Adam Levin: Hot Pink

If I allow that Adam was able to transfer 70 years of his life to David, then I should probably allow that he was able to transfer more, but chose not to. And if, for the sake of argument, I allow that investing 80 years in D, rather than 70, would have further glorified A’s legacy, I would then have to wonder why A didn’t relinquish those extra 10 years (1 %) of his own time on earth.?Maybe because A knew the extra glory supplied wouldn’t really pay off??what would that imply??that even a relatively small bit of life on earth (1 % of the gross) can be, by a certain calculable quotient, worth more than a higher quality of already assured immortality??That A kept the extra ten years because the betterment of your life’s story becomes, after a certain point, less valuable than living itself??Too pretty to think so? Return to chapter.

…Except, if I allow that between the ages of 70 and 80, D’s potential contribution to A’s glory was not significant enough to warrant A’s extra 1 % investment (over and above investing in ages 0–70), though between the ages of 60 and 70 the extra 1 % was warranted, it might imply that the effect and/or importance of a person decreases as that person’s age increases. And if I allow that, I should also allow that the extra 1 % could have been detrimental. Maybe if you stick around for too long after you’ve peaked, you retroactively lessen the importance/ effect of what you did before and during your peak: Maybe A knew that if D lived past 70, D would have — either by means of wrongdoing or even simple inefficacy — besmirched the memories others would have of him after his death, thereby marring any reflections that would be cast on his earlier accomplishments, which would leave him less cherished overall, and finally decrease the sum of the glory he’d have otherwise added to A’s legacy.?So then D was made to die when he did in order to save his and A’s story from being sullied??Too ugly not to think so? Return to chapter.