Another look at Successful Aging

OMG, another blog on what makes for Successful Aging. Pundits everywhere are voicing how to have a successful old age. They stress the importance of judicious retirement planning, often phrased as accumulating adequate retirement savings. Those with an unsavory agenda often feed on a natural fear of running out of money in one’s so-called golden years. “So start building that nest egg now. Here are some helpful financial vehicles.”

These concerns are a natural outgrowth of the graying of America. On average, males born today will live to see 77. Their female counterparts will outlast their men by some four years, living to 81.  By contrast, a person born in 1900 had a life expectancy of less than fifty years. Having stated these often-cited demographics, let me assure you that my agenda has no commercial overtones. My intent is to lay out some ways of thinking about the experience of aging from the perspective of a retired gerontologist. This blog is about some ways of looking at successful aging and how it might be measured. We social scientist types are always looking for ways to quantify and measure what we study so we can feel like real scientists.

But first, let’s take a closer look at those longevity stats. Are we to conclude that our nineteenth century forebearers were somehow less fit than today’s males? Not in the least. Tales of pioneer hardship and group photos of miners and lumberjacks attest the opposite.

There is a companion statistic to the longevity increase that isn’t so well known.  Although life expectancy at birth has increased markedly, it is because the chance of dying in one’s early years has greatly diminished, mainly due to modern medicine.  However, if the nineteenth century male made it beyond 50 to say 60 or 70, the number of years he would on average have left to live is almost the same as today’s male. Maybe a year or two less is all, despite the miracles of current day geriatric medicine. Which is to say that in earlier times those who made it beyond early adulthood were a hardy bunch of survivors that had grown used to staying alive.

But back to the average person.  A century ago, that average sixty-year-old was already dead. So much for retirement planning back then. That same person today not only makes it to retirement, but can expect an extra ten, fifteen, or more years on this earth. Whether and how one manages to enjoy and find fulfillment in these bonus years or instead struggles through them in hardship and misery, that is the crux of successful aging. 

On a personal note, it is a question that has intrigued me throughout my adult life, spent as I mentioned earlier, in the field of gerontology. Over the final twenty-two years of my career until I retired at age 68, I managed a non-profit continuing care retirement community.  It was a satisfying period of employment in which I got to stare old age in the face. By that I mean in the “faces” of my residents, in all its diversity, in all its triumphs and tragedies.

You’d think after a career in this field I’d have the definitive answer to that big question.  But such is not the case.  For ultimately, there is no pat answer to what constitutes successful aging, or its converse. My only advantage over the proverbial man in the street is that if I’m so inclined, I can cloak my answers in scholarly jargon, which is to say baffle them with bullshit.

In the remainder of this blog, I will steer away from pontificating about definitive answers. Instead, I invite the reader to indulge me in a quasi-scientific thought experiment, with just a smidgen of the scholarly brown stuff.  My aim is more modest, which is to throw out some (hopefully interesting) thoughts on the subject. I begin with a basic question: Is successful aging an objective or a subjective state of being?    

If an objective state, successful aging should relate to a set of external properties or characteristics of the oldster, what researchers term “variables.”  Some examples might be amount of retirement income, health status, number of friends, one’s social standing.  The enterprising social scientist interested in devising an objective measure of successfulness might create a research inventory consisting of a set of items that address the above and other objective attributes, with the requirement that each item be amenable to numerical measurement, for example, on a scale of one to five.

Using this scale for the variable “income,” a person would be assigned a numerical score according to placement in one of five income ranges, with a score of one being an income range associated with bare subsistence, and a score of five being the range associated with financial affluence.  The assumption (the “research hypothesis” in social science lingo) is that a person’s score is directly related to degree of objective aging success.

Suppose that the social scientist inveigles a group of aged individuals, his research subjects, to submit to his “successful aging” inventory. After each item has been scored according to the life situation of a given subject, the individual scores are then summed to derive an overall successful aging score. A perfect score would be 50 for an inventory of ten items each scaled from one to five.

