“Can you believe it! He hadn’t even heard of Pushkin!”

September 1, 2008 11:00 AM

Literary Dealbreakers: "This book so deeply resonates with your soul that if a potential partner finds it risible, any meeting of minds (or body) is all but impossible."

Unsurprisingly, the internet is full of bibliophiles who agree: "It's not you, it's your books." (via)

posted by anotherpanacea (108 comments total)

bookworms.
posted by Saddo at 11:11 AM on September 1, 2008

I found it interesting how this article showed that people's attempted adherence to intellectual authenticity and taste can actually show them up to be ridiculous phonies:

“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.”

Doesn't seem to occur to Burroughs that the date might genuinely be interested in the subject matter of the book, may have acquired the book secondhand (already worn), and not give a shit about what Burroughs thinks about his reading taste. I hope Burroughs is kidding and not really that shallow.
posted by jayder at 11:12 AM on September 1, 2008 [5 favorites]

I felt completely justified turning down a few girls in high school when I found they loved "The Notebook". Though I'm not sure I would consider that a "literary" dealbreaker.
posted by Benjy at 11:16 AM on September 1, 2008

On the other hand, two phonies would be fabulous together.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:18 AM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

I don't quite have that problem. The two authors I obsess about are Neil Gaiman and H.P. Lovecraft. I don't really expect my partners to like fantasy or horror; if I did, I think I'd be limiting my options unnecessarily. Even among any potential partners that do, I wouldn't be offended even if they loathed Lovecraft, as I'm fully aware that he's not to everyone's taste. (Of course, they might be offended that I like him, but that's a slightly different problem which I have no control over.) As for Gaiman, I think it would only be a deal breaker if they actively disliked him, or, possibly even worse, called him overrated. That would be an indication of incompatibility.

I probably couldn't ever date an Ayn Rand fan, though. And actually, now that I think about it, I couldn't date a girl who didn't read at all.
posted by Caduceus at 11:24 AM on September 1, 2008

If a woman told me here favourite book was The Secret, there would probably be a Midnight Rambler shaped cloud of smoke left behind as I sped away.
posted by Midnight Rambler at 11:25 AM on September 1, 2008 [2 favorites]

I hope Burroughs is kidding and not really that shallow.

It's ironic that the works of Augusten Burroughs are a dealbreaker for a lot of people.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 11:27 AM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

"Can you believe it! He hadn't even heard of Pushkin Dior Apple Muji Serotta Lynch Pink's me!"
posted by infinitewindow at 11:28 AM on September 1, 2008 [2 favorites]

I couldn't get past the first four or five arrogant, self-important paragraphs... Damn, I would of dumped any one of those women!
posted by HuronBob at 11:29 AM on September 1, 2008

This was big on Gawker. In March.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 11:39 AM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

listing your favorite books and authors is a crucial, if risky, part of self-branding

It's always nice when livestock learn to do things for themselves.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:39 AM on September 1, 2008 [19 favorites]

Personally I find a man's being skilful and attentive in bed goes a long way to make up for any shortcomings in his literary sensibilities. Though once while on a first date the man told me he thought Pearl Harbor was the best movie ever made, and I quit the scene promptly. There are limits.
posted by orange swan at 11:39 AM on September 1, 2008 [2 favorites]

I can see this in a certain limited way - somebody who admires the ideas of somebody whose ideas I find horrifying (like Rand) is somebody I wouldn't want to date - but to require your tastes to match up all the time is both bad strategy (you're limiting your pool unnecessarily) and a shallow way of judging another person.

Also, some of the biggest assholes I've known shared my taste in books.
posted by joannemerriam at 11:40 AM on September 1, 2008 [3 favorites]

I don't really expect my partners to like fantasy or horror; if I did, I think I'd be limiting my options unnecessarily.

Maybe, but the fucking would be awesome.
posted by Cyrano at 11:42 AM on September 1, 2008 [2 favorites]

Another NYT article full of self-important Manhattan yuppie douchenozzles.
posted by mattholomew at 11:50 AM on September 1, 2008 [9 favorites]

My therapist once told me that the people you date don't have to be perfect.

... I don't know, I feel like that applies here.
posted by tumbleweedjack at 11:56 AM on September 1, 2008 [3 favorites]

Oh, the snootiness! Oh the irony! What should he be reading, Augusten Burroughs--you?

Of course, I'm studying poetry in a graduate school where one of our professors has probably the most hifalutin taste in American poetry today. He gave us poetry assignments like "write about your first encounter with a great book (note: do not write about science fiction, romance, or children's literature)." Undoubtedly as a backlash to this, I've spent the summer reading comic books, Star Trek novels, Stephen King novels, and YA fantasy. Damn, it feels good to be a gangster.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 11:59 AM on September 1, 2008 [11 favorites]

God, I used to be like that. The most important romantic relationships I had during my teens and early twenties centered on spelunking hand-in-hand through used bookstores looking for copies of rare and out-of-print Harlan Ellison books.

