Gossip: The Untrivial Pursuit

AUTHOR: Joseph Epstein
PUBLISHED: 2011
GENRE: Non-Fiction

Psssst.  Come here.  I just have to share this.  I just heard that the Duke of Windsor?  The former King Edward VIII and the only sovereign to voluntarily give up the British throne?  Well, sources tell me he was really a homosexual.

What's that?  Why, yes, he did give up the throne to marry Wallis Simpson.  But that's all right.  You see, other sources tell me SHE was really a HE.

Welcome to the world of Gossip: An Untrivial Pursuit.

Tidbits like those above are scattered throughout this book, dating as far back as the royal courts of medieval Europe.  All evidence would suggest, after all, that humans have been talking smack behind each other's back for as long as we could talk.*  And our author? He's no different.  Epstein, who seems like a fun enough guy, mentions quite often how much he loves gossip. But the fun kind, of course, he makes sure to specify, not the mean stuff.   And for times when it approaches the mean stuff... well, that's when the I shouldn't really be telling you this, but I do have a reason, honest I do argument gets pressed into service.**  

And when that argument doesn't work, Epstein jumps ship to the larger philosophical questions that take up most of the book.  Is gossip part of human nature?  is it good? Is it bad? Is it immoral?  (Is it we that are the immoral ones?) Why do we do it? (Because, try as you might to deny it, we all do it.  On that note, why do we all deny we do it?  Or that we like it?)  When does gossip stop being gossip and become rumor?  Become lying? 

It's a lot.  And it's all very circular, which I suppose is in some ways fitting, given the circular nature of gossip.  Which all leads to my question: what's the point of all this?

Epstein seems desperate to classify gossip somehow - it's as if he hopes that by explaining gossip, he can make one of his favorite pastimes acceptable. And that's the main flaw of the book: Epstein wants the reader to like him.  He doesn't want the reader to think he's got a big mouth.  So he throws out some science and some psychology and some sociology in the hopes of making it all a wholesome endeavor.  But in doing so he undermines his assertion of good faith, and becomes an author who protests too much.  If he were truly at peace with his favorite past time, he would have just quoted Miss Manners: "the question to ask oneself before indulging in gossip is not so much "is it true?" or "is there any useful reason for repeating it?"... but "is this likely to come around again and hit me in the face?".  This is a far more honest approach to one's gossiping habits than anything Epstein can offer up. 

LENGTH: 256 pages
MAINSTREAM OR NOT: No, despite the fact that we all do it.
SO, SHOULD I READ IT OR NOT?: The gossip is amusing, but not amusing enough to make up for the actual content.

*I imagine the first bit of gossip going something like this:
"I hear Tut-Tut no catch mammoth! Haha!" 
"Haha! But I hear Tut-Tut drag Took-Took cave mate back to Tut-Tut cave!" 
"Haha - WAIT! I TOOK-TOOK!" 
At which point poor friend of Took-Took who didn't know when to keep his mouth shut got brained with a club.

**Such as when he claims that Daniel Patrick Moynihan - the highly successful senator and ambassador from New York - was actually such a drunk he would routinely drink himself unconscious on the floor of his office. When people called looking for him, his aides would say, "Senator Moynihan is on the floor". Get it? 'Cause everyone assumed the aide meant on the Senator floor making laws, when they meant literally on the floor?  Ah, chronic alcoholism, combined with implications of political incompetence - just a bit of fun gossip here!