There is a 90% chance I am getting made redundant in the next week. How am I feeling? On a scale of one to rubbish, I feel Reading High Fidelity For The First Time Since I Was Sixteen And Had Just Broken Up With A Boy.

Didn't even like the job much. Just don't like the uncertainty. Quite like Nick Hornby, though. For medicinal reasons.

*****

Look out below - apparently Goodreads is my blog today. Caveat lector.

If it matters to anyone, particularly (aside from me, obviously) - I kept my job. The office is like a wasteland and I've taken Monday off. The oddest thing. One of the solicitors said - and I agree with him - that it's better to experience this earlier in your careers. Then you won't be wrong-footed later.

For me, High Fidelity is quite a personal book. Now that I've read it twice, I can see that both times I've been in periods of emotional flux, on the edge of something good (well, I hope so this time anyway) and leaving behind a thing that was beginning to push me in a direction I didn't want to go in. This is interesting to me, because Rob, the main character, is quite obviously meant to be identified with, and I find myself very much apart from him.

I'm ambitious. I've always been ambitious. Rob isn't. Rob, mid-thirties, quietly renting videos and losing touch with friends he barely connected with in the first place, forever keeping his options open and wondering where everyone else is going, he's so very different from what I am and what I want to be. And yet, I think the cautionary tale is good for me.

When I was sixteen and read this, it was cathartic. This time, almost eight years later (oh god where did they go), I can see how dark it is, how bleak and unhealthy Rob's outlook is - he feels more like the sixteen year old I was, and less like the twenty four year old I am. And this time, I found a problem that I didn't have last time around. I didn't like the ending. I wasn't rooting for Rob and Laura. I was rooting for him to get himself together and pull himself out of the hole he'd got himself in. I object, strongly, to his being saved from himself by his girlfriend - mainly because I have felt pressure before to be that girlfriend, and I was crap at it, and it was no fun, and at any rate it wasn't my job. It was good for neither of us and, let's face it, the moment one partner in a relationship has to elbow and shove and trick the other into doing things, nobody's happy and you both know you're in trouble. Fictional Laura: get out and stay out, it's better for both of you. Here endeth the biographical details.

What surprised me, because I didn't know it first time around, is that this is Nick Hornby's first book. Did you know that? It's remarkably self-assured, well put together, practised. I wonder how many stories he's got hanging around in drawers at home. At any rate, it is an interesting beginning point to build on, and it puts a bit of a different spin on other books of his that I have known and loved: About a Boy, How to be Good. First time around, I saw pop culture references. This time I see his characters hiding behind them, the gaps they can't quite fill, the dimensions that endless references and guzzlings of other people's stories can't quite provide. I'm tempted to read some of Hornby's other works again, because this is a new slant on them and I would like to see how I read them differently this time.

And while I'm still writing this review, an honourable mention for how one night stands work, how being a grown-up and realising you have to pay council tax now, how they work. How rose-tinted remembrances of your friends when you were fifteen work.

I have a difficult decision to make over the coming weeks. I've been saying for months that I need to go on and do new things, that I'm not particularly happy with my day-to-day, that even the stability isn't really worth it any more. I'm glad I read this book, because I know what I need to do, and really it's now just a case of deciding how much of a wuss I really want to be.

I still don't know why I rated High Fidelity 5 stars. Most of these books don't stand a chance against an early Agatha Christie or a modern cozy, or a book by Dawkins... but I put all of them on the same level.

I'm going to watch the movie first time later this day. Most books that have first person view make it hell for me to get into. Not here. Reading this book was like meeting an old friend.

I don't know what Nick Hornby has gone through to piece together this ode. It feels real. It's real art. It's one of the best books I've read, ever. I am far, far from being the neurotic Rob, but this bitter ending upset me in a good way. I recommend this. By the way, I too like the Beatles a lot.

I can't believe I haven't listed this or anything yet.

O Jesus...I don't even have time now...

***

Ok, ok, Top Five Reasons that I'm going to review this book now:

* I can't let Steve down

* This is the basis for one of the best movies of its era, a movie that pretty much everybody I've ever been friends with has seen a hundred times and can quote at will...pretty much the definition of a popular classic in anyone's book.