Stop laughing.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 11:59 AM on September 1, 2008 [6 favorites]

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

Right, because in the rest of the city/country/world dating is not competitive or selective at all.
posted by signal at 12:00 PM on September 1, 2008 [2 favorites]

I find the fact that I've never actually read a book helps me avoid these kinds of situations all together.
posted by !Jim at 12:15 PM on September 1, 2008

My main literary dealbreaker is if a person has no books in his house at all. That scares me.
posted by louche mustachio at 12:18 PM on September 1, 2008 [8 favorites]

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

Right, because in the rest of the city/country/world dating is not competitive or selective at all.

Indeed. I suggest Manhattanites take their game to the next level by adding firearms to make it truly 'ruthlessly selective.'
posted by mattholomew at 12:19 PM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

As for Gaiman, I think it would only be a deal breaker if they actively disliked him, or, possibly even worse, called him overrated. That would be an indication of incompatibility.

If a potential partner actively disliked one of my favorite things, my reaction would depend more on the reasons why. I.e., does she have a good argument to back it up? Thoughtfulness and intelligence go a long way, regardless of taste.
posted by ambulatorybird at 12:25 PM on September 1, 2008

Of course, suffocating pretention and arrogance are ALWAYS dealbreakers. In case you were wondering why you never get laid,Mr. "I Can't Believe People Read That ... Sci-Fi Drivel!"
posted by louche mustachio at 12:31 PM on September 1, 2008

Moby Dick god I love that whale.
posted by From Bklyn at 12:33 PM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

48 Rules of Power. Get out NOW!
posted by Bitter soylent at 12:35 PM on September 1, 2008

I have yet to see a hottie sitting in a cafe reading a Robert Bentley service manual for an obscure make of British sports car--so I've never had the chance to find my literary soul-mate. Mrs. Maxwelton knows if that circumstance arises, all bets are off.
posted by maxwelton at 12:39 PM on September 1, 2008 [4 favorites]

If there existed a more hackneyed, achingly obvious method of telegraphing one’s education, literary standards and general intelligence, I couldn’t imagine it.

How about a college-branded license plate frame?

I stumbled upon Proust accidentally several years ago, and enjoyed it very much. I have *never* seen anyone carrying it around.
posted by dontoine at 12:40 PM on September 1, 2008

“I saw, to my horror, an artfully worn, older-than-me copy of ‘Proust’ by Samuel Beckett.”

Wait, what?
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:41 PM on September 1, 2008

I didn't even know Beckett wrote a book on Proust. Check out this review: looks like it might be good!
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:43 PM on September 1, 2008

I'm always surprised at how shallow people can be when judging other people. I thought the TV show Seinfeld was funny, but never realized how realistic it was as far as dating goes. Meh. I guess that's the nature of judging, opportunistic. At least an undeveloped sense of judgement (of specific assets)...or perhaps an overdevelopment of...?
posted by P.o.B. at 12:45 PM on September 1, 2008

Dude was a critic as well as a playwright.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 12:48 PM on September 1, 2008

My main literary dealbreaker is if a person has no books in his house at all. That scares me.

I once had a blind date with a woman who was proud of that very fact. "Oh, I have a few books, but I hide them in drawers" she admitted, when I drew her out on the subject. She was also considerably older than she said she was. I've always tied those two facts together.

The other people who scare me are the "designer" book people, who have a few artful shelves carefully arrayed with titles of the sort that populate the minimalist interiors of decorating magazines (when it's clear some small selection of books is called for)--but there is nothing you'd actually want to read.
posted by maxwelton at 12:48 PM on September 1, 2008

The best thing about being in a long term relationship must be the fact that I can read Glamorama or the latest Terry Pratchett on BART without worrying about what it says to potential suitors - because what I want in a mate and what I want in a novel are two different things entirely.

Wait, do these people only read books that agree with their world view? I think it's one thing to break up with someone because their world revolves around Ayn Rand or The Secret and it's another to ditch someone because they made the mistake of bringing their book with them on the first date while wanting to see what all the fuss is about Lolita or DaVinci Code or the Bible or The Anarchist's Cookbook.
posted by Gucky at 12:51 PM on September 1, 2008

> God, I used to be like that. The most important romantic relationships I had during my teens and early twenties centered on spelunking hand-in-hand through used bookstores looking for copies of rare and out-of-print Harlan Ellison books.

Oh, I'm not laughing because that is nerdy. I am laughing because "spelunking" is a running joke among my lesbian friends as a euphemism for sex. I'm surprised you didn't get kicked out often.
posted by mrzarquon at 12:52 PM on September 1, 2008

Being a lover of good books is necessary but insufficient. I know people who are well read in all the "right" literary novels that come out who are nevertheless incurious people with little interesting to say. I cannot explain how it happens, but it does.
posted by deanc at 12:52 PM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

Referring to anything as postmodern.
posted by 0xdeadc0de at 12:53 PM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

I've generally had good luck with people (not so much in a dating context, but more generally as friends) who have some of the same books I do, but hopefully not all the same ones - it's much more interesting if you can get book suggestions from them, and vice versa. Learning what someone loves (and why) can be an interesting way of getting to know them.

