Wow, I'm doubly disappointed -- not only has Salon stooped to publishing useless, self-involved gibberish, it's featuring this terribly silly article front and center! I'm not Jewish, but I am concerned that a supposedly secular publication is encouraging people to view entertainers, whose work is entirely separate from their ethnic and religious affiliations, on the basis of those ethnic/religious affiliations.

Who cares which entertainers are Jewish? And do you really want to encourage those who do care? Sheesh.

Ms. Aaron's description of the disintegration of her friendship seemed very one-sided, although there were a couple of details that hinted at what she might have left out. To read her account, her friend's behavior in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was cold and awkward; while the shock and grief probably were overwhelming it does seem weird that Ms. Aaron's friend went to the trouble of securing her a place on the chartered flight for family members, and set her up to stay at a friend's place, only to blow her off upon her arrival. I wonder, was it something she said? Something akin, perhaps, to the weirdly insensitive and self-absorbed comment Ms. Aaron later made to her friend's new sister-in-law at the second wedding, about how she'd been the maid of honor at the first wedding. (You know, the first wedding to the dead guy who was the best guy in the world and you know he'd be so happy to see his widowed wife happily married again ... although of course if he were still alive this wedding wouldn't be happening ... oh, leaving so soon?).

It's not that I find it hard to believe that for some people it is just easier to move forward by effectively erasing things, relationships, or people from the past that evoke painful memories. Rather it's the kind of detail Ms. Aaron provides that makes her essay seem petty and bitter. Telling us about the Tiffany goblets that she couldn't really afford, and for which she received no thanks although she'd gone to such trouble and had worried so much about whether or not they were received, is just in bad taste. I don't doubt that it happened, and I agree that the friend was gauche to not acknowledge the gift, but I am surprised that Salon would allow itself to be used as a medium for revenge against a former friend. Ms. Aaron's airing of her grievances against her friend is very personal and specific, and unless she was employing pseudonyms it is probable that this friend will eventually hear about this article. It sounds like as far as Ms. Aaron is concerned, that bridge is already burned. But if it wasn't before, it surely will be now!

Speaking as a 35-year-old, I can honestly say that when I'm talking to someone who is 15 - 20 years older than I am, I feel no out-group hostility towards them or anything they say, until they mindlessly frame their discussion in the context of "generational differences," or demonstrate ostrich-like ignorance of the merit or significance of any cultural developments that occurred after the U.S. pulled of Vietnam. A very close friend of mine is in her early fifties, and she and I are vastly different in our life experiences (for one thing, she has more of them!), but since her self-construal doesn't hinge on membership in Her Generation, she never makes me feel that I have to justify myself as a member of My Generation.

And therein lies the heart of the matter, I think. Boomers who think of themselves as such are so keen to identify people by their generation -- perhaps that kind of group identity compensates for a lack of personal accomplishment on the part of the individual? And of course it must have been hard to grow up in the wake of a generation that Actually Sacrificed (because it was imposed on them, not because they sought it) during the Depression and WWII. Hey, I'm not arguing that the context of the era a person grows up in has no effect on their development, but it's awfully sad if that's the primary lens through which one views oneself and the world. And it suggests to me that the letter writer isn't as adaptive as he/she would like to think. Getting re-trained to do a different job after being made redundant, for example, is only minimally adaptive -- born of necessity. I'm not seeing much mental flexibility here.

My aforementioned friend, for example, is accomplished in her own right and doesn't need to be part of the Love Generation or whatever some Boomers like to call themselves in order to feel significant. It's no coincidence that GenXers carry the label that they do: we are a bunch of individuals who happened to have been born in the same decade. Yes, we probably all watched the same Saturday morning cartoons and can remember songs from SchoolHouse Rock ... but that isn't what defines us. Because there's no "us" to define. We don't assume that being age peers makes us a cohesive group in any way that really matters.

Maybe if today's letter writer stopped trying to categorize his/her coworkers by what "generation" they belong to, and interacted with them as individuals instead -- I know, so much harder to get to know people as they actually are, instead of using glib stereotypes and labels that are only meaningful to you! -- he or she would have better relationships at work.

Yikes.