Dear Jim,

I love you too!

I also love this rebuttal.

I suspect our disagreement about small talk is, as you suggest, partly definitional. The encounters you describe sound heartfelt and meaningful despite the lightness of the conversation topics. Knowing you, I am assured that you are fully present in those moments to your conversation partners.

The encounters that I dislike are the ones where both parties are partly mentally checked out, running through a list of stock questions in service of social convention, no one even listening for any deeper currents. There is a social group to which I belong in which when the people ask, “How are you?” you are discouraged from saying anything but “Fine!” or “Great!” — no matter what else may be going on in your life. That is the sort of interchange that makes me want to scream, and to binge-watch Penny Dreadful when I get home. There is something specifically about inauthenticity to my disliking certain forms of small talk — it isn’t just about the social interaction or the topics per se.

But beyond definitions, our disagreement probably also has a lot to do with personality. My preference is to engage deeply with people I love (and I love so very many people), and not have to engage frequently with people with whom I don’t have ongoing relationships. I personally prefer a quiet walk across campus, and I may have once or twice joked about installing spikes on my office door jams so people would be discouraged from lingering in that space when I’m trying to read and write.

There is a fair chance that I am a terrible person. :)

While I know it is the anti-small talk part of the essay you’re reacting to, I also suspect you’d like Parker’s gathering principles, because she doesn’t argue not to gather — she argues for making gatherings deeper, richer, and more playful. Settings where both introverts like me and extraverts like you can be pleased by the encounters!

warmly,

Sarah