So, I posted a link on Facebook that started an amusing exchange...
LINK:
Essay About Love and Literary Taste - New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/books/review/Donadio-t.html?em&ex=1207022400&en=be66964abe7c5f54&ei=5087__
(Among the bookish, even casual literary references can turn into romantic deal breakers.)
COMMENTS:
Linda at 2:31pm Mar 30
i JUST read this article this morning and thought it was wonderful. yes yes, so true. :)
Jenni at 2:38pm Mar 30
when i meet attractive, funny men, i secretly cross my fingers, hoping they don't list dan brown and james patterson among their favorite authors... ;)
Linda at 2:42pm Mar 30
HA! i love it! i just usually hope not to get an empty stare when i mention Isabelle Allende or Pablo Neruda...
Jenni at 2:46pm Mar 30
neruda is fair... but i would be a little lenient with allende. unless, of course, said date is from peru.
Linda at 3:04pm Mar 30
true, however Allende does tend to get more of a response then Neruda... go figure! maybe i just don't date enough South Americans. hmmm...
Natalie at 5:55pm Mar 30
You were among the people I thought about when I stumbled upon this little gem. There are the obvious red flags--personally, I think Left Behind tops the Da Vinci Code on that front--and then there are high-brow red flags. Like Ulysses. The only reason to read that in public is to be seen.
Victoria at 2:28pm Mar 31
Absolutely true! Thank you for sharing :)I am just thankful when someone has hear of Pushkin. Forget about reading anything by him. Surprisingly enough, many people have never heard of the great poet.
Colby at 10:48pm Apr 1
I hate to be the contrarian here, but there is, in my opinion, a bit of hypocrisy in writing off someone as shallow, incompatible, or undeserving solely on the book they are carrying around or list as their favorite. So some guy reads Da Vinci Code, Ulysses, or any other book you deem to be pablum, does that truly identify him? Are you not engaging in a hasty generalization? Or even the obvious question: how does your taste become a red flag, why are you able to determine that Pushkin knowledge is a good thing, or more importantly good art? Basically, what I am saying is that some of us didn't have the opportunities to read what you, or the rest of the world, consider necessarily or important to have read. From a Rawlsian perspective I would have you consider what if I rated your appeal based on your philosophical readings or lack thereof--that would seem a bit unfair would it not? And don't worry if you don't know who Rawls was, I won't hold it against you. ; )
David at 11:16pm Apr 3
this guy wants to sleep with one of the three women above.
Colby at 12:34am Apr 4
C'mon Dave I have heard better ad hominem from the kids over at Digg. But seriously, I hate it when yet another qualification is prescribed for men, to which we must contort ourselves. I have no doubt that if Brad Pitt read only Choose Your Own Adventure books, swearing that they were the best literature since Cervantes--even though Alan Bloom himself would recoil--that Rachel Donadio wouldn't be turning him away. That is all I wanted to point out. But if you would care to retort with more of your engaging repartee then be my guest.
Jenni at 2:37am Apr 4
haha- play nice, boys.
ok- now, colby, be fair- dave's comment is funnny. AND a logical retort to your comment.
i also think it's fair that you point out the injustice in dismissing a date if he hasn't read the right book. as a girl who has dated the musician who liked the 'right' composer, the writer who liked the 'right' author, the actor who liked the 'right' playwright, i will agree that none of these things serve as a consistent and reliable indicator of compatibility. i will also posit that dating artists is perhaps the first step towards misguided... i digress.
i would never count it against someone, friend or date, if they didn't, for example, have an affinity for faulkner. i've recommended 'the sound and the fury' to many who haven't made it past the fourth page. however, there is some merit in a comparison of tastes. if a guy lists 'dumb and dumber' and 'van wilder' among his favorite movies of all time- and then, claims john grisham as the second coming- it's quite likely that we operate on different wavelengths. not a value judgement- just divergent sensibilities. (if, on the other hand, he likes 'harold and kumar' and anne rice- we might be workable.) hell- i love 'joe versus the volcano' and read the whole series of star trek TNG books... would you suggest for a second that it wouldn't be a deal-breaker to some?
