Hello, Goodbye: Stephen Colbert and the endings we never imagined

A row of walk-up apartments at the junction of Upper Serangoon Road and Lorong Lew Lian. Singapore, 2015. (PHOTO: Laremy Lee)

It wasn’t supposed to end like this.

The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (LSSC) was supposed to be the final stop on the comedian and talk show host’s long and illustrious career, or so I always thought.

He would live out the rest of his working days behind his iconic desk inside the Ed Sullivan Theatre, where David Letterman once sat and where The Beatles once played before a screaming audience in a performance that changed the course of history.

He would have spent the next dozen years or so doing what he had spent decades perfecting: making self-deprecating jokes and wisecracks about public figures while interviewing film stars, presidents and musicians with equal ease, night after night.

And when it was time, he would have graciously passed the baton to a deserving successor – Trevor Noah or Ronny Chieng, perhaps – before riding off into the sunset, after being feted for his contributions to both comedy and public discourse.

But that assumes the world functions according to a rational narrative structure.

By this logic, if you are a good person and do good by leaving the world slightly better than you found it, you’d eventually get the happy ending you deserve.

Why, then, do bad things happen to good people? I don’t have an answer to that question.

The only thing I am sure of is this: things will happen to people.

***

I am very familiar with how things aren’t supposed to end.

A small part of me believes the theory about how some cataclysmic event occurred in 2016, rupturing our original timeline and creating an alternate reality.

Another part of me also believes in the meme that all of us died in 2020 when Covid-19 happened and this is the hell we have been consigned to for the rest of eternity.

In my heart of hearts, however, I know neither of these to be the case.

To believe so would be to shrug off responsibility for what happened with P and me, and to do so would be irresponsible of me.

It would mean believing my behaviour to be an inevitability of fate instead of what it actually was: failure.

I didn’t know how to manage the toxicity of my previous workplace. Neither did I know how to protect myself before it consumed me. I could not stop myself from taking it out, emotionally and verbally, on P. And I had absolutely no idea how to salvage what happened with us afterwards.

In Colbert’s last LSSC interview with his friend and former colleague Jon Stewart, the latter shared a piece of advice he received when Stewart’s MTV talk show was cancelled in 1995. 

“[Letterman] said to me something very profound. He said, ‘Don’t confuse cancellation with failure.‘ …then he said, ‘But in this case, it is also a failure,‘” Stewart quipped.

There is nothing inherently shameful about failing. The shame lies in refusing to acknowledge or learn from it altogether.

***

LSSC began airing in 2015, around the same period I entered what was the most psychologically and emotionally exhausting chapter of my working life.

I was already a regular viewer of The Daily Show (TDS) and The Colbert Report, during the period in which satire in Singapore and the world became a crucial medium in holding power to account.

A quick aside: my mobile phone ringtone is still “Humanism” by Jon Batiste and Stay Human, the LSSC theme song performed by the show’s original in-house band.


Before that, it was “Dog on Fire” by They Might Be Giants, the TDS theme song from 2000-2015.

During those tumultuous years, I looked forward to the small moments when I could decompress with the show, given the ludicrousness of every work day.

It helped me through that difficult period, which also included what was going on elsewhere in the world.

When the US decided to elect Donald Trump as president in 2016, a fresh violation of common sense emerged every day thereafter, courtesy of the chaos brought about by the Trump administration.

Colbert, along with the other late-night talk show hosts, became translators for the absurdities of US politics and the decline the country seemed to be drifting towards.

Much like Cassandra in Greek mythology, however, nobody listens until it is far too late. And by then, there might be no one left to speak.

*** 

In discussions about the arts and media in Singapore, a darkly humorous joke goes like this: Censorship is a badge of honour you wear to show you’ve made your mark as a public figure.

In its own perverse way, censorship is an acknowledgment of power. Nobody bothers muzzling work that says nothing.

There is, of course, some nuance here.

Not every rejection is a silencing. Sometimes, what is being spoken is simply not as precise as it needs to be.

At other times, the truth can be a matter of kairos – though there will always be divergence in views as to when the right time really is for something to be said or done.

