It's Not You, It's Your Books

I would not date a girl that listed James Patterson as a favorite author.

I once passed on a second date with a girl that said Dean Koontz was her favorite.

It wouldn't have worked out. I don't mind that it was a genre author, but fucking Koontz?

Ayn Rand.

Last week, I was in this chick's bedroom (not sexual, just hanging out while her roommate and my friend used the bathroom) and I thought the girl was attractive and funny. And then I glanced over at her desk and saw a copy of the The Secret. I don't think I could have been turned off any faster if she had pulled down her pants and unfurled a penis.

Edit: BTW, great find, Rath. Thanks for sharing.

I dunno - don't put it past me...

You fucking prose hipsters.

Proud of it.

Wait, is that picture in the article trying to say that it's totally unhip to like Albert Camus, or to carry his most well known work in your back pocket like an asshole?

This kind of a thing makes for a good excuse for not getting any. You're just not meeting girls with the right bookshelves!

Just be happy that the person actually reads, or at least that her shelf isn't filled with self-help nonsense.

I agree with what Augusten Burroughs said in the article: finding someone who reads at all is a big plus. So many people proudly trumpet their lack of interest in all things literary. All the people I've dated have either been non-readers or had generally good taste in books. Now, movies on the other hand...

From the article:

From what I see at work and in the subway, it would seem that women do read more than men. Although, it would seem they read a lot more crap like Nora Roberts instead of good literature.

FYP. Goldberg was right.

A real man would have recognized an easy target.

All my serious relationships were with avid readers, but I've fucked a few women who didn't read much, if at all. My dick doesn't care if she can appreciate Ulysses.

"The Universe has granted your wishes, baby."

Why does the content of this thread not surprise me? Though the article itself is interesting, the people it discusses are hopelessly shallow. If seeing a copy of Shopgirl on someone's bookshelf (or, yes, even The Secret) is enough to get you to give up on a girl, you ought to tell her so she can thank you for not wasting her time.

I have to agree with LD here. So what if a girl enjoys reading some mediocre books? So long as it's not a reflection of her character and/or intellect, who cares? There's nothing wrong with reading pulpy stuff from time to time.

I've got a shelf filled with Tom Clancy novels on my bookcase -- they're not great literature, but fun books that I've enjoyed over the years. If a girl was over at my house, saw that, and thought "Oh my God, what a moron, I'm out of here," to hell with her. And I wouldn't let my shelf full of Cormac McCarthy novels hit her in the ass on the way out.

I think "The Secret" is almost invariably a reflection of character/intellect. It's a tip off that you're probably going to hear that person talk seriously about their horoscope at some point in the future.

See, I disagree. Not that that's not true of a lot of women who have read that book (and it may well be), but certainly not everyone.

What if it's a reflection of the intellect of the friend or relative who gave it to her? Or of the co-workers who won't shut the fuck up about it, leading her to accept a loaned copy just so she can get a rest from the subject? What if you're making a lot of stupid assumptions about someone based on one book without even talking to them about it?

You must have very small shelves.

The thing is, I wonder if anyone actually means what they're saying here. When you can keep an emotionless distance from the situation, it's easy to say "*Scoff* Jodi Picoult? Looks like I know who's not getting any of this tonight!". But, at the end of a night of drinking during which you've discovered that you both love Toto's Africa, she has a real passion for public service, understands the principles behind interior design, and ok, loves The Notebook...you're going to bail? That's self-defense disguised as intellectual snobbery.

Hell, even if someone's tastes are totally generic but they're a good person who's fun to be around...I don't get letting the former overwhelm the latter. Keep in mind that the average reader of this site has COMIC BOOKS on their bookshelf and treasures their copy of Sleepaway Camp.

Sure, if the person reacts violently against your intellectualism, that's a serious problem. But, to assume that taste in literature or movies speaks to the intrinsic qualities of a person is a big damn leap.

Well, I wouldn't storm out of the house in protest, but it would put me on high alert. If there were some Michael Chabon books lying next to it, I'd hope that it was there for one of the reasons you've cited. If it's next to a Joel Osteen book, then I'm probably right.

EDIT: I should note that I don't feel this way about Jodi Picoult, Dean Koontz or, hell, trashy romance. As The LD rightfully points out, a woman could look at my bookshelf and see "The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe" sitting next to my copy of "Infinite Jest." But "The Secret" holds a special place of hate in my heart.

Not to mention people who just might be curious to see what all the hubbub's about.

Yes, but the Chabon book might be there for those very same reasons. That's sort of the point.

Or you could just, you know, ask for the reason she possesses the book. Might even start a discussion. And even turn out to be an unsuspected surprise.
Or you could just act like a shallow dick.

Yeah, but if she says she loves "The Secret" and wrote a check to herself from the Bank of the Universe, then I'm going to have to be a shallow dick to her face, instead of just quietly judging her.

Nice bookshelves (ayo!) are, at least to me, only ever able to be a plus. If she's got books, great...if they're cool books I dig, even better. But I don't see them ever being a straight up detractor from my interest in her. It would only be a minus if she has 100 copies of Mein Kampf or a bookshelf full of vampire eroticism or something so strange that it would be impossible not to put judgments on her.

But some of the authors mentioned in here: what's wrong with a girl reading Picoult, or Shopgirl?

What would be shallow about making a point straight to someone compared to make baseless assumptions and keep quiet? Because you could actually proof that you are not shallow by making a point.
ETA: And I don´t even know about "The Secret". Never heard of it, so maybe I am missing something here.

I should also note that I approached this article more from the aspect of social networking sites, where you're actively listing your favorite books. It is okay if I choose not to interact with someone who says their favorite book is "The Secret," or is that also being a shallow dick?

