Author’s Note
This is the third piece I have written about my father since he died.
The first was the memorial. It was testimony; an act of acknowledgment, written for him in the sense that one writes for the dead, knowing the writing is for the living to know who they are losing.
The second was on what he gave me – the lessons I’ve distilled from my recollections. It was organized around four lessons I learned from a man who, by the end, could not fully live the lessons he had given me.
This one is different. It is not testimony, but argument.
It is what I have come to understand grief is actually for, when it is allowed to do its work rather than the work the cultural script assigns to it. It is also an attempt to be honest about the fact that the way I grieve is itself an artifact: a structure I built, slowly, from materials I gathered without intending to, because the alternative was being undone by what I had not yet learned to hold.
I want to be precise about what this essay is not. It is not a guide. It is not a method. It is not a claim that the way I have grieved is healthier than the ways others grieve, or that the absence of visible collapse is evidence of anything except a particular relationship to time and pain that I did not choose so much as inherit, refine, and finally come to recognize.
It is the record of a question I refused to ask, a question I asked instead, and what the answer requires of me.
~ Dom
After the Call
The day I learned my father had been found dead in his home, I did not cry. I sent a message to my boss in Teams.
Afk for a while, I just found out my father was found dead in his home.
Then I called my mother. Partially to tell her, but more to be sure my sister would not be alone when I told her. I made her sit down. I reminded her to claim her bereavement days in advance, before the grief made the paperwork harder than it needed to be. I funded and coordinated her travel to Georgia so she could follow up with the coroner in person.
I opened a Google document and began to track the things that would, in the days ahead, become important and that no one would think to track if I did not: the probate court’s filing requirements, the coroner’s office and the steps for confirming identity, the question of whether a lawyer would be necessary, the funeral homes in the area and which of them could be trusted to be respectful.
I staged money so that my sister, traveling, would not have to choose between grieving and paying her bills.
I planned logistics.
I noticed, even then, that I was not behaving the way grief is supposed to behave. Grief is supposed to arrive as a wave. It is supposed to take your legs out from under you, to make the world go small and dark for a while. Mine did not.
Mine arrived as a sequence of people who needed to be protected, and a list of things that needed to be done so the protection would hold.
I am not writing this to defend the way I grieved. I am writing it because the question of what was happening has not left me, and the answer that has finally emerged is not the one I expected. It has less to do with my father than I first believed.
Or rather: it has everything to do with him, but not in the way grief is supposed to be about the dead.
When a parent dies, the cultural script offers you a small number of acceptable responses. You collapse, weep, and become temporarily incapacitated. Eventually you return, slowly, to a life that now contains a permanent absence. The grief, in this version, is something that happens to you; a weather front that passes through and leaves you marked.
I did not feel it that way.
The first thing I felt, after the call, was the shape of what the next forty-eight hours would have to be if the people I loved were going to come through them without unnecessary additional damage. The grief, whatever it was going to turn out to be, was going to have to wait its turn behind the work of making sure no one else had to grieve in worse conditions than they had to.
I felt the death as a question, eventually.
But first I felt it as a checklist.
The Wrong Questions
The question grief is supposed to ask is how do I survive losing him?
It is a question that puts you at the center. It treats the death as something done to you, a wound to be tended and an absence to be metabolized. It assumes that the work of grief is the work of reconciling yourself to the new geometry of a world without him in it.
I do not think that is the question my father’s death actually asked me. Or if it was, it was a question I declined to answer first.
There is a second question the script offers, quieter, and harder: what could I have done?
This one arrives in the night, when the rooms are dark and the body is tired enough that the mind stops policing itself. It rehearses the alternative timelines. The phone call I did not make. The visits I postponed. The conversations we never had. The version of myself who would have been more present, more vigilant, more able to intervene.
I refused this question too, though it hurt more, and took longer.
Both questions, I came to see, share a common defect. They put me at the center of his life. They treat his death as something that happened in my biography; a chapter in the story of my survival, a problem in the architecture of my grief. They do not, in any honest sense, treat him as the protagonist of his own life.
He was. That is the thing I kept returning to.
He was the protagonist of his own life, and his life had reached the conclusion it reached because of choices he made. The more difficult implication is that those choices were his to make. Treating his death as primarily a question about me was, I came to believe, a quiet kind of theft. It took something that belonged to him, the authorship of his own story, and reassigned it to my emotional accounting.
So I tried to ask a different question. I tried to ask the question grief asks when you do not insist on being the subject of it.
What did he choose, and what does my recognition of his choosing require of me?
That is the question this essay is about.
It is not the question the script wanted me to ask. It is, I have come to believe, the question that grief is actually for, when it is allowed to do its work rather than the work it has been assigned.
The Shape of His Choosing
The answer, when I finally let myself approach it, did not arrive as a single insight. It arrived as three motions. Each one resisted the next. Each one was necessary to hold the others in place.