It is easy, in moments of discomfort, to frame resistance as persecution rather than sit with the more difficult possibility that the world is responding exactly as it should to something that should not be said or done.

And it will always be easier to reach too quickly for the censor’s knife.

***

Was Colbert’s cancellation a result of failure? 

In show business, some metrics to measure success include viewership, revenue and reach, among others.

By those standards, LSSC succeeded emphatically.

It was one of the most-watched late-night programmes in the US during one of the most politically volatile periods in the country’s modern history.

For all its irreverence, LSSC was serious about philanthropy, raising millions of dollars for charitable causes including World Central Kitchen’s humanitarian relief efforts.

Colbert’s work also travelled far beyond television itself, circulating online as nightly summaries of the bedlam unfolding across the US.

But comedy succeeds only when there exists a shared understanding of reality being transgressed.

And society only functions when institutions remain tethered to the truth and committed to doing what is right and fair.

Once the world becomes unmoored from these bearings, comedy loses its leverage; the absurd ceases to be a deviation from normalcy, instead becoming the norm.

Given the increasingly unstable social and political spheres within the US, it is cold comfort to consider Colbert’s censorship as a badge of honour for his service to a nation on the verge of disintegration.

***

In the final bit on LSSC’s series finale, Colbert comes face to face with an interdimensional wormhole that threatens to destroy the late-night television industry in the US.

On a personal level, the wormhole symbolises the void left behind by the end of LSSC, as well as Colbert’s feelings of dread in having to face an unknown future.

Colbert subsequently has an interaction with Stewart where the latter emphasises to the former that the wormhole is a metaphor for the unavoidable darkness of a massive life change.

Nevertheless, Stewart reiterates, “The only choice you have now is how you choose to walk through it.

“You can go kicking and screaming. Or you can do what you’ve done for the past 30 years when faced with something dark. You stare it down and you can laugh.”

“I’m sorry, Jon,” Colbert replies in a deadpan tone, shaking his head. “I just can’t think of any jokes to say about my giant, gaping hole.”

***

I have a giant, gaping hole of my own. I am still grappling with the grief of losing P. I worry I may never find a love like ours again.

I had always imagined P and I living out the rest of our lives together in tender and comfortable companionship.

We would have grown older together, settling into the rhythms of a long and loving marriage: texting each other memes during mundane Monday morning meetings; heartfelt conversations about literature and life while side by side in bed at night; weekend explorations of parts of Singapore we seldom saw.

We would have spent decades building a shared space filled with laughter and memories of silly moments and books and trinkets from our travels around the world.

And when the time eventually came for one of us to say goodbye – as it must for every couple fortunate enough to age in place together – the other would have smiled through tears and said, “Go,” for we would have already spent a lifetime loving each other.

La tristesse durera toujours; the sadness endures forever. Vincent van Gogh (and the Manic Street Preachers) knew this well enough.

Things will happen to people, regardless of whether we want them to or not. In some instances, they can be avoided. In others, hindsight is always 20/20.

***

As the bit concludes, Colbert reaches an epiphany of his own.

“I think I get it now,” Colbert says, with a look of resolution. “It looks like the end and I wish it wasn’t – but that’s not for me to decide.

“All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us,” Colbert intones with equanimity, in a poignant allusion by the JRR Tolkien enthusiast to The Fellowship of the Ring.

Despite all that has happened, I’ve never stopped believing there is still a place in this world for good.

We still have to keep trying to be good people and we still have to keep doing good, by leaving the world slightly better than we found it.

The alternative is surrendering to a culture that increasingly rewards cruelty and cynicism, thereby becoming the very thing that makes the world a worse place to live in.

Thank you, Stephen, for all the wisdom and joy. May this moment be but a pit stop along the way.

Divorce contagion in Dinner with Friends by Donald Margulies

(PHOTO: Laremy Lee)

(Spoiler warning: This piece discusses major plot points in the play as well as its conclusion)

I just read Dinner with Friends by Donald Margulies via a recommendation on LinkedIn.

