This one began with a feeling, late last night.

I followed it for a few hours and ended up here.

I read my son’s report card this afternoon. The comments themselves were familiar.

His handwriting is difficult to read. Large letters. Small letters. Some straight. Some curved.

He rushes.

He interrupts.

He struggles with timing.

Sometimes he participates too much. Sometimes not at all.

Sometimes he disappears into his own thoughts.

The words were not cruel.

The teachers care about him. I think they do.

And yet, after I finished reading, I felt the same heaviness I often feel after meetings about him. A heaviness that has very little to do with his handwriting, or with saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.

Because every conversation seems to begin in the same place.

What he cannot do yet.

What is difficult.

What needs intervention.

What needs improvement.

And after a while, even when every observation is reasonable on its own, they begin to pile up.

Not on him.

On me.

A teacher says he interrupts.

A therapist tells me he could not stop himself from writing on her desk with a Sharpie even after she repeatedly asked him to stop.

A coach notices the clumsiness.

A report card notices the handwriting.

Everyone notices something.

Everyone hands me another small piece.

And somehow I become the person carrying all of them.

The pieces accumulate.

The weight accumulates.

And sometimes, if I am not careful, I can feel myself beginning to see him through their eyes instead of my own.

That is the part that scares me.

Because when I look at my son, I do not first see the interruptions. I see a boy who hears music everywhere.

A boy who can recognize a song after two notes, and walks around with entire soundtracks playing inside his head.

I see someone funny.

Creative.

Deeply sensitive.

A child who feels things so intensely that the world sometimes seems to arrive without a protective filter.

I see a boy who desperately wants to belong. He wants it so plainly that it aches to watch.

And who is increasingly aware that belonging does not always come easily.

That last part breaks my heart.

Because children know.

They know when they are the child being corrected more often.

They know when other children start building small invisible walls around them.

They know when they are the one who keeps getting redirected.

Even if they cannot articulate it.

They know.

And parents know too.

We feel it before anyone says it out loud.

The thing that hurts most is that so many of the struggles seem connected to the gifts.

His mind moves quickly.

Maybe too quickly.

Thoughts arrive before timing does.

Words arrive before restraint does.

Curiosity arrives before organization does.

The same river that overflows its banks is also the river itself.

I find myself wondering about this often.

How much do you correct?

How much do you accommodate?

How much do you push?

How much do you protect?

How do you help a child function in the world without teaching him that the most beautiful parts of himself are the problem?

I do not know.

I genuinely do not know.

I will help him with the handwriting.

We will practice.

We will find strategies.

We will do all the things parents are supposed to do.

Of course we will.

But there is another responsibility that feels equally important.

Maybe more important.

To keep seeing him.

Not the report card version.

Not the therapist version.

Not the coach version.

Not the collection of observations and assessments and concerns.

Him.

The whole child.

The child who is more than the things he struggles with.

The child who is becoming.

The child who is trying.

The child who sometimes comes home carrying his own invisible pile of corrections and disappointments and frustrations.

The child who still deserves to be looked at with wonder.

I find myself sitting on the couch tonight, with all of this and wanting to cry.

Not because I think something is wrong with my son.

Though, it’s certainly not easy.

Because sometimes it feels like I am standing in a room full of people discussing the difficulties of a child I am wildly in love with.

The report card is not wrong.

The therapist is not wrong.

The coach is not wrong.

The concerns are real.

But they are not the whole truth.

The whole truth is a boy.

A beautiful, complicated, sensitive, funny, musical boy trying to make sense of a world that does not always make sense to him.

I think my job, at least for now, is to make sure that truth never gets lost underneath the rest.

To hold the complete picture.

To remember who he is while we work on what is hard.

To remember his gifts while helping him carry his struggles.

To remember, especially on the difficult days, that a child is always larger than the list of things that need fixing.

Not pretending the challenges are not there.

Simply refusing to mistake them for the whole person.

Subscribe

In 1973, an Italian writer named Gianni Rodari sat down and wrote a story for children about a machine that could do homework1. Math, essays, geography. One button, one minute, done.

Rodari had been a teacher before he became a writer, which I think matters.

In the story, a strange little man “no more than two matchsticks tall” arrives at a family’s door offering a machine. The price is not money. The price is the boy’s brain.

If the machine does the homework, the little man asks, what good is the brain anyway?

The father agrees. Without his brain, the boy floats toward the ceiling, light as air, empty as a canary cage with the door left open. They have to keep him behind bars so he does not drift away and starve.

He wakes up. It was a dream. He goes and does his homework.

I read that story as a child, as a warning against laziness. That is how it was offered.

I came back to it recently because a few weeks ago my son Nathan told me he wants to be a graphic novel writer when he turns thirteen. Trying to be a supportive mother living in 2026, I suggested we could experiment with AI too.

He looked at me as if I had mentioned the devil.

“No,” he said. “I want to draw them.”

Then he thought about it for a moment.

“And I’ll get a colorist as well.”

I smiled.

The exchange should have lasted thirty seconds. Instead, it has been following me ever since, because I realized I had offered him the shortcut, and he insisted on the path.

I use AI every day myself. I love how it summarizes my meeting notes, generates images and animations for my YouTube videos, and best of all it occasionally hands me the word I have been circling for ten minutes, which, as a non-native English speaker, is sometimes a gift.

At the same time, I find myself wondering what this machine, which by any honest measure helps me, will do to a child who has not yet had the chance to build those capacities for himself.

As a grown-up, I built most of my mind before the machine arrived. I learned to find my way before the blue line, to write before the draft appeared on its own, to sit with a difficult problem long enough to feel it give. And with some effort, I could still do all of those things without the machine.

My son will not.

And I find that unsettling.

I am not anti-AI. Quite the opposite. I spent twenty years helping build the future, and one of the joys of my post-corporate life is how much and how fast I can build with AI. It is exhilarating.

My deeper concern is that for most of history, parents knew what they were passing on to their children, what they would need to navigate the world. Stories, skills, traditions, languages.

And children learned by watching adults do things and struggle with them. Nonna swearing at the bread when it failed to rise, then starting again. A love letter begun over and over, crumpled pages filling the basket, until the right words came. A problem worked through out loud, wrong turn by wrong turn.

Those are the rooms where thinking happens.

Now children mostly encounter finished things. Answers provided in seconds. Products delivered in less than an hour. All struggle and friction edited out. They grow up surrounded by results and almost never shown the work, which means they rarely see the boredom, repetition, and frustration that learning has always required.

But some things, childhood first among them, are supposed to be inefficient. The long way around is not a detour from the learning. It is the learning. Boredom is where information settles and turns into insight.

On one of our recent walks in Beacon Hill, waiting to pick up Nathan from school, I told my husband I had come across the Rodari story again, and that I wanted to write an essay about what children still need to learn for themselves in the age of AI. I shared my concern that we might be trading off our children’s brain.

He likes a good debate. “How is this different from what our parents went through with us?” he asked.

“How is this not simply another calculator moment?”

He has a point. I am surely worse at arithmetic in my head than my parents were. The capability thinned because something else was carrying the weight. The sky did not fall. We still grew up capable.

But a calculator took one narrow thing: the arithmetic. You still had to know which numbers mattered, what the problem was asking, what the answer meant once it landed.

We handed over the multiplication and kept the judgment where it was.

What is on offer now is harder to draw a line around. The machine can suggest the frame, generate the argument, point toward the conclusion. It can do the thinking that surrounds the thinking.

At what point are we still using judgment, and at what point are we borrowing it?

Perhaps another way of asking the same question is this: when does a tool become a crutch?

A tool is something you choose to use. A crutch is something you no longer know how to do without.

The calculator is a tool in the hands of someone who learned arithmetic and a crutch in the hands of someone who never did. The map on the screen is a tool for the person who can read a city and a crutch for the person who never learned to. The machine my son will inherit is no different. The only question that matters is where assistance ends and substitution begins.

The boy in the story felt lighter without his brain. Free, almost, drifting up toward the window.

What looked like flight was the first second of a cage.

Maybe that is what makes this question feel different from earlier technological shifts.

The real issue is not what the machine can do.

It is what the human being misses when the machine does it instead.

We tend to evaluate technologies through the lens of outcomes. But a child is not an outcome. A child is becoming.

And becoming happens inside the parts of the process that look inefficient from the outside. The wrong turn. The long chapter. The problem held long enough to feel it give. That is where the person is actually built.

So, as a parent first, but also for the sake of my own brain, what are the capacities we cannot afford to lose?

Not skills. Skills come and go, and the future will ask things of him I cannot predict.

The capacities underneath them. The ones every new skill will be built on.

Attention is the first and most fragile. It is becoming the scarce resource, the thing every app and platform and assistant is built to take from him. You do not teach it with a lecture. You teach it with a long chapter book, learning to play an instrument, a walk with a new destination and no map.

From attention comes something harder: the ability to accept not knowing right this instant. We have built an entire world to help us escape that feeling. But the things I still remember are the ones I had to work to learn, poems I memorized, facts I dug out of paper encyclopedias, Latin words I hunted down in thick dictionaries. The answer that arrived slowly became mine in a way the instant answer never quite does.

And underneath both of those is the reflex to try. A child encounters a problem and thinks: let me see if I can. Not because independence is always the answer. Sometimes wisdom consists precisely in knowing who can help. But believing you are capable of engaging with the problem before you have outsourced it.

Then there is noticing. I am not sure it can be taught. I suspect it can only be modeled. You point things out. You name what is happening. The smell of rain before it arrives. The darkening sky before the storm. A shift in someone’s voice that says something other than their words. The story underneath the story.

I am grateful that Nathan still notices these things. He is wired that way too. And I want to nurture it. When I look at the people whose judgment I trust most, whose insight seems to come from somewhere deeper than information, noticing is usually where it begins.

Turn the Key

I am not asking my child, or myself for that matter, to do things the hard way for the sake of hardness, nor mourning a world that is already gone. I am trying to preserve a few experiences on purpose.

I am refusing, on his behalf, to let the machine remove every struggle before he has met enough of them to know what he is made of.

Go for that long walk with no directions. Offer a book slightly above his reading level and persevere when he says no. Not grasping our phones to look up the answer to that problem at the table, even though I could, even though it would be faster, even though he is looking at me with that face.

The machine may help him reach the answer. I am trying to make sure he still gets the chance to become the person who could have found it.

Before You Cross

The little man in Rodari’s story thought he was asking a rhetorical question.

What good is the brain if the machine does the homework?

Half a century later, Rodari’s little man is standing at every door.

And the question feels less rhetorical than ever.

A few weeks ago, my son told me he wanted to draw the graphic novel himself.

No shortcut. No machine. The long way around.

At the time, I smiled. Now I find myself returning to that moment for a different reason.

If there is hope in all of this, perhaps it lies in the possibility that beneath all our machines, something in us will still choose the path, not the shortcut.

Something in us still wants to draw.

If this essay stayed with you, these might too.

Quanto è tristo il passo di chi, cresciuto tra voi, se ne allontana.

How mournful the step of one who, grown amongst you, departs.

— Alessandro Manzoni, I Promessi Sposi

She didn’t cry the first time I left. Or the second.