On the other hand, my bookshelf holds both Hamlet II: Ophelia's Revenge and a Thomas Kinkade-branded novel (I could never bring myself to read the latter). So... I have good reasons not to judge.
posted by you're a kitty! at 12:56 PM on September 1, 2008

I'm far from a culture snob (I own the collectors edition of Showgirls and it's awesome). Having said that I really don't think I could date anyone who loved the Da Vinci Code.
posted by fshgrl at 1:06 PM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

The only Samuel Beckett I know of had seven doctoral degrees. Luckily, my boyfriend likes me that way just fine.
posted by Inside Out Girl at 1:08 PM on September 1, 2008 [3 favorites]

I'm far from a culture snob (I own the collectors edition of Showgirls and it's awesome). Having said that I really don't think I could date anyone who loved the Da Vinci Code.

Yeah, I would be (and have been) extremely freaked out by the presence of Dan Brown, Nora Roberts, Danielle Steel, and related materials that to me are to books what, say, Justin Timberlake is to music. It's not even about literary snobbery: It's about my fear that you're the female Patrick Bateman.

On the other hand (more real-life examples!), your bookshelf full of Dragonlance/Dean Koontz/Anne Rice novels may imply that you're not the most discriminating reader ever, but a dealbreaker? Nah. Admittedly, no one's ever gonna confuse R.A. Salvatore with Vladimir Nabokov, but this stuff does at least imply that you're a fun person, and that works for me. I mean, I like books like this, too, just...you know. Ones that are actually good. But I can deal.

Scariest ever: Ayn Rand and David Icke. And that is the truth.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:22 PM on September 1, 2008 [3 favorites]

Amen, Gucky. Although if you bring a book to your first date, you're doing it wrong (unless your date specifically requested it—it happens).
posted by infinitewindow at 1:24 PM on September 1, 2008

Jeez, isn't it kinda swell, in this day, to find someone who reads anything?
posted by cccorlew at 1:28 PM on September 1, 2008

Not only is this pretentious, but it also obscures the real relationship deal-breaker question: in the duet song "Under Pressure" with Freddy Mercury and David Bowie, which one is the cooler musician?

Hint: it's not Freddy Mercury

I do shamelessly try to see what other people are reading on the tube, though. It's fun to squint at the cover art.
posted by generichuman at 1:29 PM on September 1, 2008 [2 favorites]

"Listen, what's the most horrible experience you can imagine? To me—it's being left, unarmed, in a sealed cell with a drooling beast of prey or a maniac who's had some disease that's eaten his brain out...That's horror. Well, that's what's hanging over the world, prowling somewhere through mankind, that same thing, something closed, mindless, utterly wanton, but something with an aim and a cunning of its own."

Wait, what?
posted by lukemeister at 1:36 PM on September 1, 2008

Anyone who's too cool for Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is far too cool for me.
posted by belvidere at 1:36 PM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

I dunno: if I noted an overabundance of books by Bill O'Reilly or Naomi Wolf, I'd definitely have second thoughts. Mostly I wouldn't want to justify supporting the MPP, and the aesthetic clash on the shelf with the Necronomicon and Gil Elvgren: All His Glamorous American Pin-Ups would be a bit much.
posted by quintessencesluglord at 1:38 PM on September 1, 2008

I just noticed that LibraryThing has a slightly more positive—in a "your tastes are so freakishly alike that this person may be your soulmate" way—version of this. In the Statistics page, there's a space called "You and None Other (books shared with exactly one user)", with a picture of wedding bands beside it.
posted by CKmtl at 1:47 PM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

This, too, made me laugh.
posted by MarshallPoe at 2:06 PM on September 1, 2008

Was it in High Fidelity (the film, not the book :) that Jack Black's character said something like, "It's what you like, not what you ARE like." I don't know, it can be douchey, but after a failed marriage and many failed relationships with people with similar personalities but different tastes in music/tv/film/etc, maybe there is a little something to that.

Or maybe I'm just far too emotionally damaged for anyone to love.
posted by Saxon Kane at 2:06 PM on September 1, 2008

It's got to be said that people who don't have any books and jubilantly confess that they don't read are dealbreakers. I've had many a boring, bougie/douchie roommate like that. I own a lot of books of every conceivable type (including Lovecraft) so maybe I'm not the best one to judge. And every lover of Ayn Rand I've ever known has been an absolute, unrepentant asshole.
posted by nikitabot at 2:25 PM on September 1, 2008

Shit, it's nice to find a girl in this town who reads at all.
posted by turgid dahlia at 2:49 PM on September 1, 2008

Also, LOLNYERS
posted by turgid dahlia at 2:52 PM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

Be wary of people who read only genre fiction, especially if it's only one genre (only romances, only westerns, only horror, only science fiction). Also, stay at least five meters away from people who read no fiction at all.
posted by pracowity at 2:55 PM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

Be wary of people who read only genre fiction, especially if it's only one genre (only romances, only westerns, only horror, only science fiction)

I'm curious why you say this, pracowity. Not that I'm one of those people (because, really, I'll read Just About Anything), but genre work can be immensely entertaining--and, in the case of horror & science fiction, often just as imaginative as "literary" fiction, if not moreso. If it's simply a matter of needing to be diverse in one's interests, I wonder how it's any worse to read genre work than just, say, poetry, or (like one lit. prof I know) to have one's reading consist almost entirely of Joyce & Joyce criticism.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 3:03 PM on September 1, 2008

I work with people who only read Harry Potter books. They're perfectly fine people, otherwise, and if they had been born in a different age, they might have read books. In this one, they don't; they watch HBO. I judge them on whether they have *any* interest for which they show discrimination: books, music, TV, movies, dance... What alarms me about culture today is that it is possible to slide through life without caring passionately about anything. I guess I'd prefer snobbishness to indifference.
posted by acrasis at 3:09 PM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

Admittedly, no one's ever gonna confuse R.A. Salvatore with Vladimir Nabokov...

