Tuesday, November 19, 2013

I Wonder Who Will Be Getting The Jewels of Nuance


In the settlement.

Love, etc.: David Brooks and Sarah Brooks divorce
November 18 at 3:28 pm

Divorcing: David Brooks and Sarah Brooks, after 27 years of marriage. The respected New York Times columnist, 52, and his wife met as students at the University of Chicago; she converted to Judaism and changed her named from Jane to Sarah when they wed in 1986. Just last year, Brooks said “I go to colleges and I tell kids if you have a great career and a crappy marriage, you will be miserable. If you have a crappy career and a great marriage, you’ll be happy. So every course you take in college should be about who to marry.” The couple, who upgraded to a $4 million home in Cleveland Park last year, have three children.

I firmly believe Mr. Brooks should suffer the torments of the damned for his many years of terrible opinions, lying and awful writing. 

That being said, divorce -- like the sun and the rain -- rises on the evil and on the good alike, and falls on the just and on the unjust alike. It is a miserable, heartbreaking business and I wish anyone going through it (except the real, abusive monsters) good luck and kindness.

That being said, words alone cannot express how eagerly I await the David Brooks column in which he rounds up the all the usual David Brooks suspects -- neurology, disordered families, the poors having un-David-Brooks-approved-of sexytime, the '60s and, oh, let's say Henry V -- to explain the collapse of his marriage.


Anonymous said...

I'm confused. The Post article is ostensibly about David Brooks, but then refers to a "respected New York Times columnist."

bowtiejack said...

It used to be that the Post and the Times thought it unseemly to report on divorce and marital strife. Oh well.

I wonder who will get the "vast spaces for entertaining"?

OBS said...

I'm confused. The Post article is ostensibly about David Brooks, but then refers to a "respected New York Times columnist."

Yes, if this were a wikipedia article, that would need a little [citation needed] next to it.

Anonymous said...

You ARE joking, right? Brooks's theories, generalizations and stunning insights into human behavior only apply to the lower orders. He and his ilk are special flowers with their own unique reasons for what they do.

gratuitous said...

Another section for his next Humility course? Academia awaits with bated breath.

Unsalted Sinner said...

At least we can feel certain that Both Sides were to blame.

Lawrence said...

@unsalted sinner


chrome agnomen said...

obviously the DFHs are to blame. duh.