What do you think?
Rate this book
Quirkyalone: A Manifesto for Uncompromising Romantics – The Independent Idealist's Guide to Dating, Friendships, and Relationships That Matter
quirkyalone (kwur.kee.uh.lohn) n. adj. A person who enjoys being single (but is not opposed to being in a relationship) and generally prefers to be alone rather than date for the sake of being in a couple. With unique traits and an optimistic spirit; a sensibility that transcends relationship status. Also adj. Of, relating to, or embodying quirkyalones. See romantic, idealist, independent. Are you a quirkyalone? Do you know someone who is? Do you believe life can be prosperous and great with or without a mate? Do you value your friendships as much as your romantic relationships? Do gut instincts guide your most important decisions? Are you often among the first on the dance floor? Coupled or single, man or woman, social butterfly or shrinking violet, quirkyalones have walked among us, invisible until now. Through the coining of a new word, this tribe has been given a voice. Meet the quirkyalones. Read The quirkyalone where we live, what we do Quirkytogethers (quirkyalones who have entered long–term relationships) Sex and the single quirkyalone Romantic the dark side of the quirkyalone's romantic personality Quirkyalones throughout history (profiles in courage)
164 pages, Paperback
First published January 6, 2004
13 people are currently reading
511 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews
September 27, 2012
As I began reading the book, I was ready to claim I am a quirkyalone. For, as defined:
quirkyalone n. a person who enjoys being single (but is not opposed to being in a relationship) and generally prefers to be alone rather than date for the sake of being in a couple. With unique traits and an optimistic spirit; a sensibility that transcends relationship status.
It's a wonderful definition. I'll be proud to claim I'm a quirkyalone. But I guess I am not a true blue quirkyalone.
The word was coined by the author, Sasha Cagen, when she was writing for a community paper. She came up with a short article about being single and being okay with it, and then she termed single people, male or female - quirkyalone.
The book presented the different facets of quirkyalone. The different experiences one would encounter. At first it seems enlightening. But I get through the pages; I realized how pushy the book is about the concept of being a quirkyalone, and how wonderful it is to be one.
They say quirkyalone is a movement. Yes. It seems like a movement. A movement with norms and rules you must follow to fit in. The book explained it all. And there I realized, I cannot be like them.
Quirkyalone. Quirkytogether. Quirkysluts. Etc.
There were some points being discussed, which I find unacceptable, and the way it was presented in the book made it even unreasonable. I was expecting a tongue-in-cheek presentation, but the book turned out to be preachy. At least for my own definition.
Going through each pages, I felt like having to tick all the "rules" being set to determine if I belong to the movement. There were so much do's and don’ts, which I think is not proper. I think it should be considered "signs" of being a quirkyalone, rather than setting the standards to be qualified as such.
Stories such as marrying oneself were also discussed. I believe in loving yourself and seeing your value as an individual before going into coupledom, but marrying yourself? What for? To assure yourself that you're not going to be cheated? To assure yourself that you and yourself will be together forever? I don't want to judge those who went through the ceremony, but I just think it's unnecessary. Yes, it's a sign of strength. And bravo the union of women for standing up for what they want. But is it necessary for me to marry myself to qualify as a quirkyalone? No. But the book made me feel like yes.
There were also married couples but decided to be quirky-together (they don't sleep beside each other; they do their own thing without having to consult their partner, etc.). These are few of the stories which I find absurd. What is marriage? Why marry someone when you don't intend to be one in life? I don’t find it necessary to be in a relationship to be completed, but I am in complete agreement to the concept of marriage and the union of individuals. I understand the concept of singlehood, as much as I completely agree with the concept of marriage. I just think it's unreasonable to marry someone and still act or worse, think, as single. Should I go against my partner to be quirkytogether? No. But the book tells me I should.
Yes, I love the fact that they differentiate alone from solitude. Yes, I love my friends, and they help me get through singlehood happily. Yes, I love my me-time. Yes, I don't go out on dates, and yes, I wonder if I am living singlehood right. But then, why does it seem like I don't qualify as a quirkyalone?
I could have appreciated the book if it didn't appeal to me as preachy and self-serving. I agree with the glory for singlehood! But I think it's not good to read something that appears to be too self-serving. Single people are wonderful individuals, and singlehood is no bed of roses. Of course, we want to be glorified and acknowledged as individual. But is it necessary to tell that to a fellow single person, too?
I agree with the message the book is trying to impart, and I guess the fact that I cannot claim myself a quirkyalone made the book irrelevant to me.
quirkyalone n. a person who enjoys being single (but is not opposed to being in a relationship) and generally prefers to be alone rather than date for the sake of being in a couple. With unique traits and an optimistic spirit; a sensibility that transcends relationship status.
It's a wonderful definition. I'll be proud to claim I'm a quirkyalone. But I guess I am not a true blue quirkyalone.
The word was coined by the author, Sasha Cagen, when she was writing for a community paper. She came up with a short article about being single and being okay with it, and then she termed single people, male or female - quirkyalone.
The book presented the different facets of quirkyalone. The different experiences one would encounter. At first it seems enlightening. But I get through the pages; I realized how pushy the book is about the concept of being a quirkyalone, and how wonderful it is to be one.
They say quirkyalone is a movement. Yes. It seems like a movement. A movement with norms and rules you must follow to fit in. The book explained it all. And there I realized, I cannot be like them.
Quirkyalone. Quirkytogether. Quirkysluts. Etc.
There were some points being discussed, which I find unacceptable, and the way it was presented in the book made it even unreasonable. I was expecting a tongue-in-cheek presentation, but the book turned out to be preachy. At least for my own definition.
Going through each pages, I felt like having to tick all the "rules" being set to determine if I belong to the movement. There were so much do's and don’ts, which I think is not proper. I think it should be considered "signs" of being a quirkyalone, rather than setting the standards to be qualified as such.