and regarding all the notable fiction valued by us women- we KNOW that the average joe is recommended some of the best books (excepting machiavelli and vonnegut) by the women in his life. (i am exaggerating, but is this so wrong?) for instance, just the other day, i spotted 'snow falling on cedars' on the bookshelf of one of my favorite guy friends. did he pick that book up of his own volition? doubtful. was it recommended to him by some cute girl? probably. OR his sister. i am OK with this.
then, there are those guys who read the NYer for fun. they are a breed in and of themselves. the self-identified intelligentsia. (i know this, b/c i subscribed for a year so that i could feel smarter and impress at cocktail parties with my academic soundbytes- only to become frustrated that i could never make it through an issue before the next one arrived.) the ones who DO indeed make it through every issue either teach for a living, are wealthy hypochondriacs (thus spending an inordinate amount of time in high-brow doctors' offices), never get laid, or are the type to hitchhike across the country desperately posing for the freedom and seeming effortlessness of kerouac. and believe me, i ain't knocking- i raise my glass to you, mr. chain-smoking-beret-wearing-beat-cum-emo-man! (they make good fantasies, since they are generally passionate and at the mercy of any woman who can pay for their pearl beer.)
and you're right- rachel donadio and harold bloom deserve kudos. they are both exceedingly brilliant and well-read and have managed to function in real life. procreate even. yay for them! you already know my stance on this, colby- must i remind you? we need more supermodels and PHDs to spawn- let's even out this gene pool once and for all!
where am i going with this, you might ask? i don't even know.
all i know is that i think it's kinda hot when a guy wants to recite poetry to me...IF it's good. IF it's his- even better. (IF it's good, that is.) IF it's bad, it makes me want to slap him. and not in a good way. cliched? absolutely! but kind of like large-breasted blondes in bikinis...
if said guy looks like eric bana with glasses, he could be reciting dr. seuss or shel silverstein and it would STILL be kinda hot. (Horton Hears a Who's your daddy?!)
and are you trying to dismiss 'choose your own adventure' books?! they were the bedrock of my elementary literary escapades! i only started denouncing 'baysitter's club' and 'sweet valley high' as pedestrian when i reached middle school and got in trouble with miles for tossing those books out the 2nd floor classroom window. (100% true story. the teacher couldn't bring herself to give us detention, since i think she found the whole affair pretty amusing.)
i leave on this note: i do not consider myself well-read. i only know what i like. i do not judge on the basis of exposure or lack thereof- nor do i damn anyone for an appreciation of a little drivel now and again. open-mindedness and a willingness to expand one's literary horizons is, however, a plus. my bookshelf is respectable, but not impressive by any means. still, if given the choice, i take dave eggers over james patterson. (if he were a few inches taller and unmarried, it'd be even better.)
...and if anyone takes this seriously, they should review the literary genre of satire.
gute nacht!
-jenni "lady love" rebecca
(figured i'd throw in a little rawlsian of my own)
and a quote to grow on:
"Just because the f*cker's got a library card doesn't make him Yoda!"
-Brad Pitt in Se7en
Friday, April 4, 2008
Must Love Library Cards
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Cum? Did somebody say "cum"?! So, that's what all this literary high-brow banter is all about ... :)
Haha. Jokes on you for reading in the first place. Me, I choose not to read and thus leave out the possibility of being judged in the first place.
P.S. Anchorman is NOT the greatest movie of all time, so stop telling people that, boys.
a couple things:
first, i knew this post was eventually gonna lead to the book toss.
second, i still think Joe vs. the Volcano is my favorite movie -- at least in the top 5.
and lastly, i thought i would let you know that it's legal to say cusses on the internet now. so you no longer have to write "fuck" as "f*ck". everyone wins!
first, miles, aren't you glad you were key in one of my favorite memories from 6th grade? (the other being when travis johns wrote the 'super lame' song in my honor the day i won 'student of the month'- the same day maya and i declared independence from the rest of the class and moved our desks to the far corner.)
second, you are a wise man. writer/director john patrick shanley came across some comments i made about the movie online somewhere and contacted me out of the blue. (i am NOT joking.) i am currently singing 'the cowboy song' at my desk. oh, to have a ukelele handy.
and lastly, my mom reads this blog. she also proceeds to forward some posts along to family members. while i abandoned the pretense of clean language in front of her long ago, i would like the extended family to think of me as a good little girl.
