Till Cynicism and Bitterness Do Us Part

My Sunday morning ritual goes something like this: roll out of bed, make coffee or tea, run downstairs in my sweats to grab my Sunday copy of the New York Times, curl up on the couch with mug in hand, and read.  I read the front page headlines and halfheartedly breeze through something about real estate and business. Then I devour the style pages, the arts section, the editorials, and the Modern Love column, saving the most controversial part of the paper for last: the wedding announcements. 

It goes without saying that the announcements are highly selective: there are very few faces of color and hardly any newlyweds who don’t have impressive advanced degrees (though the inclusion of same-sex couples must be noted).  The announcements are sprinkled with summa cum laudes, M.B.A’s and Ph.D’s, doctors and lawyers, exclusive suburbs where the bride and groom originate from, and big name firms.

I check the brides’ ages and make a mental tally of how many are older than I am. I look at the faces of the couples to see if they look genuinely happy behind their fake camera smiles. It also goes without saying that I have a sick fascination with them, and my love/hate relationship is equal parts repulsion and envy.

Gawker sufficiently skewers the happy couples and mocks the pretentious nature of the posts; though amusing, their shtick is not my point. I’m not certain how the NYT decides on who gets in (nepotism, perhaps?), but there’s an online form to fill out. All the couples appear so damn compatible. These lucky guys and gals have found such fitting mates, it’s basically a throwback to the days when suitable spouse where chosen by virtue of proper breeding. (minus the video clips)

Now for the telling details. Is it important that we know if the bride is keeping her name? How the couple met? Where they were married? (aside: notice the growing number of couples who meet through the web).  These are rough sketches of stock characters – the successful, happy, attractive young bride and groom – not real people. Of course, that’s part of the appeal. I can’t help but wonder – what would a tell-all version of the announcements look like?

“He is overbearing and controlling, which might lead to the demise of this blissful union down the road. She’s not sure if she’s in love with him, or the idea of him. After all, he’s an attorney, and he’s Jewish!”

I wonder what we’re really doing when we so publicly put marriage on display.  Wedding announcements – especially those in the NYT – are public declarations of commitment that denote status. They mark something official and lasting, and contribute to the fairytale narrative we’ve created around marriage. It is the wedding, not the marriage, that has star power and cultural cachet.  (Why not have a section for couples who make it to their 50th anniversary?)

Perhaps what irks me about them is that, in theory, I could be one of them. But beyond their Ivy League degrees and impressive sounding positions, I have no idea who they really are. I don’t know what they’re all about; I certainly don’t know the aspects of their character or pieces of their past that will determine the fate of their marriages.

I’ve made quick judgments on these strangers based on superficial details. Yet those details are precisely what we ascribe value to and use to make decisions about who we find suitable as a mate.  Have the  bride and groom done the same thing to one other that I’ve just done to them?  How much of their relationship is based on love, and how much is based on the vague, and therefore guileless, image of an ideal mate? In turn, how much of a genuine connection is fostered by others who comment, “You two are such a good match!” How much is the person, and how much is perception?

I’ll never know how the marriages will turn out, but one thing is certain: the couples sure look good on paper.