I enjoy reading Carolyn Hax for the same reasons that the late Ann Landers always used to be interesting to read as well, they both call it as they see it. Here is one of two columns dated today in The Seattle Times. I posted her column on being your best self before, and like that column, I thought this was a particularly good one as well.
****************************************************************************************
Stop rating-scale dating and seek true connection
Advice columnist Carolyn Hax: The best way to see what people have to offer is to rid yourself of preconceived notions of who you want them to be.
Dear Carolyn
DEAR CAROLYN: I’m an average-looking guy — let’s say a 6 — and after years of dating, I’ve come to the conclusion that I have four options when it comes to women, none of which seems to add up to long-term happiness.
Option 1: Be with a woman who is more attractive than me, but less intelligent or mentally stable, thus trading intellectual connection for beauty.
Option 2: Be with a woman of equal intelligence and attractiveness, but spend my life in boredom once the novelty wears off, and end up like every other married zombie.
Option 3: Be with a woman who is more successful and intelligent, but less attractive than I, and spend my life fighting the temptations of lust (think Bill Clinton).
Option 4: Become the lonely creepy uncle everybody invites to Thanksgiving out of pity.
Is my outlook completely distorted and pessimistic? Or am I just being an entitled moron with an inflated ego? Is there a 5th option (other than becoming rich and famous)? I’d really appreciate your feedback.
— A.
DEAR A.: So if you’re a 6, then you can get a woman with 10 looks only if she’s a minus 4 personality? And a 5 gets stuck with a 5 and they live undead-ly ever after? And wealth and fame buy anyone you want?
This is so cynical my eyebrows frosted. Not that you’re bitter and write people off as heartless, just that you completely omit the heart.
We are not linear, we are not commodities, we are not mere sums of traits, at least not ones that can be measured objectively — and having to say this has me concerned about your ability to hear it.
I can only hope you’ve gotten your view of partnership from “10 Things You’re Doing Wrong on Dates” listicles — or from friends whose views on dating fit into “All [blank] are [blank]!” constructions.
I hope this because these are, like any inadequate education, reversible by anyone willing to ask more of themselves.
Please start by digging into what you want from women. Something to look at and sleep with? Something to take with you to couple-y things? Something to help you reproduce, check the right life boxes, make your home more homey, supplement your income? If you’re nodding at any of these, then never mind and pick whatever option seems least dreadful to you.
But if you’re saying no no no, you want companionship, intimacy, mutual support, then quit “dating” and start paying attention to whose company you prefer above all others. Have you ever known someone you were always happy to see walk into a room, even after, to use your phrase, “the novelty wears off”?
Has that person been a family member, best buddy or group of friends, but never a woman you were dating or wanted to date?
I suspect that’s the real culprit here, that for whatever reason, you see women as a special category of pairing, independent of all other bonds you have, and resulting from a specialized search.
If so, you’re being so unfair to yourself. A love that satisfies is one that combines much of what is good and rewarding in your other relationships into one source, someone who also has that fuller appreciation of you.
If you love that your buddies make you laugh and allow you to be yourself, that your parents inspire you to do your best, that your grandma knows when you need cookies and a hug versus a treatise on this or that, and that you’ve never forgotten your first actual girlfriend because gazing at her got you through algebra, then you just sketched out someone who would fit you. Not a 6, 7, 7 and a 5 who averaged out to an attainable 6.25.
I’m not suggesting you should walk around with this sketch, seeking a woman who looks just like that. On the contrary; the best way to see what people have to offer is to rid yourself of preconceived notions of who you want them to be.
If my suggested sketch is of anyone, it’s a sketch of you — of how you feel, and want to feel, around others. It’s to show you why and where and how you chose the other valuable people in your life, so you can follow similar paths to get to know women. Not date them, get to know them; too often there’s a difference.
You meet friends through shared classes, teams, work or even a shared backyard fence, right? So pick the hobbies and hangouts and community groups that best represent who you are and make yours a regular presence there. If your natural habitat isn’t conducive to meeting women, then adjust your habitat so that it’s still right for you but allows for more circulation.