Then how do you explain Confession Of A White Widowed Drow?
posted by turgid dahlia at 3:15 PM on September 1, 2008 [2 favorites]

“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.”

And above:

Shit, it's nice to find a girl in this town who reads at all.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
posted by jason's_planet at 3:18 PM on September 1, 2008

Although if you bring a book to your first date, you're doing it wrong (unless your date specifically requested it—it happens).
posted by infinitewindow at 4:24 PM on September 1

Unless you took public transit to get there.

Be wary of people who read only genre fiction, especially if it's only one genre (only romances, only westerns, only horror, only science fiction).
posted by pracowity at 5:55 PM on September 1

...only literary fiction.

I'm wary of people who stick to narrow subsets of anything, genre or not. It's not a dealbreaker, but it's a red flag.
posted by joannemerriam at 3:30 PM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

I don't understand why Dan Brown would be a dealbreaker. It's far from the best thing I've ever read, but it was an easy, entertaining read. It'd be different if they have multiple copies signed by the author, or framed lithographs from one of his writing drafts or something, but c'mon!

I'm a literary whore! I'll read anything once, I don't discriminate.
posted by graventy at 3:36 PM on September 1, 2008

I'm curious why you say this

I'm speaking from experience, not formulating a theory. And I'm not talking only about dating. I can, I suppose, be friends with someone for whom every story must be scary, or must hinge on technology or the future, or must have cowboys or dragons or guys running around shooting everyone. Sure. I suppose. But probably not good friends.
posted by pracowity at 3:38 PM on September 1, 2008

I've gotten back into dating lately and I find I'm happy meeting women who at least enjoy reading, period. It shows some intellectual curiosity and distinguishes them from people I've dated (and disliked) who don't read at all.
posted by wastelands at 3:38 PM on September 1, 2008

Mr. Palmcorder's tastes in everything, from visual art to books to music, are pretty different from mine. It's awesome. I love trying to view culture through his eyes, and attempting to pick out things he'll think are wonderful. (Successes: Robert Delaunay, The Breakfast Club, Alias Grace. Failures: Charles Simic, T.S. Eliot, and all critical theory.) Also, when we find something that we both unabashedly adore (like Bruce Sterling's Lechy Starlitz stories) it's kind of magical.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 3:42 PM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

Although if you bring a book to your first date, you're doing it wrong (unless your date specifically requested it—it happens).

Yeah, I dunno, I've been on first dates where I generally plan to arrive early so I can get a feel for the location, have a cup of coffee or whatever, and read whatever I'm reading, generally with my Moleskine close to hand. I guess this might be interpreted as "advertised pretention" but really, I just like reading and I might want to jot down striking passages and the like.

What's unforgivable on first dates isn't the fact that you were reading a book before the second party arrived. It's that you're sending text messages while the date is in progress. If you've got somewhere better to be or someone better to talk to, then fuck off and talk to them and leave me here with my book. I've walked out on precisely two "dates" where the lady has accepted a call from somebody and then actually gotten into a conversation with them. You might not be interested in how much I've overclocked my PC in order to squeeze an extra 5FPS out of Crysis but I sure as shit am!
posted by turgid dahlia at 3:48 PM on September 1, 2008

I'm definitely with T. Dahlia here-- well, about the book and the moleskine anyway. The overclocking, maybe not so much. (Unless it involves fluid-cooling, and lots of amusing tubes full of Mountain Dew-colored glucky stuff. I'm not a gamer, but I find the glucky goop-tubes sort of fascinating.)
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 4:01 PM on September 1, 2008

I don't understand why Dan Brown would be a dealbreaker. It's far from the best thing I've ever read, but it was an easy, entertaining read.

I haven't read him because people whose taste I trust have warned me off him. Stephen Fry, for instance, reportedly described The Da Vinci Code as "Complete loose-stool-water. Arse-gravy of the very worst kind." I imagine people say Brown is a dealbreaker because anyone who finds his stuff entertaining must be a bit undiscriminating.

I'll read anything once, I don't discriminate.

Well, there you go.
posted by pracowity at 4:04 PM on September 1, 2008

I'm speaking from experience, not formulating a theory. And I'm not talking only about dating. I can, I suppose, be friends with someone for whom every story must be scary, or must hinge on technology or the future, or must have cowboys or dragons or guys running around shooting everyone. Sure. I suppose. But probably not good friends.

