« Unexpected | Main | Best or Worst? »
The Capital of Self-Deprecation
Kerry Howley interviews Ana Marie Cox:
reason: Your protagonist refers to D.C. "special olympics of sex." Is that just an overall impression you've formed? Did you have some special olympians in mind?Cox: That was my overall impression. I am so glad I came to D.C. married. I can't imagine how awful it would be to be single in D.C.
The number one topic of conversation in DC is how terrible it is that all anyone wants to talk about is work. After that, comes talking about work. Third, is this kind of thing, discussion of how ugly/unstylish/uncool/whatever Washington is. That sort of thing always makes me wonder: Compared to what? Compared to New York, the disses are almost invariably true. Down here there's less style, less hott, less cool. But compared to, say, Boston it's not true at all. I haven't really lived in any other cities, so I couldn't say much beyond that for sure, but it's definitely my suspicion that my experience is truer to reality than all this constant self-deprecation and Washington is just kind of average coolness-wise. Talking shit about the city in which you regard, of course, is a convenient way of implying that the talker is Awesome without coming out and saying so.
January 8, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8342ad4a353ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Capital of Self-Deprecation:
» home loan
from consolidation loan student
Loans Home Equity Loans - Home Mortgage Student Loans [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 16, 2006 11:58:18 PM
Comments
Nice Title Pun. I love Dallas. The kids go to Austin on weekends to have sex.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jan 9, 2006 1:16:07 AM
"That sort of thing always makes me wonder: Compared to what? Compared to New York, the disses are almost invariably true. Down here there's less style, less hott, less cool. But compared to, say, Boston it's not true at all."
There are shockingly few livable American cities. You've got NYC, SF, Seattle, pockets of LA, and pre-flood New Orleans.
After that, it's all out in the provinces.
But among second tier cities, Boston is still more happenin' than the District.
-----
"Talking shit about the city in which you regard, of course, is a convenient way of implying that the talker is Awesome without coming out and saying so."
Of course.
But if you really are sophisticated and live in some hellhole like Kansas City, why not speak the truth about the situation?
Posted by: Petey | Jan 9, 2006 1:21:15 AM
"Nice Title Pun."
Unless I'm missing something, that ain't no pun.
Posted by: Petey | Jan 9, 2006 1:25:23 AM
Having spent a good bit of time in both places, let me assure you that Washington, D.C. suffers a serious dearth of hotties, at least relative to Seattle. It's unusual to walk a block in Seattle without seeing someone strikingly attractive of one gender or another. In D.C., seeing a hottie is an event.
Then again, being an already-married man, I kind of envy you D.C. types getting to talk politics all the time.
Posted by: Realish | Jan 9, 2006 1:34:39 AM
Petey, I've lived in Kansas City. It's not the nicest place in the world, but it's no hellhole. I went to art school there and it had, and still has, I understand, a very nice art scene. I live in Tampa now. If you want to call Tampa a hellhole, feel free.
Posted by: poop ruiz | Jan 9, 2006 1:57:42 AM
"If you want to call Tampa a hellhole, feel free."
Tampa is a hellhole.
"I've lived in Kansas City. It's not the nicest place in the world, but it's no hellhole. I went to art school there and it had, and still has, I understand, a very nice art scene."
I grew up in Philadelphia, which is just an improved version of Kansas City. And while there are certainly some wonderful niches in Philadelphia, on the whole, it's not a place folks dream of living.
If you're an inventive soul, you could probably carve out a wonderful life for yourself in Gary, Indiana. Smart folks can be happy in a hellhole.
But none of that changes the fact that there are shockingly few livable cities in America.
Posted by: Petey | Jan 9, 2006 2:13:03 AM
let me assure you that Washington, D.C. suffers a serious dearth of hotties
Especially among Democrats. When I was living in DC, all the hotties were blond, Southern, and Republican.
