How did this story come about?
In 2017, I spent some time living on the road. It was the single-most transformative experience of my life. I journaled my experiences, as well as the events leading up to it and the consequences of returning to ordinary life. I had intended to document my experiences and publish them.
During my time on the road, I also encountered several hitchhikers. Every one of them that I met – without exception – was an absolute delight. They were friendly, they were kind, they were generous, and they were thoughtful. I learned a great deal just talking to them during our time together. But I also witnessed how they were treated by other people, including the police. They are degraded, dehumanized, and othered. I vowed to use my rhetorical skills to give these people a voice and hopefully earn them some respect.
For the first five years, I tried to write a nonfiction account of my experiences, but I was never satisfied with the manuscript. In 2022, a misguided experiment on a theatrical project resulted in a discarded story idea. I recognized the potential in the story and – with very little effort – I was able to transform it into a fictional version of the story I had been trying to tell all along. After that, the biggest obstacle was finding the time to put the idea to paper and polish it up.
Is Socks (or any other character, for that matter) based on people you met in real life?
No. Socks and Richard were certainly inspired by individuals I know. But what happens to these characters in the story’s plot (as well as their backstories) is entirely made up. Mary, Kate, and Caleb, as well as the other minor characters are entirely fictitious. I can’t really point to anyone who inspired their characters.
I lied. There is one character in the story who is real. He’s not seen or heard, merely mentioned. The attorney that Socks mentions in the chapter “What Are Your Dreams?” That attorney is me. During one of my revision passes, I decided that Socks needed at least one concrete example of “all the people I meet are miserable in their jobs”. I figured I should use my own life as an example instead of inventing one out of thin air. That way – I could rest assured that this one part of the story couldn’t be picked apart as implausible.
How did you decide on the name “Socks”?
Years ago, I was listening to an episode of one of my favorite podcasts, Zero to Travel. This podcast frequently collaborated with another – Extra Pack of Peanuts. EPoP frequently had on a guy who went by the name “Napkins”. Jason Moore invited him on as a guest for one of the episodes of his ZtT podcast.
I think Jason asked Napkins about the origin of his name and I think I remember it. But I’m not willing to sift through hours of podcasts to try to find the episode and confirm the story. It doesn’t really matter why he was called Napkins. What mattered was that I fell in love with the nickname.
I’ve been involved with punk communities since 2015, and nicknames are an important part of punk culture. Most of my friends have badass names like “Bones” or “Zombie”. Even my own tramp name (“Captain”) is a bit authoritative. But “Napkins” sounded soft and harmless. Who could feel threatened by a guy named “Napkins”?
When I conceived of this story, I knew my hitchhiker needed an equally non-intimidating name. I liked that “Socks” was a name commonly given to pets as I thought of my hitchhiker as having a puppy dog quality. I liked that “Socks” called attention to his ambulatory nature. And even though I conceived of a hitchhiker who went about barefoot, it was rather easy to give his character a plausible backstory for the nickname.
What was the significance of Socks being barefoot?
Being barefoot was a significant part of my experience when I lived on the road. Going about barefoot was a way for me to physically connect with nature and to be more aware of my environment. Nature does not charge a man money to live in it, but it still collects small tolls – often paid in blood. It was an arrangement that I found to be fair and equitable. Most hitchhikers develop thick skin on the soles of their feet (and elsewhere), which is why they’re often referred to as “leather tramps”. Developing that leather was – to me – like a badge of honor… as if I had earned my place in the world.
How do you respond to criticism that this story is too “preachy”?
That criticism was top of mind throughout the writing process.
I think the perception was unavoidable. Any good story seeks to communicate an idea to its audience… a life lesson… a moral question… That is the essence of storytelling. Authors try to deliver the message in an entertaining way so we aren’t lecturing the audience. But this story deals with deep philosophical questions and economic theory. I would not have been able to explore the debate in any meaningful way without it getting a little verbose.
I would push back against the premise that this story is preachy. The characters make their arguments, yes. And I make no effort – as the author – to conceal which side of the debate I agree with. But at no point does Socks try to impose his beliefs on others. Most of Socks’ main arguments are presented as questions – meant to make Richard (and by extension, the audience) to think for themselves.