Sounds like an inaccurate perception of genre work, there. :)

My view has always been that elitism is no better than populism which is no better than elitism. I'm with all those people who said that the only real dealbreaker is indifference--although personally, I'm starting to grow weary of the feigned indifference of the literary academy. Let's be passionate, folks. Better to be passionate about The World of Time novels, for instance than . . . nothing.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 4:09 PM on September 1, 2008

Erk. Wheel of time. Duh.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 4:10 PM on September 1, 2008

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

Right, because in the rest of the city/country/world dating is not competitive or selective at all.

I would suggest that such pickiness described is not indicitive of a ruthless sport at all, but rather of superabundance. Real ruthlessness comes when, say, your a guy who wants to meet a woman in China and you're facing the fact that 10% of you will never have a chance if you all insist on monogamy; or the women trying to get married in inter-war New Zealand, when nearly a tenth of the men had died in the Great War and the after-effects.

What the author is describing is not competitiveness; it is the kind of decadence bought on by a glut. You think a woman in 1920 New Zealand worried about whether a man had the right books on his shelf? She worried about meeting one in the first place, and whether she could live with his trench-induced nightmares and drinking.

Be wary of people who read only genre fiction,

Especially modern literary fiction, which is a dreary little genre all its own.

I don't understand why Dan Brown would be a dealbreaker.

In part it can be snobbery, but... well, so many people, in my experience, who have glommed on to him have done so because they're unaware he's regurgitating a bunch of stuff people have done better (Eco, for example) or more seriously (The Blood and the Cross, IIRC, whose author sued him), and take it way, way too seriously, or lend it a profundity that doesn't belong.

I guess it's like the reaction I get from people who are totally over-the-top into Neal Stephenson. It suggests to me they just aren't that widely (or well) read.
posted by rodgerd at 4:20 PM on September 1, 2008 [4 favorites]

(And, I should add, it's the taking it all too seriously that grates for me. You like to kick back with trash? Me too! But have some perspective...)
posted by rodgerd at 4:22 PM on September 1, 2008

I just don't think I could ever love
Anyone too fond of Nabokov;
And my fancy won't ever settle upon
Those I hear quoting Khalil Gibran;
I will not adore anyone who says
That their life it was changed by Márquez;
And spare me the romantic affections of
Those who simply swear by Bulgakov.

I will peruse your bookshelf and see what's displayed
And if its too la de da I will be fast dismayed;
Despite your keen wit and your fabulous looks
I can't love someone unless I first love their books.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:22 PM on September 1, 2008 [7 favorites]

I met my ex-husband in a bookstore. As it turns out, literacy is not a good indicator of relationship success.
posted by theora55 at 4:27 PM on September 1, 2008

your a guy

you're, you're, you're dammit.

The Internet has made me stupid.
posted by rodgerd at 4:38 PM on September 1, 2008

Wow, I'd be totally hosed with any of you people. The only things I've read in the last year are random websites and books on quantum mechanics, nature, and various outdoor activities. Oh, and some trashy science fiction.

I think a more healthy attitude to have about dating and recreational activities is only to consider them plusses - for example, if someone I want to date is an amateur astronomer, it's a huge plus. But not being one won't count you out, either.

I'm guessing most of the book-selective people don't care so much about books, they're really judging people based on their philosophies - which seems like a much better criterion.
posted by Mitrovarr at 4:57 PM on September 1, 2008

Wow, I'd be totally hosed with any of you people.

Hey, I didn't say I didn't count non-fiction as reading. Most of my reading is just that...
posted by rodgerd at 4:58 PM on September 1, 2008

Given the kind of reading my research entails, I'd be absolutely thrilled to hear that a prospective SO had never, ever touched a novel by Emily Sarah Holt, Grace Kennedy, or G. E. Sargent. Two of us in the same room would probably cause a rift in the space-time continuum.

More seriously, I find the "wouldn't-be-caught-dead-with-pop-culture-novels" attitude way more offputting than the sight of someone absorbed in the latest Barbara Hambly, or something. People who enjoy different kinds of literature (or other cultural forms) for different reasons are ultimately more fun to be around, I think, than people who are afraid* to be caught alive (let alone dead) with something that isn't High Culture.

*--By which I don't mean "has no taste for pop genre X," but rather "is petrified that someone, somewhere will know that he has even dared to think about developing a taste for pop genre X."
posted by thomas j wise at 5:03 PM on September 1, 2008 [2 favorites]

Generichuman, I suppose that I am totally lame because I think Freddie Mercury is the cooler one on "Under Pressure."
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 5:21 PM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

The most important romantic relationships I had during my teens and early twenties centered on spelunking hand-in-hand through used bookstores looking for copies of rare and out-of-print Harlan Ellison books.

Oh my god! Palmcorder? Palmcorder Yajna? How the hell have you been? It's been years, you haven't changed a bit. I thought of you last time I moved, packing all those copies of Dangerous Visions into a box...I couldn't remember why we ever broke up...Oh, hey, who's this - oh, wow, you're married. Married. Funny, I thought you said...oh, no, nevermind. My mistake. You..you take care now. Good to see you.
posted by donnagirl at 5:37 PM on September 1, 2008

Manhattan dating is a highly competitive, ruthlessly selective sport
>Right, because in the rest of the city/country/world dating is not competitive or selective at all.