Colby republishing his comment by request:
Jenni, as always, your response is well written, engaging, and entertaining. But I believe that your position is in conflict with the original article, and the original posts by you and the other ladies. The original article proffers the idea: the Pushkin problem, when a missed — or misguided — literary reference makes it chillingly clear that a romance is going nowhere fast. This is much more of a black and white position, and the position I originally condemned, than your recently elucidated position, to which I agree.
But I am troubled by any reference to a particular taste in art as a referent for superiority. And let’s not fool ourselves, choosing a mate is engaging in determining who is superior—a hierarchy. And this is the exact problem I had with the article: it is nothing more than thinly disguised cultural, socioeconomic, and ideological elitism. A quote from the article makes this plain, “[taste in books] speaks to class, educational level.” This is the idea that I find repugnant, one for which, regardless of how eloquently defended with caveats, goes against some of the bedrock principles that I hold dear (democracy, equality, and the idea anyone’s opinion should be heard). I get angry by the idea that a good guy might be pushed aside as “less than” by the Rachel Donadio’s of the world based on her coterie’s standard.
And the standard espoused is completely arbitrary. Delineating what is good from bad can only be accomplished in two methods, either: (1) use your own personal feelings; or (2) appeal to others outside of yourself. Taking the first position, it is good because that is how I feel, is valid, but it is when you move your feelings onto others that the fallacy runs rampant. For then, you are judging others on your thoughts alone, and what if you’re wrong? Or the more biting question: who are you to determine what is or isn’t good art to me?
Turning to the second method there are two subsets, either: (a) appeal to experts; or (b) appeal to popularity. Appealing to experts is also problematic. Let’s take Bloom as our example, a man who is generally accepted to be one of the greatest living experts in literature. Mr. Bloom believes that all great literature starts and ends with Shakespeare, or as one of his chapters calls it “Shakespeare, Center of the Cannon.” Interestingly, Shakespeare was never mentioned in any of the names tossed out. Does that mean that Ms. Donadio is inferior? Me thinks, that calling out authors is much like the old game of calling out bands, the more obscure the cooler you are--only squares list Shakespeare. Yet is there any doubt as to who the greatest is? And to be sure, Bloom does deride at least some of the other authors thrown up in the comments and in the article. Should we subsume all questions of taste to the expert?
Conversely, an appeal to the masses’ allure is also a Potemkin Village. The number one book sold was Dan Brown’s one, which was specifically called out as being one on the list not be give as your favorite. In sum, the point I am making is that any hierarchy is arbitrary; and thus using books as a standard is on par with any other way to judge men.
To be sure, if a woman says “when i meet attractive, funny men, i secretly cross my fingers, hoping they don't list dan brown and james patterson among their favorite authors” is equivalent to a woman saying “when i meet attractive, funny men, i secretly cross my fingers, hoping they have a nice car, maybe a Porsche or nice Mustang.” I am at a loss to understand any difference—they are both arbitrary. And ladies my final question: If you heard one of your sisters making the latter statement what would your thoughts be of her?
colby, i think you make some interesting points here. however, i think it should be noted that we ladies were joking in the same way we would about a dream man with a porsche. (in my case, it'd be a nice sport utility- better able to transport the speed boat i'd insist he buy me, so that we could zip through the port of saint-tropez, where we'd own a chateau with several oversized hammocks on which we would lie while drinking veuve clicquot and reading beckett and eco to one another.) similarly, i think ms. donadio is making an observation about a trend, rather than a coterie condemnation. in truth, i think the upper east side jungle of critics and writer's for harpers sounds scary as hell to me. or distasteful.
in fact, after reading only a portion of the 300+ comments made on ms. donadio's blog (http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/literary-dealbreakers/), i found myself lost in the quagmire of literary name-dropping. who the hell is alice munroe? i dunno. i guess i'll look her up one of these days. and as i write this, i know a handful of my creative writing/literature buds are shaking their heads in disgust at me. so be it. (i sometimes shake my head at others' inability to talk about anything but literature. or music. or anything singularly myopic.)
as is stated repeatedly in the blog, it's not that i would be disappointed to find dan brown on someone's shelf- only that i might be disappointed if that was the ONLY thing on someone's shelf. someone put it very well here:
"Osho is definately a turnoff (just clever marketing), as is anything by Bryce Courtney and Wilbur Smith. Oh, and those Virginia Andrews horror things. Seriously though, it isn't so much not reading that raises alarm bells for me, rather a bookshelf full of books acquired when young [and earnest] and then not added to, or piles of not read in years. A neglected bookshelf signals old ideas hanging around. Or worse still, no new ideas coming in."