* The book isn't necessarily better than the movie (only shallow people don't judge by appearances) but it did set the blueprint for the whole John Cusak thespian tour-de-force that was a Reagan Baby's wonderland...Cue the boombox and earnest gaze, cue the little kid on the bike indignantly shouting WHERE'S MY TWO DOLLARS!?...

Suffice to say, I think many 25-30 year olds these days can see a lot of themselves in our amiable, unambitious Rob, and I don't even think that's necessarily a bad thing.

* It's got the perfect set up- a guy who doesn't have very much else going on in his life but his record store, the records he fills it with, his girlfriend and his goony but lovable co-worker/friends...he's a slacker, certainly, but what's so great about the rat race anyway, and he's perceptive, witty, good hearted, sensitive, and let's face it- who wouldn't want to organize his life around sitting around and listening to music?

* Music is one of the best things in life- it's always there when you need it, it's entertaining and thought-provoking, it makes you want to dance or it makes you relax and it almost always takes you someplace else...it IS the greatest of the art forms, says I, whether it's thrown down by Beethoven or Charles Mingus or Nick Drake or The Ramones...except Taylor Swift, for this reason and this reason only:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSKXmV...


So let us also give the book the credit, it definitely knew its character and its milieu. I mean, this is pretty much the vox populi of a certain generation. It's not mine, not quite, "Rob" is actually a little older than I am, I think, and that makes a difference because for a fellow who pretty much defines himself by and through his musical tastes his range of references and preferences are a little different than my own cultural coordinates.

But this matters very little, since the point is essentially the same- music's his thing, and he's gonna go out of his way to listen to Yoko Ono, 60's soul, Johnny Cash bootlegs, The Small Faces and what-you-will all damn day...and that's a guy after mine own heart.

The interesting thing is, Rob's really more of an old-school aesthete. He's a dandy-meets-boyo, if you will. He pisses off to the pubs like a normal hip English dude in his early thirties but he's got real well-thought-out opinions on what is the best non-Rumors Fleetwood Mac record, or the more interesting lesser efforts of Stevie Wonder, has his favorite Pink Floyd B-side, maybe spends an afternoon in a debate between the relative merits of The Buzzcocks vs. Stiff Little Fingers or whether or not R.E.M's best record is from the 80's or 90's...

He's a professional appreciator! A connoisseur, naturally, and who doesn't love a guy with great taste? Who you gonna by your records from? C'mon! Why should he have to get a regular job and stop sleeping past noon and start tucking his shirt in and listen to music in the car on the way to work than have it garland his place of business all day?

Well, the truth is, he's got a girlfriend who wants to grow up with him and she's just left him flat. Well, what's a fellow to do?

I mean, one of the things that became clear to me years after reading this book...and I'm gonna go ahead and cop to it, after all I have pretty much BEEN that guy for the past oh, I dunno, decade of my life (I mean, I regularly ask people what their favorite Beatles record is during smoke breaks at work, just friends I mean, I'm not crazy, I tell you, I'm not!)...is that, in some ways, he's pretty much using his love for art and beauty as a kind of shield from the world, an excuse, a wall, a tent, a cocoon. He's not addressing the harder truths of his life and he's not willing to take a dive away from what he can consume judiciously, safely, from the sidelines.

He is, in his own way, a Kierkegaard hero. He's not quite as solitary or grim as the Melancholy Dane but he's definitely young and smart enough not want to sell out but also down-at-heel and inert enough to need to take a 'next step'.

Marriage is (as Kierkegaard, the eternal bachelor, would have it) a potential quantum leap from his own solipsistic inner world of aesthetic bliss. It's the ultimate growing-up gesture, one that forces him away from the shiny vinyl and the obscure 45's of Skip James and Duke Ellington and into actively participating in the life of another human being. Plus, there's the whole fatherhood thing...

He's kind of a perfect example of what an all-too-accurate Newsweek article unfortunately once referred to as "The Beta Male"...you know, the guy who went to college but doesn't have a real job, wears different band's shirts all the time and knows everything about the X-Files? The guy who has plenty of talent and potential but who lives in such a way as to only bring these qualities up to surface enough for others to expect more...

I would say a geek, and geek he is, but also a charming, intelligent and sensitive chap who just doesn't feel like joining the grind. Distinctions, however fine or based on taste, must be made.