The nature of the assignment was inherently challenging. I come from a STEM background – I’m accustomed to objective reality and correct answers. The subjective nature of writing – especially persuasive writing – is challenging for me. As an author, I have to accept that I can’t please everyone – someone is bound to complain. But under the circumstances, I feel that the story does a good job of communicating its idea without excessive lecturing.
Do you think the American Dream is inherently harmful?
I don’t think it’s inherently harmful for someone to crave comfort and luxury and technological convenience.
To the extent the American Dream encourages over-consumption and the depletion of resources, I do think the American Dream can be harmful, but it need not be.
I argue that the American Dream is detrimental to individuality if people accept the American Dream as their set goals in life, if they measure their success in life against those goals, and they do so without questioning if it’s what they want.
Socks admits to not having answers and he concedes some arguments. Doesn’t this undercut his position?
I think it makes him human.
The point of this story is not to endorse a particular lifestyle. The point of this story is to ask questions. We cannot and should not stifle discussion or debate simply because we don’t have answers to all of the questions yet. Discussion and debate is how we come up with new ideas and answers to our questions.
Do you think society could function if everyone lived the way Socks lived?
I think it’s important to understand that the manner in which Socks lives is conditioned by the manner in which everyone else lives. How Socks lives his life in a world governed by capitalism is materially different than how he would live his life in an egalitarian utopia. Capitalism is an economic model that survives by compulsory participation. If too many people are allowed to “opt-out”, then capitalism falls apart – it no longer has labor to produce goods and services, and it no longer has consumers to purchase goods and services. Thus, those few that do opt-out, as Socks has, necessarily become pariahs. The law treats their very existence as criminal. That affects what Socks is allowed and not allowed to do.
Dismantle the system, and a person like Socks can live a very different life – one which doesn’t betray his values, but also one that contributes more to the community.
The frequency with which the characters find themselves isolated seems… implausible.
Yeah. That’s a fair cop. I made some creative choices to keep the characters isolated as much as possible so they would be forced together and have to depend on each other. I also wanted to keep the story from becoming cluttered with dozens of encounters with random characters. It’s a bit contrived, I admit.
That being said, there are places in North America – long stretches of highway – that truly are isolated as described in the book. I’ve driven them! I know they exist! Whether these stretches of highway exist where we find our characters? Maybe not.
I’ve been all over the United States, but I haven’t traveled the exact route these characters travel. And that’s why I deliberately kept the geography ambiguous. The family is clearly lost before they meet Socks and probably lost after the motel scene. In between, Socks has them following Highway 60, which is a legit non-interstate route that extends east from Phoenix through Texas and Oklahoma. Presumably that’s about where they meet up. I wanted the route plausible, but I kept it ambiguous so as to not get too deep in the weeds on geographic accuracy.
One of the chapter titles is “No, Really. It’s Not a Horror Story.” What is that all about?
A lot of my creative work is in the horror genre. I work as a freelance haunt craftsman. It came as a shock to all my friends that my big film project would not be a horror story at all, but an adventure-drama. So I decided to have some fun with that subverted expectation and make it a running joke.
Who is your intended audience? What do you want for them to come away from this story with?
There are a lot of people in the world who are working themselves into their own graves at jobs they hate so they can afford a lifestyle they don’t need and maybe don’t even want. I wrote this story for every person who felt as I once did. I wrote it for everyone who needs permission… a little encouragement… to start questioning things. I wrote it for everyone who needs some new vocabulary to better articulate their frustrations.
QUESTIONS CONTAINING MINOR SPOILERS
What roles did you intend for these characters to play in the story?
Caleb is meant to embody innocence. He is too young to have learned hate and prejudice. He sees Socks as he is – a person. Albeit, a person who is very different from other people he has known, and thus, Caleb is genuinely very curious to learn more about him.
Kate is the unfiltered character. She calls it how she sees it. Even Richard is too adult and too polite to say some of the things that Kate is willing to say out loud.
Mary is such an incredibly important character, even if her role seems – on the surface – to be limited as a mediator. Not only is she living the American Dream, she’s basking in it – her status, her comforts, and her luxuries. And unapologetically so. At the beginning of the story, she is fabulously dressed and made up, wearing expensive jewels, complaining that they’re not flying to San Diego first-class, and certainly looking forward to indulging in all that the resort has to offer. But she is also a mother and has good maternal instincts. That allows her to pivot between both sides of the conflict and – ultimately – give her husband the permission he needs to take care of himself.