The scientist does some cogitating and decides that any score of 40 or above represents successful aging, with above 45 as extremely successful.  Moderately successful might lie between 30 and 40, and so on. With a score approaching ten (ten being a “one” on every item) this unfortunate is likely sleeping in a shelter, or worse, in shop doorways.

Then another scientist, a contrarian, comes along and asks the objectively successful oldster who scored, say 44, Are you happy with your life?   Some affirm the score and respond something like yeah, life is pretty much okay for me, especially considering the alternative.  But then others with a similar score answer with their personal truth, old age sucks.  Not exactly the response of a successful oldster.

So this researcher goes back to work and develops a set of subjective measures related to how one is experiencing his/her late life years.  These could be such criteria as having good memories, or a sense of having accomplished life purposes, or straightforward questions such as are you happy with your life now, and do you look forward to tomorrow.

I’m speculating here, but successful aging as a state of mind likely involves the ability to live in the moment and experience it fully. An apocryphal example is the Zen Buddhist who accidentally falls off a cliff and although headed for certain death, yet in transit admires a flower on a ledge halfway down.

An interesting follow-up project might be to study the degree of correlation between the scores derived from objective measures and those derived from subjective measures.  I suspect there would be some positive correlation, but I seriously doubt that it would be anywhere near a hundred percent. Such a study has possibly been done, but I have lost touch with the research side of aging studies, being retired after all, and with other fish to fry.

Not to preach, okay just a little, but measures to increase the chances of successful aging need to begin before one gets there. Virtually everyone agrees that continued good health is paramount.  If so, lifestyle habits and practices that promote health should take center stage during middle adulthood or earlier. It won’t guarantee success, but an unhealthy lifestyle is more likely to contribute to a miserable old age, supposing one even gets there.

At 84, do I regard myself as an example of successful, or at least reasonably successful aging?  I think that’s one I’ll keep to myself, at least for now.

Spotlight: James Crumley – crime fiction author

My favorite guilty-pleasure reading is hard-boiled crime fiction by writers who make it real. The Raymond Chandlers or Ross Macdonalds of the craft. A few years into my retirement at about age 70, I scratched an itch and began writing my own detective fiction. Since then, I have spawned some six titles all currently on Amazon Kindle, where they reside in benign neglect. But enough about that, as this is not a self-promotion blog. Over the last ten years, in parallel with my scribbling, I began reading a bucket load of Kindle offerings in the ninety-nine cent to three or four buck range. Partly for “entertainment” and partly to check out the competition and partly to stay within my retirement budget. I also occasionally sprang for the ten to fifteen dollar terrific reads of my current favorites like Lee Childs, Michael Connelly, Harlan Coben, Jeffrey Deaver, plus old favorites of another era like Dutch Leonard and Lawrence Block, I’m no astute critic, a lay reader at best, but in my humble opinion there is a wide chasm between these guys and most of the current bargain basement authors, not all but most. These latter offer okay reads, but gems, even the uncut variety, they are not.

With this introduction out of the way, I have decided on a series of blogs to showcase some of my favorite authors, especially including some lesser knowns or up-and-comings. These are distinguished from the also-rans by truly memorable, often outrageous characters encased in serviceable, well-conceived plots, and (this is crucial) an engaging writing style that is both distinct and spot-on in setting and characterization..

On the one hand, this is writing that stands up to a re-read, even invites it, and gives you, augments even, the same kick in the gut response that captivated you first time through. Or variously, writing that’s so transparently good at putting you into the action, at evoking the totality of character, setting, and plot, that the writing itself kind of disappears. Michael Connelly is such an author.

A lesser known practitioner of the first kind, the subject of this blog, is James Crumley, now sadly deceased, who wrote his half-dozen plus masterpieces in the final decades of the twentieth century. We were both born in the same year, 1939, but he grew up in South Texas, not the Midwest, and served a hitch in the army in the late fifties. After earning a bachelor’s in history, he spent two years at the prestigious Iowa Writers’ Workshop, earing a Masters of Fine Arts. His masters thesis was later published under the title, One to Count Cadence. His first published piece of detective fiction (The Wrong Case, 1975) was inspired by his reading of the two masters cited in my opening paragraph, Chandler and Macdonald.