The Pulitzer prizewinning play, first staged in 1998, is a realistic reflection of the need for greater marital literacy through sustaining and nurturing more fulfilling marriages that lead to happier societies.

Different dimensions of divorce are accurately captured in Margulies’ work – from the unnecessary pain individuals and couples go through in their marriages because of the lack of marital literacy in society, to the need for greater supportiveness from communities around couples going through marital struggles.

Most crucially, it emphasises the importance of averting or preventing divorce contagion before it consumes communities.

This refers to the way in which divorce spreads through social networks, increasing the likelihood of a couple divorcing if their close friends or family members have done so.

Research suggests this phenomenon stems from the normalisation of divorce through social norms, attitudes and emotional support systems, by making decoupling seem like the default or only option in cases that do not involve abuse or harm.

The risk of divorce contagion increases with social proximity – for instance, an immediate friend’s divorce significantly increases an individual’s risk of it affecting their marriage by around 75%.

Depictions in the play
In Dinner with Friends, this idea is foreshadowed early in Act 1.

When Beth confides that Tom, her husband, is leaving her, it plants the seed of doubt in the minds of their close friends, Karen and Gabe:

Beth He says I ignored all the signs, I didn’t “hear” him… I mean, if only he’d talked to me, really talked to me. He was moody. Yes. Distracted. I thought it was work. Or jet lag… I’d find him staring off into space and ask him what he was thinking and he’d always say, “Nothing”.

Karen looks at Gabe; that sounds familiar.

Gabe (defensively) What.

Karen shakes her head.

(Act 1, Scene 1, pp. 13-14)

This moment of discomfort marks the start of how Karen and Gabe’s own sense of stability in their marriage is shaken, as suggested through Gabe’s defensive tone resulting from the implicit perception of accusation from the way Karen looks at him.

Karen’s response to Gabe’s insecurity does not help the situation either. It is unclear if it is meant to reassure – as if to say “Nevermind” – or if it conveys resignation – as if to say, “Forget it; you won’t get it”.

Regardless, the inability of both parties to soothe or calm each other amid an already fraught situation contributes to the building tension in both the atmosphere of the play as well as their marriage.

By the end of Act 1, when Tom and Gabe’s conversation ends, the latter starts to reflect on his own marriage, with the suggestion he has begun to view it negatively:

Tom waves good-bye. He goes. We hear his car pull away. Gabe turns off the lamps. He sits. He is deep in thought, in near darkness for a moment. Then a hall light comes on.

Karen (offstage, from the hall) Gabe?

Gabe Yeah?

Karen (offstage) So? How was that?

Gabe Okay.

Karen (offstage) Come to bed and tell me.

Gabe In a minute.

He lingers, looking around the dark room, which suddenly feels cold and strange to him.

Karen (offstage) Honey?

Gabe (calls out) Coming.

Gabe remains seated as the lights fade.

(Act 1, Scene 3, p. 42)

The “near darkness” symbolises alienation and loneliness as the underlying emotional distance between Karen and Gabe starts to become more apparent, reinforced by the subsequent image of Gabe peering into the empty darkness.

Moreover, despite Karen’s tender calls to Gabe to go to her, Gabe’s hesitation through his choice to stay seated suggests apprehension, where the rupture in his friends’ marriage has become a mirror to his own vulnerable state of mind.

Finally, at the end of the play, Karen and Gabe’s conversation about the state of their own marriage reveals how Beth and Tom’s divorce has shaped their worldview too:

Karen Why?

Gabe (shrugs) It's... I think it’s .. You know: having kids... having to pay the mortgage... making the deadline... marinating the snapper…

Karen (tears in her eyes) Don't you ever miss me, Gabe?

Gabe (surprised by her sudden emotion) What?

Karen Don't you ever miss me?

Gabe Oh, God, honey, yes. Sure I miss you. I miss you a lot.

Karen (almost childlike) How do we not get lost?

(Act 2, Scene 4, pp. 85-86)

Here, as Karen questions Gabe’s acceptance of the convention that marriages “inevitably” end up stale and unhappy, Gabe’s belief in this as well as his response is telling.