Posted by: Al | Jan 9, 2006 2:34:33 AM
See, I don't think you know that people don't dream of living in Philadelphia or Kansas City.
And beyond that, I don't think liveability or even desirability are what we're talking about. I think we're talking about Hottness and all that- that which would appeal to young upwardly mobile "sophisticated" single people. I'm not convinced a whole hell of a lot of people regard the presence of hotties or stylishness as essential to liveability. I could, of course, be wrong.
Posted by: poop ruiz | Jan 9, 2006 2:37:39 AM
I like a good unpretensious second tier city like Baltimore or Providence. Washington's problem is that it isn't unpretensious.
Posted by: joe o | Jan 9, 2006 3:07:03 AM
"I'm not convinced a whole hell of a lot of people regard the presence of hotties or stylishness as essential to liveability."
Sure. There aren't a whole hell of a lot of people who think the food at the Olive Garden is inedible either.
-----
People can live basically anywhere. Antarctica, the Sahara, and Kansas City are all inhabited.
But there's something really special about civilized cities.
Posted by: Petey | Jan 9, 2006 3:40:34 AM
Well, compare like with like. Compared with Brussels, the other capital of the West's industrial complex and also a company town of bureaucrats and lobbyists, DC is rather more stylish and cool. Croissants are better in Brussels, though.
Posted by: otto | Jan 9, 2006 7:16:39 AM
I don't know what Petey means by "livable." Haven't the foggiest of what makes up the characteristics that Petey defines as "livable." But keeping all else equal, I'd take Philly or Chicago over DC, well maybe not Chicago because of the weather, but otherwise. I'd take Boston too. And fact of the matter is, it really doesn't seem like anyone's getting laid in this town. But maybe I'm just projecting my problems.
Posted by: Jedmunds | Jan 9, 2006 9:06:53 AM
The thread thesis is pretty much insane. It's the 21st century everywhere on the planet. Everywhere is anywhere these days. My daughter's boyfriend is an urban planner and over the holidays he was talking about how even the most promising, formerly exciting, cities around the world are adopting the American urban plan: the rich are abandoning the city to the underclass and are commuting to their jobs or are working in the exurbs.
Posted by: Jeffrey Davis | Jan 9, 2006 9:55:30 AM
"I don't know what Petey means by "livable." Haven't the foggiest of what makes up the characteristics that Petey defines as "livable."
Livable was a confusing word. Civilized works better.
(For Petey, civilized equals livable, but your mileage may vary.)
"And fact of the matter is, it really doesn't seem like anyone's getting laid in this town. But maybe I'm just projecting my problems."
Well, there you go.
Civilized places have adequate food, music, movies, parties, places to get coffee, dinner parties, watering holes, and quantities of people getting laid.
The bottom line comes down to the quality of the people. Civilized places get better people.
Posted by: Petey | Jan 9, 2006 9:58:57 AM
I'll certainly stand up for DC when it comes to movies. It isn't New York, but nowhere (aside from LA) is, when it comes to movies. But outside of those two cities, DC is as good as anywhere else for that scene.
Posted by: Haggai | Jan 9, 2006 10:13:33 AM
"Civilized places have adequate food, music, movies, parties, places to get coffee, dinner parties, watering holes, and quantities of people getting laid."
------------------------------------------------
You just described Hong Kong.
Posted by: Pan | Jan 9, 2006 10:57:03 AM
Or London. Americans dont do dinner parties, really.
Posted by: otto | Jan 9, 2006 11:06:33 AM
I've lived all over the world and I've found that no matter where you go you'll find these people who trash the place the reside in favor of the places they used to live. I agree with Matt that a lot of the time it's just a matter of preening and puffing themselves. I've always liked the Alanis line "You are from New York. You are so relevant."
I love D.C. I think it's got something for everyone. It doesn't have the best of everything but it seems to have a little of everything.
