I think first of all, I think I have AI had or maybe still have a misunderstanding of kindness being niceness. Kindness is a deep concept. And it\u2019s not about nice. I think it\u2019s about being beneficial in the moment you\u2019re in. So, so kindness wouldn\u2019t have to be tidy and mincing it\u2019s something else. And so I almost feel like striking that word from my personal vocabulary because it\u2019s confusing. So if you have anger then I would say the primary thing is to go, yeah, it\u2019s almost like if you had hunger, what would it be like to go, oh no, I\u2019m not hungry because that\u2019s not a virtuous you\u2019re hungry. That\u2019s all right. And then so if you\u2019re angry, then I think the idea would be to think about. Well, one controlling it. I mean, that\u2019s O.K. It\u2019s O.K to control your anger and then also to think about the source of it and so on, all those kind of things we all do that could be construed as ultimately a form of kindness because you\u2019re dealing with what is truth. I had a young woman come up at this event and she said, I can\u2019t write because I\u2019m 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, O.K. And I said, well, what if you said I wasn\u2019t so anxious, I couldn\u2019t write. That\u2019s what I said. That\u2019s what I said. I said, actually your anxiety, let\u2019s just not call it that. Let\u2019s turn it a little bit and call it beautiful high standards. Can you think of it that way. And you go, well, maybe I said, yeah, because you\u2019re anxious because you love this form so much you don\u2019t want to mess it up. That\u2019s good. So anyway, that whole process of taking anger and going, yeah, of course I\u2019m pissed off, and in my work, that\u2019s exactly what I\u2019m doing. I think I\u2019m taking darkness and neurosis and OCD and anger and all that stuff, and then putting it on the page and trying to work with it. I find anxiety a lot easier to feel than anger, and a lot easier to talk about than anger, because anxiety is like I am feeling that elicits sympathy as opposed to glamorous anxiety is a little. It\u2019s also become trendy. I agree with that. But what you just made me think of with that conversation you had with that woman is over the years, I\u2019ve looked very deeply into my own anxiety. What I always noticed to be at its very bottom is energy. And I really don\u2019t think I could do my work a large amount of my work is the energy in me that becomes anxiety just harnessed to productivity. I think it was I remember who said it, but maybe Tina Fey said that you could say I\u2019m nervous, or you could say I\u2019m excited. And they\u2019re similar. The writers I work with at Syracuse, you can\u2019t. Truncate them. You can\u2019t say, don\u2019t be what you are. But you can say can we together reconceptualize that thing that you\u2019re naming in a negative way. Just turn it slightly and see if it\u2019s not a virtue, because it has to be, for a person to write a book that\u2019s powerful. They have to take everything that they have, and even the stuff that they habitually labeled as negative can be turned. So anger. Well, really, in some situations, anger is just an appropriate reaction to injustice or to disalignment and misalignment. But for me, writing that\u2019s what you\u2019re doing in every second you\u2019re taking a sentence that\u2019s a little messed up and you\u2019re putting it on the table and going, oh, O.K, let\u2019s make that more specific. Let\u2019s just turn it a little bit, and suddenly it pops into something that\u2019s more truthful. I am saying that I think you are something in you is changing or something in the way you\u2019re at least presenting yourself is changing. I can feel your discomfort with one, but I want it because we\u2019ve talked about truth so much here. I don\u2019t have any questions here on Truth, because it\u2019s not a word that is coming up constantly in the book. You haven\u2019t done a big speech on it. And it\u2019s lowercase truth. It\u2019s just truth. But what is it. The way. It\u2019s the way things are. The way they\u2019re supposed to be. It\u2019s for you. The way Dow, the way they are. The way I don\u2019t know. I don\u2019t know enough about it. It\u2019s the way things are. I mean, but you can be out of alignment with the way things are. So of course Yeah that\u2019s sin as we\u2019ve said. You said it\u2019s sin. But then what do you mean by the way things are. Because somebody\u2019s out of alignment with the way things are, is part of the way things are. Yes, but the truth, the truth just means from my point of view, what\u2019s happening right now and but also with a dose of skepticism about the