I can't believe I just read that entire NY Times article just because you posted it on your blog. Simply put, if there was a more elitist way of rationalizing failing relationships, I haven't read one. Only the last two paragraphs come to counterpoint, that after wading through various uptights lamenting faults of authors vastly more successful than themselves. All bundled up with expensive retoric stemming, I can only assume, from expensive english degrees.Also, there may be a reason why more females on that other coast are single; they're probably just bitches.Also, it's getting warm in Cali. Which translates into bikinis. Single or not, I bet more girls out here wear bikinis.
WTF, Mr. English major. I'm so sorry that books aren't a dealbreaker for you - clearly it's a sign that literary compatibility is for the elite. Those Times snobs must have awfully expensive degrees to draw conclusions like that - they should stop dating those snooty east coasters and check out some Cali bikinis!But have you ever gone out with a girl who doesn't read on a regular basis? It's like talking to a rock. A really dumb rock at that.
A dumb rock looks better in a bikini than a sweater vest. Just saying... do girls even wear sweater vests?I might actually agree with the overall concept, reading = good. If you read you might want someone with similar tastes or interests. I get it. And what a Times scoop at that, I think this story broke when Adam and Eve found out they both like apples.Anyhoo it reads like a t-payne name dropping billboard hit. How can I be quoted in the Times and sound intelligent? I know I'll list a bunch of authors people like and then list why those authors (and the people reading them) are below me.Read anything good lately? I just finished "the big question" by chuck barris, an incredibly low brow view of what might happen in reality television future by the creator of "The Gong Show." It wasn't Pushkin, but if it was fucking funny.
Carson, we agree on several things. First of all, we like girls, and we like bikinis. However, I do not think the overall concept of the article can be boiled down to "reading = good". The point of the article is that you should not sleep with girls who read stupid books.When I wake up after a night of passionate, invigorating (and protected!) sex, I do not want to discuss The Secret or The Unquestionable Lightness of Bees. I probably just want to have sex again, but barring that, I'd rather talk about something I find interesting - a story on NPR, an article from the New Yorker, or a stimulating topic from a mutually enjoyed book. If afforementioned potential mate doesn't pay attention to these things, it's a good sign she's going home without breakfast.Oh, recently I finished The Omnivore's Dilemma, which was an interesting analysis of how convoluted our food chain has become, and Secrets and Lies by Bruce Schneier, which is about the evolution of digital security in a complex and interconnected world. Right now I'm reading East of Eden by Steinbeck, Beyond Fear by Bruce Schneier, and In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan.p.s. I've never read The Unbearable Lightness of Being, but I only mentioned it above because "The Unquestionable Lightness of Bees" made me laugh. I'm so arrogant.
I don't fully agree with your summary of the article, "you should not sleep with girls who read stupid books." If anything it was "you shouldn't sleep with guys who read stupid books." I'm not going to read it again, but that's what I found. Women complaining about men who are stupid... another Times scoop, men are dumb. And here I thought that was established well before the Crusades.And that bleeping Secret book, they totally stole our old idea of willing the light to the turn green. I haven't read the bleeping book, but that's what some girls (that I haven't slept with because no one likes Mishima as much as me)have said. We should sue those bleepers.
Post a Comment