I will post more on this later, but I was reading some dumb Village Voice article in which the author, recounting a conversation with a boyfriend who wanted her to be something she wasn't, has this inward moment of befuddlement:
I was devastated. Couldn't he see I was into the same things he was—Dostoevsky, early '90s shoegazer music and Indian food?
Now that we have the internet to prominently display our interests on social networking pages, presumably this isn't a problem any more. Although, my blogger profile lists my interests as: "iced coffee." Talya has "coffee", "snacks" and "showers". Well, that's almost as bad as Dostoievski (yeah you can spell it however you want) qua "interest."
In that Village Voice list, erhaps nothing is as weak as "Indian food" as an interest. What does that mean, that someone likes to cook Indian food? go out to Indian restaraunts? discuss Indian food? Even worse: "I was into the same things he was." Honey, EVERYONE loves samosas. This is not a bonding agent.
Recently I was half-jokingly telling someone how easy it would be to date me because I have such varied interests: Italian cinema, Victorian novels, French critical theory, German philosophy, Hollywood westerns, Jamaican reggae, Finnish hardcore, etc.
Now, I said this was "half-jokingly," and I hope you see why, but let's first say why I wasn't joking. 1) Those are interests. 2) My mom and her siblings, or my roommates, or most random people, don't have interests like this. 3) I think it's a good list. And I have Top 10 lists for each one.
More apparently, though, I was joking. Here's why:
1) Whether it is easy to date me is up for debate, but certainly "He has so many interests!" is far from being either the final word, or even necessarily positive.
2) The list is in a joke format: [Country/time period]--[genre].
3) In a way, it's really all the SAME interest to someone who doesn't care. Like, when I lived in Austin, no matter WHAT band shirt I was wearing, d-bags would be all, "Oh you like liiiive music? You must love livin' in Austin." [Which is kind of the Austin take on everything: "You like XXXX? You must love livin' in Austin."] So, my infinitely discriminating taste in various genres is ultimately irrelevant to anyone who doesn't have that same interest. Or, say: I love French New Wave films, but I would never offer that up as saying anything about myself. Because that is moronic. What would it say about me? That I am a cinephile? A francophile? A fan of classic noirs? A fan of Jerry Lewis films? An avid reader of Cahiers du Cinema?
4) As you can see, I have no idea what interests are, or why they might matter to someone else.
I'll get back to this topic in a bit (do I ever leave it) but I want to say, since we don't live in a romantic comedy, we need better shit than Dostoievski, indian food, and Pavement to qualify as an interesting person. (And I like Dostoevski and Indian food more than most things).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Victorian novels go mostly unread, no one likes Hollywood westerns, and Jamaican reggae is virtually unknown. If only it weren't that way, Dickens might then be regarded as a great author; John Wayne wouldn't have died pennyless; and people could actually make money selling Ken Boothe records. Now if only you could get some of the other Columbia grad students into Italian cinema, French critical theory, and German philosophy.
(I say ride that Finnish hardcore bit for all it's worth.)
Most of that comment seems untrue. Then again, I live in New York.
I feel like all of those interests are fairly commonplace, actually. I was not trying to be "obscure" (current usage).
as an information professional, i googled that quote, which made the whole thing even weirder since it's from an article about a woman complaining about being the victim of men with an asian fetish. in context, it's like "no! don't just love me because i'm asian! love me because of these three incredibly superficial commonalities!" hmm.
what do you mean current usage?
"obscure" via OED
b. Of a thing: inconspicuous, undistinguished, unnoticed, little-known.
1555 R. EDEN tr. Peter Martyr of Angleria Decades of Newe Worlde f. 312, Great thynges proceade and increase of smaul and obscure begynnynges. 1596 J. DALRYMPLE tr. J. Leslie Hist. Scotl. (1888) I. 16 Ane Academie nocht obscure nathir infrequent. 1601 J. CHAMBERLAIN Let. 13 Aug. (1939) I. 129 Slaine there with a shot in an obscure scarmouch. 1664 H. POWER Exper. Philos. I. 60 If you take Nature at the rise..in her rudimental and obscure beginnings. 1715 D. DEFOE Family Instructor I. Introd. 6 The Scene of this little Action is not laid very remote, or the Circumstance obscure. 1766 O. GOLDSMITH Vicar of Wakefield I. iii. 21 We put up for the night at an obscure inn in a village by the way.
Right. That's an adjective, descriptive "of a thing."
But for a person to be "being obscure" by having/naming obscure interests IS a new usage.
[Talya] "in context, it's like "no! don't just love me because i'm asian! love me because of these three incredibly superficial commonalities!" hmm."
To further complicate matters, the writer clearly *doesn't* like "all the same things" as this boy, since she seems NOT to share his "asian fetish."
well she kind of has an indian fetish, apparently.
Post a Comment