If you and an unattached woman in this habitat enjoy similar things, cross paths often, cultivate a friendship, outlast any novelty and still seek each other out, then that’s the option not to refuse.
Email Carolyn at tellme@washpost.com and follow her on Facebook at www.facebook.com/carolyn.hax. Find her columns daily at www.seattletimes.com/living
Showing posts with label The Seattle Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Seattle Times. Show all posts
Sunday, February 8, 2015
(Heavenly) British Mysteries on PBS
Couldn't resist sharing this article from The Seattle Times online about two British mystery series on PBS from their book editor Mary Ann Gwinn. The subject is 'Grantchester' and 'Father Brown', two new(er) series that I've been watching and enjoy very much. If you haven't checked them out, I definitely recommend both. The mystery part of Father Brown is not too intricate, it's more the human nature of the characters that and the cast that make it so enjoyable. Father Brown is in a second season already to my understanding, episode 4 of Grathchester airs tonight. The mystery side of Grantchester is stronger, but like Father Brown, also what makes it so good is the cast and the human side of the story. And of course for both, it's the beautiful English countryside and the always impeccable production values for recreating the past that makes them so fun to watch!
***************************************************************************************************
Mary Ann Gwinn, Seattle Times Book Editor
You may be forgiven if you are wondering why, in our trending-secular world, there are currently, not one, but TWO priests solving crimes on PBS, part of the post-”Downton Abbey” British invasion currently dominating the public TV airwaves.
Those would be Father Brown, Catholic priest, and Canon Sidney Chambers, Anglican clergyman.
I have followed this development with interest because ... yes, I have read all the books. As so often with PBS, first comes the book, then the TV version.
I was introduced to Father Brown years ago by a snobbish Devon bookseller. I had peeked into her bookshop with all the shy ardor of a Henry James debutante. I asked her for reading recommendations.
She looked over her half-moon glasses and down her patrician nose at me, all a-quiver with an American’s delight in being in an ENGLISH BOOKSTORE, and said. “Well (long pause). You might try Father Brown.”
Father Brown is the creation of a brilliant mind, the polymath English author G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936). Chesterton wrote novels, plays, essays, journalism and eventually, the Father Brown series, dozens of books about a crime-solving Catholic priest.
Chesterton was known as the Prince of Paradox for his ability to look at questions from all sides, intellectual and spiritual. Father Brown, while a very deft reasoner, primarily relies on his understanding of the human heart to solve crimes. As he says in “The Blue Cross,” in answer to the question of how a priest could know the criminal mind so well: “Has it never struck you that a man who does next to nothing but hear men’s real sins is not likely to be wholly unaware of human evil?” Good point
.
Sidney Chambers is the direct heir of Father Brown, according to his creator, James Runcie. Runcie is a British novelist and filmmaker steeped in the Anglican faith by virtue of the fact that his father, Robert Runcie, was the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Runcie acknowledges that Sidney is loosely based on his father — Robert Runcie, like Sidney, saw active service in World War II. As for the detective part ... Sidney Chambers is “an Anglican Father Brown, Morse with morals, or Barbara Pym with no clothes on,” he said in a Telegraph interview. (The no-clothes part: Sidney is an enthusiastic heterosexual, passionate about women, particularly the love of his life, Hildegard.) The author called the Grantchester Mysteries, six in all, “a moral history of postwar Britain.”
So, since Runcie has basically acknowledged his debt to Father Brown, what do these holy men have in common?
1. They are priests, preoccupied with problem of evil, and how it can coexist with a beneficent God. As Sidney says in the book “Sidney Chambers and the Problem of Evil,” eulogizing a murdered priest — “If there is a God, why is there evil? If there is not, why is there good?”
2. They both antagonize, then charm, the local police, who eventually turn to them for help in solving crimes. Father Brown has Inspector Sullivan, played in the PBS series by Tom Chambers. Sidney has Inspector Geordie Keating, played by Brit TV series superstar Robson Green, who does his best to tamp down his charismatic good looks in the service of portraying a harried family man, going gray fast and not happy about it.