Stories such as marrying oneself were also discussed. I believe in loving yourself and seeing your value as an individual before going into coupledom, but marrying yourself? What for? To assure yourself that you're not going to be cheated? To assure yourself that you and yourself will be together forever? I don't want to judge those who went through the ceremony, but I just think it's unnecessary. Yes, it's a sign of strength. And bravo the union of women for standing up for what they want. But is it necessary for me to marry myself to qualify as a quirkyalone? No. But the book made me feel like yes.
There were also married couples but decided to be quirky-together (they don't sleep beside each other; they do their own thing without having to consult their partner, etc.). These are few of the stories which I find absurd. What is marriage? Why marry someone when you don't intend to be one in life? I don’t find it necessary to be in a relationship to be completed, but I am in complete agreement to the concept of marriage and the union of individuals. I understand the concept of singlehood, as much as I completely agree with the concept of marriage. I just think it's unreasonable to marry someone and still act or worse, think, as single. Should I go against my partner to be quirkytogether? No. But the book tells me I should.
Yes, I love the fact that they differentiate alone from solitude. Yes, I love my friends, and they help me get through singlehood happily. Yes, I love my me-time. Yes, I don't go out on dates, and yes, I wonder if I am living singlehood right. But then, why does it seem like I don't qualify as a quirkyalone?
I could have appreciated the book if it didn't appeal to me as preachy and self-serving. I agree with the glory for singlehood! But I think it's not good to read something that appears to be too self-serving. Single people are wonderful individuals, and singlehood is no bed of roses. Of course, we want to be glorified and acknowledged as individual. But is it necessary to tell that to a fellow single person, too?
I agree with the message the book is trying to impart, and I guess the fact that I cannot claim myself a quirkyalone made the book irrelevant to me.
February 17, 2008
I liked this book because it had exactly the intended effect on me. Namely, I saw myself reflected so strongly in the characterization that I thought, "Oh. Maybe I'm not a total contradiction, overly discerning, or just plain dysfunctional after all." I don't see myself as the kind of person who needs affirmation from a book (hence the whole "quirky" part, I guess) but I found this really valuable because it helped me look at my some of my characteristics in a new way and understand how they really fit together. Also, I recognized whole passages of this book as my own words put into print by somebody else, which is just sort of cool. That being said, I wouldn't recommend this book to most people, but if you see yourself even a little bit in the description, give it a shot. Even if, like me, going into the "Psychology - Self Help" section of Borders makes you die inside just a little.
November 20, 2007
QuirkyAlone tried to be a movement. It probably fizzled because QuirkyAlones just aren't much for group hugs and scheduled bonding sessions. That's not to say that we're quitters, though. Search the craigslist personals for 'quirkyalone' and you'll still come across the keyword once in awhile. THEY'RE OUT THERE.
I went through an extensive single self-help reading list one summer and it only made me feel hopeless, isolated, and indignant. The one thing I retained was an anecdote about a single woman who was giving up a one-bedroom apartment that she adored and moving in with a roommate. She was afraid she would get too used to being on her own and would never be able to adapt to cohabitating with a mate. The only reason I remember this passage is that I sort of connected with it. This woman adored her independence, was proud of it, but she was also afraid of it, and was even more afraid of her pride. I get that. I totally get that.
And it's about the only thing I "got" from this single-lit genre until QuirkyAlone. The philosophy isn't highly intellectual. The prose isn't moving or poetic. The anecdotes and quips aren't particularly wry. You won't get chills—you might even cringe. But if you are a QuirkyAlone, you'll appreciate this book. You'll get it. It's about you. YOU'RE OUT THERE.
I went through an extensive single self-help reading list one summer and it only made me feel hopeless, isolated, and indignant. The one thing I retained was an anecdote about a single woman who was giving up a one-bedroom apartment that she adored and moving in with a roommate. She was afraid she would get too used to being on her own and would never be able to adapt to cohabitating with a mate. The only reason I remember this passage is that I sort of connected with it. This woman adored her independence, was proud of it, but she was also afraid of it, and was even more afraid of her pride. I get that. I totally get that.
And it's about the only thing I "got" from this single-lit genre until QuirkyAlone. The philosophy isn't highly intellectual. The prose isn't moving or poetic. The anecdotes and quips aren't particularly wry. You won't get chills—you might even cringe. But if you are a QuirkyAlone, you'll appreciate this book. You'll get it. It's about you. YOU'RE OUT THERE.
January 3, 2016
For anyone whose ever passed the age they thought they should've been married, seriously committed, or producing wee ones this book is for you.
For anyone who hates bad dates, poor set ups, refuses to settle for less than incredible in love and life this book is for you.
I've felt on and off that I've been doing life wrong by not being married, seriously attached, or having kids -- especially in the Midwest --- especially in rural Midwest. Quirkyalone got me. Got that feeling and offered an alternative perspective. One that's helping me feel free and wonderful as is. ❤️
For anyone who hates bad dates, poor set ups, refuses to settle for less than incredible in love and life this book is for you.
I've felt on and off that I've been doing life wrong by not being married, seriously attached, or having kids -- especially in the Midwest --- especially in rural Midwest. Quirkyalone got me. Got that feeling and offered an alternative perspective. One that's helping me feel free and wonderful as is. ❤️
April 10, 2010
If you've ever uttered the phrase: "I'd rather be alone than in a bad relationship" and actually meant it - read this book.
If you've ever sympathetically told your grandchild/child/niece/nephew/friend/neighbor/coworker, "It'll happen for you" or "the right person is just around the corner" or "There's someone for everyone" or my personal favorite, "It will happen when you least expect it" - then been puzzled when the beneficiary of your condolences shrugged indifferently and said "whatever. maybe, maybe not." - read this book.
I'm single. I like relationships when they're good, drop them when they're bad. I'm extremely romantic. I love sex. I'm not a closet homosexual, as some family members whisper behind my back (yes, I hear you). I just like being alone better than being in a relationship that adds nothing to my life.
Being alone is not the same as being lonely. (I probably stole that from someone, it's too smart to be my original thought).
So read, laugh, enjoy, and if you don't already: get it!
