There is a version of Lance Armstrong who is still a hero. One Tour, cancer beaten, an early retirement, and he disappears into a quiet life before anyone tests anything. The story ends while it is still beautiful.
There is a version of Ellen DeGeneres who is still beloved. Three seasons, a warm show, a graceful exit, and she stays a fond memory instead of a debate.
Same people. Same character. The only difference is how long they stayed.
And that is the thing I keep thinking about. Because when you look at the people this has happened to, they fall into completely different categories, and it does not seem to matter which one you are in.
Some were adored and vilified without doing anything wrong. Nothing surfaced. No scandal. The mood simply changed, the audience got bored of liking them, and one day the comments were different. Negative.
Some did something wrong, but had they left earlier, nobody would ever have known. The wrong things they committed was real, and it was also only ever going to be found by people who kept looking. Staying is what kept them under the light long enough for someone to find it. Shane Dawson and Colleen Ballinger both had material that had been sitting in public for years before anyone went back for it.
Some made one small mistake and apologised for it properly. It made no difference. The apology became its own news cycle, then evidence, then a clip. James Charles is the clearest case of that.
And some were villains from the very beginning. People idolised them anyway, for years, and eventually arrived at the truth that was there the whole time. Bill Cosby is the obvious one. He was never a good man who later became bad. Leaving early would have meant fewer victims, not a better ending.
Four completely different situations. Four different levels of guilt, from none at all to monstrous.
Bat all have the same ending.
And this is not new. Julius Caesar was the most popular man in Rome and was killed by senators who believed they were saving it from him.
Fiction has known it for centuries too. Macbeth opens as the celebrated warrior who has just saved his king and closes as the tyrant everyone wants dead. Anakin was a heroic Jedi before he was Darth Vader.
That is what makes me think about it in the first place. If innocence and guilt both produce the same result, then the result was never really about the guilt.
It was all about the staying. Its best exemplified in a quote I heard but found out that it is from Batman which I also quoted once here before.
You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
In Arabic we also have a similar one that captures the meaning I am thinking of which is what this whole post is about.
ما طار طيرٌ وارتفع، إلا كما طار وقع
Yesterday I wrote about help and hinder sharing an H, and how two words at opposite ends of meaning keep arriving at the same place.
Fly and fall share an F, and this pair is worse.
Help and hinder land in the same result by accident. Fly and fall are the same motion. The rise is not followed by the fall. The rise is the fall, still in progress. Every metre gained is a metre you will come down.
The fall is not a risk of rising. It is the second half of it.
Which is what I keep thinking about while reading the coverage of Mamdani. The ratings. The support. The tone of the writing about him right now.
And I can already see the shape of what comes next. Not because of anything he has done. Because of where he is standing.
So what is he supposed to do?
Leave now, at the top, and become a quitter. The man who walked away. Abandoned the people who put him there. Did not fight when it counted. The story writes itself and nobody writes it kindly.
Stay, and he gets the other story. Because staying means governing, and governing means disappointing people, and enough disappointment over enough time becomes a villain arc whether it is earned or not.
Leaving is a betrayal. Staying is a countdown for the public downfall.
There is no third choice.
And it is not only famous people.
The mechanism does not need millions of viewers. It works in a family. In an office. In a group of friends.
It might have occurred in my school’s social studies teacher’s room, when I visited to the small gathering because the conversation was better there, and kept visiting, until being there stopped being a visit and became a position. At a certain point I believe the arc for my fall started.
It might have happened when I was the one who always answered the phone. Any hour. Every time. Until answering was no longer generous, it was expected, and the first time I did not answer, maybe the arc for my fall started.
It might have worked every time people come to depend on me and enjoy having me there, which feels wonderful, right up until presence becomes obligation. And the arc for the fall starts.
Whether I am the hero at work, or the hero at home, or the hero to six people who have my number, the arc does not care how many are watching. It just happens.
So, at some point I am the one everybody appreciates, and I know from experience that in a few weeks or a few months I will be the problem. Same person. Same behaviour. Different position on the arc.
That is not pessimism. It is what my mother says, which she took from her father.
نستقرئ الماضي لمعرفة المستقبل
And the past on this particular subject is extremely consistent.
So can it be avoided?
I do not know. And I do not think anyone does. Every person named above had advisers, friends, and instincts, and not one of them saw it while it was happening.
Because nobody sees the fall while it is happening. It looks exactly like flying right up until you check the ground.
Which is why I believe I will be going through it.
Or I already have, and have not looked down yet.