If the article is anything to go by, I'd reckon the flakey:not-insufferable ratio is hyuuuuuuge compared to everywhere else.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 5:40 PM on September 1, 2008

I don't understand why Dan Brown would be a dealbreaker.

A lot of people think it's all true and that he uncovered all these conspiracies and only made it a novel because the Catholic Church made him or something ridiculous like that. Also it was sexist and racist, imho. And it just sucked. Angels and Demons was arguably even worse.

See, I'm getting all worked up already.
posted by fshgrl at 5:52 PM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

It seems like musical taste (i.e. the High Fidelity motif) is a much more important factor than literary preferences.

After all, you don't read Dan Brown or Danielle Steel at the top of your lungs. Try living with a Celine Dion fan.

Also, I agree. Freddy Mercury was way cooler than David Bowie. (And Palmcorder Yajna is my favorite song off We All Shall Be Healed.)

I like Thomas Pynchon, Don DeLillo, Lorrie Moore, and Raymond Carver. My wife mostly reads non-fiction and historical novels that I can't stand (Power of One

“life-changing experiences” are a “tedious conversational topic at best.”

Well. Fuck you too, Judy Heiblum. That article sucked.
posted by mrgrimm at 6:12 PM on September 1, 2008

I once dated someone who raved about a voracious appetite for books on our first date. Later I discovered an entire bookshelf in the bedroom that displayed around 50 nearly identical James Patterson volumes and nothing else. We never really hit it off.
posted by not applicable at 6:18 PM on September 1, 2008

For an even greater layer of irony, the illustration that they used in that article is also used on Stuff White People Like for the entry White Problems: Poorly Read Partners.
posted by supercrayon at 7:02 PM on September 1, 2008

Gotta chime in here with one point: Bowie in many many areas might have been cooler than Mercury, but just LISTEN to the song, man! Unless you are a hardcore Bowie fan, you will immediately hear that Mercury sings every phrase perfectly modulated, cognizant of the dynamics, and smack dead center in the middle of the fucking note while Bowie (bless 'im) blurts out his phrases with his signature edge-of-hysteria vocal delivery reminiscent of a flustered Albin from La Cage Aux Folles. Considering the TITLE of the song, Mercury emerges as the winner, smooth as glass.
posted by Jezebella at 8:31 PM on September 1, 2008

FREDDY MERCURY AND DAVID BOWIE ARE EQUALLY COOL.

Also, I have pretty much zero interest in anyone actually sharing my tastes. I'm fine with the idea that I like what I like and that only occasionally might someone agree with me. Then again, what do I know - my true love might be skipping around somewhere with a Thomas Ligotti chapbook. I very seriously doubt that that's really the main requirement, though.

There's no dispute in matters of taste - incuriousness is the real deal breaker. That, and a lack of Gremlins 2 appreciation.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:29 PM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

Thomas Ligotti chapbook
God, can you imagine! The Horror!


remind me again...
posted by From Bklyn at 12:03 AM on September 2, 2008

I really wish I could get over my instant disrespect for (the literary tastes of) anybody with Paolo Coelho on their list of favourite authors, because that seems to rule out at least 80% of women.

There's just something about that simple dichotomy of choice between following your passions to live a vivid & exciting life v being a soulless drone, that seems like a remarkably immature & disingenuous model for the actual choices we make in the real world...
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:27 AM on September 2, 2008

When I first visited 'moonMan's apartment back in the day, I went to peruse his bookshelf and declared "I'm judging you now."

Me: Artist. Lots of art books (monographs, criticism) lying around. Big fan of the Beats, magical realism, and reading about death.

Him: Shelves upon shelves of math books. Math books whose *titles* I don't understand. (Picking one at random for example: Axiomatic Set Theory). He reads some fiction and really loves Oscar Wilde.

Also, our musical tastes overlap not at all. I like old sad-bastard music. He likes heavy metal. We can agree on Elvis.

And yet, this relationship is healthier and more functional than that with my previous partner whose preferences overlapped much more significantly with my own.

I can (and do) live with someone who earnestly loves Hannah Montana, but I have to admit, books are a much more serious matter than music. Math books I can't understand are one thing, but I could never, ever live with someone who cited his/her favorite author as Dan Brown, Stephen King, Nora Roberts, or J.K. Rowling. Reading books by these authors and enjoying them are totally fine and cool, but to have that be your idea of the pinnacle of literature... well, you and I are just not meant to be.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 2:58 AM on September 2, 2008

My wife and I were friends, just friends, in college, but around senior year she switched majors from Chemistry to Literature. She had to catch up fast to graduate, which meant taking a theory course and doing a lot of new reading. One day we had a great conversation about Foucault and Victorian autobiographies, and I asked her out to dinner, just the two of us. It was so unexpected that she ended up bringing a couple of friends along with her to that first date. That was nine years ago; we were finally married last month.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:06 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

When people ask me what my favorite book is I always say it's Who Moved My Cheese, just to gauge their reaction.
posted by Ritchie at 7:01 AM on September 2, 2008

Marco Roth, an editor at the magazine n+1, said: “.... It’s part of the romantic tragedy of our age that our partners must be seen as compatible on every level.”