If you've ever sympathetically told your grandchild/child/niece/nephew/friend/neighbor/coworker, "It'll happen for you" or "the right person is just around the corner" or "There's someone for everyone" or my personal favorite, "It will happen when you least expect it" - then been puzzled when the beneficiary of your condolences shrugged indifferently and said "whatever. maybe, maybe not." - read this book.
I'm single. I like relationships when they're good, drop them when they're bad. I'm extremely romantic. I love sex. I'm not a closet homosexual, as some family members whisper behind my back (yes, I hear you). I just like being alone better than being in a relationship that adds nothing to my life.
Being alone is not the same as being lonely. (I probably stole that from someone, it's too smart to be my original thought).
So read, laugh, enjoy, and if you don't already: get it!
May 19, 2008
When I picked up this book, I was filled with vitriol at its contents; that it didn't get one star is fairly astounding.
It does quite a good job at being a self-help book. It gets one to feel good about being a part of the QA group, lists all sorts of wonderful qualities of QAs, admits that you can even be a member even after you've lost your aloneness, spending a fair amount of time highlighting how QA relationships work, and introduces many famous and unknown QAs. "You're in awesome company!", the book says.
Hell, I even wondered if I was really a QA in disguise. I mean, I do all these supposed QA things: question traditional relationship structure, have friendships that are in some ways more fulfilling and intimate than dating relationships, fall into romantic obsessions, and celebrate that some of the people in whom I'm sexually/romantically interested do not live in the same city.
The bulk of the book, however, has nothing to do with things that are intrinsically QA, and that is its beauty. It's affirming in a way that says "You can be one us awesome QAs no matter what you decide to do next.". Once it grabs on to an individual who seems like he'll identify as a QA, it tells him how wonderful he is.
Why I don't go so far as to actually like the book is because I don't ultimately buy into the very essence of QAness actually being healthy. Oh, sure, they are oodles of healthy things QAs do and healthy attitudes that QAs have. At bottom, though, one is not a QA unless he "prefers to be alone". The QA "[has] no patience for dating for the sake of not being alone. [He wants] a miracle." Holding out until that miracle falls into one's lap has a consequence: he loses (or perhaps never gains) the ability to build intimacy. QAs do not contribute to a community of romantic intimacy; they take the fruits of it (especially if monamorous!).
"We wear a protective armor in public", says Cagen to a confused QA. To an extent, we all do this, but Cagen highlights that the QA does this more than most. The QA wears the armour around, sometimes everywhere, needing that armour to protect himself from people. If a QA doffs his armour, he does so around a Platonic friend rather than around the mate. It reminds one of someone scarred by or too scared by the depths of romantic intimacy. The QA carries around that armour because his skin isn't tough enough to handle the abrasions that come with intimacy. The QA withdraws to lick his wounds alone because he hasn't found a way to let others close enough to do that for him.
Even though swayed by how wonderful being a QA sounds, I realised that, still, QAs were people whom I at bottom reject. I prefer the wonders of the polyfidelic community, the people who are defiantly themselves while finding that just one person isn't enough for all the intimacy they have. Some QAs are certainly members of the polyamorous community, but polyfidelity is the bane of QAness. The polyfidelic people I've known don't carry around thick shells because they're adjusted to intimacy, to forming strong connections with people.
QA, then, is a helpful book if it falls into the right hands, but it isn't the best book, or perhaps even a good book, for it doesn't encourage loners to rise to the challenge of building connections between humans. It seems like the essence of QAdom is that, because QAs "[accept the] fact that we all must live and die fundamentally alone", they're better off not even trying to see just how close humans can get. QAdom is markedly better than the status quo, but it's not the only alternative, nor is it the best. In the end, I'm dissatisfied with QAness like I am with Libertarianism: moving people in this direction would be wonderful, but taking it to the ideological conclusion would produce a terrible situation.
It does quite a good job at being a self-help book. It gets one to feel good about being a part of the QA group, lists all sorts of wonderful qualities of QAs, admits that you can even be a member even after you've lost your aloneness, spending a fair amount of time highlighting how QA relationships work, and introduces many famous and unknown QAs. "You're in awesome company!", the book says.
Hell, I even wondered if I was really a QA in disguise. I mean, I do all these supposed QA things: question traditional relationship structure, have friendships that are in some ways more fulfilling and intimate than dating relationships, fall into romantic obsessions, and celebrate that some of the people in whom I'm sexually/romantically interested do not live in the same city.
The bulk of the book, however, has nothing to do with things that are intrinsically QA, and that is its beauty. It's affirming in a way that says "You can be one us awesome QAs no matter what you decide to do next.". Once it grabs on to an individual who seems like he'll identify as a QA, it tells him how wonderful he is.
Why I don't go so far as to actually like the book is because I don't ultimately buy into the very essence of QAness actually being healthy. Oh, sure, they are oodles of healthy things QAs do and healthy attitudes that QAs have. At bottom, though, one is not a QA unless he "prefers to be alone". The QA "[has] no patience for dating for the sake of not being alone. [He wants] a miracle." Holding out until that miracle falls into one's lap has a consequence: he loses (or perhaps never gains) the ability to build intimacy. QAs do not contribute to a community of romantic intimacy; they take the fruits of it (especially if monamorous!).
"We wear a protective armor in public", says Cagen to a confused QA. To an extent, we all do this, but Cagen highlights that the QA does this more than most. The QA wears the armour around, sometimes everywhere, needing that armour to protect himself from people. If a QA doffs his armour, he does so around a Platonic friend rather than around the mate. It reminds one of someone scarred by or too scared by the depths of romantic intimacy. The QA carries around that armour because his skin isn't tough enough to handle the abrasions that come with intimacy. The QA withdraws to lick his wounds alone because he hasn't found a way to let others close enough to do that for him.
Even though swayed by how wonderful being a QA sounds, I realised that, still, QAs were people whom I at bottom reject. I prefer the wonders of the polyfidelic community, the people who are defiantly themselves while finding that just one person isn't enough for all the intimacy they have. Some QAs are certainly members of the polyamorous community, but polyfidelity is the bane of QAness. The polyfidelic people I've known don't carry around thick shells because they're adjusted to intimacy, to forming strong connections with people.
