Love ludicrously lost: literacy lacking louts liberally lambasted... lol

[Llava]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/books/review/Donadio-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I did this.  Or, rather, I lost my interest in a girl after she showed me a self-help style documentary that was either based on or the basis for a book of the same name and theme.

I just couldn't help but think, "She believes this shit? Seriously?"

Quote by request:

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.’”

EDIT

I wasn't happy with the title. Changed it.

[Lantyssa]

Needs a login.  Care to quote?

[Paelos]

In essence, the article says how women are likely to break up with male non-readers or men who read books that don't match their tastes. It says this also affects male high-brow readers, but it's less common for a man to kick a pretty chick out of bed for incompatible reading materials. It also goes into detail about how important favorite books are on internet communities and dating sites.

Personally, I've never broken up with a girl over a book. I've broken up with women over religion, infidelity, vegetarianism, and just generally being passive-aggressive.

[stray]

If I was going to be snooty about anything, it'd be music, but I'm not even that either. Honestly, I just like girls who I think are hot, who don't cheat, and aren't anti-social/seclusive. Anything else is a bonus.

All of this other stuff is bullshit. Chris Rock put it best.

[Phildo]

I got turned down on an online dating site when I asked a girl what books she liked to read and she essentially responded with "I don't read books.  I don't think we should talk anymore."

[Llava]

Good woman.

[lamaros]

You're not a real man Phildo.

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...

[schild]

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

It's true. Girls who list, for example, the Da Vinci Code, or god-forfuckingbid the Bible are instantly unattractive to me.

[NowhereMan]

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

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

[Phildo]

You're not a real man Phildo.

I am deeply wounded!

[stray]

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

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

Hmm, well I've gotten to know one of these recently. I won't go into how hot she is, but she has a new Mercedes SL series. So that's fun. Heh

[Abagadro]

That's an even better reason to stay away from her.

[stray]

Care to explain? I'm stumped. Those are rad cars, man.

P.S. She's an attorney like you. I'd say that would be the best reason to stay away. 

[Abagadro]

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

[stray]

Not to derail too much, but it's one of the cheaper ones, I think. Still cool though.

[Abagadro]

The cheapest SL starts at 95k without options.

[stray]

I mean cheap relatively speaking. It's not a McLaren or anything.

Even so, I know she's well off on her own (her house is ridiculously furnished as well), which could justify the purchase, but I wouldn't be surprised if her employers helped with that one (it's an oil company, after all). That's just a guess.

/shrug

Either way, nothing wrong with a kick ass car. If I had the cash, I'd do the same. So you could say that she's fundamentally flawed, and I am too, theoretically speaking. Yay.

... In the end though, I really don't have a chance in hell with that woman. So the whole point is moot. 

[NiX]

The cheapest SL starts at 95k without options.

Seriously. I have to agree with Abagadro. Maybe it's because I've been broke my entire life and had to deal with what I was given, but I could never justify spending more than $35/$40k on a car. Canadian.

[Calantus]

So like $95k US? :P

[Paelos]

The cheapest SL starts at 95k without options.

Honestly it depends on what percentage of your net worth that happens to be. Some things just don't matter beyond a point. If you're living in a 1 bedroom 1 bath apartment and driving a Mercedes SL, I'd say you have major issues. If you are living in a 5000 sq. ft. house in the suburbs with a seven figure investment fund, that's a totally different ballgame.

My rule of thumb about cars is simple. Don't drive anything that's worth more than $2000 times your age. Period.

[Nebu]

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

I agree.  I will never date another woman that cares about material nonsense.  Been there, done that. 

FWIW: My ex drives a Mercedes.  I should have taken a BIG hint when she cared about the size of the rock in her engagement ring.

[stray]

I've met far worse materialists than her. Unlike them though, she happens to actually have money.

I don't see the big deal. She's 29, making six figures, single, and without kids. Living in one of the cheapest cities in the country. If there's not a time to buy a cool ride, then I don't know what is. Of course, the car itself isn't going to drastically change in price no matter the location, but other expenses here are well below average (for a big city at least) to make a purchase like that more understandable.

[edit] Ah wait... The most important point maybe: She's given my poor ass the time of the day. Hah. Not the mark of a materialist really.

Not to say my prospects are high or anything. Just saying. She's at least entertained the thought.

[lamaros]

And she works as a lawyer for an oil company. So she has morals too!

[UD_Delt]

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

I'd disagree. Anyone who makes what I make and spends that amount of money is fundamentally flawed... But someone making a considerable amount more than I am is not. As someone mentioned above it's all about percentage of net wealth.

I also won't be going out and buying a lexus but I just had a friend who paid cash for one. She's 27 years old, has been saving since she started working, just passed her CPA exam, already has a house she owns outright (thanks mom and dad) etc... Why not?

As they say, "you can't take it with you."

[bhodi]

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

Well, thar's your problem....

People who are drawn to a place that is synonymous with facades, shocked (shocked!) that people would have one while dating? Reading way into people's reading habits to try and distill their personal beliefs (and thus, compatibility) to get around said facades? Say it isn't so.

[Phildo]

Why think of it as a sport?  It's more like hunting tigers in bamboo thickets with a toothpick.

[Abagadro]

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.

[Engels]

I dunno, I think it depends. If I lived in BFE and my commute involved a chunk of my day, and I had that kinda cash, I'd probably invest in a nice comfort ride like a Benz.

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

[Llava]

There's apparently at least one camel expecting to fit easily through the eye of a needle.

[stray]

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

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

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

[Nebu]

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. 

 

[stray]

Heh, yeah. Just wanted someone to see. 

[Mrbloodworth]

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

And, its not your car, so she has all she needs.....

[schild]

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

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

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

Nah, just lawyer.

Those other two are fundamentally flawed.

Given Stray's description though, I'd be more worried about the fact she's actively slumming.

And this being the internet, I don't feel bad about saying that.

Edit: By the way, don't tell me I'm a dick. I'm just saying how it is. Or how it looks. I really, frankly, couldn't give a fuck less about any rationalization or anything like that.

[stray]

Everyone who talks to me is actively slumming.