The other part of it, at least to me, is that he's sort of stuck where he is and music is not only his escape but also his hidden talent. He doesn't play an instrument but he makes a pretty killer mixtape, so at least he seems to know what goes into one. It's what makes him unique, it's his mode of self-expression. What's broke, baby? Why you gotta fix it?

Hornby's not a writer I've spent much time with but from this and his really superb story, entitled "NippleJesus" (seriously, pick it up, you're gonna love it) I can definitely give him a solid nod for accuracy of characterization.

I've known several people- males, I've got to admit- who have stated explicitly for the record that the things Rob mentions about how he gets women are things that have worked for them, basically an attitude or a style that can be summed up in one neat aphorism: "I don't attract women because of the shadows I have, I attract women because of the shadows I don't have." Boom.

Just like that- he's not some jerk who combs his hair back and sucks his cheeks in trying to look like James Dean, he's more apt to make people feel comfortable and open and actually appreciated- plus, a little aesthetic enthusiasm doesn't hurt, either...I mean, passion is passion, and how many people really have it?

See, I think that's part of it. I do believe that you can grow and evolve as a person the more books you read and the more movies you watch and the more music you listen to...

I mean, it's human nature to adjust and be enriched by all that you take in, the experiences that you have even if you never leave your quiet suburban town or whatever. As the narrator in an otherwise forgettable Walker Percy novel once put it, you listen to Beethoven and drink some scotch and you'll let ten years go by and not even notice. Or, as I've once heard about a character in Wuthering Heights, one can read so much that the books pile up to the point when they blot out the window.

But here's the rub, which is not exactly where I think Hornsby wanted to go with this, but still- Rob is just fundamentally not in the situation or circumstances that he's best suited for. He's not in his element- not quite- despite the fact that he's missing some steps on the Maslow scale he is, in pretty limited but sufficient way, happy. He's got his music.

I think this is why, ultimately, the novel is a good one. It really doesn't set its narrative or dramatic sights too high. We get a character who represents a certain point in most of our lives and how we deal with it and where we go with it is sort of a story for another time, or at least another book.

It's interesting, comparing the character in the book to the John Cusak interpretation of him. In the book I'd say he's less misanthropic and more withdrawn. Less of a sarcastic, lazy snob and more of a decent bloke you'd easily go drinking with, the better to geek out and compare notes on the various pop culture ephemera which, let's face it, comprises quite a bit more of our lives than we might like to think. In the movie you get the humanity but you also get the sense that the character's a little more self-centered and solipsistic than meets the eye.

I can forgive him this, though, and here's (basically) why:

Your record collection (or whatever it is you collect, for that matter) is a scrapbook of your life. Susan Sontag said her library was an archive of longings, I'd say it's that certainly but it's more like an archive of time, of memory.

You tend to remember where you were and what you were doing when you read or saw or heard "X" and having that is half the fun. I'm not exclusively talking about location but also more in terms of life experiences and your own mental and emotional history. You can share that, you're good. The recently departed Roger Ebert (RIP!) once said that you should not marry anyone who doesn't love the movies that you love. Sooner or later, quoth the happily married Ebert, that person will not love you. Huh.

I think that's sort of one of the things that annoyed me a little about the plot of both the book and the movie. Rob's girlfriend (I believe her name was 'Claire'?) seemed a little less interesting because she was less, shall we say, interested than he was. She seemed to treat his obsession with his records as a kind of amiable past time, over in the corner playing with his toys, if you will. As any geek will readily attest, this is only part of the problem.

She's not a harpy or anything but it would have been interesting to see her divulge more of her tastes and opinions. Hornsby doesn't make her a caricature, he's fair to her, it's just that since we spend so much time with Rob and his pocked copy of Abbey Road it would be interesting to get more of her inner library.

The girlfriend character in the film was a little under-developed in this way, too, as I recall. Although there's just something awesome in the way she says "I knew there was a reason I wore a skirt today" when she's in the car with Rob after her father's funeral...Not trying to be pervy here, if you remember the moment, you know what I mean...

So yeah, in the end our hero comes the long way round to become a man in full.

Does he put aside childish things? Maybe.

But maybe he just stops using them in a childlike way....

Без оцінки.