QA, then, is a helpful book if it falls into the right hands, but it isn't the best book, or perhaps even a good book, for it doesn't encourage loners to rise to the challenge of building connections between humans. It seems like the essence of QAdom is that, because QAs "[accept the] fact that we all must live and die fundamentally alone", they're better off not even trying to see just how close humans can get. QAdom is markedly better than the status quo, but it's not the only alternative, nor is it the best. In the end, I'm dissatisfied with QAness like I am with Libertarianism: moving people in this direction would be wonderful, but taking it to the ideological conclusion would produce a terrible situation.
July 29, 2009
ah, I liked the article in Utne Reader. I really wanted to like the book, but I'm sorry, it just seemed like the publishers said to Sasha Cagen - "Hey, can you fill up 150+ pages of stuff like that article you wrote and everyone liked?" And she was all like, "Sure!" And then she made it super perky, and chucked in loads of cutesy pictures and doodles to fill up all of the acres of empty space, and then sprinkled it with Gen-X pop culture references, and lists like "famous best friends" which includes pairs like: "those friends from Seinfeld" and "Will and Grace", sitting next to names like "James Watson and Francis Crick" (who, um, weren't best friends).
And then there's loads of stuff about QAs being idealists, who will hold out their entire lives as singletons rather than "settle" for a partner who doesn't really understand them, but then again, "another aspect of a [QA:] may be realism about relationships and an appreciation for various relationships in our lives, ones that don't necessarily have to be lifelong... For some there's nothing wrong with the idea of having various partners over the course of a lifetime". UM?? So really, some people hold out and some don't. Some are realists, some are idealists. Cagen tries so hard to get people to feel "in on" her "movement", that QA ends up meaning, basically, "anyone who isn't completely devastated by the idea of not being in a romantic relationship 100% of the time". Which, excuse me if I'm wrong, is probably a large majority of the population. And not the "5%" she quotes but seems to have plucked out of the air.
I mean, maybe this book would have meant more if it came out in 1979. Or even 1992. But there's something kind of weird about it coming out in 2004. For example, the following (slightly paraphrased for brevity) passage:
Some QAs get married. On the other hand, some "may even feel repulsed by the trappings of traditional marriage, an institution rooted in the idea of a woman as property that devalues friendship, and elevates the sexual relationship above all else..."
Er... I was in my 20s in 2004 and I don't think I knew one couple in which a man viewed his female partner as "property". And every rom com since When "Harry Met Sally" has been about a woman finding a man who is "her best friend". So what's going on here, chicky? Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of issues with male/female relationships in this day and age, but the definition of QAs as a "movement" in opposition to some kind of 1950s Donna Reed version of reality that Cagen is calling "mainstream culture" didn't really wash with me. I left the book feeling like it was one big "hey, it's okay that you're still single, girlfriend, because..." lovefest, rather than an intelligent exploration what it means to be someone who, unlike Cagen by her own admission, did not spent their youth scanning NYE parties for someone, anyone, to kiss.
Also, although I am a girl, like many men commenting here, I really really resent the female bent of this book. There are a lot of men who are just as stigmatised by their family and friends for not getting married or not having a serious relationship. Why are they "far more rare"? Just because Cagen did a self-selecting, informal survey in a magazine once and 60% of casual respondees were women? Is that an excuse to treat this book like a "how to love yourself" guide for women who haven't yet had any luck in the dating world? So unfair.
At any rate: there was a book before this one about real 'Quirkyalones'. It was written in 1942 and it is called "The Outsider", by Colin Wilson. I suggest you read that instead of this fluffy, brainless tripe.
And then there's loads of stuff about QAs being idealists, who will hold out their entire lives as singletons rather than "settle" for a partner who doesn't really understand them, but then again, "another aspect of a [QA:] may be realism about relationships and an appreciation for various relationships in our lives, ones that don't necessarily have to be lifelong... For some there's nothing wrong with the idea of having various partners over the course of a lifetime". UM?? So really, some people hold out and some don't. Some are realists, some are idealists. Cagen tries so hard to get people to feel "in on" her "movement", that QA ends up meaning, basically, "anyone who isn't completely devastated by the idea of not being in a romantic relationship 100% of the time". Which, excuse me if I'm wrong, is probably a large majority of the population. And not the "5%" she quotes but seems to have plucked out of the air.
I mean, maybe this book would have meant more if it came out in 1979. Or even 1992. But there's something kind of weird about it coming out in 2004. For example, the following (slightly paraphrased for brevity) passage:
Some QAs get married. On the other hand, some "may even feel repulsed by the trappings of traditional marriage, an institution rooted in the idea of a woman as property that devalues friendship, and elevates the sexual relationship above all else..."
Er... I was in my 20s in 2004 and I don't think I knew one couple in which a man viewed his female partner as "property". And every rom com since When "Harry Met Sally" has been about a woman finding a man who is "her best friend". So what's going on here, chicky? Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of issues with male/female relationships in this day and age, but the definition of QAs as a "movement" in opposition to some kind of 1950s Donna Reed version of reality that Cagen is calling "mainstream culture" didn't really wash with me. I left the book feeling like it was one big "hey, it's okay that you're still single, girlfriend, because..." lovefest, rather than an intelligent exploration what it means to be someone who, unlike Cagen by her own admission, did not spent their youth scanning NYE parties for someone, anyone, to kiss.
Also, although I am a girl, like many men commenting here, I really really resent the female bent of this book. There are a lot of men who are just as stigmatised by their family and friends for not getting married or not having a serious relationship. Why are they "far more rare"? Just because Cagen did a self-selecting, informal survey in a magazine once and 60% of casual respondees were women? Is that an excuse to treat this book like a "how to love yourself" guide for women who haven't yet had any luck in the dating world? So unfair.
At any rate: there was a book before this one about real 'Quirkyalones'. It was written in 1942 and it is called "The Outsider", by Colin Wilson. I suggest you read that instead of this fluffy, brainless tripe.
