What this book really sets out to do, though it takes a lot of detours on the way, is to redefine the word "loner." The author, Anneli Rufus, says we only use "loner" in bad ways. I agree with her. Almost every criminal--serial killer, school shooter, or otherwise--is labeled a loner, Rufus points out. When someone is weird, we call him or her a loner. We would never put Michelangelo in the same category, but he, too, was a loner. Maybe there's something wrong with the way we think.
One of the topics Rufus explores is why we think this way. To put it simply, it's the us vs. them paradigm. For the most part, primates--that's the us--are social creatures. In the past, we had to be this way in order to survive. Communities, and the people in them, relied on each other for success, love--everything. Anyone who didn't contribute to the community in the same way--there's the them--was looked down on. We still think this way, for the most part. But the question Rufus asks is, is that necessary? Her answer: not in this age of independence. And then she posits that we should make a distinction between true loners, those who want to be alone, and pseudo loners, those who are alone because they've been rejected by others.
Party of One is a very interesting book. Rufus takes the time to look at the fields that have built our culture--technology, art, music, literature, etc.--and shows how many of the people we revere as innovators and geniuses were also true loners. To name a few: Isaac Newton, Edgar Degas, Georgia O'Keeffe, Alexander Pope, Barry Bonds, Emily Dickinson, and J.K. Rowling. If these are the people who change the world for the better, Rufus asks, shouldn't we be treating them better? She also takes the time to look at those who make "loner" a bad word, and she comes to the conclusion that they were not true loners. What drove the acts of murder and terrorism was their longing for acceptance and the pain of rejection, two things true loners don't ache for or care much about.
I never would have labeled myself a loner. I've always had friends, always hung out or gone to lunch. But my friend (Hi, Kirsten!) (See, I have friends!) lent me this book after a discussion one day about how I only enjoy people for a limited amount of time. And as I read, I started a checklist:
A loner...
*Prefers her own company Check
*Rarely gets bored or lonely on her own Check
*Doesn't feel a need to conform to other people's standards Check
*Is very stubborn about not conforming Check
*Gets tired after being with others for long Check
And etc. Hm, I thought to myself while reading, I guess I am a loner. And it's really not a bad thing. Even in the world of apes--notoriously social creatures--there are orangutans, who prefer to be alone.
Do I sound curmudgeonly? I almost feel like I should be hanging out a window yelling, "Shut up and got off of my lawn! And turn down that rock 'n' roll while you're at it!" Maybe the real problem isn't that I'm a loner; perhaps I was just born with a 70 year old soul and I've only gotten older since.
But being a loner, like Rufus points out, doesn't mean that you don't love or enjoy associating with others. It means you're picky, picky about when, with whom, and for how long you spend time. You're choosy. As one of my friends pointed out to me, I don't have that many friends, compared to most people, but I have more really close friends than most people do.
What I'm trying to say was that I enjoyed the book, even though I think Rufus spends too much time talking about how she thinks loners are better than everyone else and not enough time giving examples of how loners have changed the world. I admire her stand. I don't recall ever being harassed for being a loner, so the term really doesn't bother me personally. But I do think that there should be awareness on all our parts: you like to spend their free time with lots of people, and I prefer to spend their free time alone, but that doesn't mean either of us is a psychopath.
