Epiphany: My message changed when I selected a new audience

By David McElroy · September 22, 2019

Everything I’ve written for the last five years has been for an audience of one. Everything I’ve had to say was ultimately for her.

Part of me has known that, but the conscious part of me has been in the dark. And now that I understand, it all seems obvious. It was all for her.

On Brian Koppelman’s podcast this week, Seth Godin was talking about how creators change their work depending on the audience they choose. Godin’s argument was much deeper and more complex, but it was on this particular point that I suddenly had to stop the recording Sunday evening — because I had experienced an epiphany that I hadn’t seen coming.

A little bit more than five years ago — May 13, 2014, to be exact — I had run out of things I wanted to say here. On that date, I actually wrote something explaining that I had realized that everything I’d done for the previous three years had all been for a woman. I no longer had anything to say to that woman. I was moving on — and I was seriously considering shutting the site down.

And then something happened. In a miracle of timing, someone else came into my life — and I had a lot to say again. The words I needed to write suddenly changed.

Without having any intention to do such a thing, this woman changed my work.

Now that I see this, it’s incredibly obvious. If you go back and track what I was writing about, you can see how much things changed during the summer and fall of 2014.

I fell in love with someone. I fell really hard. And it changed me.

I had things I needed to say to her. I had things I needed to work out in my own mind which were awakened by falling in love with her. And even though I never once sat down and directed a specific piece of writing at her, it’s clear now that she was the thread running through everything I’ve had to say.

It was a shock to realize this earlier this evening. It was like a bolt of lightning out of the blue — like a literal flash of light that was intense and earth-shaking.

It’s not that I’ve been talking directly to her, of course. I’ve had no way to know whether she even knows what I have to say anymore. And if I’d just wanted to write directly to her, there were easier ways to do it. I could just send email. This was something deeper.

This was more like an impressionistic record of how I have changed — and continue to change — because of the ways I’ve loved her. And I didn’t quite know that.

This is difficult to explain.

I’m not saying that she has done something to try to change me. I’m not even saying that I have been changing myself to try to be something for her. It’s both more simple and more complicated. My own love for her has forced me to change — and what I write here is a reflection of that.

I’ve always known that a creator’s work is changed by the audience he creates for. Over the last 20 years or so, I’ve also understood in a vague way that who I become is changed because of whatever woman was in my life.

But this is a more pure version of the phenomenon. This is me changing — becoming a better person, by my standards — simply because I loved her. She wasn’t even part of the process anymore. She wasn’t in my life anymore. As far as I knew, she never read anything I had to say. But loving her continued to change me.

Here’s the thing. I’ve loved her powerfully enough that I’ve had things I’ve wanted to share with her — big ideas, small ideas, goals, achievements, dreams and dozens of other things — and because I haven’t been able to share them with her, I’ve created something else with them.

The early 20th century success writer Napoleon Hill had a lot to say about the ways in which a woman changed a man when she came into his life. In “Think and Grow Rich” and in some of his other work, he talked about “the mystery of sex transmutation” in terms that seemed pretty mystical to me.

But I think I understand now what Hill was talking about. There is some sort of mysterious connection between two people when there is real love, even if the people aren’t together. Love for someone else acts as some sort of amplifier of something powerful that’s already inside. None of this quite makes rational sense, but something in me knows it’s true.

Hill taught that a man needs a powerful love with the right kind of woman to become what he’s really capable of. I suddenly understand what he was talking about, far more than I ever did.

There’s nothing I can do about this. She is not in my life — by her choice — and I have no reason to think that will ever change. But suddenly understanding what this sort of love is capable of doing — and how it has changed me without my intention — makes me desperately wish I could experience the effects of that love in daily life.

That powerful love has changed me. It has changed what I have to say. It has changed my work. And I have a feeling it would enable a kind of work more powerful than I fully comprehend even now.

I’m not entirely comfortable admitting all this. Part of me would rather just ignore it. The person I was five years ago would definitely have ignored it, because it’s opening myself up in vulnerable ways.

But loving this woman has made me more vulnerable and made me willing to take risks which would have seemed absurd to me five years ago.

I don’t know where this might be leading me, but it’s far too late to stop plunging forward now.

Note: Ever since I started thinking about this a couple of hours ago, I haven’t been able to get a song off my mind, because it seems to express what this feels like. It’s by the musical group called the Album Leaf, which is mostly musician Jimmy LaValle. The song is “Always for You.”

Share on Social Networks

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

For four years, Donald Trump’s supporters screamed that everything that went wrong was the fault of Joe Biden. They were sometimes right and they were sometimes delusional. (Anybody who knows me understands that I can’t stand Biden any more than I can stand Trump, just for different reasons.) But for two months, Trump has rampaged through U.S. political life — vandalizing pretty much everything in sight — and the vast majority of his supporters are silent at best. Many watch as he blows up the world economy and they make excuses for him. They’re in absolute denial, even about things that Trump is doing very intentionally. Anybody who understands economics and history knows that tariffs are a terrible idea from a pragmatic point of view. Anybody who values individual freedom knows that tariffs are massive taxes on individuals — and they’re a tool of political control over the ability of people to trade freely. Trump is the antithesis of everything which political conservatives stood for just a few years ago. It’s far past time for people who claim to be conservatives to reclaim the principles and values which they used to claim — and stop this mad man before he can accelerate the day when we experience economic and social collapse. Open your eyes to reality and reject this lying narcissist.

Related Posts