By the time she cried, I had been leaving for a couple of years already. Austria was different. We both knew it.

She stood on the threshold, as if the right place to stand was the line between staying and going.

She told me she had counted how many times she would still see me.

One visit a year. Maybe two, if things lined up.

I remember the discomfort of hearing it. I was thinking about what I was going toward. She was already living in the absence.

Where I come from, in families like mine, daughters stayed close. It was simply the shape of things. I had just turned eighteen. I was a girl, the youngest and the last one still at home, and my parents decided to let me go.

This generated a fair amount of discussion in our small town, as you may imagine.

Some people concluded I must be pregnant, and they were sending me away.

Others wondered how my parents could be so irresponsible as to let a young woman wander around Europe by herself. What would happen to me?

Also, what kind of girl leaves?

To the visible disappointment of some, I kept coming back neither ruined nor “with child.”

At the time, I mostly found these stories annoying. One more reason why I did the right thing by leaving and removing myself from such a myopic town.

I did not understand that my parents were paying a social cost for a future they might never fully see.

I have thought about that gesture my entire adult life without ever quite finding the right word for it. It wasn’t sacrifice, exactly, though being a parent now, I have a much better feeling of how much it must have cost them.

It was a form of love that believes in you more than it needs you close.

There is an Italian saying:

Partire è un po’ come morire.

To leave is a little like dying.

In all fairness, it’s a bit dramatic, but such are my people. We feel everything at volume.

The more I think about it, though, the more precise it feels. You leave and some part of you dies to make room for something else. At the time, I only had a vague idea of what that something else was going to be. I loved languages. I wanted to go. I had always seen things through. I was blessed with a good brain.

It was enough for me to go, and enough for them to let me.

My last memory of my grandfather is a door.

He was standing at the threshold of his house in the Verona province after one of our weekend visits. A completely ordinary moment. The kind you don’t register because there have been many before and there will surely be many more.

Except there weren’t.

A car hit him that same night while he was crossing the street on his way to his favorite bar to have a drink and play cards with his friends.

I never saw him again.

And so that is how he exists for me now. There at the threshold. A hand raised in a wave became the permanent image.

Leaving has a way of fixing people in time.

The people you leave behind stop updating in your mind the way the people around you do. You see them in flashes, in visits, in the condensed version of a life.

You love them fully and know them partially. Somewhere along the way, you realize you are carrying a version of them that is always slightly behind reality.

And they are carrying one of you as well.

Distance edits both sides of the story.

There is a sculptor, Bruno Catalano, born in Morocco to a Sicilian family, raised in France, a sailor in his twenties. A life made of crossings.

He created a series of bronze figures called Les Voyageurs. He installed them along the waterfront in Marseille: travelers facing the sea, each one carrying a bag.

Each figure is hollowed at the center, a clean absence where the torso should be, so the sky shows through.

Catalano said that all his travels left him feeling that a part of him was gone and would never return. So he made sculptures of people carrying their absence with them. The bag holds the rest of what they are.

I have always thought this described leaving better than any words could.

Leaving is not one decision. It is a series of them.

The first departure is the celebrated one. It is also the easiest.

You leave when you board the plane. You leave again the first time something important happens and you are not there. You leave when your life fills up somewhere else and returning starts to feel like visiting. You leave when you realize you now hear about people instead of knowing them. You leave when someone passes away and you’re not there to mourn with your family and friends.

You get more used to it. It gets heavier anyway.

Every summer I return to Italy.

I often joke that in that month I spend there I live twelve months condensed, hearing all the joys and all the worries and all the things. These days, sadly, there seem to be fewer joys than there used to be. We are all growing older, more tired, and in some cases more disheartened.

It’s quite overwhelming, to be honest, and there are moments when I ask myself why I still put myself through it.

The best answer I have come to is that I do not want those roots severed more than they are.

Not for me, and not for my son.

Toward the end of every summer, something shifts. I start seeing everything as if I am looking at it not from inside it, but from above.

The streets become more exact.

Conversations carry more weight.

Faces and expressions linger longer.

What will still be here next year?

Who will still be here?

Am I seeing them for the last time?

My son does the same, but in a different way.

A few days before we leave a place he loves, he starts to pull away. He disengages from people, from routines, from things he was enjoying fully just the day before.

At first, it seemed abrupt to me. I worried people would perceive him as rude, and for a while I tried to fix it.

Then I realized he had learned it from me without my ever teaching it.

He is learning to leave before he knows what leaving is. Starting the separation early to reduce the distance of the final step.

Perhaps grief is a migrant too, and travels through families and generations.

For all the things leaving took, if I had to decide again, I would still leave.

Leaving took proximity. Ordinary time. It took versions of people I can never fully recover because I was not there to witness them becoming who they became. It left gaps. Some small. Some permanent.

The languages, the perspective, the adaptability, the ability to move between cultures and feel at home in more than one place. These are gifts I will pass on to my son. Generational gifts. The kind that travel forward.

But these days, with my dad gone and my mom getting older, the gift I think about most is the one my parents gave me before any of it began.

Faith.

Faith that the daughter boarding that train would find her way. Faith that the world would enlarge rather than diminish her. Faith that whatever happened, the life waiting on the other side would be worth the ache of missing it.

Only much later did I realize that I got the adventure while my parents got the counting.

And still they opened the door.

That realization moves me more now than any story I can tell about my own courage.

The hollow is real.

And the life built across it is also real.

Both truths have learned to live together.

Turn the Key

My mother stood at the door holding two truths at once: the grief of watching me go and the knowledge that she and my father were helping it happen.

I used to think those two things were in tension.

Now I think they were the same thing seen from two angles.

That is not a lesser love.

It is a harder one.

The older I get, the more I think permission may be one of the greatest gifts a person can receive. Permission to leave, permission to become, and permission to discover whether the world beyond the threshold is as large as we hope it is.

My parents gave me that permission long before I understood what it was.

Every meaningful thing that came afterward was built on top of it.

Leaving hollowed me. Bruno Catalano was right about that.

But what I carry today is larger than the hollow.

I carry the faith of the people who opened the door. And I hope that one day I will be as courageous as they were when it is my turn to help my son cross his own thresholds.

Before You Cross

If you are about to leave a place, a person, or a version of your life that still holds you, know this.

You will be hollowed by the going. Not broken, even if it will certainly feel so. Changed in your center, in the place where continuity used to live without effort.

Some of what you leave will stay exactly as you left it. Some will change without you. Some will only exist in the last moment you can clearly remember.

You won’t leave once.

You’ll leave, and then keep leaving, in smaller ways, for the rest of your life.

Part of you will remain at every threshold.

And part of the people who loved you will travel with you long after they are gone.

Leaving always costs something.

The absence is real.

So is the life built across it.

Eventually, if you are lucky, you learn to carry both.

CTAs

If this essay stayed with you, these might too.

The comments are open. I read every one.

Tell me what this brought up.
A moment. A room. Something you had never named before.

And if you know someone who would recognize themselves in it, send it to them directly. Not broadly. One person. You probably already know who.

Leave a comment

Share

A few hours ago I was telling a story about a work meeting that happened almost a year ago, and I started getting hives.

The story was old. But my body has never been particularly interested in timelines. Halfway through the story my skin began reacting as though the event were still unfolding in front of me instead of staying in the past where I thought I had carefully filed it.

Professional grief is one of the few griefs our culture still struggles to recognize as grief at all, as though pain experienced inside a professional world somehow hurts less than pain experienced anywhere else. As though the betrayals, humiliations, pressures, and erosions that happen at work do not reach deeply enough into a life to leave an actual wound.

And we are living through a moment of enormous professional grief and loss, with almost no language for it.

Nearly 246,000 people in the technology industry lost their jobs in 2025 alone. By May of 2026, well over 100,000 more have already followed. Each of those numbers is a person whose professional world ended, often without warning, often inside a system that had already decided the announcement was a business update rather than a human event.

But let’s start where professional grief usually starts: before anything officially ends.

It accumulates inside ordinary days. Sleep no longer restores you properly. You begin preparing for meetings like someone bracing for impact. The Sunday dread starts arriving earlier and earlier until eventually part of Saturday belongs to it too. You become so practiced at suppressing yourself to survive that the suppression itself starts to feel like personality.

And because you are still functioning, still delivering, and everyone around you also appears exhausted, you normalize it too.

You tell yourself this is simply what leadership feels like. This is scale. This is responsibility. This is America.

Meanwhile, some part of you has already started grieving the distance between your functioning self and your actual self. That is, if you even remember what your actual self feels like.

I did not.

I remember very clearly the moment something in me finally gave out.

I was on a call with a C-suite executive whose division I had spent years helping build. Teams, systems, operational structures, things hundreds of people depended on every day. By that point I was carrying more than I could sustainably hold, although at the time I would simply have called it “handling things.”

Women in leadership become very fluent in that language.

During the conversation, with others on the call, she called us fuckers. Then again. And again. Sixteen times, actually. I counted them, which probably says something uncomfortable about the level of dissociation required to remain calm and functional in moments like that.

The next day she asked to talk.

“Well, yesterday happened,” she said.

Not an apology. More the acknowledgment of an event whose existence could not reasonably be denied, followed by an invitation to tell her what support I needed to “fix it.”

I told her. I had already documented the problems repeatedly long before that conversation, and nothing meaningful had changed. But this time, exhausted by the endless cycle of escalation without resolution, and with whatever protective layer I normally operated through finally gone, I asked the question I had been carrying privately for months.

“What’s going to be different this time?”

I still think about the silence that followed.

Then:

“Are you in, or are you out?”

In a moment of something I can only describe now as exhausted accuracy, I answered more honestly than I had managed in years.

“I’m not quite sure. Can I think about it until tomorrow?”

Three months later, I was part of the restructuring.

The moment I stopped performing complete alignment, the moment my loyalty was no longer a clean, enthusiastic yes, I became legible as disposable.

I think many people understand this feeling now, even if they have never said it aloud.

Modern professional life increasingly asks for forms of emotional coherence that become difficult to sustain over time. You are expected not only to perform, but to perform belief even while the structures around you are visibly destabilizing.

I sat through countless all-hands meetings that became shallower over time, where the language remained relentlessly optimistic while everyone around me was doing math. “How many months until the next vest?”

The arc of professional endings was never perfect, but it used to contain more friction. Conversations. Warnings. Time to metabolize what was happening. Sometimes even support after the fact.

Now careers disappear almost instantaneously.

An email arrives overnight so you do not see it until morning. Then access vanishes immediately. Badges stop working. Years of accumulated rhythm collapse into a single morning.

The language around these “events” has also become strangely antiseptic. Reduction in force. Organizational realignment. And perhaps the most cryptic of all: Business Update.

What those emails never capture is the scale of what disappears with them.

Income, of course. But also rhythm, community, shared language, shared pressure. The daily interactions that made difficult work survivable. The person who messaged you during impossible meetings just to check whether you were okay.

For me, the strangest part after the job was gone was the empty calendar sitting where a professional life used to be. For weeks afterward I kept looking for meetings, events, anything I could fill it with, overwhelming myself once again as a way of not having to feel what had actually happened.