way my mind answers that question. I read a beautiful quote by Trungpa Rinpoche. He said, everything that you feel and enjoy and hate and crave. He said, it\u2019s all memory. So a certain loose relation to appearances that says this is all a dream or it\u2019s all a form of memory that\u2019s happening. So let\u2019s not get too attached to the way things appear and in our actions. Let\u2019s factor that in. So truth is just well, let\u2019s say what\u2019s not truth. What\u2019s not truth is your mindstream in a given situation, you walk into a party and you feel judged. You feel judged. Are people actually judging you. Maybe now you go into the party and you can see oh honestly, man, nowadays if you\u2019re me, they kind of are O.K. So right. But I mean that truth is not I don\u2019t think there\u2019s anything lofty, but I think it\u2019s just saying in a given moment, can I through the various scale models that my mind is presenting to a quieter place and in the quieter place you\u2019re processing more data. So if you go to that party and your mind is quiet and you see somebody smiling at you, you go, oh, O.K, noted. Or you see somebody giving the side eye, you just note it more honestly. So I think truth is something it\u2019s very simple. It\u2019s not. And in and again for me to go local in a book and this is weird and I can\u2019t really defend this in a piece of writing. Truth is what works. So if a certain and of course, it\u2019s all by your standards as the writer. But if a certain part of the prose comes alive, there\u2019s truth in it. That\u2019s why I asked about. And I\u2019m not a Daoist either. And I don\u2019t know that much about the tau, but what you were describing to me sounds a little bit more like the idea that there is a flow to the world. And I know people who are the facet of my life that I\u2019ve been privileged to some people who I think are fundamentally Mystics, and they\u2019re a little more in touch with something. I thought you said Mystics. Mystics Mystics. They are a little more in touch with something than I am, and they resistance than I do. And they feel currents that I don\u2019t Yeah and to maybe make the argument for CJ Boone here for a moment, they are not the people trying to master nature to make it possible to fly from Brazil to Japan, or wipe out certain forms of illnesses and childhood illnesses, that there is something that is a fascinating tension. I do believe there is something that you keep calling it truth. I think of it as a kind of current in life. And I think people who are at a higher level of spiritual attainment than I am can sometimes sense it Yeah, I know people like that too. And I\u2019ve heard it described as basic sanity. Are you in relation to what actually is. And then there is something beautifully human and amazing about the struggle with the world as it is, the effort to change it, not to master it, but to alter it. The way, Kid you, Boone is a villain in this book. The villainy to him is that he was an oil executive. He knew that climate change was happening and he lied and he sowed doubt about it. If you took that out though, right. If you just said if you actually separately, imagine somebody who is the CJ Boone of clean energy, the CJ Boone of solar panels, that person might have all of his ambition and his energy and his ferocity and his aggression and his cruelty. They may have papered over, not papered over, paneled over huge amounts of forest and that the people you can be trying to remake this world and be not obviously villainous about it, but it\u2019s going to have villainy in it. There\u2019s going to be cost. There\u2019s going to be. I think there\u2019s something interesting in this being close to truth and then also this kind of trying to act upon the world and make it fundamentally different than the way it is. I\u2019m not sure I feel that question Yeah, I mean, it doesn\u2019t feel true to I mean, it\u2019s got a concept thing that I don\u2019t. So I think if you could put anybody in this book in that bed, but I think the reason it\u2019s him is because he\u2019s almost cartoonishly sinful. He\u2019s done some and I just I was back in maybe 2022. There was a string of weather disasters, and I was watching it was almost funny. Like, what would a climate change denier make of this. Could they still say nothing\u2019s happening. So it\u2019s really just an attempt to put somebody exaggeratedly, quote unquote, evil into the book. And let the world work on him. So, I but you don\u2019t feel any recognition of this other thing I\u2019m saying, which is that you\u2019re circling this idea of truth. And the idea of truth to you is the world as it is the person\u2019s a person\u2019s