У 2024 році вирішив так: якщо книга зразу йде не цікаво, тупенько, повільно - одразу відкладати. Але ця формула дала збій, і я таки дочитував/домучував цю книну. (Краще б читав Дім солі, який я знаю читатиметься важко). Враження не пишу, щоб не впливати на думку. Читайте анотацію, а ще краще усю книгу, щоб зрозуміти чи воно вам треба. Єдине що напишу: ясно що Гг і його історія вигадана, але от я паралельно читаю ще про одно уже реального чувака - так це різниця гігантська, і тут і там жарти, серйозні речі. Але цю я заставляв себе дочитати, бо не люблю закидати книги, а треба вже цю статистику змінити. Не йде, щось не подобається - бай-бай. Є ще фільм, можливо гляну, і буду чекати нетерпляче на інші українські відгуки, бо іноземці пишуть різне і оцінки також від 1 до 5.

Рекомендувати не буду, але ви прочитайте анотацію і вирішуйте :)

1/5 stars.

High Fidelity made me want to bash my head repeatedly against a brick wall. Or better still, bash Rob’s head repeatedly against a brick wall.

How can anyone feel anything good towards this sexist, narcissistic, self-pitying, pathetic arsehole? Rob is the worst type of man; yes, he’s relatable, in a sort of avoid-at-all-costs way. He has zero respect for any of the women in this book and blames them for so much of how his life has gone. He’s a cheater, he poaches other men’s girlfriends, he is disgusted by M&S knickers and thinks that women are ‘tricking him’ when they wear nicer pants for their first few dates. I could go on and on and on.

In the middle of the book, Rob was really miserable and I was quite enjoying it. Serves you right, I thought, maybe Hornby will give you what you deserve. But then. His ex-girlfriend decides to get back with him for absolutely no reason other than she’s ‘tired’? And proceeds to literally act as his mother. And that’s meant to be ‘the power of redemptive love’? Hornby romanticises women as carers for their boyfriends, which is absolutely not a healthy relationship. I’m mad.

And okay, I get Rob is meant to be unlikeable. Perhaps if he’d changed and understood how much of a dick he was I would have been on board, but he didn’t.

Why did I even read this book.

Rarely do I catch myself reading a book after I'd already seen the movie (mostly because I feel as if the movie TAKES something from the book while the book GIVES something to a movie, and thus the order should always be book first and movie second -- so that the book starts with the upper hand), but having enjoyed the movie so much I found myself craving more behind the story.

I wasn't disappointed. Biggest difference that I wasn't originally aware of was the location difference, which helped me ease into my decision to read the book because it was already so very different from the get-go. Many scenes between the two different forms of media are the same, if slightly shuffled, and I was very pleased to see that both have several unique scenarios that are have no parallel in its companion medium.

But enough about the comparisons between the book and the movie. I'll just say that they should be enjoyed together (though not at the same time) for a very satisfying overall experience.

Bottom line was that the book was highly enjoyable. It's always nice to read a quote or passage in a book that imparts some piece of wisdom you've never heard, but I personally think it's even more gratifying to read a quote or passage that perfectly puts into words some thought or feeling that you've had for years but have never been able to properly express for some reason. Hornby did this constantly throughout "High Fidelity."

Many of the experiences and emotions I've had as a young man (both as an individual entity and as part of a greater whole in relationships) I'd often found to be inexpressible despite my best efforts, so when I found myself reading such succinct expression of those up-to-that-point-nameless feelings, I found myself overjoyed that someone else gets it. And not just that someone gets it, but gets it probably better than I do. True EUREKA! moments throughout the whole book.

Guys should read it for the relief of knowing that they aren't alone in dealing with all this crap. And women should read it with an open mind and a sincere desire to get us and I guarantee they'll walk away much wiser than if they'd read all those "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" stinkers.

DNF at page 75

I just don’t like the protagonist. He’s whiny and kind of a dick. I don’t see where the plot is going and don’t really care either. I don’t really get any of the references and I don’t know enough about the music and bands he refers to for it to mean anything to me.
I could probably make myself finish as I don’t actively hate the book - I just don’t think I’m the right audience and life is too short.
Time to call it a day.

Unlikable characters can be great, but when the character is the misogynistic, childish, self-pitying, elitist and egocentric kind of unlikeable with absolutely zero character development... that's just too much.