The first motion was the recognition that his path was his.
He had walked it for some reasons I could see and others I could not. The walking had been real, and to grieve him honestly meant accepting that his life had been his to live, even when ending it took the form it did.
This recognition is not endorsement. It is closer to the kind of respect you owe someone whose decisions you disagree with but whose right to make them you must, in some essential way, honor. Trying to unmake his path in my mind – rehearsing the versions where he chose differently, accepted help, lived longer – was not love. It was a refusal of him as a person. It was making him, instead, a project I had failed to complete, rather than a man whose life had its own shape independent of my preferences.
The second motion was harder. It was the recognition that accepting his path as his did not mean accepting that the path was good.
He had been failing himself for years. Not failing me. Not failing anyone else in particular. Failing himself, in the specific sense that he was treating his own body, his own future, his own personhood as though they were less worth defending than they were.
We all owe ourselves something; some baseline of regard. Some willingness to remain inhabitable in our own lives. When we stop paying it, we have done something to ourselves that, in any rigorous ethical accounting, must be named.
I cannot pretend his choice to become noncompliant with his diabetes treatment was a good one. To pretend that would have been a different kind of theft: it would have taken the moral weight of what he had chosen and dissolved it into acceptance. It would have been dishonest, and the dishonesty would have served only my comfort.
The third motion was that having seen the first two – having held both his agency and the failure of that agency in the same hand – I now had a responsibility I had not had before.
The seeing could not be un-seen: I now know what deferred self-regard looks like at its endpoint. I know what it costs. I know who pays. And knowing means I am now responsible for what I do with the knowing.
These three motions are what I now understand grief to have actually been doing in me while it looked, from the outside, like nothing was happening.
The Materials at Hand
I owe you an admission before I go further, because without it the rest of this essay risks reading as a man explaining why he was right to grieve the way he grieved.
The framework I just described – the three motions, the careful holding-together of recognition and judgment and obligation – is not a framework I went and found in a book.
It is something I built, slowly, over years, from pieces of traditions I borrowed without ever formally committing to any of them. There are Daoist elements in it. There are Stoic elements. There are Kantian elements. I have read enough of each to know what I am borrowing and from where, but I did not assemble it because I admired the architecture of any one of them.
I assembled it because I needed it.
Earlier versions of me needed a way to hold pain without being destroyed by it. They needed a way to hold other people without trying to control them. They needed a way to know what was owed without being owned by the owing. I built the synthesis the way one builds a shelter: not out of preference for any particular material, but because the weather demanded a shelter, and these were the materials at hand.
The risk of writing what I just wrote is that you will read the philosophical processing as proof that the grief has been metabolized. It may not have been.
It may be that the processing is what I do when I do not yet know what else to do, and that this essay is itself part of the work, not the report on it. I cannot tell you, from the inside, whether I am writing this because I have understood something, or because the writing is itself a kind of containment I have not yet earned the right to set down.
Honestly, I suspect both are true. I suspect they will be true for as long as I keep writing about him.
This matters because the essay’s claim, that grief done honestly produces three motions, that the dead require something specific of the living, depends on whether you trust the person making it. I am asking you to trust me as a witness to my own grief while admitting that my witness is shaped by the same machinery that produced grief’s particular form. I am both subject and analyst, using tools I built from necessities I did not get to refuse.
I am telling you this not to undermine the writing, but because the words would be dishonest without it.
One of the things my father’s death required of me was a refusal of the kinds of honesty that protect the writer at the reader’s expense.
What He Left Unfinished
When they found him, the medication was unused.
Not all of it, but enough. The prescribed regimens he had filled and never finished, sitting where he had left them. He was diabetic and had been for years. The disease was managed when he wanted to manage it and was not when he did not. By the end, he was not managing it.
It was a slow declension, visible to those who knew what to look for, that he had chosen. Choice being the right word, even though the culture flinches from applying it here.
I do not mean choice in the clean, bloodless sense of a decision made freely and without pressure. I mean choice in the human sense: constrained, wounded, repeated across time, and still finally belonging to the person who made it.
He did not kill himself. I want to be specific about that.
He simply, over years, declined to participate in his own preservation with the seriousness the situation required. There is a word for this in the language of medicine: noncompliance. It is a clinical term that seems designed to sound neutral. But the thing it names is not neutral.
The thing it names is a person, day after day, choosing the version of himself he could survive over the version of himself that would have survived longer.
The medication was there. He knew what it was for. He did not take it.
That is choice. Spread out over years, distributed across thousands of small moments, so diffuse that it does not look like choice from any single angle. But it is.
I loved him.
The rest of what I am about to say is not the negation of that.
He was a man who had been broken by his life, and the broken places had not healed cleanly, though he carried them with a kind of weary dignity that I still admire. He hung wedding photos by his door; mine, printed without my knowing. He kept high school photos on a shelf. He loved in the way men of his generation and his region and his particular wounding tended to love: at a slight remove, with great care, expressed through proximity and through the small infrastructures of attention rather than through speech.