ability in a given moment to be open to what\u2019s actually happening. Yes yeah. And you don\u2019t feel that there is, to some degree, a tension between that and the better side of CJ Boone, which is a person\u2019s ability to look at the world and say it should be radically different than it is. I think that\u2019s beautiful. There\u2019s no problem. It\u2019s the. The thing that makes him problematic is that he did that with something under his cloak. He really wasn\u2019t in he was both in and out of relation with what was real. He knew in some way that he was Shilling a falsehood. So, so he wasn\u2019t in relation to things as they were, except in this false way. So yeah, I don\u2019t see it. In other words, from a novelistic standpoint, everything is sacred. Everything is interesting, in other words. And ideally, you\u2019re just like in the 60s parlance, digging it like, oh, wow, look at that. A hustler, a man, a criminal, a ST. It\u2019s all occurs and therefore it\u2019s worthy of your attention. And the best book would be one that I have not written yet, which lets all of that in with a very minimal judgment. And even I think a feeling of if we define it correctly, celebration like, oh, look. Look at this universe. It\u2019s amazing. Has anyone written that book. Oh, yeah. Shakespeare I mean, I think every great book has a little hint of that in there. So the idea that you would I mean, it kind of resonates with what we talked earlier about specificity in the best of Shakespeare. I think what you feel is a God\u2019s eye view of someone going, whoa, this is amazing. And laying it all out there without fear or favor and without the hardest thing to do for a writer without tilting the board based on your own viewpoint that the vastness that you feel in him. And with this book I worried a lot about because of the point of view we\u2019re in, mostly in his point of view as mediated by Jill. I didn\u2019t have a chance to tell you my political beliefs, my beliefs about climate change. I only could signal over the character\u2019s head to you. And that was. I could feel that as an act of tension and a sign of my immaturity as a writer, because I want you to know that I know he\u2019s a bad guy. Well, I think a more mature writer would be somewhat more open about that wouldn\u2019t be quite so fearful that his political agenda and his shtick was being hidden. How old are you now. 300 yeah, but I feel like somebody asked me how would I feel the other day. And the number that came into my mind before I had thought up an answer was 58. I was like, oh my God. Wow oh that\u2019s good. Very specific Yeah, I\u2019m 67, just turned 60. Do you surprise yourself more now than you did when you were 40 or less. Probably less, I think. I think. I mean, not in a way, not in a negative sense, but the places where I expect surprise that\u2019s narrowed. So I expect surprise when I\u2019m writing and that comes more surprises there. As a person, I would say, well, actually. Probably, yeah, I think less. I think things are a little more patterned. I think I ask for my own personal. How do you feel about it. I find I\u2019m surprising myself, particularly recently, more than I did when I was in my 20s. And what flavor. And professionally. Personally no, I mean professionally, a lot of things are surprising, but. But that\u2019s not what I mean here. I think I am, I think in some ways, because I\u2019m more settled in myself, I have noticed myself allowing myself to change more than I did at other times. I think I was more afraid of being out of control of parts of me cracking or having to open. And now I\u2019ve been through that process of internal rupture. A few times, yeah. And you can survive it and. And so I think I\u2019m more open to the idea that in different periods I will have to change. I think at this point, one of the things that gets a little scary is that the blind spots get bigger. There are things when you\u2019re younger, I think you the world hits you in ways that makes you aware of the blind spots. And I think as you get older and especially as you get I have a teaching life and I have most of the areas in my life allow me to think I\u2019m all right. And so then your blind spots sit there very happily and they just expand so that can be scary. But I think for me writing is one way where a lot of that gets overturned. But then also I guess in just in terms of repetition, the number of things that you\u2019ve done and seen and thought, just the sheer volume over the years, it starts to put you into a better relation with truth. So, for example, I remember this is when I turned 40, but I was walking to teach at Syracuse and I was having a certain thought stream