FOR WHAT
IT’S WORTH
“Holden Caulfield Meets Margaret Thatcher” |
Issue 68 |
|
By: Ron Brounes |
April 2004 |
Those
of us (un) fortunate souls still in the singles world (and even those married
folks who can still remember back that far), have come to dread that initial
banter that accompanies first (blind) dates; that idle chit chat that serves to
break the nervous tension and determine if these two people have anything
remotely in common. In college, those
conversations focused on school majors, fraternity parties, and the next
concerts coming to town. Later in life,
the discussions revolved around college reminiscing, work, and the latest
movies each has seen. (I’m still asking
about astrology signs which helps explain a lot about my single status.) This early dialogue helps us learn about each
other, our likes and dislikes, our hopes and dreams for the future (our fears
and phobias, our abnormal psychological complexes, our hidden skeletons).
Each
of us is looking for certain qualities in a date, boy/girlfriend, future
spouse, and these initial conversations serve as interviews of sorts as we seek
out those factors most important to us.
For some, superficial qualities (like good looks and better looks) are
top priorities and effective communication is really just a bonus. Others attempt to determine whether the other
person has a good personality, a nice sense of humor, a close family, a strong
work ethic, a noble heart. Some are
entirely financially motivated and probe more about jobs, cars, houses, exotic
travels, and trust funds. Still others
look for an intellectual quality, a well-read individual who can provide
stimulating conversations about important issues of the day and current events
of the world.
I
always admired (and often emulated) a friend of mine from college who placed
emphasis on a girl’s intellect (of course, only after she met those certain
superficial qualities). He devised what
he liked to call his “Margaret Thatcher test” to measure whether she was smart
enough to continue to see. At some point
during the initial dating banter (somewhere between queries about Spring Break
plans, panty raids, and Sixth Street clubs) he would throw Margaret Thatcher’s
name into the course of conversation just to see her reaction. Did his date even know of the British Prime
Minister or did she think that was the full name of Maggie, her sorority
sister?
A TASTE OF MY OWN
MEDICINE
I
have adapted his test to the times and used it on many occasions to learn of my
dates’ views of the current local news, the war of terrorism, the situation in
the Middle East, (more recent) political leaders, business issues/scandals (and
the Astros starting rotation). While I know that I am not always the most
well-read of individuals in all areas (I do not subscribe to People), I would like to meet someone
who is interested enough to follow the important events transpiring at home and
across the globe. After all, nothing
makes for a more stimulating first date than a detailed analysis of the
potential of light rail in Houston. (And
I wonder why I often don’t get that second date.)
Well,
a few weeks ago, I believe I failed my own dating test. An old (not literally) work associate called
to set me up with a friend of his wife’s (actually, the daughter of a friend of
his wife’s). He thought we would hit it
off because we had one main thing in common; we are both Jewish. (He’s a gentile.) Never mind, that she is 25 (and I am a little
older than 25), just out of graduate school, and living in her first
apartment. In his mind, the Judaism
commonality was enough to overcome any other minor differences. I immediately accepted (based on his
“superficial” description), knowing that I am truly young at heart and am often
confused with being a college student.
(I recently got carded at a bar about 15 years ago.) I was a tad concerned that she would decline,
thinking that 30 was way too old for her (and I am actually 11 years older than
that). Always, the great salesman, my
friend “closed the deal” and she agreed to go out with me.
In
preparation, I brushed up on my hip hop culture, learned about the hot bar
scene in Houston, and even considered getting a tattoo (or, at least one of
those temporary tattoos you find in boxes of Crackerjacks). To my surprise, none of those topics
remotely entered into that initial blind date banter as she was very well-read,
interesting, and knowledgeable about the events of the day.
READ ANY GOOD BOOK
LATELY?
And
then, all at once, I fell prey to my own intelligence quiz (and failed
miserably). She asked me about my
all-time favorite book and which authors I like to read. She still loves “Catcher in the Rye” and just
finished it AGAIN a few weeks back.
Immediately I panicked. First of
all, my favorite authors write for Sports
Illustrated and informing her that I have been known to read John Grisham
and Michael Crichton puts me smack in the mainstream. I can’t remember if I ever even read “Catcher
in the Rye” and, if so, I would have been in high school and focused more on
the Cliff’s Notes version. (Then again,
she’s not that far removed from high school and could have written a book
report on it just a few years ago.) I
tried to think of current authors like Ian McEwan
whose award winning book, “Atonement,” was given to me by a friend a year ago
or so (and has been gathering dust ever since).
I could have named Faulkner or Steinbeck, but feared she may test me on
the specific books they wrote (that she had read multiple times). I considered answering “The Bible” but
couldn’t recall its author (kidding). I
skirted the question as best I could by focusing on the periodicals I subscribe
to (Wall Street Journal, weekend NY Times) and redirecting the
conversation back to my comfort zone (hip hop and the Astros
pitching rotation). It seemed to work
(at least, for the moment).
As
the evening came to an end, I walked her up to her apartment door (as any older
gentleman would) and glanced through all the books she had on the shelf. Amidst books on religion and criminology and
psychology and music (classical), I saw “Catcher in the Rye.” Like the idiot that I am, I commented about
it which gave her reason to pursue her previous line of questioning. She asked when the last time I read it
(implying I read it multiple times) and some specific questions about Holden
Caulfield (whoever that is?). I admitted
that that I may have never read it, but would like to borrow her copy. At once, she became very tired and had to
wake up early the next morning (it was about 8:30 pm). A few days (and phone messages to her) later,
I received a return call from her on my answer machine. She explained that she had a nice time and
enjoyed my company, BUT is in a place in her life where she is not interested
in pursuing anything further. Perhaps I
didn’t possess the superficial qualities she looks for; perhaps I am too old;
but I suspect I didn’t pass her version of the Margaret Thatcher test. Perhaps I need to remind her that we are both
Jewish? (Or, at least, let her know that
I am a Capricorn?)
Please
remember Brounes & Associates for:
q
Investors Relations
q
Financial Writing/PR
q
Speeches
q
Articles/Newsletters
q
Strategic Planning
q
Business/Marketing
Plans
q
Analytical Presentations
q
Presentation Training
q
Corporate Education/Training
q
Government Affairs
FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH is a publication of Brounes & Associates focusing
on marketing, communications consulting, and strategic planning. Please call
Ron Brounes at 713-432-1332 for additional information. For my friend who
devised the Margaret Thatcher test, please advise me of the proper way to
administer it (and let me know what books I should be reading).