3. They both have loquacious women assistants, either at the office or at home; Father Brown’s Mrs. McCarthy (Sorcha Cusack) and Sidney’s Mrs. Maguire (Tessa Peake-Jones). These women are Irish, outspoken, and in the case of Sidney’s Mrs. Maguire, quick on the draw with a Bible verse.
Differences? Sidney, as played by James Norton, is a dish — the women fall hard and fast for his chestnut hair and mobile mouth. Father Brown is played by Mark Williams, a comic character actor, and a great one. But since he’s chaste, any fires of attraction are thoroughly banked.
Sidney has a dog. Father Brown has an umbrella.
Bottom line: Both of these series are well worth the investment in time (let’s not forget that mythical English countryside I hope to ascend to when I die). Pure pleasure, with a dose of spirituality and ethics in the side.
As Runcie said in the Telegraph interview:
“My editor once said to me: ‘These are disguised sermons, aren’t they?’ I am not ashamed of that and I am hopeful that the television series, as well as being dramatic, consists of thoughtful and moral meditations on subjects such as loyalty, friendship, deceit, cruelty and generosity ... Hate the sin, but love the sinner ... ”
Mary Ann Gwinn: 206-464-2357 or mgwinn@seattletimes.com. Gwinn appears every Tuesday on TVW's "Well Read," discussing books with host Terry Tazioli (go to tvw.org/shows/well-read for archived episodes). On Twitter @gwinnma.
***************************************************************************************************
Mary Ann Gwinn, Seattle Times Book EditorYou may be forgiven if you are wondering why, in our trending-secular world, there are currently, not one, but TWO priests solving crimes on PBS, part of the post-”Downton Abbey” British invasion currently dominating the public TV airwaves.
Those would be Father Brown, Catholic priest, and Canon Sidney Chambers, Anglican clergyman.
I have followed this development with interest because ... yes, I have read all the books. As so often with PBS, first comes the book, then the TV version.
I was introduced to Father Brown years ago by a snobbish Devon bookseller. I had peeked into her bookshop with all the shy ardor of a Henry James debutante. I asked her for reading recommendations.
She looked over her half-moon glasses and down her patrician nose at me, all a-quiver with an American’s delight in being in an ENGLISH BOOKSTORE, and said. “Well (long pause). You might try Father Brown.”
Father Brown is the creation of a brilliant mind, the polymath English author G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936). Chesterton wrote novels, plays, essays, journalism and eventually, the Father Brown series, dozens of books about a crime-solving Catholic priest.
Chesterton was known as the Prince of Paradox for his ability to look at questions from all sides, intellectual and spiritual. Father Brown, while a very deft reasoner, primarily relies on his understanding of the human heart to solve crimes. As he says in “The Blue Cross,” in answer to the question of how a priest could know the criminal mind so well: “Has it never struck you that a man who does next to nothing but hear men’s real sins is not likely to be wholly unaware of human evil?” Good point
.
Sidney Chambers is the direct heir of Father Brown, according to his creator, James Runcie. Runcie is a British novelist and filmmaker steeped in the Anglican faith by virtue of the fact that his father, Robert Runcie, was the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Runcie acknowledges that Sidney is loosely based on his father — Robert Runcie, like Sidney, saw active service in World War II. As for the detective part ... Sidney Chambers is “an Anglican Father Brown, Morse with morals, or Barbara Pym with no clothes on,” he said in a Telegraph interview. (The no-clothes part: Sidney is an enthusiastic heterosexual, passionate about women, particularly the love of his life, Hildegard.) The author called the Grantchester Mysteries, six in all, “a moral history of postwar Britain.”
So, since Runcie has basically acknowledged his debt to Father Brown, what do these holy men have in common?
1. They are priests, preoccupied with problem of evil, and how it can coexist with a beneficent God. As Sidney says in the book “Sidney Chambers and the Problem of Evil,” eulogizing a murdered priest — “If there is a God, why is there evil? If there is not, why is there good?”