a certain kind of pre-teaching nervous, mind fart, basically. And I thought, oh my God, I\u2019ve been having this since I was eight years old, kind of a little pep talk you give yourself when you\u2019re feeling nervous. And at that point, I thought, I wonder if I\u2019ll be doing this when I\u2019m 90. And a little voice said, yeah, of course, you will. That\u2019s so that stuff happens more and more and you start to see yourself as a kind of patterned, repetitive being, for better or worse. And that kind of makes for a certain relaxation oh, I\u2019m just trapped. I\u2019m trapped inside this guy. And I can work with him a little more, maybe something like that. I think that\u2019s a lovely place to end. Always our final question. What are three books you\u2019d recommend to the audience. Well, there\u2019s one. I\u2019m sure you read this, but \u201cI Will Bear Witness\u201d by Victor Klemperer. It\u2019s an incredible. I just I bought this recently, but I have not read it yet. It\u2019s incredible. And there\u2019s one volume that covers. Can you describe what it is? Yeah somebody described it as the first book that shows the Holocaust in color, as opposed to black and white. So he\u2019s a professor, and I think he\u2019s in Dresden. And there\u2019s this unforgettable scene where he goes into the butcher, who he\u2019s known for years, and the butcher says, hey, Professor, I\u2019m so sorry, but it\u2019s not me, it\u2019s Berlin. And he can\u2019t sell him meat anymore. And so the his world gets constricted. He loses his office, then he loses his job, then he loses his house. But it happens over, I think about a five year period. So reading that now, it\u2019s kind of amazing how relatively slowly it\u2019s happening. And then every so often something seeps in. And so it\u2019s a really interesting read for right now. And then the other one I would recommend, I maybe have recommended it before because I love it so much, but it\u2019s \u201cRed Cavalry\u201d by Isaac Babel. The Jewish Russian writer. And I think what well, it speaks to me about that book right now. It\u2019s so chaotic and it\u2019s written from different points of view, and it doesn\u2019t really who\u2019s speaking to you. And the kind of very, very understated through line of the book is this Jewish kid throws in with the revolution and they go back and forth over Poland mistreating Jews and mistreating everybody. And so his heart slowly starts to turn against the revolution. So I think it speaks to me of the way I feel about the country right now, that as soon as you sit on a truth, it gets knocked out from under you and that kind of kaleidoscopic feeling. And then the third one would be maybe more of an antidote. It\u2019s a beautiful book called \u201cThe Place of Tides\u201d by James Rebanks, and he just goes nonfiction and he goes to Iceland. I think it\u2019s off Iceland, and he lives with this woman who is her job is to collect eiderdown. And there\u2019s an elaborate process where you lure the ducks in by being very quiet, basically, and setting up little environments that they\u2019ll like. And then they come in and they leave eiderdown, which is then collected and sold. But it\u2019s such a quiet, beautiful, meditative book. It\u2019s got true what I would call rising action, but it\u2019s so subtle. And it just made me think a lot about how much we miss with the speed of our lives and the technology. And this book works that way. You start reading it and it really announces that it\u2019s going to take its time. And then slowly it just builds into this beautiful kind of crescendo at the end. George Saunders, thank you very much. Thank you so much for having me.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\u201cI think there tend to be two ways to know the novelist George Saunders. One is through his&hellip;\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":128627,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[2878,55464,9,11,10,23314,32328],"class_list":{"0":"post-128626","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-new-york","8":"tag-books","9":"tag-george-saunders","10":"tag-new-york","11":"tag-new-york-headlines","12":"tag-new-york-news","13":"tag-philosophy","14":"tag-vigil"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128626","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=128626"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128626\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/128627"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128626"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128626"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128626"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}