I have no doubt he loved me. The evidence was everywhere in his house.
But he also could not love himself with the same seriousness. The inability could not have been wholly invisible to him, and whatever combination of exhaustion, pain, habit, and resignation held him there, he did not interrupt it.
The first motion is recognizing that I do not get to unmake this. I do not get to wish him into a different man, walk him into a different ending, or perform the work of redemption that would let me grieve a version of him that did not exist. The respect I owe him is the respect of seeing him as he was, on the path he chose, and not as the projection of who I might have wanted him to be.
The second motion is that I will not pretend the path was good. He had a duty to himself, not as my father, not owed to anyone else, but as a person, to remain inhabitable in his own life for as long as he could. He did not.
The choice is not mine to forgive or absolve. It was his.
Naming it is not a betrayal of him. It is the only way to take his personhood seriously enough to grieve it.
The third motion is that I now know what I know. I know what deferred self-regard looks like when it is permitted to complete itself. I know what it leaves behind, who finds the medication, just as surely as I know who hung the photos by the door, and I know who must one day take them down.
I cannot pretend I do not know. Knowing requires something of me.
What it requires is this: I walk my own path with the seriousness he could not, in the end, manage to give his. Not the same path. Not even a path he would have recognized. But with the same kind of attention to the question of whether I am remaining inhabitable, whether the version of myself I am choosing to be is one I can actually live as, whether I am paying the duty I owe to my own personhood.
He gave me, by failing to give it to himself, an extremely clear picture of what is at stake.
The River and the Chooser
I moved away from the place I grew up. I built a life with my wife that is, in nearly every respect, not the life he lived.
I do not regret these choices.
There is a version of grief that would have insisted I regret them; one that would have insisted distance was the failure, that the moving away was the abandonment, that if I had been closer the choosing would have gone differently.
I do not believe this.
I cannot rewind the moment of any original choice and try again. Even if I could, the person who would be choosing would not be the same person I was then, because that person had not yet seen what I have now seen.
You can look back on the path and see the options you did not take. You cannot go back and choose again.
The river is never the same river. The chooser is never the same chooser.
This is the part I most want the reader to hear, because it is the part the grief script will fight you on hardest.
You did not fail him by living your life away from him. You may have done other things wrong, but you did not do that wrong. He was the protagonist of his life. You are the protagonist of yours. The two paths could have intersected more, and it would have been better in some ways if they had, and worse in others. None of it would have undone the choices he was making about his own preservation, because those were never yours to make.
You can study the path. You can prepare for it. You can choose, at each moment, what kind of step to take. But you cannot step into the same river twice. You cannot choose, twice, the same choice.
This is not consolation. It is also not absolution.
It is the recognition that the geometry of regret is incoherent; that the self that would re-choose does not exist, and that the only action available to anyone, ever, is the next one.
His next one was the next dose he did not take.
Mine is the one I am taking now.
What Remains to Be Walked
I have a motto, refined into a question I now use as a kind of compass.
Qualis est homo qui non facit mundum meliorem?
What kind of man does not make the world better?
I used to think of it as an exhortation. A challenge to live up to. The kind of phrase you keep in your wallet to remind yourself, on the days when the work feels hopeless, that the work is the thing.
I think of it differently now.
I think of it as a description of the only coherent use of the agency I still have. My father no longer has the choice. The choosing he did is done, and his path has been walked to its end. I still have the capacity to act in the world, to make some small portion of it better than I found it, to spend the days I have in service of something that will outlast my having them.
He no longer can. That is not a fact I get to revise. It is a fact that now helps define what my own choosing is for.
The philosophy I have used to grieve him is, in part, a philosophy his life taught me to need.
I do not know if I would have built it if I had not watched what happens when someone does not. I watched a man I loved fail to remain inhabitable in his own life, and what I saw shaped what I would later understand a life had to be able to do. I built the shelter because I had seen, up close, what the weather can do to someone who has none.
I do not claim this as an achievement. In many ways, it is closer to scar tissue that learned to think.
There is something I would like to say to him that I cannot, because he was never very good at receiving this kind of thing alive.
The path you chose was yours, and I will not unmake it. I will not pretend it was good.
But I am living in a way that you helped to teach me – partly by what you gave me, and partly by what you could not – to live. The lessons that survived are not all clean, but they are the ones I am using.
They are why I am still upright.
The dead require nothing of us, in the end. They can no longer make demands. The requirement is one we accept on their behalf, because we are the ones still here, still choosing. The ones in whom the work of being human is still, for a little while longer, possible.
The motto asks the same question it always did. I understand it differently in his absence.
Qualis est homo qui non facit mundum meliorem?
What kind of man does not…?
The kind whose path has ended; the rest of us are still walking.
Leave a comment