2. They both antagonize, then charm, the local police, who eventually turn to them for help in solving crimes. Father Brown has Inspector Sullivan, played in the PBS series by Tom Chambers. Sidney has Inspector Geordie Keating, played by Brit TV series superstar Robson Green, who does his best to tamp down his charismatic good looks in the service of portraying a harried family man, going gray fast and not happy about it.
3. They both have loquacious women assistants, either at the office or at home; Father Brown’s Mrs. McCarthy (Sorcha Cusack) and Sidney’s Mrs. Maguire (Tessa Peake-Jones). These women are Irish, outspoken, and in the case of Sidney’s Mrs. Maguire, quick on the draw with a Bible verse.
Differences? Sidney, as played by James Norton, is a dish — the women fall hard and fast for his chestnut hair and mobile mouth. Father Brown is played by Mark Williams, a comic character actor, and a great one. But since he’s chaste, any fires of attraction are thoroughly banked.
Sidney has a dog. Father Brown has an umbrella.
Bottom line: Both of these series are well worth the investment in time (let’s not forget that mythical English countryside I hope to ascend to when I die). Pure pleasure, with a dose of spirituality and ethics in the side.
As Runcie said in the Telegraph interview:
“My editor once said to me: ‘These are disguised sermons, aren’t they?’ I am not ashamed of that and I am hopeful that the television series, as well as being dramatic, consists of thoughtful and moral meditations on subjects such as loyalty, friendship, deceit, cruelty and generosity ... Hate the sin, but love the sinner ... ”
Mary Ann Gwinn: 206-464-2357 or mgwinn@seattletimes.com. Gwinn appears every Tuesday on TVW's "Well Read," discussing books with host Terry Tazioli (go to tvw.org/shows/well-read for archived episodes). On Twitter @gwinnma.
Monday, July 21, 2014
Being Your Best Self by Carolyn Hax
After posting the Carolyn Hax column from Saturday, I knew I wanted to dig this one up, because it was another one that I thought she really nailed it as far as what I felt that I should aspire to-
Originally published Friday, December 13, 2013
Ideas for cultivating strength on road to being your best self
Advice columnist Carolyn Hax on assessing what you bring to the party of life every day.
Dear Carolyn
DEAR CAROLYN: You often talk about a “best self” and the ways people should either live that themselves or permit others to do so. I can guess what a best self might be, but I wonder what your workaday definition is?
— Best Self
DEAR BEST SELF: It’s when you like yourself.
Or, when you’re getting the most out of your strengths and succumbing the least to your weaknesses. It’s highly personal, but here are some ideas for cultivating strength:
Are you doing things that are meaningful to you; well-suited to your interests, skills and talents; and challenging enough to keep you humble?
Are you with people to whom you want to be kind; who reinforce your good choices; and who don’t inspire persistent doubts about whether they’re dependable, genuinely fond of you, free of ulterior motives, honest with you?
Are you that person to those you love?
Do you take responsibility for your choices and their consequences?
Do you honor your promises and commitments, to yourself and others?
When you are impressed by, grateful to or concerned about someone, do you show it?
Do you forgive?
Are you representing yourself honestly, to yourself and others, creating no facades to maintain?
Do you take care of yourself — in small ways like flossing, and in big ways like thinking through potential consequences before you act? And do you put yourself first in ways that sustain you, to minimize your burdening of others?
As for taming weaknesses:
Do you realize your needs have the same status as everyone else’s? And you’re not the hero in every encounter with others?
Are you mindful of your flaws and demons?
Do you make choices that put distance between you and your temptations?
Do you resist the impulse to blame others when things go wrong?
Do you understand the boundary between your and others’ business, and stay on your side?
When you’re unsure, do you admit that and seek help?
When you’re about to express negativity or a criticism, do you ask yourself whether it needs expressing? And imagine how its target will feel?
When you fall short, do you admit that? To those who most need to hear it?
