f13.net

Some years ago, I was awakened early one morning by a phone call from a friend. She had just broken up with a boyfriend she still loved and was desperate to justify her decision. “Can you believe it!” she shouted into the phone. “He hadn’t even heard of Pushkin!”

We’ve all been there. Or some of us have. Anyone who cares about books has at some point confronted the Pushkin problem: when a missed — or misguided — literary reference makes it chillingly clear that a romance is going nowhere fast. At least since Dante’s Paolo and Francesca fell in love over tales of Lancelot, literary taste has been a good shorthand for gauging compatibility. These days, thanks to social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace, listing your favorite books and authors is a crucial, if risky, part of self-branding. When it comes to online dating, even casual references can turn into deal breakers. Sussing out a date’s taste in books is “actually a pretty good way — as a sort of first pass — of getting a sense of someone,” said Anna Fels, a Manhattan psychiatrist and the author of “Necessary Dreams: Ambition in Women’s Changing Lives.” “It’s a bit of a Rorschach test.” To Fels (who happens to be married to the literary publisher and writer James Atlas), reading habits can be a rough indicator of other qualities. “It tells something about ... their level of intellectual curiosity, what their style is,” Fels said. “It speaks to class, educational level.”

Pity the would-be Romeo who earnestly confesses middlebrow tastes: sometimes, it’s the Howard Roark problem as much as the Pushkin one. “I did have to break up with one guy because he was very keen on Ayn Rand,” said Laura Miller, a book critic for Salon. “He was sweet and incredibly decent despite all the grandiosely heartless ‘philosophy’ he espoused, but it wasn’t even the ideology that did it. I just thought Rand was a hilariously bad writer, and past a certain point I couldn’t hide my amusement.” (Members of theatlasphere.com, a dating and fan site for devotees of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead,” might disagree.)

Judy Heiblum, a literary agent at Sterling Lord Literistic, shudders at the memory of some attempted date-talk about Robert Pirsig’s 1974 cult classic “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,” beloved of searching young men. “When a guy tells me it changed his life, I wish he’d saved us both the embarrassment,” Heiblum said, adding that “life-changing experiences” are a “tedious conversational topic at best.”

Let’s face it — this may be a gender issue. Brainy women are probably more sensitive to literary deal breakers than are brainy men. (Rare is the guy who’d throw a pretty girl out of bed for revealing her imperfect taste in books.) After all, women read more, especially when it comes to fiction. “It’s really great if you find a guy that reads, period,” said Beverly West, an author of “Bibliotherapy: The Girl’s Guide to Books for Every Phase of Our Lives.” Jessa Crispin, a blogger at the literary site Bookslut.com, agrees. “Most of my friends and men in my life are nonreaders,” she said, but “now that you mention it, if I went over to a man’s house and there were those books about life’s lessons learned from dogs, I would probably keep my clothes on.”

Still, to some reading men, literary taste does matter. “I’ve broken up with girls saying, ‘She doesn’t read, we had nothing to talk about,’” said Christian Lorentzen, an editor at Harper’s. Lorentzen recalls giving one girlfriend Nabokov’s “Ada” — since it’s “funny and long and very heterosexual, even though I guess incest is at its core.” The relationship didn’t last, but now, he added, “I think it’s on her Friendster profile as her favorite book.”

James Collins, whose new novel, “Beginner’s Greek,” is about a man who falls for a woman he sees reading “The Magic Mountain” on a plane, recalled that after college, he was “infatuated” with a woman who had a copy of “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” on her bedside table. “I basically knew nothing about Kundera, but I remember thinking, ‘Uh-oh; trendy, bogus metaphysics, sex involving a bowler hat,’ and I never did think about the person the same way (and nothing ever happened),” he wrote in an e-mail message. “I know there were occasions when I just wrote people off completely because of what they were reading long before it ever got near the point of falling in or out of love: Baudrillard (way too pretentious), John Irving (way too middlebrow), Virginia Woolf (way too Virginia Woolf).” Come to think of it, Collins added, “I do know people who almost broke up” over “The Corrections” by Jonathan Franzen: “‘Overrated!’ ‘Brilliant!’ ‘Overrated!’ ‘Brilliant!’”

Naming a favorite book or author can be fraught. Go too low, and you risk looking dumb. Go too high, and you risk looking like a bore — or a phony. “Manhattan dating is a highly competitive, ruthlessly selective sport,” Augusten Burroughs, the author of “Running With Scissors” and other vivid memoirs, said. “Generally, if a guy had read a book in the last year, or ever, that was good enough.” The author recalled a date with one Michael, a “robust blond from Germany.” As he walked to meet him outside Dean & DeLuca, “I saw, to my horror, an artfully worn, older-than-me copy of ‘Proust’ by Samuel Beckett.” That, Burroughs claims, was a deal breaker. “If there existed a more hackneyed, achingly obvious method of telegraphing one’s education, literary standards and general intelligence, I couldn’t imagine it.”