(ironically, bryce courtney's 'power of one' has a proud place on my bookshelf.)
i think you are interpreting our comments as death-blows, as opposed to an agreement that one's literary taste potentially serve as hints about the greater whole. i think a shared appreciation for a book, a movie, or even a rock band might be indicative of commonalities in perspective- though not as a rule. (i mean, does this point merit arguing?) still, i giggled when i came across an ex's facebook profile- only to see that he had listed some of my favorite books and composers as his own- books i never saw him reading, nor CDs i ever heard him playing- yet, no doubt, ones he will claim while wooing. go figure. you're right to suggest that listing literary deal-breakers is an absurd excercise in pretension and self-aggrandizement, but everything is relative, n'est-ce pas?
as to an implied judgement of superiority, i agree that it's troubling. i thought lil' miss psychiatrist anna fels' comment about class undermined the question at hand- and weakened what would otherwise be a less offensive, if not compelling argument. i cannot, in any way, shape, or form, suggest that my literary tastes are superior to another's. these opinions lie within a spectrum that is far too subjective to quibble over.
let me use the example of 'the prophet.' my mother gave me a copy of 'the prophet' when i was a little girl- a book that her mother (the grandmother i never knew) had given her. in all ways, this is probably the most precious book i own. imagine my surprise when a boyfriend (not coincidentally, the same ex-boyfriend who insisted on sharing his NYer subscription...and who is a brilliant writer himself, as well as someone i love dearly as a friend) made a snide remark about its platitudinousness and undeserved popularity. of course, this implication made me irate! if my appreciation of gibran's words (some of them exceedingly beautiful, if sentimental) makes me a literary ignoramus- well then, (yee-haw!) i guess i am.
about standards of good and bad art... this, my dear, is a question of supply and demand- nothing else. art is, by all means, completely subjective. the only caveat is that oftentimes our predispositions and affinities align themselves with one another- hence, 'good' art. i've seriously studied the arts enough to understand that i am a complete dilettante and know so little in the grand scheme. i can name off obscure authors, books, composers, musicians, dancers, choreographers, artists, operas, etc- but that certainly doesn't make me cool. (indeed, being able to name off the NBA lineup would get me more dates.) but despite the fact i can spout off endless hours of esoteric bullshit (which is ultimately meaningless), i will not be any less inclined to play devil's advocate to some jerk who claims to know it all. the beauty of this pluralistic, multi-faceted world is that we needn't agree on what we personally value, aside from the most basic ethics.
but isn't dating, at the core, the most subjective practice of all? where else in our lives are we so easily excused with the explanation 'i dunno- i just love her (or him)"? i believe the article merely suggests that similar taste in books may influence that irrational rationale.
on bloom- geez, i don't even know where to begin. no doubt the dude's a genius. BUT saying ANYTHING begins and ends with ANYONE is likening them to a god- and you see how easily the world agrees on that subject. in my opinion, shakespeare is wonderful from both the literary and theatrical perspectives- and CERTAINLY worthy of respect and praise- but it does not make me any more likely to pick up 'love's labour's lost' to read during jury duty. and my natural reaction, rightly or wrongly, to someone who lists shakespeare as their favorite author is to giggle. (i might date him if it turns out that he wasn't merely trying to impress me and could actually back up that claim- but how few can!) truth be told, we are not 100% certain who wrote every work attributed to shakespeare, as several folios exist and disagree. (thankfully, bloom does not concern himself so much with this.) so, could it be that shakespeare is deemed off-limits in erudite literary circles, since his mention is opening a veritable can of worms?