Since all of these questions hinge on solid self-awareness, I’d call Step 1 a brutally honest assessment of what you bring to the party — and how you’re most likely to wreck it.
Email Carolyn at tellme@washpost.com and follow her on Facebook atwww.facebook.com/carolyn.hax. Find her columns daily at www.seattletimes.com/living
Originally published Friday, December 13, 2013
Ideas for cultivating strength on road to being your best self
Advice columnist Carolyn Hax on assessing what you bring to the party of life every day.
Dear Carolyn
DEAR CAROLYN: You often talk about a “best self” and the ways people should either live that themselves or permit others to do so. I can guess what a best self might be, but I wonder what your workaday definition is?
— Best Self
DEAR BEST SELF: It’s when you like yourself.
Or, when you’re getting the most out of your strengths and succumbing the least to your weaknesses. It’s highly personal, but here are some ideas for cultivating strength:
Are you doing things that are meaningful to you; well-suited to your interests, skills and talents; and challenging enough to keep you humble?
Are you with people to whom you want to be kind; who reinforce your good choices; and who don’t inspire persistent doubts about whether they’re dependable, genuinely fond of you, free of ulterior motives, honest with you?
Are you that person to those you love?
Do you take responsibility for your choices and their consequences?
Do you honor your promises and commitments, to yourself and others?
When you are impressed by, grateful to or concerned about someone, do you show it?
Do you forgive?
Are you representing yourself honestly, to yourself and others, creating no facades to maintain?
Do you take care of yourself — in small ways like flossing, and in big ways like thinking through potential consequences before you act? And do you put yourself first in ways that sustain you, to minimize your burdening of others?
As for taming weaknesses:
Do you realize your needs have the same status as everyone else’s? And you’re not the hero in every encounter with others?
Are you mindful of your flaws and demons?
Do you make choices that put distance between you and your temptations?
Do you resist the impulse to blame others when things go wrong?
Do you understand the boundary between your and others’ business, and stay on your side?
When you’re unsure, do you admit that and seek help?
When you’re about to express negativity or a criticism, do you ask yourself whether it needs expressing? And imagine how its target will feel?
When you fall short, do you admit that? To those who most need to hear it?
Since all of these questions hinge on solid self-awareness, I’d call Step 1 a brutally honest assessment of what you bring to the party — and how you’re most likely to wreck it.
Email Carolyn at tellme@washpost.com and follow her on Facebook atwww.facebook.com/carolyn.hax. Find her columns daily at www.seattletimes.com/living
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Columnist Carolyn Hax - July 19 2014
I started reading the advice columnist Carolyn Hax again in the last year or so, I feel like her advice and writing has matured a lot in the years since she first came on the scene. The highlighted passages from today's The Seattle Times really meant a lot to me.
It fits in with a personal mission statement that I put down in writing in the last year. I don't expect that it will come into play in the sense of anyone pursuing me, but I want to change how I think of myself and what I deserve; and will constantly strive for when given the opportunity.
Originally published Saturday, July 19, 2014 at 6:15 AM
Boyfriend more interested in thrill of pursuit
Skip this game if you want true companionship, advice columnist Carolyn Hax says.
By CAROLYN HAX
Syndicated columnist
DEAR CAROLYN: A guy I dated for about three months ended things a few weeks ago because, in his words, I didn’t let him “pursue” me enough (read: I got too invested too quickly, and started contacting him more than he was comfortable with). He said that he cared about me very much, but that he wanted to feel that the person he was with was a bit “hard to get.” I was sad, but understanding.
After about two weeks of no contact from me, he started calling, texting and emailing again and eventually wanted to meet up for drinks.
This seems so on-the-nose (I didn’t call, so he suddenly felt ravenous for me again) that it’s almost insulting. Then again, I know it’s commonly believed that guys (/people) love to pursue, so maybe I did do the wrong thing by denying him that opportunity before. What do you think? Give him a second chance, or let go on general principle?
— Pursuit for the Sake of Pursuit?
