Don't Believe it's Hype

A couple years ago while enjoying one of the Harry Potter novels at Bertonlino's Espresso Bar, a lady condescended to submit her opinion to me that I was only reading the book because of all the hype. And then again this week a coworker incredulously expressed, "Not you too" when she saw me going to break with the first volume of the Twilight series, and when I asked her to clarify her objection to my reading selection it boiled down to all the accompanying hype. In neither case had either lady read the books they were denigrating.

So here's my point and it will only take a moment as I'm not feeling particularly diatribal or haranguish. Hype may cause everyone to listen to the same music or to watch the same TV show, but when it comes to everyone reading the same books... hype can't do that so easily and I'll tell you why. It takes five minutes to listen to a song. It takes less than an hour to watch a TV episode. But when it comes to reading a book it takes about twenty hours. If you break that up into 45 minutes sessions with three sessions every two days... well it would take roughly three weeks to read a book unless you were engrossed in a "page-turner" in which case you could finish it off much sooner. But still the far greater investment of time should be obvious. Add to that the disinclination of many people to read anything at all. Maybe they're too busy or maybe too distracted or maybe too lazy, but whatever the reason, you don't have to look far before you find someone who will admit unequivocally they do not read.

In order for a book to be widely circulated and widely read, the author has to produce something irresistible. It may not be on par with Faulkner or Joyce for literary genius (thank God), but they can tell a story in such a way that the overwhelming majority of readers will be undeniably riveted. Otherwise all the marketing and hoopla and gushing critical reviews in the world will provoke about as much attention as you pay to your neighborhood philharmonic that you didn't even know exists. When it comes to successful fiction, hype is not enough.

Martyrdom in the Garden of Eden

My scars have the prettiest names

The softest smiles

The sweetest lilting laughter

The loveliest dreams

Though broken and shattered

The Abomination of Nonconformity

I'm tired of the presupposition that I must be unhappy because I'm not in a relationship. I was talking to a female friend who's excited about her wedding coming up next year and I told her she's lucky to have someone with whom she can be happy because in general I don't think people really belong in relationships. Is that a crazy thing to say? Humor me for a moment and see how many couples you can think of off the top of your head whose relationships you can actually admire. I can think of about four. On the other hand I notice dozens of people cheating on each other, lying to each other, and otherwise attempting to project an impression upon the world of contentedness that I find tragically dubious. I've spent most of my life being single and yes I am always keeping an eye out for a lady that would make a good companion for me, but I seriously appreciate that I'm probably happier alone than most people who have someone. Today I spent about 19 minutes on the phone with a friend, but other than that I was completely free by which I mean that no one who knows me had any idea where I was or what I was doing... and very likely tomorrow will be the same. It may sound terrifying to be so isolated, but sometimes it's preferrable to checking in with a significant other hundreds of times each week especially the two constituents of the couple are no longer mutually fascinated.

And then I think, okay... but if two people really love each other... they would enjoy that constant link between each other of knowing what the other is doing at any given moment even with miles between them. But again... I'm not so sure I can suspend my skepticism in this matter. Of course infatuated lovers can't get enough of each other, but that stage doesn't last forever. Except for a very few lucky star-crossed sweethearts that love each other effortlessly for their whole lives. Those are so rare. I'd sure love to follow their example, but I just don't believe wishing for that kind of magic makes it come to fruition.

First how am I going to find a girl that I find irresistible when my standards are so insanely unrealistic. Briefly, she needs to be gorgeous and genius and creative and hilarious and kind and passionate about me. So how often do I run into someone like that? Okay, honestly? Never. I mean I'm probably always going to be in love with about four girls from past. I'll always be enchanted with them, but aside from them having almost completely forgotten about ever having known me... they really didn't have the first idea of what true love is about.

And secondly... even if I found her... that doesn't automatically transform me into the kind of person that can handle a relationship. I'm morose and lazy and jaded and goofy and exhausting. And I have an utterly dismal history when it comes to not being single.

But that's kind of my point. I'm probably not relationship material, but that's okay because I'm not in a relationship. I only wish more people would experiment with being single so that it could be perceived as a more acceptable approach to life instead of an unfortunate destiny to be avoideed at any expense. Why should miserable victims of societal conformity feel sorry for me because I'm alone?