There is also the loss of witnessing.

The people who understood your shorthand because they had lived inside the same machinery long enough to recognize the emotional weather patterns before they fully formed. Who were present for the decisions made under pressure, the compromises, the work that mattered and the work that did not. They could testify to a version of your life that no longer had a structure holding it together.

And then comes the job search, lately one of the most humbling and psychologically disorienting experiences of all.

People who once could find work within days suddenly find themselves confronting a market that no longer seems to recognize them. You take twenty years of accumulated experience and expertise and compress it into documents optimized for systems that may never encounter you as a human being.

You rewrite yourself in increasingly optimized language, trying to sound current without sounding desperate, experienced without sounding dated, capable without sounding too senior, assertive without sounding difficult.

Then you are told the CV itself is no longer sufficient. You now need a portfolio, “artifacts” of your own making. More work to demonstrate the work you have already been doing for twenty years.

And while searching for a role while still grieving the last one, underneath it all sits a fear that many professionals rarely admit openly: the fear that their expertise is expiring in real time. That the world they mastered is moving on without them and that by the time they return, should they ever be so lucky, the system will no longer recognize what they know.

I understand intellectually that companies do not owe loyalty. Most professionals do. We know organizations optimize for economics, shareholder expectations, and strategic shifts. We know the employment relationship is not familial, no matter how much corporate language occasionally pretends otherwise.

And still.

There is something profoundly disorienting about realizing that the years and the parts of yourself repeatedly sacrificed to keep the machinery functioning were never weighed in the way some deeper part of you believed they would be.

That realization leaves a wound many highly competent people feel ashamed to admit exists at all, as though caring deeply about work were itself some embarrassing misunderstanding of the contract.

But grief does not care whether the contract technically warned you.

There is also a professional grief I did not anticipate: the grief of the future that will now not happen.

Work carries implicit trajectories. Whatever you were building would have continued to become something. The version of yourself growing inside that institution believed there would be a next chapter. When the institution ended, it took that chapter too.

You grieve it even if deep down you might not have wanted it, because the decision not to want it was never fully yours.

The loss still lands.

Which brings me back to the hives.

I do not think my body was reacting only to one meeting, or one executive, or the cursing. I think it was reacting to years of things swallowed whole.

Those humiliations, betrayals, emergencies, and impossible meetings continue living somewhere in the nervous system long after the org chart has moved on.

You cannot fire them.

Subscribe now

Turn the Key

I want to be careful not to turn this into a healing arc.

There will eventually be healing. But this essay is not about that.

My goal here is simpler: to give professional grief, even if only for the length of this essay, the dignity of mourning.

To name it.

What I can say with certainty is that the grief you have been carrying without language is not weakness, nor something to be embarrassed by. It is the accurate response to real hurt and real loss, most of it endured without any sanctioned moment to stop and acknowledge what was actually happening.

We do not have funerals for careers.

We do not have ceremonies for the day the badge stopped working.

We do not have rituals for the version of yourself that once had a place on the org chart and now does not.

And we certainly do not have rituals for the pre-grief, the slow accumulation of wrongness that precedes the official ending by months or years.

What we have instead is the pressure to become resilient before we have even fully registered what hurt.

But some things need to be fully felt before they can be left behind.

The years we gave. The loyalty that was real even if it was not returned. The moment your honest uncertainty cost you everything. The future that ended without ceremony. The colleagues who disappeared from the calendar and the way their absence restructured your days.

You cared about the work.

About the people.

About what you were building.

The wound is proof of that. And that is what makes professional grief so difficult to carry: the losses are often invisible, but the attachment was real.

Before You Cross

Some of my grief has settled. Some of it I am finding language for, even in the writing of this essay. And language changes the shape of a thing. It makes it holdable in a different way.

But some of it still surfaces unexpectedly. In the hives. In the way my body tightens before I tell certain stories or feels exhausted after I tell them.

At some point, in your own time, you will begin to feel better. You will find yourself again underneath all the adaptation. But it will not happen on anyone else’s timeline.

The crossing starts with naming the grief you are actually feeling. With acknowledging that it is truly there. With accepting that grief, including professional grief, does not need to become wisdom immediately, or perhaps even ever.

We are allowed to let it be grief for a while.

CTAs

If this essay stayed with you, this might too.

The comments are open. I read every one.

Tell me what this brought up. A room. A meeting. Something you had never named before.

And if you know someone who would recognize themselves in this, send it to them directly. Not broadly. One person. You probably already know who.

Leave a comment

Share

When I was a child in school in Italy, every exam paper had two versions.

First came the brutta copia. The ugly draft. Brutta meaning ugly, not just rough, which tells you something about what the Italian school system thought of visible thinking.

Then came the bella copia. The beautiful copy handed to the teacher in careful handwriting, without visible mistakes, smudges, or hesitation. The language had already decided: the process was ugly, the product was the only thing worth seeing.

The bella copia was the one folded in half to leave room for the teacher’s corrections and margin notes. Which meant, of course, that even the beautiful copy wasn’t final. Correction was always coming. The performance of completion was always an illusion. I did not understand this at the time.

I took the beautiful copy very seriously.

I remember sitting at my desk, rewriting an entire page because one word leaned slightly uphill, or because the ink had smudged near the margin, which happened often and still, to this day, I do not understand why.

The rough draft exposed everything. The uncertainty. Corrections. False starts. The evidence that I had struggled before arriving at the answer.

The beautiful copy was not just neat. It felt safer.

For a very long time, I believed life itself worked this way.

First you struggle privately. Usually multiple times. Then eventually, after enough effort, you hand in your beautiful copy.

The problem is that my life rarely allowed for that kind of perfection. And so trying to be the beautiful copy cost me everything.

I grew up waking at four in the morning to catch trains to school. Came back home at four in the afternoon. Winter platforms. Heavy schoolbags. The strange loneliness of being very young and already commuting like an adult.

I was always in transit somewhere. Between towns. Between expectations. Between the person I was and the one the train was taking me toward.

I had no time to perfect anything, as much as every grain of me wanted to.

Only enough time to continue.

This became even more true when I moved to Austria to become an interpreter. I had to study and work. There was no version of my life where I could dedicate myself entirely to learning. I was always building one thing while holding up another.

Then came languages.

German. Austrian German, which is its own emotional weather system. Then America. Corporate English. American humor. The strange anthropology of trying to understand not only what people are saying, but what they mean when they say something casually.

People think fluency is binary.

It is not.

There are entire emotional ecosystems inside a language. Timing. Irony. Cultural shorthand. Tiny calibrations that tell people whether you belong instinctively or arrived through effort.

I arrived through effort.

No matter how fluent I became, there was always some small exposure left behind. A hesitation. A sentence constructed almost correctly but not invisibly correctly.

I became highly skilled at mentally rehearsing sentences before saying them out loud. Often, by the time I was ready to speak, the conversation had already moved on.

For years, I experienced this as deficiency. I thought fluency was the beautiful copy and I was still trapped in draft form, visibly edited, visibly foreign.

Then I entered big tech, which introduced an entirely new category of feeling behind.

Rooms full of specialists, deep architectural discussions moving at speeds I could not naturally match. Entire meetings where I understood perhaps sixty percent of the technical details and one hundred and ten percent of the human dynamics.

At no point in my life have I felt fully qualified for the room I was in.

Not even now, as I write this.

There is still some part of me waiting for someone to look closely enough and say: charming draft, but not quite final.

Striving for perfection opened doors for me. It helped me survive environments that were demanding, political, and not always forgiving. It gave structure to uncertainty. It helped me cross worlds I did not fully belong to.

But eventually the strategy became expensive. Emails reread six times before sending. The constant internal translation. The thoughts that were sharper, funnier, faster, more alive in Italian. The version of me the room never got to hear.

If only they knew, I would think sometimes.

And still the fantasy held. One day the language would feel fully natural. The expertise unquestionable. The identity coherent. The belonging complete.

One day I would finally become the beautiful copy.

But life kept refusing to cooperate with this narrative.

Almost everything important I built happened before I felt ready. I moved countries before I understood what leaving truly costs a person. I built careers in languages that never fully became instinctive. I led in rooms where I was often the generalist among specialists. I am becoming a writer professionally in a language that is not the one closest to my nervous system.

Even now, that last sentence catches in me a little.

I write in English.

But Italian is the language of my childhood, my body, my emotional reflexes, my early education. English is a language I built myself inside. Carefully. Knowing fully well that I am still constructing certain sentences manually while native speakers simply breathe them.

When someone compliments my writing, part of me still feels slightly caught.

Have they mistaken me for someone fully fluent? When they actually talk to me, will they hear the hesitation?

But the rough draft had been building something the beautiful copy was too clean to hold.

Living between languages taught me nuance. Living between cultures taught me observation. Being slightly outside systems taught me how to read them. Not fully belonging sharpened my attention.

People who grow up securely inside one system often learn to polish. People crossing systems learn to move while unready.

It made me adaptive. Perceptive. Hyperaware of context. Good at translation, not just linguistically but socially and psychologically. I learned to sense rooms quickly because sensing becomes survival.

I became very skilled at entering worlds that were not originally built for me. And for a long time, I kept waiting for one of them to finally feel like home.

Because some part of me truly believed there would eventually be a moment of arrival. The moment when I would finally feel fully coherent. Fully legitimate. Fully at ease inside all the worlds I had crossed. A version of myself untouched by uncertainty. A woman with no accent in her confidence.

But increasingly, I think coherence may simply be another beautiful copy fantasy.

Human life does not seem particularly interested in producing a polished version of me.

My education did not arrive polished. It arrived on early trains, in borrowed time, with ink on my hands and sleep still sitting behind my eyes. Leadership did not arrive polished. It arrived in rooms where I did not know everything, but could still see the shape of the problem before others named it.

Motherhood certainly did not arrive polished. It arrived much later than I started longing for it, and I was scared throughout, and I still am.

Reinvention did not arrive polished. It arrived awkwardly, unevenly, with too many versions of myself still arguing in the background.

Neither did grief, migration, ambition, burnout, love, or writing.

Most meaningful things entered my life crossed out at the edges.

And increasingly, I think that may be where the truth lives. Not in the polished story we eventually tell about ourselves, but in the visible process of becoming.

The rough draft contains traces of movement that the beautiful copy erases. You can see the revisions there. The uncertainty. The thinking happening in real time.

You can see the life.

I still instinctively hide the rough draft sometimes. Even now. Some part of me still wants to hand life in only once it has been rewritten cleanly.

Yet, life insists on being lived in ink and smudges.

Turn the Key

I spent years believing the rough draft was something to hide.

That if I revised enough, prepared enough, translated myself carefully enough, eventually something final would emerge. Something that no longer showed the work.

But the teacher got the clean version.

The real document stayed with me.

The one with the thinking in it. The revisions. The false starts. The evidence that something had moved through me.

The accent is proof that another language entered me. The hesitation is proof that something is still being translated with care. The not-quite-belonging is proof that I crossed something most people never had to.

The document that contained the most life.

A life built not despite the rough draft.

Through it.

Before You Cross

Maybe the beautiful copy will never come on the other side of the threshold.