Let me summarise this for you: middle-aged dude gets dumped by his girlfriend for treating her like shit, and instead of moving on like a mature person, he spends the entirety of the novel blaming each and every one of his exes for his crappy life and stalking them. He also feels entitled to determine what Good Music™ is, and he enjoys making fun of people with different taste with his two pals (no wonder why his music shop is not doing well). Oh, and let's not forget that gratuitous biphobic comment in which he basically implies bisexual people are perverts that can give you STDs and compares them to drug-addicts. In the end, he somehow gets back with his girlfriend and is somewhat successful, despite not having learned anything in 245 pages and being the same piece of crap he was at the beginning of the story. The end!

This, Nick Hornby's first published fiction work follows commitment-phobe and 'never grown up' music lover Rob, as yet again the woman he's with leaves him, only on this occasion, in his mid-30s he takes a different approach than the previous times in his life he was dumped.

This comedic look at early-mid-life-crisis, revealed to be more about-time-I-grew-up-syndrome is quite funny at times, but I still wouldn't call it a comedy as, even with it's vanilla treatment it captures a lot about how the modern way of life has given us so many choices that we feel we don't have to make any idea. Working with his archetypal characters mixing with a solid knowledge of music, Hornby's debut made me think a lot; it will also surely stir plenty fond memories to anyone who grew up in the late 20th Century. Fun and though provoking (if you want it to be) - 8 out of 12.

Remember all those Romantic films or even the hapless Romantic Comedies you’ve seen, the infinitesimal, clichéd and hopelessly repetitive plots? The same guy and gal meet somewhere odd or mildly weird so that things are interesting. Probably a boss and employee type of thing (The Proposal? Go to hell, Ryan Reynolds, you big-mouthed wanker!) Or two people from very far places brought together by kismet or something as appallingly believable (Sleepless in Seattle, You’ve got Mail, Philadelphia? Wait, Philadelphia’s about AIDS so it’s has to be mentioned. I’ve got nothing bad to say about Tom Hanks. I used to love you, Meg Ryan.) Or they’re sex friends, friends with benefits, all that modern freedom excuse (Friends With Benefits? No Strings Attached?) Or someone very rich and famous going for someone scrapping-by and morally compromised (Pretty Woman, Maid in Manhattan? No, Maid in Manhattan is pure rubbish. Pretty Woman is the lovable shit. I’d pick Richard Gere over Ralph Fiennes and Julia Roberts over Jennifer Lopez any day. Plus, there’s something more righteous and morally redemptive about loving a hooker than a maid. You know, I don’t really get why the men are always the rich guys going for the hookers and stuff. Is this a sexist thing? Is it? Probably it’s more of men’s domination. You know, wanting submissive women and stuff. Now we’re getting in murky waters. Don’t dare get excited, you feminist! This might be the insane reason why women love The Notebook. Cause, you know, the rich girl is settling for the poor lad, instead of the usual other way around.) Alright, enough examples, you get the drift. So there its exciting cause stuff’s pretty complicated. They meet up, become friends or something because of a certain unfathomable thing happening. Then before long, what-da-ya-know, they fall in love. They don’t care bout nothing but sex, and spending time with each other and stuff, the crazy, bat-shit, rick-rolling, fucked-up shit kinda love. Then as sure as the sun will set, something wrong happens, there’s a problem or trouble and you know the drill. They go separate ways, but somewhere along the line the guy realizes that he loves the gal. And so, it’s the its-amazing-how-writers-are-able-to-think-of-some-new-way-to-propose scene. Always lots of people, always making a big fuss, always saying something like: I’m an idiot because I let you go. (You are an idiotic writer, you slob.) The variances are probably minor details like: asking for marriage (insanely a sure bet), holding a stereo while saying it, change it to flowers, or probably make it rain to be more dramatic, or changing the stupid catch-phrase. So then the girl begins to cry and then they kiss and the end. Fuck you, movies! I mean, we all know they’re shit and they’re outrageously predictable. That they’re as cyclic as women’s cycles, but by Jove, we still watch the shit and feel all gooey and mushy inside. When we come out of that theater we all end up thinking: Someday I’m gonna meet someone and fall in luv. Well, too bad.

