In which Mr. David Brooks -- the Impressive Clergyman of the New York Times -- once again sublimates his post-divorce alimony acrimony into 800 awkward words of sanctimony about matrimony:
Mr. David Brooks of the New York Times: The way we talk about marriage is polarizing, too. If you read the popular literature, there are three different but not mutually exclusive lenses through which to think about marriage decisions.And finally:
Impressive Clergyman from the Princess Bride: Mawwiage! Mawwiage is what bwings us togethew today!
Mr. David Brooks of the New York Times: The psychologists want you to think analytically as well as romantically about whom to marry. Pay attention to traits.
Impressive Clergyman from the Princess Bride: Mawwiage, that bwessed awwangement
Mr. David Brooks of the New York Times: The second lens is the romantic lens. This is the dominant lens in movie and song.
Impressive Clergyman from the Princess Bride: ...that dweam within a dweam.
Mr. David Brooks of the New York Times: The third lens is the moral lens. In this lens a marriage doesn’t exist just to exist or even just for procreation. It exists to serve some higher purpose...
Impressive Clergyman from the Princess Bride: And wove, twue wove, wiww fowwow you fowevah and evah
But the moral lens, with its view of marriage as a binding moral project, is less common. Maybe that’s one of the reasons the quality of the average marriage is in decline.Which I translate roughly as:
You got your goddamn divorce and the goddamn check is in the goddamn mail, so quit riding my ass!