Maybe it will, in a shape so different from the one you were waiting for that you almost miss it.

Or maybe your brutta copia, with every train, every delay, every turn, every crossed-out line, every joy and every grief, is already all the beautiful you will ever need.

Either way. Cross.

CTAs

If this essay stayed with you, these might too.

The comments are open. I read every one.

Tell me what this brought up.
A moment. A room. Something you had never named before.

And if you know someone who would recognize themselves in it, send it to them directly. Not broadly. One person. You probably already know who.

Leave a comment

Share

"[This is] also why the Japanese culture values empty spaces. And pauses. That kind of cultural instinct isn't expressed in words."

I read it three times.

Then I sat with it for a while.

Then, and I say this with some self-awareness, I immediately opened my laptop to write about it.

In the West, empty space is wasted time. In Japan, it’s the most important thing in the room.

Here, unfilled time is almost always considered a small failure. If during a half-hour bus ride you haven’t read something, listened to something, planned something: you feel like you’ve wasted precious time. If you have a free weekend and don’t fill it, you feel guilty for having thrown it away.

Idleness, in our culture, has a terrible reputation. It is associated with lack of ambition. With squandering a day.

And yet. Italian has a phrase that English never quite managed to translate: dolce far niente. The sweetness of doing nothing. Not laziness. Something closer to sitting barefoot in a sun-warmed courtyard in the early afternoon, watching light and shadow move slowly across the walls and trees, and understanding, in your body before your mind can argue, that this moment does not need to become anything else.

Not the absence of activity. The presence of absorption.

But even in Italy, even with this expression and this legacy in our mouths, we have slowly learned to be ashamed of it. I have watched it happen, year after year, each time I go back: my original home trading the long table for the desk lunch, the golden afternoon for the packed schedule, the art of the slow Sunday for the imported guilt of the productive weekend. The sweetness replaced not by something better, but by a busyness that doesn’t even belong to us.

We borrowed the anxiety without getting anything in return.

People who don’t fill their days are looked at with a mix of pity and suspicion.

You know this look. Especially if you are a professional in transition. You have left your role, or were unceremoniously let go, and you dare not rush immediately into the next thing. Someone asks what you’re doing now, what is next. And you pause. And they fill your pause for you, helpfully: “So... nothing? You’re just... taking a break?”

As if existing, and deciding how you want to exist moving forward, were not one of the most important actions a person can take.

In Japan, there is a word for what we are missing. Or at least, it is missing in all the Western languages I know.

It is called ma (間).

It translates, very roughly, as “space between things.” Interval. Pause.

The kanji it’s written with is, to my eye, a work of art. And also one of the most Between Worlds images I have ever encountered. Indulge me. I am a linguist at heart.

The outer character, 門, is “door.” “Gate.” “Entrance.” The inner character, 日, is “sun.”

Literally: the sun seen through the crack of a half-open door.

(The original character, as it happens, held the moon, not the sun. The image holds either way: light that exists only because something left a gap.)

Without that space, no light.

From this one image, dozens of Japanese words were born. I have been sitting with one of them ever since.

Ningen (人間), human being, is “the relationship between people.”

A noun that refuses to stand alone. As if we, and our sense of self, exist only in the interval between one person and another. An entire philosophy of community compressed into a single character.

But here is the word that stopped me completely.

Manuke (間抜け). Literally: someone who is missing the ma. Someone who doesn’t know how to sit in pauses. Who always fills. Who talks constantly, doesn’t listen, doesn’t let things breathe.

The closest English translation: a fool.

In one of the world’s great intellectual traditions, the definition of a fool is not about what you know. It is about whether you can hold the space between things without rushing to close it.

(I will confess that my first thought was: I know so many brilliant, accomplished, celebrated people who are, by this definition, complete idiots. My second thought was: I have been one of them too, and on the record.)

Ken, a Japanese friend who read this essay before you did, would say I am taking a small liberty. Manuke is about missing a beat, being off-rhythm, not precisely about an inability to tolerate silence. He is right. But I think the two are closer than they appear. If you are always filling, you are always off-beat. And in a tradition that considers rhythm a form of intelligence, that is not so far from foolishness.

We are building a culture of manuke.

Our calendars prove it. Back-to-back. No margin. The commute filled with the podcast. The evening filled with the scroll. The gap between meetings filled with the pre-meeting.

And so, accustomed to filling every empty space in our day, we lose the one thing that, according to the Japanese, gives meaning to everything else.

The light that only enters if there is a crack.

But you already know this. You have known it your whole life.

The pause is what turns a good song into the one that makes you pull over. It is the silence after the last note, when the music has stopped but something in the room has not. The note ends. The pause holds it. Then lets it go.

It is the person who waits before they answer you. Compare that to the person who was already talking before you finished your sentence. One leaves you feeling heard. The other leaves you feeling like furniture.

It is in the rooms that stop you. A cathedral nave. A good gallery. The designers who understand this know that the empty space is not what remains after you place the objects. It is what you are placing the objects around.

And then there are spaces so empty that they take your breath away. Last weekend I stood on a beach on the Pacific coast. Sand, water, a few spare trees at the edge. The ocean going on forever.

Emptiness that feels like the whole world exhaling.

And feeling suddenly small in the best possible way, held by something so much larger than anything you could fill it with that the very impulse to fill dissolves.

I don’t have a word for what I felt standing there. But I recognized it.

We don’t have a word for this in English. Or at least, I don’t think we do. Though I hold that lightly. English is my third language, and there are rooms in it I have never opened.

We have liminal, which is closer, but academic. A word from anthropology that hasn’t quite made it to the body yet.

We have between, which is where I keep returning. A word that only exists in relation to other things, that requires something on either side of it to mean anything at all.

We don’t have a word that says: the silence that lets the note be heard. The pause that makes the sentence land. The empty wall that makes the painting breathe. The conversation that only became real in the silence after it ended.

Perhaps because we never named it, we live in a culture that pushes us to fear it.

And meanwhile, by filling everything, we leave no room for the light to enter.

Not knowing that, in another language, someone calls this habit by the same word they use for stupidity.

Subscribe now

Turn the Key

There is a practice inside this essay, and it is almost insultingly simple.

Catch yourself, once today, reaching for something to fill a moment that does not need filling. The pause after a meeting ends. The quiet at the start of a morning before the noise begins. The few seconds between putting down your phone and picking it up again. Just once. Notice it. Name it, if you like. And then do nothing with it.

Because that is where the light gets in.

The pause was never empty. You just kept turning the lights on before your eyes could adjust to what was already there.

Before You Cross

One question to carry with you:

Where are you being manuke?

In the small, daily, almost invisible way. In the moment you almost didn’t notice.

The conversation where you filled the silence instead of letting it do its work. The morning you scheduled before it had a chance to be anything. The transition you rushed because sitting in the not-yet felt too much like falling behind.

The pause is not a void. It is a door.

Something is already coming through.

You just have to stop filling long enough to see it.

If this essay stayed with you, these might too.

On what remains when the proof disappears.

On what only a human in the room can feel.

The comments are open. I read every one.

Tell me what this brought up.
A moment. A room. Something you had never named before.

And if you know someone who would recognize themselves in it, send it to them directly. Not broadly. One person. You probably already know who.

Leave a comment

Share

Everyone I know is trying to understand what AI takes away, or what it unlocks.

I’ve spent twenty years inside institutions that rewarded precision, speed, and output. I’ve lived what it feels like to wonder whether the part of you that was valued can now be automated away.

But the more I sit with it, the more it feels like the wrong question.

Not what AI takes, or unlocks.

What it makes visible.

Let me tell you what it was like to be me in a meeting.

I was not just listening to the words.

I was tracking the breath before them.

The half-second of hesitation in the executive’s voice before she agreed to something she did not fully believe in.

The way someone leaned back just slightly when the conversation moved in a direction they didn’t trust.

The sentence that worked, and shouldn’t have.

I had a map. I knew things I could not yet explain. The real stakes. Who needed what. Where the friction was, and what it would cost when it surfaced.

No one taught me this.

I had been doing it since I was a child, at the dinner table. Reading the room before anyone spoke. There was a quality to the silence when something was wrong. A different one when everything was supposedly fine.

I learned to read rooms before I had language for what I was reading.

I did not know this was unusual.

I thought this was just paying attention.

I brought it with me into my work.

I didn’t have the title or the role that was supposed to carry that kind of judgment. I wasn’t the one “holding the marker.” But I was there, watching.

And I saw a lot.

Whether two executives actually trusted each other or were performing trust.

Whether certainty was real or something someone needed to project.

People would ask me afterward what I thought. I would tell them. And often, later, I would be the one who had seen it first.

I never once thought to call that a skill.

It took me an embarrassingly long time to discover there was a name for this.

High sensitivity. Apparently about one in five people have it. Across species, even.

Depth of processing. Noticing things. The details, the shifts, the meaning that slips past everyone else.

And the twist?

It exists because groups actually benefit from the people who perceive more.

I had it exactly backward.
I thought sensitivity was the problem.
It was the whole thing.

Here is what the current generation of AI does brilliantly. As of April 23rd, 2026. Give it a week.

It synthesizes. It retrieves. It produces clean text at scale. It compresses a thousand pages into something you can read on a flight. It writes the draft, analyzes the dataset, generates the slide, and increasingly convincing images.

It does not get tired.

It does not have bad days. Well, mostly.

It does not need a walk after a difficult conversation to remember who it is.

And here is what it cannot do, in any meaningful sense.

It cannot feel the weight of the pause.

The pause after a question someone immediately regrets. The pause that signals the room has shifted, and no one will say so.

It cannot sense that the real answer is a different question.

It cannot detect the temperature before a word is spoken.

It cannot hold contradiction long enough to understand what actually matters.

The machine generates plausible patterns.

As humans, we know what they mean.

Those are not the same thing. In a document they can look identical. In a room, under pressure, with something at stake, they are not.

For as long as I can remember, I framed my sensitivity as a liability.

Why do I feel so much?

I should not be taking things personally.

I always need too long to recover.

I struggle with noise. With the colleague who wears too much cologne at four in the afternoon. With open-plan offices that seem designed by someone who has never once needed to think.

I spent years assuming I just needed to get better at not being like this.

That plan did not work particularly well.

What no one mentioned is that the world has been running on this processing layer the whole time.

Every time your instinct about a client turned out to be right and you couldn’t explain why, you knew it wasn’t coming from nothing. You had read signals others missed and assembled them into something coherent.

The problem was translation.

In rooms where what cannot be explained is treated as what does not exist, that gap costs you.

What AI is doing, among other things, is making that gap visible. When the machine produces fluency without comprehension, when it reads the transcript and misses the room, the contrast becomes impossible to ignore.

One in five people in every meeting. On every team. Going home depleted, not because they were weak, but because they were processing at a depth the others were not required to sustain.

They noticed more.

They absorbed more.

They carried what no one else named.

Knowledge expires faster than we want it to.

It’s not useless. But it ages. The world keeps moving faster. Sometimes I wonder where it thinks it’s going.

What does not age is something else entirely.

The ability to sit in a room and feel the room. To hear what is being asked underneath what is being said, and hold uncertainty long enough for something true to emerge instead of rushing to the answer that fits.

