Back in the early days of COVID, I was sitting at my desk with a Gen Z employee, (let’s call him Z) who was helping get the company equipped so that our office staff could work from home.
At this point, we were still operating under the misapprehension that the virus was only impacting the elderly and the infirm. And so “Z” was lamenting the fact that someone in their 20s was having to endure the shelter-in-place order, when the real issue was all the “old people.” At one point he looked at me and said, “Old people should be willing to sacrifice (read: die) and make way for the younger generations. Haven’t they already lived long enough?”
I looked at him and said, “Okay, Z, I understand the survival of the fittest principle of trimming the herd, but help me understand. How would you define old?” To which he said, “Oh, for sure anyone older than 60, and anyone who has retired and can’t contribute to the economy.” (I swear, I’m not making this up—not even embellishing.)
While some might have gotten their hackles up during this exchange, I thought it was hilarious, because I could see Z did not find anything offensive in what he was saying, he was simply stating the facts as he saw them. (Btw, may Z live a verrrrrryyyyy long life.) And since at 62 I fell into this definition of old, in certain respects, Z’s comments were a “compliment” since clearly, he did not see me as someone who should be ready to pack it all in. Frankly, I also found the honesty implicit in Z’s comments refreshing—he was simply voicing societal opinions that others are too polite to share.
When I started writing this book, I can’t tell you how many times I heard comments such as: “Aren’t you a bit old to start writing?” Or: “Make sure you don’t let any agents you pitch know how old you are—they won’t want to take a gamble on a writer who doesn’t have a long career ahead.” (aka: much longer to live.) One of my favorites came from a professional I hired early on who said: “You don’t want to make a point of letting the reader know your character is well into his forties—few readers want to read about anyone that old.”
And while I could go on, I won’t.
Now, just because I personally don’t buy into this ageist nonsense, doesn’t mean that I’m oblivious to the fact that it exists. But I also believe—at least as it relates to publishing—we’re starting to see a change in terms of what readers are interested in reading about. (In part because there is so much buying power in the “older” demographic.) For example, books such as Killers of a Certain Age feature four retired spies in their 60s who are called into service again. And they’re not some drooling, ineffectual versions of their former selves, they can still kick a$$.
The other fact I remind myself of, is that there are a number of successful books written by authors who debuted in their more august years. One of my favorite books, Stones for Ibarra was published when Harriet Doerr was 74. Frank McCourt was 66 when he wrote Angela’s Ashes, which went on to win the Pulitzer Prize.
Recently, I’ve enjoyed witnessing Bonnie Garmus’ success with her debut novel, Lessons in Chemistry, which was published just a couple days before she turned 65.
(Side note: I think it’s interesting that Garmus’ character in Lessons fights against limitations of perception—in this case, a woman in science in the 1960s—which in essence Garmus herself has done by publishing a debut novel at 65.)
I’ve included a link to CBS’s Sunday Morning interview of Garmus, which is both inspirational and delightful. I especially loved hearing what motivated her to write this book, and to learn that while her prior novel was rejected 98 times, she refused to give up the fight. (And did you know Lessons in Chemistry, starring and executive produced by Brie Larson, will premiere in October on Apple TV? Go, Bonnie!)
(To fully understand the context of the following, you’ll have to watch the interview.)
To quote Garmus: “To the death!” And like Garmus, I’m far from ready to give up the fight.
Onward!
Oh, I still can't get past that Z story! But as you said, he was just articulating what society pretty much thinks. Ageism is the only "ism" that is perfectly OK.