Socks is the title character. He is the hero. He is the person I – as the author – aspire to be. I love him to death.
But Richard is the protagonist. Ultimately, the story is about his journey and his character development. He is also a surrogate for the audience, which is why I made him and Mary as nondescript and generically suburban as I could. I wanted the audience to be able to see a part of themselves in Richard and to relate to him.
Were you concerned about over-romanticizing Socks’ lifestyle? Conversely, were you concerned that depicting adversity undermined his claim to happiness?
Concerned about over-romanticizing? Yes. Hence one of the reasons the story ends the way it does.
Concerned about the opposite effect? A little.
One thing I want people to understand is that we are all mortal. One lifestyle might actually be more dangerous than another. Or we might simply perceive that one lifestyle is more dangerous than another. But at the end of the day, even those of us living statistically safe lives could get hit by a bus tomorrow. We’re all moral. Tomorrow is not guaranteed. Live life to the fullest today.
What is the significance of Richard calling Socks by his legal birth name?
The most charitable interpretation is that Richard neither understands nor appreciates the significance of a tramp name. The more sinister interpretation is that he does understand, but he doesn’t care enough about Socks to respect and honor the tradition.
When he finally does refer to him as “Socks” at the end – it’s not whimsy. It’s significant.
Richard often behaves in a manner that makes him unlikeable as a character. Did you intend to make him a villain?
Absolutely not.
It’s very infantile to perceive the world as black-and-white, good vs evil, good guys vs bad guys. My background is in horror, and among my peers, a lot of us make jokes about being proper villains. But in reality, most people consider themselves to be the heroes of their own stories. We act in ways that are aligned with our beliefs and values – we pursue what we think is right, even if others disagree with us.
Richard is no different. He is being the best husband and the best father he knows how to be, based on how he was raised, what he was taught, and what he believes. How he reacts to Socks is a direct result of that upbringing.
When does Richard begin to change?
I would argue that Richard has begun to change before the novel even begins. His world is imploding around him – his career and his marriage are hanging by a thread. He recognizes this. He understands that there are problems.
The problem is, Richard has been conditioned to think in a very particular way. He’s not willing to admit certain things yet, because they undercut his fundamental belief system.
Socks doesn’t cause Richard to think anything he doesn’t already know or feel deep inside himself. Socks gives Richard permission to ask questions and challenge his thinking. Socks provides a new vocabulary for Richard to express himself.
Richard initially refuses to accept Socks’ perspective, but only because he knows the pain he’s gonna feel if he goes down that rabbit hole.
What was the significance of the Gloria Steinem quote?
People have a tendency to push back and resist new ideas, even if those ideas promise an improvement to our lives. And I think that’s because – in order to accept the new idea, we sometimes have to admit that we were wrong, that we were lied to, that we bought in to propaganda, etc. No one wants to admit that. We all want to think that we’re smart, that we make our own decisions, that we act with our own agency.
Personally, there were lots of things I was taught as a child that turned out to be complete bullshit. It’s very natural to feel betrayed and pissed off. And it’s very natural to resist the truth because accepting it is a little embarrassing. But the sooner we get over that feeling of betrayal, the sooner we can move on with out lives and improve them.
This is how I perceive the relationship between Americans and capitalism. For as long as I can remember and longer still, we’ve been told that capitalism is the best possible economic model. It rewards hard work and innovation. It’s competitive and self-regulating. And everything that isn’t capitalism gets lumped together with socialism and communism, which we’ve been paranoid about for decades since the Red Scare, even though most Americans can’t accurately define what socialism is. So even if we have misgivings about capitalism or the American Dream, we just assume that it’s better than the alternatives.
Interestingly, Gloria Steinem died on 2 September 2026, four days after this story was published.
What was the significance of Socks giving a copy of Frankenstein to Kate?
Mostly, that was a fun Easter Egg. Prior to working on “Socks”, I had written an original stage adaptation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and produced and directed it for the stage.
That said, I thought the themes in Frankenstein – about judging others on appearance rather than their character – dovetailed nicely with the themes found in “Socks”.
It’s no accident that I would produce both of these stories. Humanity’s predilection for judging others and putting people down to feel morally superior and better about ourselves – that is a theme that I love to tackle every chance I get.
QUESTIONS CONTAINING MAJOR SPOILERS
Is Richard’s backstory really supposed to excuse his abusive behavior and redeem his character?