To know when to push and when to wait.

To know when silence means agreement and when it means the opposite.

You can only learn this by being there.

You cannot simulate it.

You cannot pattern-match your way into it.

You just know.

Over time, I came to see sensitivity as an advantage.

These days, more than ever, it feels like something else too.

A responsibility.

The responsibility is to name what we know. Even when we cannot fully explain how we know it. To stop deferring to louder voices. To stop translating ourselves down to what fits neatly into a slide. To take what lives in the body and put it into language precise enough that other people can use it.

That translation is the work.

Recently, I spoke with someone who builds with AI every day. The kind of person for whom the technology is clearly working. He told me he had stopped reading the output.

He wanted something else. Texture. Specificity. The imprint of a mind that had actually lived something.

He said something that has stayed with me.

We do not have good words yet for what humans do natively.

So let me try.

Subscribe now

Turn the Key

The story you have been telling about yourself—that this is a flaw, a cost, something to apologize for—no longer holds.

The world has not suddenly become kinder.

It has simply created a contrast.

What the machine cannot do

is what we have spent our life learning.

The shift is not to perform differently.

It is to recognize this as the reason.

Before You Cross

If you are that person in the room, you already know.

Before you hand the space to the loudest voice again.

Before you dismiss what you felt as too subjective to mention.

Pause.

Ask yourself what you actually know.

Not what you can prove.

Not what fits neatly into a framework.

What you have been carrying.

In your nervous system.

In the space between the words.

You are the part of the room that does not look away.

The machine learned to speak. You listened. And you learned to know.

Leave a comment

Share

The heat starts in my chest.

By the time it reaches my face, I know I won’t be able to hide it.

On the surface, everything is fine. The person is polite. The conversation is reasonable. Nothing is visibly wrong.

And yet.

I know what that moment means.

I have known for a long time.

I just don’t always follow it.

Almost immediately, another voice.

This is important. Stay focused. You’ve handled worse. Don’t make this bigger than it is.

So I stay.

I continue the conversation. I say the right things. I hold eye contact.

Underneath, I move my toes inside my shoes in a rhythm no one can see. I turn my ring back and forth on my finger. Sometimes I count backward just to stay inside my own body. Sometimes I reach for my water bottle, because holding something solid helps. I have carried that bottle into more difficult rooms than I can count. I hold it the way you hold the hand of someone you trust. No one has ever asked why.

If you were sitting across from me, you would see composure. You would perhaps think I am very thirsty.

You would not see the cost of it.

I have been having a conversation with my body my entire life.

The problem is that for most of it, I was not listening.

My body started quietly. With great patience. The way you speak to someone you love who is not yet ready to hear.

I’ll make you visible, it said first, when I was still small.

My ears turned red when something felt wrong. Bright, burning red. The kind you can’t argue with, can’t explain away, can’t hide behind a composed expression. I scratched them until they burned. No interpretation, no delay. Just the body moving faster than the mind, putting the truth right there on my skin where everyone could see it, since I wouldn’t say anything myself.

I learned to hide that. Longer hair. Stillness. A particular way of holding my face that said: nothing is happening here.

My body noted this.

And waited.

Then I’ll take something away, it said.

I stopped eating in a way that made sense. Being smaller felt safer. If I took up less space, I would disturb less, and if I disturbed less, things would be easier. That logic didn’t come from a thought. It came from somewhere older than thought, a body trying to regulate itself in a world that felt like too much, trying to find a size that would finally fit.

The school got involved. Slowly, I came back.

But the instinct, the impulse to shrink when the world felt too large and too much to bear, that stayed. It just became less visible. More refined. More mine.

My body noted this.

And waited.

Then I’ll take your voice, it said.

I was a teenager. There were periods when speaking became difficult, then impossible. No infection. No clear cause. Just silence where sound used to be.

People assumed there was nothing to say.

In reality, there was everything, just nowhere safe to put it. So the body made the decision I couldn’t: it removed the option entirely. No voice, no risk. No sound, no exposure. It was, in its way, an act of protection.

I adapted. I found other ways to be present, to perform presence, to take up exactly the right amount of space in exactly the right way.

My body noted this.

And waited.

Then I’ll make you feel it where you can’t ignore it, it said.

In adulthood the signals moved inward. After certain meetings, my stomach tightened and then released as if expelling something it couldn’t process. After conversations I didn’t want to have. After time with people who left me less than I arrived.

There was no randomness in it. My body had seen this pattern before. It knew where it went. Everything I absorbed and said nothing about, every moment I kept taking and taking without naming what it cost, collected in one specific place, a spot in my stomach that knew before I did, that registered what the rest of me refused to acknowledge.

My body was trying, with increasing efficiency, to tell me the same thing it had always been trying to tell me.

I told myself it was stress. Everyone feels this way. High-functioning people learn to move through discomfort. That’s what it takes to operate at this level.

I was very good at deciding that functioning mattered more than what functioning was costing me.

My body noted this.

And escalated.

Then I’ll make it impossible to think, it said.

The migraines were different from everything that came before. They were not signals. They were not the body raising its voice one more time in the hope that this time I might hear.

They were a full stop.

When they arrived, light became unbearable. Sound became intrusive. Thought itself became inaccessible, not just slower, genuinely out of reach. There was no override available. No version of stay focused, you’ve handled worse that could touch what was happening.

Just a system that had decided, for me, that it was done.

I would lie in a dark room and wait for it to pass. Sometimes hours. Sometimes longer. I got so angry. How dare you make me stop? Don’t you see I have meetings to attend, people to manage, very important things to do?

Then I started treating the migraines as interruptions. I scheduled around them. I returned to the calendar as soon as I could.

My body noted this.

And reached for something it had never touched before.

Fine, it said. Then I’ll take your sight. And we’ll see what you do with that.

About two years ago, my eyes started failing. Gradually, the way the body prefers to make its largest points. Colors faded. Edges blurred. The world flattened into something I was increasingly navigating by memory rather than vision.

I need to tell you what was happening at the same time.

I was leading a promotion cycle for an organization of more than a thousand people. Performance reviews, stack rankings, career conversations, the particular kind of sustained high-stakes attention that work like that demands. And I was doing it while seeing through essentially one eye, still unreliable, but better than the other, which I had stopped trusting entirely. I wore glasses over the lenses my eyes could no longer manage alone. I squinted through presentations. I imagined the details I could no longer make out, the expression on someone’s face across a conference table, the fine print on a slide, the color-coding on a spreadsheet everyone else read at a glance. No mistakes were allowed. These were people’s careers, their futures, their names on a list that required triple-checking with eyes that could no longer be trusted to see clearly.

Only a few people knew what I was actually going through.

To everyone else: composure. Competence. Business as usual. Perhaps I looked a bit silly with my double-layered glasses.

This was denial in its highest form. My body had taken my sight, and I had responded by squinting harder.

The eye surgery came. I will not pretend it was a clean narrative, the body finally speaking, the mind finally listening, a clear before and after. It was nothing like that. It was long and uncomfortable and full of indignities. And, if I am honest, frightening. There were weeks of wearing dark glasses that blocked out all UV light, a kind of enforced dimness, the world arriving only in muted suggestions of itself. There were appointments every two weeks where the lenses inside my eyes were adjusted, recalibrated, moved incrementally toward something that might eventually let me see clearly.

Six months of that. Six months of darkness and adjustment and incremental, painstaking recalibration.

Looking back, I understand what that was.

It was the body insisting on an inward turn. You cannot see outward, it was saying. So look the other way. Look at what is actually here. Look at what you have been squinting past for years.

The catharsis was slow and unglamorous. It happened in waiting rooms and dark rooms and the quiet of a recovery that nobody at work knew I was in the middle of.

What I did not expect was what came back with my sight.

I had loved reading my entire life. Not the professional consumption of information, but reading the way you breathe, because it is necessary and because the alternative is a kind of suffocation. That reading had been disappearing for years. I had told myself it was tiredness. Busyness. The natural consequence of a demanding life.

What it was: I could not see. And I did not have enough left over to fight for the thing that fed me, so I let it go quietly, the way you let go of things you cannot afford to grieve in the middle of everything else.

When my vision came back, fully, completely, colors returning in a way that felt almost aggressive in their vividness, the world suddenly at a resolution I had forgotten was possible, I picked up a book. A real, solid book.

And something that had been held very tightly for a very long time released.

Life in full color. Full HD. Every detail present and accounted for.

Welcome back, Mariangela. Remember me?

I did. And I cried.

I had just needed my body to take everything away before I could see what had always been there.

Turn the Key

This is the part that is hard to admit.

I did not miss the signals my body gave me.

I intentionally chose not to follow them.

Every single time, across every single escalation, I had a moment of recognition followed by a decision to continue anyway. The body reacted. The mind explained. The explanation won.

Until there was nothing left to explain away.

Subscribe now

Learning to listen to my body did not begin with a decision to do so.

It began with running out of other options. It was an ultimatum, given to me one sense at a time, across years, in a language I kept refusing to speak.

That is not a romantic origin story, and I am not going to pretend it is. I did not wake up one day and choose “embodied awareness.” My body removed what I had been using to keep going, dismantling me one function at a time, until continuing was no longer an option and the only direction left was inward.

What I learned in that period, and have been learning since.

The body would love for you to understand it immediately. It certainly tries. But it will settle for you stopping long enough to hear.

When the migraine arrives now, I don’t reach for the override. I close the screen. I find a dark room. I ask, genuinely, without impatience: what do you need right now? Not what do I need to get back to functioning. What does this moment actually need.

Sometimes it is sleep. Sometimes it is silence. Sometimes it is a walk with no destination and no phone. Sometimes it is only the people who fill me rather than the ones who cost me, and being honest enough with myself to know the difference, and protective enough to act on it.

I still carry my water bottle. I still move my toes in my shoes. I still turn my ring in difficult moments. These small private anchors have not disappeared. They have just changed meaning. They are no longer ways of managing what is happening underneath while performing composure above. They are honest acknowledgments that something is happening, that I am in it, that I am staying present rather than overriding. And if people notice, they notice. I am not hiding anymore.

The difference is subtle from the outside.

From the inside it is everything.

Stepping out of certain situations is not retreat.

Not being in certain roles or rooms, not sustaining certain relationships, these are not collapses of resilience. They are responses. They are what listening to your body actually looks like when you stop performing the opposite.

Writing has become part of this. Not as a productivity practice, not as content strategy, but as the thing the body needed all along, somewhere for everything to finally go. My way of building the room where I can finally exist as myself, fully, without managing the edges.

The body was never the problem. It just needed to be included.

Ideally, not the way I did it, after it shuts everything down. Earlier. When it is still giving you information you can choose to act on. Before the signal becomes a sentence. Before the sentence becomes a symptom. Before the symptom becomes a surgery.

Before You Cross

The tightening. The heat. The split second where I can choose. Those moments still happen.

I don’t always choose differently. There is a lifetime behind the opposite choice, and a lifetime does not dissolve because you have finally decided to pay attention.

But something has changed that I cannot unknow.