February 29, 2012
I wanted to like this, and I'm sure there are things in it that I could get behind. But the author seemed so excited at the word she made up (the title) and the 'movement' it sparked on the baby internets (in the nineties, imagine!) that I had trouble finding a thread to follow anywhere in the text to keep me reading. I just didn't feel like it said much and, after a few chapters, I gave up.
February 15, 2025
I love this book and often read it now and then
October 16, 2007
Okay, I loved this book! My friend Dawn recommended it, and once I put some real effort into it, I could NOT put it down!
I've always known that I'm quirky and always wondered why I spend more time alone than in a relationship. In 2002, I called my aunt to tell her that I was the happiest I'd ever been in my life-- at the time, I was single and loving life. I've always cultivated friendships and held them in high esteem. I would have preferred to go to my proms without dates, but I didn't know at the time that I could have created that option! I'm so sure that my friends would have joined me in that crusade!
I was so excited to find that others have similar views to me on intimate relationships-- views that aren't popular in our culture of coupledom. It was also nice to be reassured that being happy and single isn't a bad thing.... :) And, it isn't a bad thing that I'm a Romantic and would prefer to "spend the night alone for all the right reasons then to be with someone for all the wrong."
Sometimes, it's nice to know that you aren't alone, and it's really nice to know that I'm "quirkyalone," as it allows me to give myself permission to embrace my quirks and idiosyncracies (although I had already been doing that for more than a year.)
I've always known that I'm quirky and always wondered why I spend more time alone than in a relationship. In 2002, I called my aunt to tell her that I was the happiest I'd ever been in my life-- at the time, I was single and loving life. I've always cultivated friendships and held them in high esteem. I would have preferred to go to my proms without dates, but I didn't know at the time that I could have created that option! I'm so sure that my friends would have joined me in that crusade!
I was so excited to find that others have similar views to me on intimate relationships-- views that aren't popular in our culture of coupledom. It was also nice to be reassured that being happy and single isn't a bad thing.... :) And, it isn't a bad thing that I'm a Romantic and would prefer to "spend the night alone for all the right reasons then to be with someone for all the wrong."
Sometimes, it's nice to know that you aren't alone, and it's really nice to know that I'm "quirkyalone," as it allows me to give myself permission to embrace my quirks and idiosyncracies (although I had already been doing that for more than a year.)
December 24, 2007
This was a comforting book to read, and I do tend to classify as a "Quirkyalone", with a few exceptions to the author's definition as such. First of all, I don't consider myself to be an "Uncompromising Romantic" as it states in the title, not at all. And I don't need to be given suggestions as to what to do with my time that's not being spent having babies or searching for wedding gowns or going to PTA meetings or even couples therapy.
But still, it's nice to know that there's a world of singles out there that are not desperate to settle down *immediately*, and don't need to be in a relationship to feel defined.
However, I must say that I felt that the ultimate message of the book was, indeed, "just be patient and *one day* it *will* happen for you." *That* message I can get from my mother, thanks. What I needed to hear was "Just keep on keepin' on, and do your thing, girl."
But maybe I'm just sensitive...
But still, it's nice to know that there's a world of singles out there that are not desperate to settle down *immediately*, and don't need to be in a relationship to feel defined.
However, I must say that I felt that the ultimate message of the book was, indeed, "just be patient and *one day* it *will* happen for you." *That* message I can get from my mother, thanks. What I needed to hear was "Just keep on keepin' on, and do your thing, girl."
But maybe I'm just sensitive...
September 30, 2008
This book took me totally by surprise. I was expecting a self-help-how-to-live-with-being-single type of book. Definitely not the "Does this sound like you? Guess, what? You're okay!" read that I got. It started out almost as a justification for being single, but the further into the book I got, I realized that this is who I am. I have been quirkyalone-in-denial for most of my adult life. Reading this book has helped me feel secure in my decision to hold out for someone really special, that I might feel lonely sometimes but I am no where near being alone, and even if I don't find someone worthwhile to spend my time with... I'm still a complete person.
I've passed my copy on to The Captain to see what she thinks.
I've passed my copy on to The Captain to see what she thinks.
February 14, 2014
"quirkyalone: a person who enjoys being single (but is not opposed to being in a relationship) and generally prefers to be alone rather than date for the sake of being in a couple; someone with unique traits and an optimistic spirit; a sensibility that transcends relationship status"
This book was lent to me yesterday, and I couldn't put it down. It's rare to find a book that really speaks to you, that says things you needed to hear from a book, a book that leaves you feeling better about yourself, your true self, and your life choices. While I may not have agreed with every single word, that didn't matter, because this is the kind of book you walk away from feeling better about everything, and more secure in who you are.
This book was lent to me yesterday, and I couldn't put it down. It's rare to find a book that really speaks to you, that says things you needed to hear from a book, a book that leaves you feeling better about yourself, your true self, and your life choices. While I may not have agreed with every single word, that didn't matter, because this is the kind of book you walk away from feeling better about everything, and more secure in who you are.
July 21, 2007
when we were "just pals," matt recommended i read this after i complained to him that single women living their own damn lives and not constantly searching for a husband were severely undervalued in our culture and it fucking sucked. then a few months later, we met in person and fell in love. AHAHAHA.
this book is okay.
this book is okay.
November 25, 2010
I read this little book when I was newly single. Its contents are uneven (some parts are one star, others five), but it's fair to say there will be something that appeals or clicks -- at least for those who are a bit off-beat to start with. It's a quirky but positive and affirming message for introverts choosing a lifestyle of 'alone, but not lonely.'
June 19, 2010
This was just what I expected - a voice that seems to describe me, my perspective on life and love and relationships. Yep, I'm definitely one of the tribe of quirkyalones... :)
September 30, 2015
I couldn't finish reading this! I'm sure it's good if you connect with it but for me, she seemed too focused on attempting to 'make quirkyalone happen' to write anything with broad appeal.
April 17, 2021
Powerfully uplifting view of being single!