There’s a very big difference between explaining behavior and excusing behavior. You can do one without the other. Richard’s backstory, as revealed in “Campfire Confessions, Part I”, explains his behavior. It’s up to the individuals (the characters in the book and the members of the audience) to decide if the explanation warrants forgiving Richard and giving him a second chance.
In order for the dramatic conflict to unfold, Richard’s behavior needed to be reprehensible, but he also needed to stop just short of being irredeemable. As an author, that was a very tough needle to thread, because I know not everyone is going to agree that Richard didn’t cross the line into irredeemable territory.
There’s no denying that Richard does some awful things. (1) He definitely assaults Socks. (2) He almost hits his wife. (3) Throughout the story, he is short-tempered, argumentative, and hostile.
(Before I answer this question any further, I want to be very clear that I am not a psychologist. It’s not my place to say what constitutes abusive behavior and what doesn’t. The rest of my answer is strictly my opinion based on my own experience.)
I believe that the cycle of abuse (particularly the psychological manipulation that can perpetuate the cycle) is more insidious than an isolated abusive act. Richard doesn’t manipulate the people he hurts to draw them back in. In fact, he tries to cut Socks loose, only Mary won’t allow him to do it.
I certainly do not condone that Richard assaulted Socks. A core theme of this story is for society to treat the homeless and the poor with the respect and dignity that ought to be afforded to all human beings. However, I choose not to condemn Richard as irredeemable over an isolated incident of violence.
If Richard had continued to assault Socks, if he had hit his wife, or if he had engaged in manipulative behavior to lure back the people he hurt, then I feel his character would have been irredeemable.
In the chapter “Survival”, Mary repeats the phrase “a pattern”. As a professional social worker, of course she would be very familiar with the cycle of abuse. But she wasn’t saying that because she thought she was trapped in that cycle. She said that because she saw something hauntingly familiar in Richard’s behavior that caused her grave concern. Frankly, repeating the phrase “a pattern” was an artifact of me injecting my opinion into the manuscript that the cycle of abuse was worse than the abuse itself.
How did Socks die?
I deliberately left that part of the story ambiguous. Yes, when I wrote that part of the story, I absolutely had someone particular in mind as Socks’ killer. However, I did not feel that the killer’s identity was pertinent to the story. Had I revealed it, I would have been accused of beating the audience over the head with a particular message. Instead, I chose to trust the audience to fill in the blanks themselves.
Why did you kill off Socks?
This was a tough decision because I love the character so much and it broke my hear to kill him off. But it was a creative decision I made at the very beginning and one that I never backed down from.
For one thing, I didn’t want to be accused of over-romanticizing the lifestyle Socks lived. It is by no means as scary and dangerous as it is depicted in horror movies or on Dateline. But there are some very real dangers to living a nomadic lifestyle.
But there was a far more important reason to kill him off. He was not the protagonist – Richard was the protagonist. This wasn’t about Socks’ journey, it was about Richard’s journey. Socks had served his function. He challenged the protagonist and induced change.
If someone were to come along and write a sequel, I would not want it to be about the continued adventures of Socks. A sequel should explore the next chapter of Richard’s journey.
What was the significance of the family going barefoot at the end?
The significance was twofold. Symbolically, they used their socks to provide a warm blanket over a cold grave – a final act of compassion for a dear friend.
Standing barefoot and feeling the earth beneath his feet, Richard felt the ground as Socks felt it, with all of its pains and discomforts. By reaching for his family instead of his shoes, he affirmed his values while changing his relationship with discomfort.
What happened to Richard and his family?
At the end of the story, we see that their house is up for sale. I think it’s safe to assume that Richard quit his job and that the family sold their home so they could afford to live on less income. Beyond that? I leave that up to the imagination of the audience or the imagination of writers who want a sequel.
I think it would be cool if a little fanfiction community built up around this question. We could see the family’s lives unfold in different ways, depending on the decisions made. One story shows what happened if Richard chickened out and stayed at his job for another ten years. Another shows what happened if Richard and his whole family turned into a family of hobos. In other realities, we could explore some of the middle grounds that Mary had hinted toward. Maybe a reality where the family pursues justice for Socks’ death.
And that’s sort of the point of the story. Not to prescribe a particular lifestyle. But to show that your future can be rich with possibilities, if you allow yourself to explore them.