I take one thing at a time now, small acts of honesty with myself. An acknowledgment that I spent years ignoring everything simultaneously, and that the least I can do now is respond to one thing fully, without rushing to the next. The eyes are better. Not fixed, but better. And they get breaks now, and books again, which is the only apology they ever needed.

The migraines still come. The difference is that I no longer fight them. I give them what they are asking for. In return, they tell me what I needed to know.

I still get it wrong. I still stay too long in rooms that cost me. I still catch myself squinting through something I should have stopped and looked at directly.

But I see it now.

And seeing it, really seeing it, in full color, at full resolution, the way the world looked the morning my vision came back, is not a small thing.

It means the conversation has started.

It means my body’s message, after all this time, has finally been received.

If you’ve read this far, if any of this has felt less like reading and more like being found out, then you already know.

Your body has been speaking to you too.

Maybe in a flush of heat you explained away. Maybe in a stomach that knew before you did. Maybe in a tiredness that sleep never quite fixed, or a silence that arrived when there was too much to say.

It has always known.

The only question is whether you will choose to stop and listen, or wait until stopping is chosen for you.

—

If any of this felt familiar, you're not alone. Leave a word, share it forward, or just sit with it.

Leave a comment

Share

The first reason is the oldest, and the simplest: I love language.

I was a child who memorized passages from books and used them in conversation until I found my own language. I moved into other people’s sentences the way you move into a house before the furniture arrives, cautiously, feeling where the light came from, learning the dimensions. Books were where a girl who grew up on a small island in a lagoon could be anywhere, in any century, in any room.

I did not yet know this was a vocation. I only knew that language was the place where I felt most like myself. The right word chosen over the wrong one. The sentence that lands differently depending on where you place the pause. The pleasure of finding the precise expression and feeling the small, private satisfaction of it, the way a key feels when it finally fits the lock it was made for.

My father set the first stone. He was a man who treated language like archaeology. A new word appeared on television and it did not pass through the room. It was examined. It was traced back to where it began, the why behind the what. He made me memorize pages of the dictionary and would ask me about them when he came back from work. It sounds harsh, but I loved it. It was how we talked at night, what carried us through our long walks through what I considered then just the middle of nowhere, and what I have come to miss so much. It was how we were close.

His pet peeve: Venetian is not a dialect. It is a language. He said it with the particular pride of someone who understood that calling something a dialect is often just the powerful finding a polite word for lesser.

I am still, in everything I write, making that argument.

The second reason is less flattering, and I will say it plainly.

For most of my adult life I had a voice that was used in service of other things. Institutions. Strategies. Organizations of several thousand people. I built things, I steadied rooms, I translated between floors of a hierarchy that rarely spoke the same language. I was the one who knew what was really happening and could say it in the register the room needed to hear.

But it was never quite my voice. It was my voice in the shape of something else.

Writing is the first thing I am doing entirely in my own name. Not as a function, or a role, or a job title that comes with its own grammar and its own permitted register. Just Mariangela. Representing what I see, feel, and think, in that order exactly.

Orwell called this reason “sheer egoism.” I have been calling it selfish. What it boils down to is the desire to be seen. Heard. To matter. To outlast. Without a degree of ego, without the belief that your version of the world is worth offering, you produce nothing.

I spent a long time being extremely useful. I am not sorry for it. But I am done letting it be the whole story.

The third reason is not about me. Or not only.

I spent decades in rooms where feeling things at a particular depth was considered a liability. Where the people who noticed what was happening under what was being said, sensed the shifts in the meeting, absorbed the tension on everyone’s behalf, were considered too much. Were managed. Were told to develop a thicker skin, as if the capacity to feel deeply were something you could reduce.

I know what it costs to live like that. I know the exhaustion of being precisely calibrated to a world that keeps asking you to recalibrate. I know the shame of it. And I know that, comment after comment, you begin to wonder if they are right.

After big meetings, especially the ones with high-ranked executives and too many voices, I would sit in the empty conference room after everyone had left. Palms open. Lights off. My brain had taken in everything: the tone, the tension, the sigh someone buried mid-sentence. Everyone else moved straight to their next thing. I needed that silence like it was a matter of survival.

I do not write about sensitivity. I leave that to the specialists. I write from it and for it, from the lived experience of carrying it without language for it, for everyone still doing the same. I write toward the relief of reading something and thinking: yes, that is what it is. That is what it has always been.

For the person who has been carrying this in silence. For the child who is told she feels too much. For the adult still wondering if the intensity is a gift or a burden, who has not yet been told that it is both, that both is not a problem, that it can be carried with pride, and that the rooms were simply too small.

That is worth writing for. It is, if I am honest, inseparable from the egoism. I want to be heard. And what I most want heard is this.

The fourth reason is the hardest to hold still long enough to name: I write to capture the fragility of life.

I grew up in a town of fishermen picking up a conversation mid-sentence across the water, days after it had been left, because on a lagoon a conversation only waits for the boats to come close enough to begin again.

A world where sounds were an entire conversation. A rising oh that meant I heard you. If extended and sharpened, someone was being called to attention. A flat boh: what can you do, this is how it is. A drawn-out mah as disagreement disguised as acknowledgment. One syllable. Infinite register.

A fragile world, facing the slow pressure to become more legible, more standard, more like everywhere else, and continuing, without drama, as itself.

I write to carry what those words and that way of life were built to hold. A way of knowing the world that cannot be looked up or reconstructed once the people who carry it go quiet.

And I have watched that happen from closer than I wanted to. Language, and an entire way of life, disappearing from someone I love, memory by memory, the recent ones first. In the specific, physical, terrifying way that makes you understand: memory is not a given. The self is not fixed. What you carry can be taken from you in ways that have nothing to do with will or effort or character.

So I write because I am afraid of forgetting.

I do not know what will stay and what will thin. I write to make a record. Not for posterity. Not for history.

For my son.

He will not remember the sound of the fish market. He will not have grown up hearing voices across water, full conversations carried in vowels across stone and canal. He was born elsewhere, into other sounds, other languages, other rooms.

But he might read this.

Someday, when he is old enough to want to know where his mother came from and how she learned to pay attention to the world. And when he does, I want him to find not a title, not a list of accomplishments in rooms that no longer exist.

I want him to find a voice. A way of seeing. The particular quality of attention I inherited from a place and from the people in it, and tried to carry forward.

That is why I write.

If this found you at the right moment, consider sharing it with someone it might find too.

Subscribe now

Share

On Sunday, she tells me she is tired.

Not the tired that sleep fixes. Or maybe I wouldn’t know.

She says she doesn’t sleep anymore.

The kind that has settled in her voice. Her new voice.

“Mom, did you go out today?”

“I don’t feel like going out anymore. You know, it’s dangerous. Old people fall all the time, break bones, and never recover.”

She says this as if she is explaining something obvious.

As if I have simply not updated my understanding of the world.

I try, first gently.

“Just a short walk”, I say. “Five minutes. You promised.”

She doesn’t argue.

She just doesn’t.

I can hear it, even through the phone.

So I tell her about my son.

There is a small shift.

“Yes,” she says. “He is a beautiful boy, isn’t he. Handsome, just like your father was.”

For a moment, she comes back.

And then she is gone again.

Back into the narrow corridor of complaints.

No one calls enough. No one visits enough.

We go in circles.
The same three concerns, every Sunday, in a different order.

I used to be able to find a thread and pull her out.

Now it is like placing a hand on water.

I can still see what is possible for her.

She no longer wants to reach for it.

This is the part I don’t know how to hold.

There is also a kind of helplessness I don’t know what to do with.

What she needs no longer looks like help to me.

It would require agreeing with her version of things.

To stop trying to reopen what I can still see so clearly.

And I am not there.

So we disagree.

Or rather, I disagree.

She keeps moving through her series of absences, which her world seems to have reduced itself to.

For a few minutes, I get sharp. Impatient.

How can she not listen to me.

Why does she not understand how important it is to go out, to breathe fresh air, to move, to think differently.

Why does she stay inside that loop.

“Your siblings don’t visit.”
“Your brother should rebuild his life.”
“When are you coming home?”

There is still more in there for her. Right? I know there is.

I am so mad.

It doesn’t pass.

Not really.

Also, underneath it, there is something else.

Harder to admit.

The realization that this is another parent getting older
while I am far.

That there are limits to what can be carried across a phone call.

That presence, the real kind, cannot happen from a distance.

That some forms of help require proximity.

And I am not there.

So I fill the space with what I have.

Words. Suggestions. The latest thing my son has done.

He is so clever. He does well at school. A bit restless. Stubborn.

“Just like your father,” she says. “So intelligent, but so strong-willed.”

Stories that, when I tell them, are a little brighter and a little funnier than they are.

Because she needs the light.

Or so I think.

I do this because I don’t agree.

I don’t agree that this is where her life narrows.

I don’t agree that the risks outweigh the living.

I don’t agree that this is all that remains.

And there is something in me that wants to say, no, mom, look again.

Do what you taught me my entire life to do.

Reopen the field.

But I can feel the edge.

The moment where I stop being with her
and start standing against her.

Love becomes dangerous when it starts to sound like insistence.

This is a woman who started working at seven.
Before school, before anything else.
A life that began early, and never really paused.

She took care of an invalid grandmother.

Raised a younger brother she did not choose.

Married young. Had five children. Lost one.

Worked constantly. Two, three jobs at once.

Ran a household. Rented rooms to tourists in the summer. Made sweaters for brands.

Took care of my father for twelve long years while illness slowly rearranged him.

Sometimes I think she is still there.

She has lived a life that required

adjustment. effort. intervention. movement.

She was never someone life happened to.

And now, she is stepping out.

Or rather,

she has run out of things
she can move.

“I should move to a retirement home,” she says.

This is the new entry in the circle of three things that have now become four.

From where I stand, the world is shrinking.

To her, it looks like something she can still control.

Intellectually, I understand that.

But I am not inside it with her.

There is also something in me that this unsettles.

If she stops reaching,
what happens to the part of me that was raised to help her reach?

There is an identity in me that has always been useful in this way.

This does not have a function here.

There is nothing to solve. Only something to witness.

And I am not very practiced at that.

“There, everything is taken care of.”
“There, I will not be a burden anymore.”

She said it with a calm that felt decided.

“We will discuss this over the summer, when you come back home.”

I felt something tighten.

Subscribe now

Turn the Key

There are versions of love that expand a life.

And there are versions of love that step back.

That recognize the other person’s choices,

even when they feel like loss.

I am somewhere between the two.

I still call every Sunday.

I still try.

A suggestion. A small opening. A different angle.

Sometimes it lands.

For a moment, she sounds like herself again.

And then it closes.

What remains is smaller. To me.

I am not sure I agree with her version of the world.

But it’s hers to choose.

Even if I am not fully there with her.

The help I want to give her is not the help she is asking for.

And I don’t yet know how to love her without trying to change the terms of her life.

Before You Cross

I am not ready to call this acceptance.

And that, for now,

is a difference I am still learning how to hold.

I am not sure which of us is holding on harder.

Leave a comment

A few weeks ago, while I was listening to a podcast on the way to my hairstylist appointment, the guest said something interesting about product strategy, and within seconds I had paused the episode.

