In case you didn’t know, we had an election earlier this month. The day before that, they announced that bin Laden was dead. Lots of stuff happened in the months leading up to these events. Meanwhile, my friends and I have been engaged in a contentious debate about whether people can be divided into Seinfeld and Simpsons camps.
Admitting as much makes us seem pretty frivolous. Please believe me that we do read the news. We talk about politics. We just don’t debate politics very often, because we all mostly agree. In early April there were a few skirmishes about strategic voting, but then the NDP started picking up steam. All was cherry once again.
The Seinfeld / Simpsons issue, however, has made some of us really mad. Here’s how it goes: The Simpsons is a pomegranate of quips. It is crammed with references and although it mostly skims the surface, it moves lightning fast. Seinfeld is subtler and more abstract. The show’s material is human nature, so although its content is slight, its form is universal. (You might even call it “observational humour.”)
You know this already. What you maybe don’t know–I would argue–is that you can characterize people according to which show they represent. Alex would have you believe that no such distinction exists; each of us are both. Lily and I counter that she is a Simpsons person and Simpsons people, for whatever reason, don’t like being characterized as such.
Obviously, you could construct a similar debate about anything. Some people are “frisbee” people because they fly through life with ease and others are “bowling ball” people because they are heavy and difficult to support. Some people are “salad” people because they are a light blend of many ingredients, while others are “french fry” people because they are salty and they stick to your ribs. If we locked ourselves in a cabin together for six weeks we could not generate a more trivial disagreement.
My point is that disagreements are fun.