You know, these movies are largely responsible for us blokes getting the wrong idea about relationships. Sure, music’s done its bit, but movies are more demonstrative. Take me for example, I’m a wanker. I own up to it because I am. I go out with women and find fault with them, always happens with me. I’m like: she’s not smart enough or her hands are freakishly small, or she looks anemic. I was even once turned off by a girl because “her fingernails look weird”. These are real reasons why I copped-out on someone. I get it I’m an asshole. I’m pretty sure that I can pin it on something the movies led me to believe: perfect love. I’m hell bent on keeping my options open, I never settle for anyone cause someone perfect or better might come and I don’t want to be unavailable when that happens. Sure, I flirt and do the motions. But I’m pretty… not scared, more like stressed by the commitment. Ms. Perfect might walk through that door, and I won’t let (name of the very nice girl I’m out with) get in the way. When I read this book, the portrayal by Nick Hornby was so disturbingly familiar that I actually felt déjà vu on various occasions. Okay, I’m not as daft as that Rob Fleming bloke, but I’m pretty much made of the same worries. I totally get the part where Rob says he cheated on Laura because she might die. Some men do things for preemptive measures. Guys can break up with girls just because they think the girl might break up with them. And being the dumper is so much better than being the dumpee, so they do it just in case. Stupid, huh? But it really happens. Another thing is attainable women losing glamour. Say, you see a gal you like; you’re really into her and stuff. When she’s impossible to attain she’s more attractive. When you find out that maybe she likes you back, maybe she’s interested. My reaction would be to feel less attracted to her. I dunno why, but that’s true, in my case. And well, in Fleming’s case, when he finds out that Laura wanted him back, he immediately evolves from being depressed to moving on and finding some else, Ms. Perfect. I’m not saying all guys are the same. We’re all different, but there are also lots of similarities. We all are bound by certain tendencies like most women have certain similarities as well. I’m telling you, you wanna figure out the closest thing going through your man’s head then read this book.

Okay, maybe not all men are as suffocated by these tendencies. You know FRIENDS? There’s a character there named Ross, Ross loves to get married. There are Ross kinda guys. These are the types of guys born for relationships. They’re not scared at all by commitment and feel right at home in bondage. I’m not one of those. I have a friend like this, loves getting into long relationships and is always feeling very happy about it. Like Phil, who meets Jackie and then they break up cause of Rob then back together again to start a family. Like Ross, who gets married 3 times and gets divorced by each one yet still walks along the path of the holy matrimony. Maybe these are the kinds of guys women want; I think they’re pretty rare. I think they’re really weird. Then there are the Joey kinda guys, the players, scared stiff by commitment and marriage and love. Just guys looking for sex and fun, hopping from one bed to another, never finding that woman they wanna be with permanently. Why? Cause they don’t even want one. Permanence is like poison to these guys. Then we have the, badum-tss, the Chandlers. These guys start out like Joey, scared by commitment and all that crap. But along the way, they either trip and wake up or they meet a Monica, a game changer. I don’t think they’re changed from Joey to Ross overnight. No, Chandler was still very jumpy and scared when he was with Monica, but he worked for it and understood that there are things you sacrifice if you want an adult relationship to work. Shit! What am I saying? Take these things with a grain of salt, cause I don’t really know what I’m doing. But you know what? I always figured Chandler to be the loser among the guys. Now, I know different. Cause Ross was a natural, he was born to wed, Joey’s gonna end up an old man living on a shack by himself, and Chandler was the only guy who really worked for the relationship he had. Bloody Hell, I hope to be a Chandler some day, cause I know I ain’t a Ross, and Joey’s a pretty grim option.

Alright, I confess, I’m only 19 years old. So what? So you say I shouldn’t waste my time on love and relationships and the likes. I agree, I should focus more on my studies. But you know, it’s like a fad, romance is the thing that makes people feel jumpy-joyous and top-of-the-world happy. I know, it’s also responsible for massive amounts of suicides and murders. But, bloody hell, it’s the thing that makes us feel human. Also, I can’t seem to shake girls out of my head. Humans are pretty pathetic creatures, huh? It’s like this love or romance thingy is our gasoline and without it we can’t go anywhere in our lives. So if this is gonna adversely affect my future, how can you expect me not to worry about it? I gotta practice you know. So that when the time comes, I’ll do it right. Plus, I have other reasons. Heh heh. Oh, what a bunch of bollocks!