about dan brown- man, i haven't even read the 'da vinci code.' i know that i did indeed get turned off by all the hype- and yeah, admittedly, i have to fight my elitist tendencies. similarly, i haven't picked up harry potter. why? because no one's reviews of the series have inspired me enough to read them. if i wanna read children's books, i'll read (as previously noted) shel silverstein. shoot- 'the giving tree' is so profound that even urban outfitters has graced its shelves with this literary gem, alongside 'the mr. T guide to life.' seriously, what could be a better recommendation than that?!
other writers condemned as dreck by the book-police: crichton, grisham, rice, etc. as for me, i actually thought 'jurassic park' was kind of cool when i read it at age 11. similarly, i've read the others...and even enjoyed them for what they were. but, on the whole, i've lost interest in what those writers have to offer... i should clarify- what those writers have to offer ME, that is. even given my penchant for sci-fi, i was grossly disappointed, upon reading sagan's 'contact' (on which my favorite movie of all time was based), that sagan's writing was, at best, pedestrian. how, i wondered, could this exceedingly brilliant mind communicate such awe-inspiring ideas in such an unexceptional fashion? who knows. does this make him any less an exceptional person? absolutely not.
all that said, i wouldn't necessarily rule a guy out if he named danielle steele as his favorite author... i'd only wonder when i'd meet his boyfriend.
Jenni I think while I agree, again with your point, but your point is still in conflict with the thrust of the article and your earlier comments. Regardless of your explanation, of how your remarks were in jest, I still have trouble seeing how you can assert you were joking and then spend 1,301 words justifying your position. If it was just a joke then no further comment need be required. Rather you spend the duration of your response vacillating between the absurdity of using literature or anything as a measuring stick but then swinging back to justifying it under set circumstances.
While you make good points, none, I think undermine my position that any measuring stick is arbitrary, and therefore using authors is logically equivalent to anything else that could be thought up. In fact, your examples and responses go to prove there can be no transcendental aesthetic measuring stick. Your arguments against Bloom and Shakespeare only serve to push the argument more towards my thesis.
And while it is funny to point out how we would all like to marry rich, there is still no denying that there is a group of ladies, which date a guy for his car. I used this as the extreme example. But to use another example that I hope will drive the point home: imagine an article published in the New York Times exposing the fact that guys are using breast size to determine compatibility and how a guy broke up with a girl when he found out she was stuffing her bra. I know this sounds juvenile but I fail to see how the arbitrary characteristic of breast size should have any more meaning than authors. Both are just incidental and not to the very essence, which is what I at least fall in love with.
Ultimately, time robs youth and beauty as it will change our tastes, but I think we should struggle to find the qualities that transcend all of these arbitrary aspects. These qualities cannot be determined with a Cliff’s Notes version, a checklist; we need to see each person as a person and not as a means to an end, but rather as an end in themselves. I am reminded of what Elizabeth Browning wrote on the subject:
IF thou must love me, let it be for nought
Except for love's sake only. Do not say
"I love her for her smile- her look- her way
Of speaking gently,- for a trick of thought
That falls in well with mine, and certes brought
A sense of pleasant ease on such a day"-
For these things in themselves, Beloved, may
Be changed, or change for thee,- and love, so wrought,
May be unwrought so. Neither love me for
Thine own dear pity's wiping my cheeks dry,-
A creature might forget to weep, who bore
Thy comfort long, and lose thy love thereby!
But love me for love's sake, that evermore
Thou mayst love on, through love's eternity. - -
I guess I've always been drawn to people who can offer new experiences to me. Yes, it is great to be able to sing along to the same songs and share books by authors we both love, but isn't it pretty cool to be introduced to something new? Something you would have never picked up or listened to on your own. Maybe never read because it supposed to be something that is beneath you or "weird". I dare say Jenni introduced me to some music I would have never known about. The key is I was open to it.
And, before I say more, Bryce Courtney is a terrific writer and anyone that thinks he's not is not worthy of my friendship ;)
So, I think someone can love Dumb and Dummer and Iron Maiden and in the same turn love the subtle harmonies of Chopin and the beautiful language and story of Les Miserables. The idea of a snap judgement that labels a person purely on their comments of liking certain authors or music is shallow. As Colby states, it's just as shallow as judging someone by their breast size.