This ground-breaking and celebratory book sparked a ‘Quirkyalone” movement when Cagen wrote this in 2003, naming and affirming the single lifestyle that so many women were starting to choose rather than settle for a so-so relationship. It is even more appealing now, as more and more women and men are single. And it is still one of the most powerfully uplifting statements about the strength, creativity, joys, and challenges of choosing to be single as a self-loving act, rather than one of self-deprivation.
Quirkyalone means deciding not to ‘settle’ for a relationship just to be with someone, but to stay true to oneself and create a life based on authenticity and joy in oneself, along with friends and other supportive people. It is not against being with a partner, as much as affirming a state of positive singleness. Quirkyalones will partner up if they find someone as quirky as they are, who can celebrate and honor each other’s quirky self in a partnership. When that happens, Cagen bestows on them the title, “quirkytogethers, “to signify this affirmation of two quirkyalones choosing to be together.
All the chapters delve enjoyably (Cagen’s light tone has flair!) into various aspects of being quirkyalone. The book itself is a patchwork of words and pictures and sideways quotes, and interesting facts about quirky alones now and in history. My favorite chapter is the one on loneliness vs. solitude, with its honest musings that as much as quirkyalones might crave solitude, they are also susceptible to loneliness. Cagen does a thorough, thoughtful job of mining the joys and challenges of both states, familiar to many of us, whether we are quirkyalones or not. Brava Sasha Cagen for writing a book that still resonates with so many.
This ground-breaking and celebratory book sparked a ‘Quirkyalone” movement when Cagen wrote this in 2003, naming and affirming the single lifestyle that so many women were starting to choose rather than settle for a so-so relationship. It is even more appealing now, as more and more women and men are single. And it is still one of the most powerfully uplifting statements about the strength, creativity, joys, and challenges of choosing to be single as a self-loving act, rather than one of self-deprivation.
Quirkyalone means deciding not to ‘settle’ for a relationship just to be with someone, but to stay true to oneself and create a life based on authenticity and joy in oneself, along with friends and other supportive people. It is not against being with a partner, as much as affirming a state of positive singleness. Quirkyalones will partner up if they find someone as quirky as they are, who can celebrate and honor each other’s quirky self in a partnership. When that happens, Cagen bestows on them the title, “quirkytogethers, “to signify this affirmation of two quirkyalones choosing to be together.
All the chapters delve enjoyably (Cagen’s light tone has flair!) into various aspects of being quirkyalone. The book itself is a patchwork of words and pictures and sideways quotes, and interesting facts about quirky alones now and in history. My favorite chapter is the one on loneliness vs. solitude, with its honest musings that as much as quirkyalones might crave solitude, they are also susceptible to loneliness. Cagen does a thorough, thoughtful job of mining the joys and challenges of both states, familiar to many of us, whether we are quirkyalones or not. Brava Sasha Cagen for writing a book that still resonates with so many.
December 27, 2021
Just finished _Quirkyalone: A Manifesto for Uncompromising Romantics_ by Sasha Cagen who defines quirkyalones as people who prefer to be alone rather than be in an unspectacular relationship. They are consummate optimists, create families of friends, and are the opposite of serial monogamists. This book was very important to me during graduate school at KU, and I wish it had been published earlier. Now, almost 20 years later, it reads like an artifact from another era—a zine style text with lots of outdated pop culture references—but the argument for tolerance of one’s right to choose to couple or not (and to be with the consenting adult of one’s choice, be they of your sex, the opposite sex, or somewhere in between) is still relevant and important. I’m so lucky I found another quirkyalone to be quirkytogether with me. I just wish my 2-year-old would let me gotothebathroomalone.
February 15, 2025
Someone suggested this book to me around 20 years ago, as a way to reframe the social isolation I was experiencing, and I just couldn't get through it. I am quirky, I am alone. I do not date for the sake of not being alone, I want to be surrounded by loved ones and feel like I am part of the fabric of the universe, but society has made it clear that I am considered an incel - involuntarily celebrate, and NOT simply quirkyalone. I am touch starved and crave human connection, and this book is not helpful.
October 7, 2019
A delightful companion of a book for single and quirky together people everywhere. I was one and this book was like warm soup on a winter's day. TO know that there are many of you out there- in the volatile world of online dating- a refreshing read for anyone who is single and/or wanting to date while keeping their little universe as well.
February 20, 2021
Reading this was an incredibly weird experience. On the one hand, it’s nice to know that I’m not alone (ha) in my feelings that a romantic relationship should be a joining of two independent, wholly-formed people (as opposed to the codependent nonsense promulgated by much of the media as romantic ideals), and a persistent unwillingness to settle for incompatible or boring/half-hearted relationships for the sake of not being alone or feeling like an outsider in a coupled world. On the other hand, it’s incredibly weird that the entire book focuses on forming your own identity as a complete person outside of a relationship, and then turns around and makes singleness that identity (but with a cutesy new word for single).
It’s weird that this is framed as a “movement” and an “orientation,” as if it’s something for which we need to have an organized effort for acceptance (and don’t even get me started on the self-matrimony stuff, like wtf). I mean sure, as a 20-something reading this more than 15 years after it was first published, a lot of the ways that society treats couples vs singles still haven’t actually changed that much, and if anything deep and meaningful relationships have gotten way harder to find (thanks, dating apps and social media). Self-acceptance and societal acceptance of all sorts of different ways of being in the world are always good, but the way this is framed in the book as a “new movement” is just weird. It especially rubs me the wrong way because rebellious women have been doing this for a long, long time, way before someone coined a cute portmanteau for it. I’m currently reading All The Single Ladies by Rebecca Traister on a friend’s recommendation and it’s a lot more interesting and less vapid take on the ways that single women have been flaunting the system and changemaking for a long time.
Anyway, there were some things in here that really resonated with me and affirmed my core values around relationships, and for that I appreciated reading this. But I could have done with a succinct article without all the fluff required to turn a pretty basic idea into a 150 page book.