How true
posted by caddis at 7:34 AM on September 2, 2008

I can't imagine being serious with anyone who doesn't read, and I can't imagine much in the way of literary dealbreakers. Taste is different and that's a good thing. The only real stoppers for me would be an obsession with Ayn Rynd, or any of those dreadful Left Behind type books.

My partner and I have taste that overlaps in only a few areas (Terry Pratchett and hard SF) and in most other literary areas we're quite different. She reads murder mysteries, Dean Koontz and Stephen King, I find the mysteries boring and the horror writers not at all to my taste. I like the occasional bit of Swords and Sorcery trash which she finds to be tedious at best.

I think it'd be incredibly boring (if not downright creepy) to be with someone who had taste that matched mine in every particular.

Ritchie My reaction would be "oh, how.... interesting.... I-have-to-go-now-bye!" Not literary snobbery, just the instinctive fear of a computer geek to something that cult of management. It'd be like walking into someone's home and seeing motivational posters on the wall. Sudden visceral terror.
posted by sotonohito at 7:59 AM on September 2, 2008

Annie Hall: Now, look, all the books on death and dying are yours and all the poetry books are mine.
posted by Ber at 8:31 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

"that to me are to books what, say, Justin Timberlake is to music. It's not even about literary snobbery"

It's about music snobbery, too. JT not so bad. Man cannot live on foie gras alone - he has to have the occasional Twinkie or bag of hula hoops too. It's about a balanced diet for the brain, the heart, the part of you that occasionally just doesn't want to think. That's what library tickets are for.

My main literary dealbreaker is if a person has no books in his house at all. That scares me.

Ho yeah. My sister doesn't have any. I've also known people who read only non-fiction, and while they were good people, I would never have wanted to date them. Both myself and my boyfriend read a fairly obscure book independently of each other and long before meeting, and while we have different interests in reading, it resonated well with both of us.
posted by mippy at 8:39 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

If there existed a more hackneyed, achingly obvious method of telegraphing one’s education, literary standards and general intelligence, I couldn’t imagine it.

Fake people see artifice everywhere.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:23 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

People do have books they read to be seen reading, though. Which made me a little embarrassed when I was *actually reading* Ulysses and The Age of Reason on the bus to work.
posted by mippy at 1:31 PM on September 2, 2008

...or because, you know, they're actually good*.

* does not apply to Sartre - a talentless hack relentlessly trying to squeeze his philosophy into cardboard characters. if he were around today, he'd probably just set up a powerpoint presentation instead.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:15 PM on September 2, 2008

My wife is (mostly) Nabokov and Dinesen et al, while I'm (mostly) sci-fi and detective stories. She claims to like me.
posted by patrick rhett at 3:34 PM on September 2, 2008

Referring to anything as postmodern.

Not understanding what postmodern means.
posted by cmoj at 4:03 PM on September 2, 2008

I would suggest that such pickiness described is not indicitive of a ruthless sport at all, but rather of superabundance. Real ruthlessness comes when, say, your a guy who wants to meet a woman in China and you're facing the fact that 10% of you will never have a chance if you all insist on monogamy; or the women trying to get married in inter-war New Zealand, when nearly a tenth of the men had died in the Great War and the after-effects.

What the author is describing is not competitiveness; it is the kind of decadence bought on by a glut. You think a woman in 1920 New Zealand worried about whether a man had the right books on his shelf? She worried about meeting one in the first place, and whether she could live with his trench-induced nightmares and drinking.

But surely that's the point? More people competing for limited affections? I can see you'd have to be ruthless on yourself if you had fewer choices, but if you had an abundance then it would be the reverse, you'd have to be ruthless on potential partners. Of course the author is describing "competitiveness", that's what makes it decadent, it's the narcissism of small differences by proxy, instead of so and so making me special, so and so makes them the perfect(er) type for me (thereby sustaining my specialness).
posted by doobiedoo at 6:05 PM on September 2, 2008

I had a yard sale in which I was selling a few old books. One woman bought three of them because "I have a friend who reads." I kept wondering where the rest of that sentence went.

So, yeah, reads is about as much as I would require. My husband reads mostly non-fiction, and I prefer novels. That means he generally knows more than me.
posted by threeturtles at 9:19 AM on September 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

Gucky: "The best thing about being in a long term relationship must be the fact that I can read Glamorama or the latest Terry Pratchett on BART without worrying about what it says to potential suitors - because what I want in a mate and what I want in a novel are two different things entirely."

Yeah, someone who chose her nickname from an obscure German sci-fi book series would say that... ;)

That aside, I really don't think you can judge someone by their taste in books. I own many books which I've read once or twice but wouldn't consider typical reading for me: China Mieville, John Brunner, Robert Heinlein.
There are books that significantly influenced me and that - I guess - would say something about me (what kind of humor I like, what philosophical or political concepts I've come into contact with), but again, I wouldn't say they define me in a way that makes definitive rejection or attraction an easy choice: Bill Bryson, Stephen Fry, Alfred Bester, Robert Anton Wilson, P.G. Wodehouse, G.K. Chesterton.
And there are authors whose books I read for the fun of it, and I really couldn't care less if they're not great literature: they're entertaining, which is the main reason why I read books; I could lie and pretend I never read a Stephen King novel or a collection of Dave Barry columns, but why? Why should I hide these books because a potential date might see me with them?
Judging people by the books they read seems to me very superficial; I'd say (as has ben mentioned upthread) judging them by what they get out of the books is a much more sure-fire way of identifying incompatibilities, but that requires a deeper connection than "I saw him / her holding that book".