DEAR PURSUIT FOR THE SAKE OF PURSUIT?: This whole love-to-pursue thing — what do people do with it once they’ve committed to each other? Do they demand/promote an aura of mystery in their shared home? All body noises and hygiene rituals get rushed discreetly into locked, soundproof bathrooms? All unsightly ailments get immediately quarantined and tended to by hired nurses? All calls and texts go unreturned for a time.
Yes, pursuit is a rush, a two-person amusement park. But it’s better at teaching you about yourself than it is at bringing you closer to others, because it’s not about the other person; it’s about what the other person does for you.
If it’s life companionship you ultimately want, and you’d rather stick yourself with pins than play the izzy-gonna-call game, then pass. True partnership is about finding someone you get along with so well, and find so beautiful inside, that the outside is just a pleasing window to the good stuff.
It’s about the “what” of wanting to be with someone to the extent that the “how” is beside the point. You will call or text or stop by, s/he will call or text or stop by, whatever, it’s a foregone conclusion that you had a really nice time last night and one of you will initiate some sort of communication soon.
If you’re up for a game, then, fine, give him his second chance; he might grow up to be a lovely person someday. But go into it knowing this: He isn’t calling because he realized his error in breaking up with such a great person. He’s calling because he gave you strict instructions on how to hold his attention, and this is your reward for following them to the letter. Instructions that include wanting him but pretending you don’t. Barf.
Email Carolyn at tellme@washpost.com and follow her on Facebook atwww.facebook.com/carolyn.hax. Find her columns daily at www.seattletimes.com/living
Originally published Saturday, July 19, 2014 at 6:15 AM
Boyfriend more interested in thrill of pursuit
Skip this game if you want true companionship, advice columnist Carolyn Hax says.
By CAROLYN HAX
Syndicated columnist
DEAR CAROLYN: A guy I dated for about three months ended things a few weeks ago because, in his words, I didn’t let him “pursue” me enough (read: I got too invested too quickly, and started contacting him more than he was comfortable with). He said that he cared about me very much, but that he wanted to feel that the person he was with was a bit “hard to get.” I was sad, but understanding.
After about two weeks of no contact from me, he started calling, texting and emailing again and eventually wanted to meet up for drinks.
This seems so on-the-nose (I didn’t call, so he suddenly felt ravenous for me again) that it’s almost insulting. Then again, I know it’s commonly believed that guys (/people) love to pursue, so maybe I did do the wrong thing by denying him that opportunity before. What do you think? Give him a second chance, or let go on general principle?
— Pursuit for the Sake of Pursuit?
DEAR PURSUIT FOR THE SAKE OF PURSUIT?: This whole love-to-pursue thing — what do people do with it once they’ve committed to each other? Do they demand/promote an aura of mystery in their shared home? All body noises and hygiene rituals get rushed discreetly into locked, soundproof bathrooms? All unsightly ailments get immediately quarantined and tended to by hired nurses? All calls and texts go unreturned for a time.
Yes, pursuit is a rush, a two-person amusement park. But it’s better at teaching you about yourself than it is at bringing you closer to others, because it’s not about the other person; it’s about what the other person does for you.
If it’s life companionship you ultimately want, and you’d rather stick yourself with pins than play the izzy-gonna-call game, then pass. True partnership is about finding someone you get along with so well, and find so beautiful inside, that the outside is just a pleasing window to the good stuff.
It’s about the “what” of wanting to be with someone to the extent that the “how” is beside the point. You will call or text or stop by, s/he will call or text or stop by, whatever, it’s a foregone conclusion that you had a really nice time last night and one of you will initiate some sort of communication soon.
If you’re up for a game, then, fine, give him his second chance; he might grow up to be a lovely person someday. But go into it knowing this: He isn’t calling because he realized his error in breaking up with such a great person. He’s calling because he gave you strict instructions on how to hold his attention, and this is your reward for following them to the letter. Instructions that include wanting him but pretending you don’t. Barf.
Email Carolyn at tellme@washpost.com and follow her on Facebook atwww.facebook.com/carolyn.hax. Find her columns daily at www.seattletimes.com/living
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)