It’s weird that this is framed as a “movement” and an “orientation,” as if it’s something for which we need to have an organized effort for acceptance (and don’t even get me started on the self-matrimony stuff, like wtf). I mean sure, as a 20-something reading this more than 15 years after it was first published, a lot of the ways that society treats couples vs singles still haven’t actually changed that much, and if anything deep and meaningful relationships have gotten way harder to find (thanks, dating apps and social media). Self-acceptance and societal acceptance of all sorts of different ways of being in the world are always good, but the way this is framed in the book as a “new movement” is just weird. It especially rubs me the wrong way because rebellious women have been doing this for a long, long time, way before someone coined a cute portmanteau for it. I’m currently reading All The Single Ladies by Rebecca Traister on a friend’s recommendation and it’s a lot more interesting and less vapid take on the ways that single women have been flaunting the system and changemaking for a long time.
Anyway, there were some things in here that really resonated with me and affirmed my core values around relationships, and for that I appreciated reading this. But I could have done with a succinct article without all the fluff required to turn a pretty basic idea into a 150 page book.
June 12, 2021
Honestly, yes.
August 21, 2021
I laughed, I related, mostly I cringed.
May 5, 2009
Loved the concept, would have liked a slightly less chatty writing style and also felt like the book was a little too padded with individual Quirkyalone profiles.
Still, in terms of the whole single vs. coupled debate this book kind of has the final word. If you're in a relationship it should be because you love the person for who they are, not because you need to find Mr. or Ms. Right before you pass into decrepit spinsterhood/ grumpy-old-maniness, and also not because you think the person you're with has potential if you could just mold them a little more forcefully. People who pair off in bonds that are based on shared respect for one another's eccentricities are called QuirkyTogethers. Couples who lose their individual personalities to create a vacuous third identity known as THE Relationship are called PerkyTogethers. The stereotype is the matching sweater couples.
Part of me feels like the concept of not pretending to be someone else for a relationship because you'll just end of miserable is an incredibly mainstream concept for my generation, but then I look at the marketing being blasted at my age bracket and I'm not so certain that everyone has gotten the message. Watching Sarah Haskin's "Target Women" makes me think that maybe this whole idea that it's OK to be alone, that often that's what you need to be happy, and that other people should augment your already fulfilling life rather than complete it could use a little more evangelism.
Long live the QuirkyAlone movement!
If you're single and feeling awkward about it or if you're in a relationship that doesn't fit the hallmark card image of what a relationship is supposed to look like, this is a very quick read that will help you get on with the delightful business of living your life in a way that works for you.
Still, in terms of the whole single vs. coupled debate this book kind of has the final word. If you're in a relationship it should be because you love the person for who they are, not because you need to find Mr. or Ms. Right before you pass into decrepit spinsterhood/ grumpy-old-maniness, and also not because you think the person you're with has potential if you could just mold them a little more forcefully. People who pair off in bonds that are based on shared respect for one another's eccentricities are called QuirkyTogethers. Couples who lose their individual personalities to create a vacuous third identity known as THE Relationship are called PerkyTogethers. The stereotype is the matching sweater couples.
Part of me feels like the concept of not pretending to be someone else for a relationship because you'll just end of miserable is an incredibly mainstream concept for my generation, but then I look at the marketing being blasted at my age bracket and I'm not so certain that everyone has gotten the message. Watching Sarah Haskin's "Target Women" makes me think that maybe this whole idea that it's OK to be alone, that often that's what you need to be happy, and that other people should augment your already fulfilling life rather than complete it could use a little more evangelism.
Long live the QuirkyAlone movement!
If you're single and feeling awkward about it or if you're in a relationship that doesn't fit the hallmark card image of what a relationship is supposed to look like, this is a very quick read that will help you get on with the delightful business of living your life in a way that works for you.
July 15, 2012
Although comforting at times, there was something about it that seemed like the other extreme. Here we are condemning those who go from one relationship to the next, without realizing how unhealthy it can be to always be shut up in your own world. This book, to me, didn't foster the idea of meeting in the middle. Rather it encouraged one to go on being afraid of entering relationships or waiting around for someone who fully understands you.
Of course, I've had mostly negative views of self-help books or "manifestos" since becoming an adult. I think they often tell you what you want to hear so of course I heard that its ok to be single if you enjoy it, "you're totally normal!" Well, that's fine and dandy, but what does it mean to challenge yourself? You give yourself this label and you can't be anything other than what's normal for you. I find that problematic. It's like being a self-proclaimed nerd. Even if you're being self-deprecating, it can come off as pretentious and close-minded. To be a Quirkyaloner keeps you in a box I think. Just like being the girl who always has a boyfriend keeps you in a box.
Being a loner is just who you are and maybe you enjoy a quiet night with a book or enjoy not getting caught up in the drama of relationships. But things like this just make excuses to not reach out. It says, Stay in the comfort zone because it's who you are. But reaching outside of that doesn't have to change who you are at the core. It only has to challenge that and makes you realize you can enjoy "the other" from time to time.
Despite this book having a lot of accurate descriptions about me, I have to say I am not a Quirkyaloner because I challenge that idea about myself. And I hope others will do the same instead of being deluded about always being happy in a single state (no pun intended).
Of course, I've had mostly negative views of self-help books or "manifestos" since becoming an adult. I think they often tell you what you want to hear so of course I heard that its ok to be single if you enjoy it, "you're totally normal!" Well, that's fine and dandy, but what does it mean to challenge yourself? You give yourself this label and you can't be anything other than what's normal for you. I find that problematic. It's like being a self-proclaimed nerd. Even if you're being self-deprecating, it can come off as pretentious and close-minded. To be a Quirkyaloner keeps you in a box I think. Just like being the girl who always has a boyfriend keeps you in a box.
Being a loner is just who you are and maybe you enjoy a quiet night with a book or enjoy not getting caught up in the drama of relationships. But things like this just make excuses to not reach out. It says, Stay in the comfort zone because it's who you are. But reaching outside of that doesn't have to change who you are at the core. It only has to challenge that and makes you realize you can enjoy "the other" from time to time.