Although I'll admit that there exist certain books that would make me... curious about their readers, should I chance upon a good-looking female holding them; but that would be because they themselves are so obscure or eclectic that anyone going through the trouble of acquiring them must needs be a person of interesting, err, interests: books like Shambleau by C.L. Moore or In other Words by C.J. Moore, anything by Harry Stephen Keeler or Cordwainer Smith...
posted by PontifexPrimus at 2:04 PM on September 3, 2008

PontifexPrimus: I agree with what you wrote, but maybe not with the conclusions.

I'd agree that judging somebody by a single book is just silly, as you have no idea why they're reading it.

On that point, the skeleton in my closet is Alien v Predator - the novel, bought because it was 50c & because I was forced to watch the movie en route to Mexico, and then again three or four times on Mexican buses, and I consider it the most laughably woeful movie in history. Then I saw that there was a spinoff novel, and I just had to know if that was even more pathetic.

But to return from that digression, a single book reveals little, but somebody's entire library should give a reasonable indication of the person and their tastes. To give an extreme example, I once met a girl who had four or five wardrobe-sized bookshelves filled with nothing but books on astrology. Instant veto, no second thoughts.

Having said that, it should be less about 'judging' than about interpreting or forming a general impression of what the person might be like. Ideally, I'd personally like (or expect) to see at least a handful of canonical books, then preferably a whole bunch of stuff that I've heard of but not read, plus a whole bunch of stuff I haven't even heard of. Curiosity & diversity trump book-for-book likeness any day, but I'm also enough of a literature snob to insist on some canonical stuff being there, as a base level of indication that they don't have their head completely around some godforsaken s-bend.

(ps- on that last point, "I can't believe he hadn't even heard of Pushkin!" is something I could imagine myself saying. The same would go for, say, Joyce, Kafka, Proust, Dostoyevski, Hemingway etc. I wouldn't care much if somebody hadn't read them, but what rock would you have to have spent your entire life under not to have freaking *heard* of somebody like Pushkin, seriously? He's not exactly obscure!)
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:26 PM on September 3, 2008

I'm starting to tire of people who list The Catcher in the Rye as a favorite book. If you're going to list a favorite book from school, at least go with something like The Stranger, or The House on Mango Street. Sorry, I guess Salinger's book never really appealed to me.
posted by ric2046 at 6:10 PM on September 3, 2008

idunno, it's an ok depiction of what it's like to be a nauseating adolescent, so it passes muster for observational characterisation. it helps a lot if you read it as satire; in fact, it's quite hilarious.

i'm more concerned when people apparently *identify* with Holden Caulfield, or think that he has anything profound or relevant to say.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:00 PM on September 3, 2008

Although I'll admit that there exist certain books that would make me... curious about their readers, should I chance upon a good-looking female holding them; but that would be because they themselves are so obscure or eclectic that anyone going through the trouble of acquiring them must needs be a person of interesting, err, interests: books like Shambleau by C.L. Moore or In other Words by C.J. Moore, anything by Harry Stephen Keeler or Cordwainer Smith...

Pontifex-- I've got three out of four within arm's reach of where I'm sitting now. I feel so in-the-know.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 7:31 PM on September 3, 2008

palmcorder_yajna: "Pontifex-- I've got three out of four within arm's reach of where I'm sitting now. I feel so in-the-know."

I knew there had to be someone else out there! ;)

@UbuRoivas: Good points - I hadn't thought of deciding based on one's whole library; the article and most of the comments here seemed to focus on a single book. I have several books on "occult" or "New Age" topics in my collection, not because of a belief in the healing powers of stones or the future-telling abilities of cards, but because the superstitions of some people fascinate me. There is a lot of interesting history out there that you can only understand if you know the mindset, and I like to explore such odd, but typically human behaviorisms; especially when they overlap with psychological effects (the Tarot or I Ging are prime examples).
posted by PontifexPrimus at 2:23 AM on September 4, 2008

I hear you there, and would be lying if I pretended I didn't have books on feng shui, tarot, i ching, gnosticism, sufism, and so on (not that they are the same thing, naturally). But I have to admit my tastes there are more for the traditions that have a ton of history & scholarship behind them, not something that some hippy plucked out of their ass, like "The Crystal Rainbow Unicorn Path for Finding Your Astral Spirit Guide through the Power of Cosmic Crystal Mantra Reiki Yoga Enneagrams". I guess the "new age" books I like are also the ones that take a bit of a distanced, academic approach, explaining the concepts & intellectual structures, instead of breathlessly promising the world for nothing.

The comment before about the library of astrology was really about the fact that she had books on *nothing* else, but hundreds on something that I'd find interesting as a passing dilettantish thing, but far from all-consuming. I'd feel the same way, say, about a cyclist who had nothing but cycling books, DVDs, artworks, clothing etc, or any other interest taken to the point of hyper-obsession.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:05 AM on September 4, 2008