How could I use that framework in an interview? Would it apply to an important leadership conversation I had scheduled? Should I write it down before I forgot it?

The podcast had been playing for less than five minutes. And I had already stopped listening to learn, and switched to listening to harvest.

I recognized the feeling immediately. Not curiosity. Something tighter. A low-level compulsion to file the idea away on the virtual framework shelf I keep perpetually updated—or else fall behind. Fall irrelevant. Disappear.

The sword of Damocles of the knowledge economy: always hanging, never named.

We are living through a strange moment in the history of knowledge.

For most of human history, knowledge was scarce. Access to books, teachers, research, and specialized expertise was limited. Learning meant searching, traveling, sitting for countless hours in dusty libraries, and often waiting.

Now knowledge is everywhere.

Podcasts, newsletters, AI tools, frameworks, courses, explainers, threads, summaries of summaries. Entire fields can be explored from the palm of your hand in a single afternoon.

This abundance is extraordinary.

It is also disorienting.

Because once knowledge becomes infinite, the limiting factor shifts somewhere else: attention.

For people who think deeply and care about understanding the world, this creates an even trickier psychological trap.

When something new appears, the instinct is to learn it.

When ten new things appear, the instinct is to learn all ten.

A new model. A new tool. A new discipline. A new framework everyone seems to be discussing.

The mind responds with urgency.

Am I keeping up? I should already know this. Everybody else seems up to speed.

The result is a kind of intellectual hyper consumption.

You read one article, which links to another. You save a podcast for later. Someone recommends a new book. An expert you respect mentions a concept you have never heard before.

Soon the experience of learning begins to resemble something else entirely.

Comparison. Acceleration. A low-level sense of falling behind.

At that point curiosity has crossed a threshold.

Learning is no longer driven by interest.
It is driven by anxiety.

What makes this trap subtle is that curiosity in and of itself is a virtue.

Curiosity expands the mind. It opens new disciplines and connects unexpected ideas. It makes people more interesting, more adaptable, more capable of seeing patterns others miss.

But curiosity without discernment eventually collapses under its own weight.

The brain cannot meaningfully absorb everything it encounters. When it tries, it stops synthesizing and starts accumulating.

Information piles up faster than insight.

This is where another concept becomes useful.

Intellectual taste.

We often talk about taste in art, music, or design. Some people develop an instinct for what is good, what is interesting, and what is worth deeper attention.

The same idea applies to knowledge.

Intellectual taste is the ability to recognize which ideas deserve your curiosity and which ones can pass without consequence.

It is a filter.

And in a world of infinite information, filters matter more than storage.

Developing that taste is not about knowing everything.
It is about choosing well.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately while experimenting with creative AI tools.

Over the past months I have been building small animated stories and songs for a YouTube channel. The process is half exploration and half play.

Every week new tools appear. Image models improve. Animation problems that drove you to distraction one week get resolved the next. Entire workflows get rewritten by a new feature.

If I tried to learn every tool deeply, I would spend all my time watching tutorials.

Instead, I have been doing something that product people have always done: experimenting.

I pick a small stack. I try things. I build something imperfect. I see what breaks.

Reality teaches faster than theory. And you learn much faster when you let your ideas collide with practice.

Subscribe now

Turn the Key

I have also started paying closer attention to how other thoughtful people are learning nowadays.
The ones who adapt fastest to change tend to follow a few patterns.

They stop consuming endlessly and start acting.

Reading about a field gives you context, but too much reading quietly becomes procrastination. Building something small forces clarity. It exposes gaps in understanding that no article will reveal.

They curate their intellectual circles.

Wide networks are useful, but a handful of thoughtful conversations can compress weeks of research. Asking someone what surprised them recently often reveals more than reading their published work.

They choose learning themes.

Curiosity scattered across twenty topics creates noise. Curiosity applied deeply to a few subjects creates insight.

They protect their reflection time.

Learning is not only input. To really understand and solidify what you have absorbed, the brain needs space to connect. Walks, showers, long conversations, writing without a plan—these are the moments that allow patterns to emerge.

Without reflection, information stays fragmented.
With reflection, it becomes knowledge.

Before You Cross

The problem was never that the world required us to learn faster. It is that the internet convinced us we must learn everything.

Meaningful learning has never worked that way. You do not master the entire map. You learn to read terrain.

When knowledge was scarce, the advantage went to whoever could access more of it. Now that knowledge is infinite, the advantage has moved. It belongs to whoever can filter.

Discernment has become the new expertise.

—

The next time a podcast guest mentions a new framework, I will probably still pause the audio.

Old habits are persistent.

But I will pause only long enough to ask one question: does this deserve my curiosity, or just my attention?

They are not the same thing.

Then I will press play.

Leave a comment

There are many ways we learn to love others.

Some begin before we even understand what love is.

We love our parents first.
Not in a philosophical sense. In a biological one.
Because without their love there would be no us.

They are the first faces that form the architecture of our world.
The first hands that hold us.
The first voices that shape what the world sounds like.

Then there is family.

Family is a strange kind of love.

It is not always gentle.
It is not always easy.
Sometimes it is complicated, loud, full of unfinished conversations.

But there is a thread that runs underneath everything: blood, history, memory.

You love them because they are yours.

Even when the relationship is imperfect.
Even when distance grows.
Even when the words sometimes fail.

Then there are friends.

The chosen ones.
The people who stand beside you in moments that family cannot fully inhabit.

The quiet confidences.
The long conversations.
The shared laughter that appears exactly when life becomes too serious.

Friends carry pieces of your life no one else has witnessed.

You love them because they walked with you.

Then there are the people who guide you.

Teachers.
Mentors.
Colleagues who saw something in you before you saw it yourself.

The ones who opened doors.
The ones who spoke a sentence that shifted the direction of your life.

You love them because they expanded your horizon.

And then one day, love becomes something else entirely.

The first crush.

The moment when the brain resigns and the heart takes over.

Everything feels brighter.
Time bends.
Every minute apart feels like an error in the system.

You want to spend every second together forever.

Love, in that moment, is pure electricity.

Then comes the deeper choice.

The person who decides to build a life with you.
The one who sees the unpolished versions of you and stays anyway.

Not the movie version of love.
The real one.

Bills.
Fatigue.
Long conversations about nothing and everything.

The enduring decision to walk through life together.

And then there are children.

The Italians have a word for them.

Piezz’ ’e core.

Pieces of your heart.

There is no translation that fully captures it.

Because that love is something else entirely.

Primitive.
Protective.
Unconditional.

You would tear the world apart for them if necessary.

Your heart now walks outside your body.

And then there is you.

Strangely, this is where the love disappears.

When you look at yourself, something else shows up first.

The voices.

All the sentences that were said about you over the years.

Too sensitive.
Too complicated.
Too ambitious.
Too emotional.
Too intense.

Too something.

Always something.

Words carved in stone.

We carry them for years.
The people who said them often forget within minutes.

And then there is the most persistent voice of all.

Your own.

In my case, I sometimes imagine her sitting on my left shoulder.

Not the angel.

The other one.

Given that my name is Mariangela, it feels appropriate to call her Marisatana.

She never misses an opportunity.

You are too fat.
You are not a good daughter.
You left your family behind.
You never call enough.
Your life is easy. You should help more.

The list goes on.

And on.

And on.

And if you pause for a moment,
you will probably hear a voice like that too.

Maybe it says something different.

Maybe it tells you that you are not smart enough.
Not disciplined enough.
Not successful enough.

Maybe it reminds you of every mistake you ever made
and conveniently forgets every act of courage.

Most of us carry this voice.

It is astonishingly creative.

It can transform a life full of effort and love
into a narrative of permanent inadequacy.

And somehow we believe it.

What is extraordinary is not that these voices exist.

What is extraordinary is how much authority we give them.

You can have a loving partner.
A child who adores you.
Friends who see your beauty.
People who appreciate you deeply.

And still the internal courtroom remains open.

The accusations repeat.

The verdict never seems to change.

Love flows easily outward.

We know how to love others.

We practice it every day.

We forgive their imperfections.
We justify their mistakes.
We explain their struggles with kindness.
We hold space for their humanity.

But when it comes to ourselves, something closes.

The generosity disappears.
The compassion vanishes.

The grace we offer so freely to everyone else becomes almost unreachable.

“Why don’t you love yourself as much as I love you?” my mother asked, looking at me, at the bones that had begun to replace her daughter.

“If only you knew what I did to have you.”

So I started eating again because I loved her.

And I could not bear to watch her suffer.

And this is where the real question begins.

How do you learn to love yourself?

How do you look at your life honestly, with all its imperfections, and still say:

You did your best.

You were navigating things you barely understood at the time.

You were carrying more than anyone could see.

How do you forgive yourself for the things you did not know how to do differently?

For the phone calls you did not make.
For the places you left.
For the expectations you could not carry forever.

How do you extend the same mercy inward that you give so naturally to everyone else?

Subscribe now

Turn the Key

Self-love does not begin with admiration.

It begins with fairness.

What if you judged yourself with the same generosity you apply to others?

What if the standard was not perfection
but compassion?

What if the voice in your head learned to ask a different question?

Not

What is wrong with you?

but

What were you carrying when you made that choice?

Sometimes the shift is very small.

A sentence softened.
A judgment paused.

A moment where the inner critic is not allowed to dominate the conversation.

Before You Cross

I am not writing this from the other side.

I am still standing far from that threshold.

The place where loving yourself feels as natural as loving the people around you.

I reach for it sometimes.

I reach for the words of those who see me more kindly than I see myself.

My husband.
My child.

Friends who insist that I am beautiful exactly as I am.

People who seem genuinely confused by the harshness with which I judge myself.

Their voices help sometimes.

They interrupt Marisatana occasionally.

Long enough for the other voice to try to speak.

The one that says:

Maybe you are not as flawed as you think.

Maybe the story you tell yourself is not the only story available.

Maybe the love you give so freely to the world deserves to come back to its source.

And maybe, slowly,
you can learn to receive it.

Perhaps loving ourselves is the last form of love we learn.

The others came naturally.

But turning that same tenderness inward
is a different journey.

One that many of us are still walking.

And maybe that is enough for now.

Standing somewhere
between loving others
and learning to include ourselves.

Leave a comment

Share

The quiet arrived all at once.

One week my days were structured around decisions. The next, there was nothing scheduled at five.

The calendar emptied. The calls stopped. The people who used to reach for me did not.

I kept listening for something.

For urgency.
For friction.
For proof that I was still needed.

From the outside, this season looks enviable.

Two adults walking through Seattle on a weekday morning. Blue sky rare enough to notice. Light pooling on wet sidewalks.

We joke about being retired.

He shifted intensities.
I am “retired from corporate.”

The sentence feels strange in my mouth. Technically true. Emotionally unstable.

There are no decks to polish. No rooms that tilt when I speak. No inbox filling overnight with small, urgent dependencies.

The body waits.

Urgency gave structure. Structure gave metrics. Metrics gave proof. Proof of relevance. Proof of competence. Proof that I was inside the system.

Proof leaves artifacts.
Pause does not.

When no one is measuring you, you begin to wonder whether you were only real because you were measurable.