I would definitely say that is is leaning towards shallow to judge a book by its cover, so to say (I am sorry....).

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/03/05/the_secret/

You know, that's an interesting question. I'm not sure where the article is coming from regarding social networking. Using Facebook or Myspace as a dating tool (for strangers, at least) is creepy enough to begin with that if you're doing it, I don't think you need to worry about being the person doing the screening. (Not suggesting you're doing it, just speaking hypothetically)

Whereas, if you're on Match or something...I don't know about that one. I mean, by paying to be on a site like that, I think you're effectively saying that, to some degree, your past dating practices aren't working so well. So, I wouldn't say you're totally in the wrong to ignore someone who lists "The Secret", but I'd say that it couldn't hurt to try some social interaction with someone who lists it but seems otherwise interesting. But, you're right...finding someone whose tastes are consistent with yours does seem to be the safer bet. The question becomes one of line-drawing at that point - just how similar do you want someone to be?

Considering I find it difficult to throw away old books, I still have a bunch of crap that I read back in grade school on my shelves. Not wanting someone to prejudge me for my Piers Anthony books but making assumptions about their shelves would be just a bit hypocritical.

There is definitely an element of that at play as well. I mean, hell...I know there are a few Clive Cussler novels left on my bookshelf. I knew they were stupid when I was 15, but I loved them anyways.

Off-topic: why is dating via MySpace and Facebook creepy, but via Match not? With social networking sites, you can see that your potential date has friends (or not) and from the visible interactions with them on the site extrapolate information that people hide/omit on dating sites.

And none of us would judge you for a few Clive Cussler books, LD. The stuff that Matt M. is talking about is different. If you had a mix of stuff, then there's not enough information to make a judgment. If you had nothing but Clive Cussler, or a well-worn copy of "The Secret," that probably is enough information to make a judgment. Which can still be revised in the light of other things.

You know, I think I may be projecting my own values onto others, but I'll go ahead an explain anyways. Like a lot of things, it comes down to intent.

When you're on Match, everyone that's on there is there for the express purpose of meeting someone. So, when you write a stranger and say "hey, you're cute!", they're not only expecting it, they're outright hoping for it. From what I've heard from my female friends who have used Match, the service is actually plenty creepy, and occasionally frightening, but that's a little beside the point.

By contrast, most people who use Facebook/Myspace don't intend to use it to meet strangers to date. They do it to keep up with friends, learn something about people they just met, etc. So, if I go digging through stranger's profiles and find someone who I want to write and say "Hey, you're cute!", I'm not sure if that's welcome. In all likelihood, I can't even seen their profile, so i have no idea what they're after. There's no agreement there that they're hoping to meet someone.

That's a very condensed version, sorry if it doesn't make sense. Also, I've always been very self-conscious about intruding on someone's privacy, so I think I assume that people will take more offense (or, be more creeped out) by a stranger contacting them with a compliment than is the reality of the situation.

Seconded.

I think he meant that the idea of clicking around strangers' profiles on facebook for dating purposes is kind of creepy in the sense that it's a little like cyber-stalking -- the people you're checking out might have zero interest in using the site as a dating tool. On Match, everyone's there for dating purposes, so intentions are clear.

I may be off, but that's how I interpreted it.

ETA: LD and I simul-posted. Looks like I wasn't off.

Most of the networking sites have an option to say what you're "looking for," and dating is one of the choices.

Slightly embarrassing confessional disclaimer: I met my wife on Friendster.* And after first noticing that she was hot, I saw that she listed Kavalier and Clay as one of her favorite books. And, for the record, I didn't message her with "Hey, you're cute."

*Edit: actually, it turned out that we had met socially through a mutual friend prior to that, but neither of us realized it when we started emailing.

I see what you're saying there, but I still don't know that I'm on board with it. The problem I have here is that you're taking one discrete data point and extrapolating in directions that aren't warranted.

I mean, for all the criticisms levied at The Secret, the fundamental message is "think positive and good things will happen", right? Ok, let's stick with that for a minute, and drop all the other trappings of the book that are clearly crap. It's not beyond the boundaries of reason that a completely intelligent, but shy person could use a book like that to improve their self-confidence. That's a good thing. Yeah, it might not be the means we approve of for improving oneself, but the end result is great. In fact, it might be the reason this girl was able to strike up a conversation with you in the first place. Hell, it could give her the confidence to speak her opinions on the world around her for the first time. By bailing on her, rather than giving her a chance, you might be dropping someone right at the moment when she's poised to become most interesting.

The obvious rejoinder is that in my experience, I've met people I end up dating not on the rare occasion when I've gone to a bar or out dancing hoping to meet someone, but in an explicitly non-dating oriented environment where I or the other person is alone or with friends just doing normal stuff.

Reduce it down to: Match is da club and Myspace/Facebook is the grocery store. More people meet at the grocery store than da club.

Right, but you can't see that unless you can see their profile.

Seriously, that's awesome. My general feeling of "that's weird" can definitely break down in the face of specific examples.

That's absolutely my experience in the real world, but not how i see the online world.

Let me throw this out there, just to see how idiosyncratic I am: I don't make friend requests to people I don't know, nor do I accept them from those same people. Is that weird?

I think I said earlier that facebook/myspace can be a great dating tool once you've met someone, since it's full of potential topics for conversation, etc.,etc. But, the way I use the sites pretty much eliminates any comparison to meeting a girl at B&N.

Well, people have the option of making their profile private if they don't want strangers looking.

Just to address this part of your post, I don't accept/friend people on facebook that I don't know. I'm on facebook to goof off, not to find dates. But I guess that's why I didn't click the little box that says "Looking For: dating"

I can see the profile of anyone in my network (my school) except those who have opted out and only want their friends to see. This is the way it should be, imo.