I must seem pretty well about, huh? Sure, I read and review lots of complicated books and stuff. Sure I go to one of top universities in my country. Sure, I’ve watched hundreds of romantic movies. Plus, I recycle. But that doesn’t mean shit about knowing anything about this love and relationship thing. I’m as stupid as a guy somewhere wearing a Guns n’ Roses t-shirt, sporting a Mohawk, coked out of his mind. Thankfully, I read this book. Here’s what my shackled guy’s brain managed to pick up: It’s never going to be as perfect as I imagined it to be, yet somehow it will work, if you make it work.

You ever heard the saying: “You don’t love someone because they’re perfect; you love them despite their imperfections.”? Well, I guess that needs a little elaboration. I guess you love them less because of their imperfections, but at the end of the day, you love them still.

Well, that was me giving my sophomoric thoughts about love and relationships and High Fidelity. What can I say? Nice try. Close, but no cigar. See you around.

People worry about kids playing with guns, and teenagers watching violent videos; we are scared that some sort of culture of violence will take them over. Nobody worries about kids listening to thousands—literally thousands—of songs about broken hearts and rejection and pain and misery and loss. The unhappiest people I know, romantically speaking, are the ones who like pop music the most; and I don’t know whether pop music has caused this unhappiness, but I do know that they’ve been listening to the sad songs longer than they’ve been living the unhappy lives.
...
But there was an important and essential truth contained in the idea, and the truth was that these things matter, and it’s no good pretending that any relationship has a future if your record collections disagree violently, or if your favorite films wouldn’t even speak to each other if they met at a party.

High Fidelity wouldn’t work if it weren’t so wonderfully, painfully funny. From the top-five lists, to the relentless bantering, to nearly everything Barry says or does, there’s genuine humor that keeps you reading even once you realize that this book is no comedy. Rob can be and has been an awful person to Laura, and it’s not clear whether he can repair their relationship or should even try. But the humor keeps things hopeful throughout that Rob will ultimately do the right thing, even when it’s not clear what that is.

I’ve been happily married for over 25 years. But before that, there were dating mishaps and breakups (a few of them with my future bride). High Fidelity comes as close as any I’ve ever read to capturing the insecurities of the male ego, and the contradictions of male behavior, especially during a breakup. It’s not a pretty picture, yet I can think of no higher praise for this book. Highly recommended.

Update: I recently finished watching the Hulu series adaptation of High Fidelity. It’s solid, and it’s disappointing that there won’t be a second season. But the book is definitely better.

I'd only ever seen the movie, and thought John Cusack's character came across as a colossal ass of epic proportions. (Not just a colossal ass, and not just an ass of epic proportions. He was a combination of the two.) Enough time had passed and I was not really wanting to read any of the more "literary" novels I have kicking around, so I found this on my Kindle and gave it a go.

Let's just say the main character doesn't benefit much from a literary treatment. How to describe Nick? He's a Nice Guy (tm) who is crippled by insecurities and self-doubt. He's a manchild who is pathologically self-centered. (I mean, really, going to your ex-girlfriend's father's funeral and trying to envision how you can best position yourself to get her back is pretty fucking low.) He's self-aware enough to know that he's being a total ass and that he is in part responsible for his own shitty life, but not self-aware enough to actually do anything about it.

In Hornby's defense, I don't think he was trying to say, Hey, look at this misunderstood sad man and take pity on him and maybe even have sex with him! He was saying, This is an actual person in the world and this is how he thinks.

I also thought Hornby nailed the dynamics of a troubled, flailing relationship pretty accurately. I'm hardly an expert on All Things Romantic, but my tender age belies the fact that I've got several years of marriage - to two very different men - under my belt, and I've seen a thing or two or five. I've seen enough that some of the exchanges between Nick and Laura left me wincing in discomfort.

I only gave it three stars because, despite the quality writing and the realistic characters and depictions of relationships on life-support, I found Nick so odious as a character that I just wanted to be rid of him forever and ever. I feel for anyone who deeply identifies with that character, but maybe even more importantly, I feel for anyone who dates anyone who deeply identifies with that character. Maybe this book could be a romantic red flag? Like, if you are dating a guy and he's all, "My favorite book is High Fidelity," you can take that as a cue to go to the bathroom, where you can crawl out the window and run far, far away. Just a thought.