But how much of all this agonizing is really about the books? Often, divergent literary taste is a shorthand for other problems or defenses. “I had a boyfriend I was crazy about, and it didn’t work out,” Nora Ephron said. “Twenty-five years later he accused me of not having laughed while reading ‘Candy’ by Terry Southern. This was not the reason it didn’t work out, I promise you.” Sloane Crosley, a publicist at Vintage/Anchor Books and the author of “I Was Told There’d Be Cake,” essays about single life in New York, put it this way: “If you’re a person who loves Alice Munro and you’re going out with someone whose favorite book is ‘The Da Vinci Code,’ perhaps the flags of incompatibility were there prior to the big reveal.”

Some people just prefer to compartmentalize. “As a writer, the last thing I want in my personal life is somebody who is overly focused on the whole literary world in general,” said Ariel Levy, the author of “Female Chauvinist Pigs” and a contributing writer at The New Yorker. Her partner, a green-building consultant, “doesn’t like to read,” Levy said. When she wants to talk about books, she goes to her book group. Compatibility in reading taste is a “luxury” and kind of irrelevant, Levy said. The goal, she added, is “to find somebody where your perversions match and who you can stand.”

Marco Roth, an editor at the magazine n+1, said: “I think sometimes it’s better if books are just books. It’s part of the romantic tragedy of our age that our partners must be seen as compatible on every level.” Besides, he added, “sometimes people can end up liking the same things for vastly different reasons, and they build up these whole private fantasy lives around the meaning of these supposedly shared books, only to discover, too late, that the other person had a different fantasy completely.” After all, a couple may love “The Portrait of a Lady,” but if one half identifies with Gilbert Osmond and the other with Isabel Archer, they may have radically different ideas about the relationship.

For most people, love conquers literary taste. “Most of my friends are indeed quite shallow, but not so shallow as to break up with someone over a literary difference,” said Ben Karlin, a former executive producer of “The Daily Show” and the editor of the new anthology “Things I’ve Learned From Women Who’ve Dumped Me.” “If that person slept with the novelist in question, that would probably be a deal breaker — more than, ‘I don’t like Don DeLillo, therefore we’re not dating anymore.’”

These days, thanks to social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace, listing your favorite books and authors is a crucial, if risky, part of self-branding.

I wouldn't date the author of this article, that's for sure. 'Crucial self-branding'? Uhh...

or god-forfuckingbid the Bible are instantly unattractive to me.

You're not a real man Phildo.

I know way too many of these and by and large I think Schild's got a good rule of thumb here.

The cheapest SL starts at 95k without options.

The cheapest SL starts at 95k without options.

Anyone that spends that kind of money on a car is fundamentally flawed.

Anyone that spends that kind of money on a car is fundamentally flawed.

“Manhattan dating is a highly competitive, ruthlessly selective sport,”

But more importantly. Lawyer. Oil Company. Actively Religious. Any one of those in isolation, ok. All three? GTFO!

Anyone that spends that kind of money on a car is fundamentally flawed.

Lol. OK. Forget the car. I figured that'd be a cool distraction. Silly me.

[edit] I'll probably go to hell for that.

Everyone who talks to me is actively slumming.

It's great to be proud of the woman you're seeing, but if that's her... do her a favor and take those pics off the internet. 

 :ye_gods:

That bad eh.  :drill:

She was very attractive.  I just think throwing a woman's picture on the internet is the fastest way to end a relationship.  Particularly when it's a gaming site.

I just thought it was the time to throw down the gauntlet for a sec. Heh. Since.. umm.. the car wasn't a good enough virtue apparently (still not sure how that one backfired).

Anyways, if I had a point, it's that "crucial self-branding" is very overrated.  :awesome_for_real:

I don't think it has anything to do with relative net worth. Anyone that spends that amount of money on a depreciating asset just plain isn't very smart and the conspicuous consumption aspect of it tells you a lot about someone's personality.

Musician friends (she happens to be a pianist and choir singer too). Very church/"CCM" oriented though (not necessarily a problem for me...but for them). I might come off as some sort of bible basher myself around here, but believe me, there are people out there who'd see even Paelos as a bad boy (what with him being Irish and all  :-P).

Um. No. There comes a point where you have more money than you need and you can either make investments you don't need or buy shit you don't need.

Um. No. There comes a point where you have more money than you need and you can either make investments you don't need or buy shit you don't need. A car is not an "asset" unless you're a collector, a seller, or a tax agent. It's an expense, and how much an expense costs is only relevant as a reflection on a person if it would stop them from buying things they need.

Anything you own is an asset. An asset can be an expense if it depreciates or an investment if it appreciates. It is still an asset.  People are entitled to spend any amount of money on any foolish thing they want, but spending that kind of money on something that is to get you from point A to point B is rather silly.  Warren Buffet is the richest guy in the world and drives a 40k Caddy.

Ab didn't need someone to illustrate his point perfectly, but there you go.

You don't seriously think that those are the only two options do you?

I'd spend ridiculous amounts of money on cars, booze and women if I had ridiculous amounts of money to spend.

I'd spend ridiculous amounts of money on cars, booze and women if I had ridiculous amounts of money to spend.

QFT.