It underscores how the normalisation of divorce as well as divorce contagion has affected him, where his use of parallelism in the asyndetic listing of examples to justify his beliefs suggest not only a fixed mindset but also two possible outcomes.

Perhaps he may be prepared to endure an unfulfilling and unsatisfactory marriage, as supported by other instances of plot and character development in other parts of the play.

Alternatively, he may be considering divorce as a way out if the marriage were to reach that stage – if it is not already there, in his mind.

    Karen may consciously or unconsciously recognise this, hence her plaintive tone which conveys both desperation and desire to save the marriage, when she pleads with him to show her affection as well as to work together to avoid a parting of ways.

    Gabe’s responses do not provide much certainty or clarity; beyond the verbal reassurance, he does try to find a way to reconnect with Karen by “play[ing] their intimate game with her from long ago” (86).

    Yet, while his tone does convey some degree of conviction, his actions, however, belie a certain helplessness on his part and leave much to be desired in terms of being soothing and calming enough to resolve the conflict between them.

    Not only does he “shake his head” (86), akin to Karen’s own reaction in Act 1, the game itself lacks the energy and vitality from their youth, suggesting a reliance on monotonous routines which breed resentment and erode goodwill rather than providing comfort through familiarity.

    Ultimately, this encapsulates how, when the acceptance of dysfunction in wedlock as ordinary as well as the normalisation of divorce seeps into both marriages and societal belief systems, it weakens couples’ resilience and capacity for repair.

    How we can do better
    It goes without saying that we must stop normalising divorce in society.

    Beyond what I have previously discussed, it is also instructive to view divorce contagion through the lens of suicide contagion, as both phenomena underscore how deeply social narratives can influence destructive behaviour in others.

    Just as divorce contagion refers to how divorce can spread through social networks – making it seem more “inevitable” – suicide contagion describes how exposure to a suicide within a community can increase the likelihood of others attempting or dying by suicide.

    There is extensive research showing that how suicide is reported, discussed, or portrayed in the media directly affects suicide rates.

    Because of this, we have learnt to be cautious about how we talk about suicide. We avoid glamorising it, sensationalising it or presenting it as an unavoidable response to suffering.

    Likewise, we need the same care in how we portray and talk about marriage and divorce in society.

    From a systems-thinking perspective, when negative portrayals of marriage and the normalisation of divorce bias individuals’ perceptions, these attitudes compound detrimentally across communities.

    To be clear, I do not want us to whitewash reality. Marriage, like all relationships – platonic, familial, collegial – require hard work.

    We must encourage positive models that can be followed by telling stories of couples learning, repairing and growing, showing examples of people seeking help and finding solutions before it is too late.

    We need more narratives demonstrating how relationships that fall apart can be rebuilt and how reconciliation in a marriage, when it is safe to do so, can also be an act of empowerment.

    Just as responsible reporting on suicide focuses on help-seeking and education, responsible storytelling about marriage should highlight marital literacy – the skills, knowledge and abilities that allow couples to work through conflict and nurture connection.

    At the end of the day, Dinner with Friends is not so much about divorce as it is about what we allow to die before the marriage does.

    If we can bring marital literacy into the mainstream, perhaps we can change the script.

    Like Gabe and Karen, many couples find themselves sitting in the dark, unsure of how to bridge the distance that has crept in.

    Whether we emerge from darkness apart or together depends on what we learn to see in it – and marital literacy is that light that helps couples find their way back into each other’s hearts.

    Kidman, Urban and the collateral damage of divorce

    When marriages fall apart, the ripples spread beyond the couple. Their network of common friends can either lend a hand or compound the pain.

    When news broke that Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban had separated, the world reacted with a mix of shock and sympathy.

    For many, celebrity romances gone awry feel like distant spectacles. Yet, their ripple effects are real and far-reaching, especially in a sometimes overlooked dimension: the communities around couples.

    (Continue reading the full article here.)

    (Published as “Kidman, Urban and the collateral damage of divorce” on 16 October 2025 in The Straits Times.)