Many years ago, long before the advent of e-books, I came across The Wrong Case in paperback. I forget the exact year, but probably early eighties, years during which I lived on my sailboat and was between jobs. I did a lot of reading and bought a lot of detective fiction at second hand bookstores, one in particular in Sidney BC. What I remember vividly about The Wrong Case, it was my best damn read in many months. Subsequently, I scarfed up a Crumley whenever I came across a title, always second hand as it was what I could decently afford, or at other times chose to afford given other imperatives. I read The Last Good Kiss, The Mexican Tree Duck, The Final Country, and The Right Madness, not necessarily in that order and either borrowed in hardback from a local library or purchased as a used paperback.

No lengthy, boring book reports in this blog, as my purpose is simply to introduce you to a somewhat neglected and largely unknown author of great reads if your taste runs to hard-boiled detective fiction. He was never a best-seller like Lee Childs, of whom I’m an avid reader, but in my opinion Crumley’s prose is superior and his two main characters, Milo Milodragovitch and C.W. Sughrue, are at least as interesting and memorable.as Jack Reacher. And are tougher, to boot. In the nineties and until I retired in 2007, I pretty much gave up guilty-pleasure reading, being immersed in my second career as the administrator of a continuing care retirement community. More to the point, the remainder of Crumley’s books lay unread by me,.

Many avid, and even occasional readers have had the experience of picking up a book and finding at some point that they’ve read the damn thing before, often making this discovery after shelling out good money. I sure have. When I introduced myself to Microsoft Word, I created a document that attempted to avoid these lapses of memory, or possibly harbingers of approaching senility. I began listing by author every book read, even going back to list previous reading, as best as I could remember. Thus, I included “Crumley, James,” in this catalog, and in his case listing not only the books read, but also those unread. I did this also for a few favorites like Lawrence Block and Elmore Leonard, plus a lesser known but personal favorite, John Lescroart, as well as the popular J.A. Jance (why her? let’s just say that’s a story for another time or blog ).

The “not yet reads” portions of the list lay neglected as I continued my sojourn through Kindle purchases, now numbering well into the hundreds, a lot of it frankly forgettable. I only added titles to “books.doc” for those authors already on the list. These authors, Connelly, Coben, Deaver, DeMille, Sandford, etc, being the good stuff, were a lot more expensive. Crumley’s unread titles, numbering four beginning with Bordersnakes, were among the neglected; that is, until I opened the books.doc to add Robert Crais’ A Dangerous Man, and chanced to glance at the Crumley listings, as both names begin with the same two consonants. Wondered if his books were on Kindle, and decided to take a look. Yup, all were there, but at ten bucks per, were priced well above the also-rans or new authors trying to gain a foothold. My memory warming to those long ago great reads, I decided to splurge and did the familiar “one-click” order of Bordersnakes.

And am beyond glad that I did. The old magic is there. The plot is straightforward. Track down some bad guys. Dudes almost as mean as Milo and Sughrue. Milo is hunting a mobbed up shady lawyer who stole his seven figure inheritance (about how he came into that, a story in itself). Sughrue is tracking a team of hired killers, “bordersnakes,” who gut-shot him and left his dying body in an arroyo–but being a tough s.o.b, he survives, staggers to his car, and drives himself to the nearest ER. In the telling of their revenge journey, Crumley’s writing displays a raw narrative power that scores a bullseye time after time. Patrick Anderson of The Washington Post, provides the apt assessment: “You don’t read Crumley for plot. You read him for his outlaw attitude, his rough poetry and his scenes, paragraphs, sentences, moments. You read him for the ‘lawyer with a smile as innocent as the first martini.'”

I hope my little post has intrigued you, and maybe motivated you to grab a copy of one of his novels for a future Kindle read. You might want to start with his first, The Wrong Case, or the second, The Last Good Kiss. This latter work, according to Wikipedia, is viewed by a number of fellow writers as his best and regarded as the most influential crime novel of the last fifty years. Despite the high regard accorded him by fellow crime writers, Crumley never had a best seller, never achieved mainstream success. But he had a cult following. I pride myself as a member.