I'd spend ridiculous amounts of money on cars, booze and women if I had ridiculous amounts of money to spend.

Also, Ab, weren't you the guy who'd touch upon certain gambling losses here?

part you quoted

I think you're wrong, but I'm not going to have a religious argument.

I'm not concerned so much about what is or should supposedly be in the bible. Just what isn't.

I could go further and point out that Jewish patriarches like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon were not just rich men. They were ridiculously wealthy. Jesus might have been poor himself, but if the gospels are to be believed, then he had rich followers by his side (Lazarus, Nicodemus, the wife of Pilate supposedly). There wasn't anything written where he condemned them.

Actually you were going on about how there's nothing in the Bible against being materialistic.

Cain (who is in the bible) was a murderer, therefore the Bible doesn't have anything against murder, right?

She's just a corporate lawyer. Y'know, reviews contracts and shit like that.

Edit: Doesn't matter if you hold up the "I'm not trolling!" sign. The shade of green of your skin gives it away!

You know who else just reviewed documents and helped an entity to do its thing?  Nazis.   :drill:

You could, in fact, enjoy the fruits of your labor. You weren't under any obligation to take the advice of or constantly give to people who had nothing to do with how you made your money. It praises those who do, but it doesn't condemn those who don't.

In fairness his point was that there are rich people in the bible who spend money on stuff that's not absolutely necessary and clearly aren't giving their fortune to charity but aren't condemned by Jesus. This therefore means that people who spend more than may be necessary on themselves can still label themselves as Christians.

Unless of course in order to be a Christian you need to be ready and willing to get nailed to some wood (and not in the good way, amirite?!) because if you can't swap your name for Jesus in the bible you can't be calling yourself a Christian.

Yes (I know I said I wouldn't address more, but it's interesting). I said somewhere above that going further than that "10%" is encouraged. It's just not the rule. He never condemned the other people there. Not as far as I can read..

The truth is that people have no idea what they want in a partner.  Don't believe me?  Look at the divorce rate. 

I just want a girl that isn't ugly or crazy.

Slim pickings.

I'm not going to lie, sane is probably the most important. If you're just going for hot and smart, uh....  :pedobear:

What the fuck? All the hot and smart ones are children?

Did we forget what pedobear was again?

Steven Seagal famously said that he wouldn't bother getting married, he'd just find a woman he didn't like and give her a house.

Ahhhh, thank you.  I knew there was something terribly wrong there but couldn't quite put my finger on it.

What the fuck? All the hot and smart ones are children?

Did we forget what pedobear was again?

I never got why people seem always to be looking for partners that are like them. Why does a potential partner do have to like the same things I do? Some of my more close friends are not at all like me that's part of what makes the friendship interesting.

And to be frank a girl who is exactly like me would most probably be rather boring ;-)

He just missmilied.

He types a lot of things - millions of words a day - so if he missmilied, that was just a misemoticon.

He has been on message boards for many, many years, and this is something that he thinks happens to anybody.

I clearly know what pedobear is/what it is used for, asshat.  :drill:

So feisty at work today, schildy :P

I never got why people seem always to be looking for partners that are like them. Why does a potential partner do have to like the same things I do? Some of my more close friends are not at all like me that's part of what makes the friendship interesting.

And to be frank a girl who is exactly like me would most probably be rather boring ;-)

Heh. Wait, wait.. I thought you've said before that you met your wife when she was young and impressionable, and just groomed her to be like you over time?  :grin:

An exact copy won't work.  Too many differences and things fall apart because you have no common interests.

What I find best are some commonalities to let us relate to one another, some differences to spice things up, and lots of complimentary traits to mesh it all together.  I'll let you know when I find the one...

To give an example: the girl I have a crush on right now.  Yeah she likes bands that I loathe (Modest Mouse, yech), and I like bands that make her homicidal (I don't get how you could NOT like Cradle of Filth... well, yeah, okay, I get it) and our personal styles are completely different, she's not a gamer at all, I don't know the first thing about cooking (seriously, I managed to set my fire alarm off while cooking rice- that's fucking talent).  But she's completely my type on the things that matter.  She's enraged at historical inaccuracies in movies, she shares my stuck-up conservative views on sex, wants no children ever, and just asked me for some tips on the paper she's writing about how religion impeded the progress of western civilization from the 16th-19th centuries.  She's amazing.

A little off topic, but why in heaven's name haven't you asked her on a date yet? Kids these days, I tell ya.,

Llava, did you refer her to Said's Orientalism writings?

:D Just got done reading it on Wednesday :P

Nope, I'm not familiar with that.  What's the name of the book? I'll check it out.

(Like she's 6 years younger than me, attending college on the other side of the state, and is my best friend's younger sister complicated.  So, for now at the very least, it's incredibly impractical.  I'm just not doing a very good job of setting the crush aside for now.)

I mean it's impossible to set a crush aside. Just find another girl.  :-)

Oh well yeah.  I'm certainly not shooting down any prospects on the off chance that she says, "Hey, I'm 20 and want to get involved in a really complicated, high-stakes relationship!!"  I'm a romantic, but also a realist.