Counterpoint - A guest blogger weighs in on Good Gifts

Dave Says...

I feel like I’m doomed in this Point/Counterpoint format. You, dear reader, likely already think that I am a complete jerk, since thus far you know me mainly as a man who ridiculed his brother's gift and accused his mother of having bad taste.

Hopefully you have read some of Sarah’s other recent entries, so that at least my character can be redeemed by my predilection for wearing costumes involving women’s cutoff jeans (which looked fabulous, by the way. But I digress). Regardless, this is Sarah’s site, so I’m at a disadvantage simply because of the home-blog advantage. Perhaps the results would be different if the polling were conducted at my new blog (http://angry-cross-dressing-guy-insults-his-loving-family.blogspot.com/).

Okay, enough pre-debate (prebate?) excuses. Bring on the rebuttal!

I think that Sarah has sidestepped the difficult issue, and focused instead on the easy cases. She asked rhetorically “Can a bad thing be a good present if it’s really super appreciated by the person you’re giving it to?” Of course we can all think of examples that fit this niche exception. I think it's easy to recognize that something that is clearly crap to a neutral bystander can have value to an involved person (frequently for sentimental reasons). We rightly put a high value on time, effort, and personal connection. This is part of why some people pay double for cheese made by a local dairy owner – one with whom they can meet, chat, and shake hands. It’s why Whole Foods plasters its walls with pictures of plucky suntanned farmers smiling next to their harvests. We are suckers for the hand-made. We are beguiled by the stories behind the things we buy, stories crafted specifically to make us feel special by highlighting the thoughtfulness and unique value of the product. Is it any different with the gifts we receive? But I ask you, dear reader: does copying and pasting the lyrics to a sappy country song really imply an investment of time and effort?

Sarah also posed the converse of the original rhetorical question: “Can a good thing be a bad gift just because the recipient doesn’t appreciate it?” I presume that most of us would say “No”, because we accept the premise that the gift is inherently a good thing. But what is an objectively good thing? We’re missing the real question: What determines value? Is it ever objective? One could argue that value is by definition subjective.

It all comes down to whether you agree with Plato or Piggy.

To paraphrase Plato: “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

Or is Miss Piggy correct? To quote this keen observer of the porcine condition: “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed person a black eye.”

And now, the main point:

For the record, I don’t actually think that my mom has bad taste because she expressed gratitude for my brother’s uninspired gift. If I were to insult my mother’s aesthetic sense, I wouldn’t pick the framed song lyrics as my prime example. Rather, I would demand an explanation for why she continues to let my dad leave the house wearing blue nylon windpants (circa 1991) and a maroon-and-black flannel shirt (over a turtleneck, obviously). Combine the flannel/nylon outfit with the genetic predisposition for men in my family to have unusually robust thighs, and the result is that when he crosses the room it sounds like a lumberjack on a NordicTrack.

Does Mom tease Dad for this? No. But does she make a mental note to check the fire extinguisher before the next time Dad wears corduroy? Yes, she does.

I won’t pick on my dear mom for her complicity in my dad’s fashion disasters. Rather, I think these anecdotes lead into my main point: One simple and effective way to assess the goodness or badness of a gift is to normalize the recipient’s response compared to her/his baseline. For example:

- If you give a gift to your mother (or anyone who changed your diapers, wiped your snotty nose, and still keeps the macaroni necklace you gave her in 1987 next to her jewelry box) and she expresses thanks, it might not mean that you are destined to be a nominee for Gift Giver of the Year. It may just mean she is a very sweet, thankful person who has loved you since before you were born, and would gush over any gift you gave to her.

- Conversely, if you come upon a Veruca Salt character who expresses even tepid satisfaction with your gift (does the little ingrate even know how hard it is to find Snozzberries?), or if the East German judge scores your birthday present a meager 5.6, don’t fret. That's actually more appreciation than they usually show. And don’t feel guilty if a wave of Schadenfreude engulfs you later, when Veruca plummets into the Eggdicator and Frau Eislaufen Richter is picked up by the Stasi.

It’s a simple rule: calibrate the recipient’s response by computing the number of standard deviations it is away from her/his median gift response. Try harder to please Mom, but don’t sweat a snub by Veruca.

In conclusion, what if the truth lies somewhere between Piggy and Plato? Maybe beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but some people need a couple of diopters in one direction or the other.