As far as the relative hotness of women, I've found that the presence of universities/colleges in a particular place is connected to the number of attractive women. This combined with the climate seems to make the biggest difference. Warm weather equals better looking women.
Is it the same for men? I wonder.
Posted by: workingclass | Jan 9, 2006 11:18:02 AM
But it's not just people actually currently living in DC who talk about it's lack of coolness. You hear it in other places that aren't so terribly hip themselves.
Posted by: Jedmunds | Jan 9, 2006 11:41:47 AM
The difference between New York and Washington is:
Washington has lots of art, music, entertainment, etc. which you can actually get to and which you might actually be able to afford.
New York has a lot more art, music, entertainment, etc. but you don't have the time or the money to enjoy any of it (unless you're Eric Alterman).
Posted by: wvmcl | Jan 9, 2006 11:42:36 AM
Well, I like DC precisely for the reasons it's most often dissed: It's not stylish, hip, or cool, and neither am I. There are lots of things I love about New York, but whenever I'm in one of the trendier neighborhoods there, I feel like I absolutely MUST sink into the sidewalk ASAP because I will never, ever, be as skinny, tall, or hip looking as the women around me. (and I'm not an ugly girl)
On the other hand, I'd argue that there are very few places outside of DC where you can regularly find interesting, super-smart people with whom to have the kind of intellectual, political, philosophical and spiritual debates that most people never engage in, and those that do, mostly stop when they leave college. And, we have a higher percentage of people with advanced degrees than either Boston or NYC.
So, yes, I love DC because I'm a geek and I can happily and proudly be one here and win some of the modicum of acceptance and even praise for that--it's the place I've been dreaming of ever since I got beat up in middle school for being smart.
That said, dating in DC sucks. (I'd differ with Ms. Cox though, on the "special olympics of sex," bit. It's not the sex that's been so particularly bad in my experience. It's all the other interpersonal stuff that people seem to be so dreaful at.) It's often blamed on workaholism, but I think it has more to do with the fact that a dreadful number of people here are either geeks like me with delayed social skills and experience, or else they're arrogant, egotistical assholes incapable of thinking of another person beyond "what can you do for me." (And this goes for both sexes) And both traits tend to worsen the longer people stay here.
btw, wtf is Reason interviewing Wonkette??
Posted by: flippantangel | Jan 9, 2006 11:54:24 AM
"I'd differ with Ms. Cox though, on the "special olympics of sex," bit. It's not the sex that's been so particularly bad in my experience. It's all the other interpersonal stuff that people seem to be so dreaful at."
Hmmm...
To my mind, you're completely agreeing with Ms. Cox. I've always found that 'all the other interpersonal stuff' greatly enhances the sex. But that may just be me.
Posted by: Petey | Jan 9, 2006 12:07:09 PM
I've always found that 'all the other interpersonal stuff' greatly enhances the sex. But that may just be me.
Well, duh. I think that just backs up my point on dating generally--the situation is so bad that it's tempting to start giving up on the interpersonal stuff and just judging on the sex in isolation because then at least you're getting some of your physical needs met.
But my point was to say that I think the problem is less that people aren't getting laid or that they're actually bad in bed, than that they just don't know how to deal with people generally. I was sort of deliberately interpreting Wonkette.
Posted by: flip | Jan 9, 2006 12:18:36 PM
The special olympics of sex line I think had to do less with performance, and more to do with the ability of ugly people to get some.
Posted by: Jedmunds | Jan 9, 2006 12:25:59 PM
"The special olympics of sex line I think had to do less with performance, and more to do with the ability of ugly people to get some."
I don't think it has anything to do with physical ugliness. Instead, she's talking about how the quality of the dating pool is so low in the District that you end up fucking retards. The joy of civilized places is that you can filter the retards out.
-----
I was glad to see Ana Marie pimping for John Edwards in the interview. Damn sharp gal.
Posted by: Petey | Jan 9, 2006 12:47:59 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