I know where this wiring began.

I was an extremely sensitive child. Loud noises overwhelmed me. The house felt sharp, the way rooms do when moods can change quickly.

I learned to lower the temperature. To anticipate tension before it surfaced. To keep the air breathable.

On some evenings, when everything felt too loud, I would lie on my bedroom floor and press my ear against the cold tile. I can still feel it. The chill against my cheek. The muffled voices of the neighbors downstairs, softened by distance.

That was soothing.

As I grew up, I found other forms of steadiness.

Competence became one of them.

If I was prepared, I was safe.
If I was useful, I was stable.
If I was needed, I was anchored.

I became the one who works. The one who earns. The one whose title speaks first.

It is easier to justify your existence when it comes with a paycheck.

So when urgency left, it did not feel spacious. It felt exposed.

Stillness is loud when you are not used to hearing yourself.

There is another detail.

I have not updated my LinkedIn profile.

The old title is still there.

Writing it would make the pause official. It would close a chapter in public.

Family still says my former role with pride. Friends introduce me the way I used to be.

I let them.

For years, I did not have to justify myself. The job did that. The salary did that. The scale did that.

Now, in the absence of those artifacts, I feel the urge to explain. To reassure people I am still ambitious. Still serious. Still moving.

As if quiet were laziness. As if pause required permission.

It surprises me how quickly guilt enters the room.

There is work happening. It just does not leave artifacts.

I did not expect the reflex to turn movement into momentum to follow me here.

Cry & Giggle, the children’s storytelling channel I started with my son, was meant to be a creative corner. Something we could build slowly.

Within hours, I had turned it into a business model.

Ten tabs open. Five AI tools downloaded. Merch ideas forming before the first song was even finished.

The poor “Sad Scooter” had not learned to roll yet, and I was already scaling.

I do this with everything I love.

Joy does not stay “just joy” for long around me. If it cannot grow to proof, I start to feel uneasy. If it cannot justify itself, I begin reorganizing it.

What looks like ambition is often anxiety.

Because stillness invites questions you cannot spreadsheet your way through:

• Who am I without my title?

• Who am I when my name no longer unlocks inboxes?

• Who am I when I am not the one bringing something measurable home?

That last question is harder than I like to admit.

Subscribe now

At first, the pause felt like interruption.

Then it slowly began to feel like a lab. The kind where you study your own patterns instead of the market.

And I started noticing that while nothing looked different, something inside was.

I began saying no to meetings that would have made me look busy but left me hollow.
I began choosing what felt true over what made me immediately helpful.
I stopped volunteering for things just because I could do them well.

Some days the work looks like walking longer than necessary. Some days it looks like staring at a blank page and not filling it. Some days it looks like listening to the quiet mechanics of my own thinking, the cogs moving more slowly this time, toward a shape I actually chose.

The pause has not been empty.

It has been recalibration.

Turn the Key

The shift from chasing proof to inhabiting the pause looked subtle. In practice, it felt radical.

Instead of asking, “What should I build next?”
I began asking, “What would feel wrong to return to?”

Not strategically wrong, or reputationally wrong.

Bodily wrong.

The room where I begin editing myself before I speak.
The pace that gives my brain no space to think in full sentences.
The role that looks like growth on paper and makes my body clench.

The question did not tell me where to go. It clarified where not to.

In that refusal, something steadier than proof appeared.

Integrity.

Something else shifted.

I was no longer performing for an audience I could name.

And in that space, my taste sharpened. My preferences resurfaced.

I began asking longer questions:

• Who am I when no one is tracking me?

• What kind of work lets me remain whole?

• What expands me instead of extracting from me?

Before You Cross

If you are in a quiet season and the stillness makes you uneasy, pay attention to what your hands want to do.

Refresh LinkedIn.
Draft a new headline.
Call someone who will remind you who you used to be.

Before you do, ask:

• Where are you reaching for proof instead of alignment?

• What part of you does not want to go back?

• Who are you without being needed?

For years, you were reflected back to yourself in urgency, in requests, in rooms.

Now those reflections are gone.

What remains is you.

Leave a comment

The conference room was all glass.

Seattle afternoon light pressing against the windows.
A whiteboard crowded with arrows and edge cases I could not personally code.
Markers uncapped. The faint scent of ink.

I was leading the meeting.

I remember holding the pen and thinking, very quietly,

You are not the expert in this room.

For a long time, I believed expertise was a prerequisite for usefulness.

The kind of expertise that makes questions stop.
The kind that hardens the ground beneath your feet.

That instinct did not begin in a conference room.

It began at a heavy family table.

Choose one profession and stick to it for your entire life.
Become excellent. The best.
Stay.

And if you have to leave, first ask yourself: are you mad?
And second, make sure you have something else lined up.

Open your mouth only when you know.
Not when you are wondering.
Not just to “let air out of your mouth.”

In school, expertise translated easily.

Good grades.
Correct answers.
Being the one who knew.

I had that nailed.

Later, in early big tech, the rule sharpened.

If you did not code, you were peripheral.
I am convinced this is what every PM back then felt like. As a woman, even more so.

Technical fluency was not enough.
You needed to produce the artifact.

I remember, years ago, trying to explain to a hiring manager during an informational that product managers did not need to write code to be builders. That understanding systems was not the same as implementing them.

I was arguing for a broader definition of intelligence.

The requirements did not move.
Or better, they moved a couple of decades later.

So the blueprint remained.

Earn your place.
Accumulate proof.
Do not speak from partial ground.

Being a generalist inside that system is destabilizing.
Make it a creative generalist, and suddenly your expertise feels suspect.

You are rarely the deepest specialist in the room.
But you are often the one who sees how the pieces fit.

You translate across disciplines.
You connect what others hold separately in their clean silos.
You sense patterns before they are fully visible.

It is a useful position.

It is also an exposed one.

You know enough to see complexity.
You know enough to see your own gaps.

So you wait.

You tell yourself you will speak once you know more.
Once you cannot be easily questioned.
Once the altitude feels safer than the ground.

The flaw in this belief revealed itself slowly.

In mentoring conversations that lasted longer than scheduled.
In one on ones where engineers who knew far more than I ever would about their code left steadier than they arrived.

What helped them was not technical mastery from me.

It was clarity.

Helping them get crisp on the problem they were actually solving.
For which customer.
With what tradeoffs.

Naming what good UX required.
Helping them package their mastery and their beautiful brains into a narrative that resonated.

What unlocked them was rarely a grand truth.

It was often something small.

Let’s simplify the slide.
Let’s name the real constraint.
Let’s say this in a way your audience can hear.

They did not need a mountaintop.

They needed perspective.

They needed someone who could see the shape.

Motherhood clarified something softer.

Expertise has its place.
But regulation steadies first.

When something overwhelms my son, he does not need a framework.

He needs the biggest, warmest hug I can give.

He needs me to kneel so our eyes are level.
To slow my breathing.
To help him find simple words he can repeat.

Words small enough to hold.

When my father began losing language, I watched precision loosen.

The sharp recall that once anchored our conversations began to thin.

Expertise receded.

Recognition faded too.

What remained was my memory of how words once felt between us.

And I understood something I had built my life around was less permanent than I thought.

Recently, my brother and I were speaking about sensitivity.

Miles apart.
Different countries.
The same quiet wiring.

I shared what I have only recently learned.

Not as a specialist.
As someone still inside the learning.

During the call, I saw him lower his eyes and begin writing.

He was writing down my words.

That was helping him.

For years I postponed writing in public because I did not feel expert enough.

It is the classic generalist hesitation.

You want to earn the right to speak.
You want to stand on stone.

But stone takes a long time to form.

And mastery keeps moving.

Turn the Key

Move the source of authority.

From mastery
to memory.

From altitude
to proximity.

From being the one who knows
to being the one who remembers.

This is how I began writing in public.

I stopped asking, Am I expert enough?

I started asking, Who is standing where I once stood?

Then I wrote from there.

From the last bend I had just walked.
From what had unsettled me.
From what I could now explain simply because I had wrestled with it.

Moving from guru to guide is not a reduction of ambition.

It is a reduction of distance.

Before You Cross

• Where are you still close enough to the struggle to describe it honestly?

• What have you learned recently that once felt impossible?

• Who might steady because you named it out loud?

The mountaintop will always be visible.

But most of us live along the trail.

And sometimes what keeps someone moving
is not a voice from above

but the sound of footsteps ahead
that have not forgotten the ground.

Leave a comment

Before I knew I would live between worlds,
I lived between words.

My father loved explaining things.

Not casually. Not in passing.
In full detail. With context. With origin stories. With etymology.

If a word appeared on television, it did not simply pass through the room. It stopped. It was examined. It was traced back to where it began. Latin roots. French endings. Why it meant what it meant.

Language was never decoration in our house.

It was architecture.

On those late Italian afternoons, the shutters half-closed against the heat, we would sit together and watch the serialized episodes of Around the World in Eighty Days. Not the film. The long animated version. The waiting-from-week-to-week version. The version that required patience.

He loved that too.

When the character of Passepartout appeared, my father leaned forward.

“It’s French,” he said. “Passe-partout. It means the one who passes everywhere. Like the master key in hotels. The one that opens every door.”

He paused for effect. He always did.

“You are a passepartout.”

I did not yet know whether he was describing me or designing me.

Children rarely know the difference.

What I knew was that I felt seen.

He said the protagonist was more Passepartout than Fogg.
Not the man obsessed with the wager.
The one who actually made the journey possible.
That mattered.

Subscribe now

For years, I carried that word without fully understanding it.

I became fluent at thresholds.

Between Italian and American.
Between engineering and executive.
Between abstraction and execution.
Between the room where strategy was declared and the room where it had to work.

I translated tension before others named it.
I sensed misalignment before it appeared on slides.
I could walk into rooms that intimidated others and make them navigable.

I did not experience this as effort.

Crossing thresholds energizes me.

What exhausted me was staying in the wrong rooms once inside.

Being a passepartout is powerful when you are opening doors to growth.
It is depleting when you are asked to hold open doors that should close.

There is a difference between adaptability and self-erasure.

For a long time, I confused the two.

I could enter any room.

It took me decades to build one.

But here is what I understand now, and perhaps what my father understood before I did.

Passepartout was never small.

He was the hinge.
The translator.
The one who made worlds crossable.

He was not background.

He was infrastructure.

And infrastructure is power.

Today, I use that key differently.

I no longer open doors so others can perform inside rooms that drain them.

I help people find the doors that feel like expansion.

The executive who feels competent everywhere and at home nowhere.
The builder who outgrew the problem he once loved.
The woman who has lived between cultures for so long she forgot she has a center.

I recognize them instantly.

I have lived in their hallways.

A passepartout does not carry your luggage.
She reminds you that the door was never locked.

My father loved the origin of words.

He loved how language carried history inside it.

Passepartout did not just mean master key.

It meant something that could pass through everything.

For a long time, I thought that meant I belonged everywhere.

Now I know it means I can move between worlds without disappearing inside them.

Between Worlds did not begin with a newsletter.

It began on a couch.

With a man who loved language.
And a word that quietly became my compass.

Leave a comment