Lastly, I think you can't judge something if you haven't experienced it. I know Jenni was just using an example of a pop culture writer, but if you think about someone judging another because they like an author that they've never read.... Hmmm...
What exactly is wrong with Dan Brown? He's written some other terrific books other than DaVinci Code, but speaking of that particular book, it's a hell of a lot smarter than most thrillers. The research alone should give him some credibility amongst the literati. I know hype can be a turn-off. Most usually for me the hype makes me say "what was all the fuss about?" after I experience something that is hyped too much. The expectations are usually unrealistic.
But, I digress. On a whole, I think people need to be more open to new things and less judgemental. There is beauty, emotion, and pleasure in so many things. I think any person who pre-determines a person's worthiness to be a significant other or even just a friend based on the books they read or music they listen to is just as shallow as the person they are judging is supposed to be.
my, my, my- i think the problem in this thread is that you boys assume i am arguing with you. i only take issue with one point: i don't think it so ridiculous to simply suggest that people are influenced in love by corresponding tastes...in anything. the article is not so much condoning it, as making an observation that it happens. and i happen to think that observation is fair. and fairly accurate. assigning value-judgements to someone's taste only muddies the issue- a mistake that, i agree, the article did indeed make.
colby, you point out the absurdity of a NY Times article about the merits of breast size, and i would affirm its absurdity- mostly because, generally speaking, the merits of, as well as the male appreciation for and value of, breast size is so obtuse and easily accepted as part of our sociological makeup that writing an article about it would be redundant. (are there exceptions to the rule? of course.) the only difference is that this article is noting another- perhaps equally shallow, but- less obvious tendency for prejudice in choosing mates.
just because i don't agree with every letter of the article doesn't mean i don't find the humor in some of the things said- even the humor in some of the more pretentious quotes contained in it. let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
in conclusion, i feel the need to clarify a few key things:
1. half of what i have written is tongue-in-cheek.
2. i have indeed dated guys that really like dan brown.
3. i am not going to condemn anyone for their literary taste- just as i hope no one would condemn me for mine. i only hope that we may both be open-minded and able to share new things with one another.
4. i have read 'the nanny diaries' and 'sex in the city.' and liked both. shamelessly.
5. i don't fault any guys for liking big boobs.
6. i maintain that, in my humble opinion, 'dumb and dumber' is one of the most retarded films ever made. but again, that is only my opinion.
7. dating is not about being fair or democratic- it is as subjective as one's musical or literary tastes. why is drawing a correlation between the two such a sin?
(all things being equal, i will most likely continue the conversation with the man who prefers kundera over crichton... if only because we have that in common.)
8. i must admit that i am still crossing my fingers, hoping this hypothetical man doesn't list dan brown among his favorites- mostly because i would then be forced to actually read brown to know whether or not hypothetical-man is serious or just a poser succumbing to mass hysteria. and as andrew aptly pointed out, i am perhaps too lazy (or exhausted by SEMANTICS) to dig deeper.
my summation is that i now certainly see the appeal in someone who doesn't read at all... someone who is illiterate might be even better. ;)
I was bored.
My girl was out of town.
I txted, "what should I do?"
she replied, "read the new harry potter."
I knew it was over.
as far as dan brown goes...
reading "holy blood, holy grail" and reading the wikipedia entry on Opus Dei should hardly count as research.
Hey Jenni--thanks for posting the whole thread. I missed it on facebook--seems like a good debate to engage in over drinks.
If I could add a couple of points that I don't really have time to defend (I love grad-school caveats), I might say that part of the beauty of dating is its subjectivity. If it were a fair game, it wouldn't be interesting, or mysterious enough to be fun. Two people who like Dan Brown may well be better matched than if one prefers Ulysses (which I still don't understand).
Second, I dispute the premise that what I would consider good literary taste can be entirely ascribed to class-- people of lower classes (myself included, by the way, at least by upbringing)can develop a taste for Dostoevsky over Dan Brown. Yes, education is tied to class, but I don't think it's as sharp a line as has been drawn.
Third, I also enjoyed Sex in the City. And Dumb and Dumber was insufferable.
Post a Comment