Despite this book having a lot of accurate descriptions about me, I have to say I am not a Quirkyaloner because I challenge that idea about myself. And I hope others will do the same instead of being deluded about always being happy in a single state (no pun intended).
June 14, 2015
There just isn't much here. There's no defining characteristic or recognizable pattern to quirkyalone: it isn't clear how quirky is acceptable, and they aren't all even alone. Cleopatra is quirkyalone, but Emily Dickinson is not. Ally Sheedy's character form The Breakfast Club is questionable, since her dandruff scene grosses the author out - even though dandruff-piling is included in a later list of quirky single behaviors.
One of the first concrete descriptions of quirky is someone wearing chipped nail polish, with extra points for wearing chipped nail polish while working a corporate job. A better thinker and writer could use chipped nail polish as an intro to a trenchant piece on beauty standards, gender expectations, corporate expectations, or other topics. Cagan does nothing of the sort. The quirkyalone who is single but has casual sex is a "quirkyslut" - unlike those other, non-quirky, sluts who have sex because their self-esteem is low, the quirkyslut is expressing her sexuality. Cagan doesn't care about challenging the notion of "slut"; she just doesn't want to be called one.
I was left feeling like the author got tired of attending her friends' weddings and being asked why she hadn't married, so tired that she tried to write a book about it, but all she came up with was a lengthy women's magazine article with a whiff of girl power but no backbone.
For theoretical critique of the American marriage script and its power, try writings on relationship anarchy, queerplatonic relationships, polyamory, and asexuality. For practical political critique of marriage's place in American culture and law, Bella DePaulo looks promising.
One of the first concrete descriptions of quirky is someone wearing chipped nail polish, with extra points for wearing chipped nail polish while working a corporate job. A better thinker and writer could use chipped nail polish as an intro to a trenchant piece on beauty standards, gender expectations, corporate expectations, or other topics. Cagan does nothing of the sort. The quirkyalone who is single but has casual sex is a "quirkyslut" - unlike those other, non-quirky, sluts who have sex because their self-esteem is low, the quirkyslut is expressing her sexuality. Cagan doesn't care about challenging the notion of "slut"; she just doesn't want to be called one.
I was left feeling like the author got tired of attending her friends' weddings and being asked why she hadn't married, so tired that she tried to write a book about it, but all she came up with was a lengthy women's magazine article with a whiff of girl power but no backbone.
For theoretical critique of the American marriage script and its power, try writings on relationship anarchy, queerplatonic relationships, polyamory, and asexuality. For practical political critique of marriage's place in American culture and law, Bella DePaulo looks promising.
February 8, 2009
I adored this book. It changed my life in the best way possible!
Actually, it didn't change my life so much as reinforce what I already knew. A good friend suggested that give this a read - she had stumbled across it and felt that it descirbed her to a T. Well, it was me to a T also.
QUIRKYALONE: n:a person who enjoys being singe (but is not aopposed to being in a relationship) and generally preferes to be alone rather than date for the sake of being in a couple; someone with unique traits and an optimistic spriit; a sensibility that transcends relationship status. adj: of, relating to, or embodying quirkyalones. see also: romatntic, wistful, idealistic, independent.
THat definition from the back of the book sold me.
For me, this book was just about seeing that I'm not alone. I've never had a problem with my way of being - just with the way others want to put me in their box. This book was a case study to show me that there are lots more like me, we are not alone, we are all unique, and loveable. And by the way, there is nothing wrong with dating someoen - you just become a quirkytogether then!
Actually, it didn't change my life so much as reinforce what I already knew. A good friend suggested that give this a read - she had stumbled across it and felt that it descirbed her to a T. Well, it was me to a T also.
QUIRKYALONE: n:a person who enjoys being singe (but is not aopposed to being in a relationship) and generally preferes to be alone rather than date for the sake of being in a couple; someone with unique traits and an optimistic spriit; a sensibility that transcends relationship status. adj: of, relating to, or embodying quirkyalones. see also: romatntic, wistful, idealistic, independent.
THat definition from the back of the book sold me.
For me, this book was just about seeing that I'm not alone. I've never had a problem with my way of being - just with the way others want to put me in their box. This book was a case study to show me that there are lots more like me, we are not alone, we are all unique, and loveable. And by the way, there is nothing wrong with dating someoen - you just become a quirkytogether then!
April 17, 2012
What is a quirkyalone? How do you know if you are one? Coined in 2004 (though it appears to have died out of use in casual conversation), this word referred to a new generation—people who were going it single and found it surprisingly agreeable. They’re not women proudly proclaiming their independence from marriage while secretly terrified of dying spinsters, folks going from one horrid relationship after another because everyone prods them to give the dating scene another chance or long-suffering kinfolk of relatives who have dug up someone simply to have a date for the wedding. They’re also not misanthropists or hostile loners who despise people.
Quirkyalones are individuals, unabashed romantics who aren’t willing to settle, folks with a touch of whimsy and a taste for danger, loners who like the smell of the open road but don’t mind coming back to a quiet home for a spot of tea. Filled with letters from happy readers (“I thought I was the only one!”), personal ads, drawings, anecdotes, word games, tests and musings on just what it is to be quirky and alone, this manifesto is a fun, light-hearted look at how going it by oneself can be the best thing in the world.
Quirkyalones are individuals, unabashed romantics who aren’t willing to settle, folks with a touch of whimsy and a taste for danger, loners who like the smell of the open road but don’t mind coming back to a quiet home for a spot of tea. Filled with letters from happy readers (“I thought I was the only one!”), personal ads, drawings, anecdotes, word games, tests and musings on just what it is to be quirky and alone, this manifesto is a fun, light-hearted look at how going it by oneself can be the best thing in the world.
August 30, 2013
Everybody should read this book when they are single.
Then, they should read it again when they are in a relationship.
Following that, they should tell everyone they know about this book, whether they are single or not. This is required reading, folks!
"Quirkyalone" is so very important, because the entirety of the message is how important it is to be true to one's self. It's about allowing yourself to be so utterly *you* that the addition of others is a blessing rather than a factor of definition. It's the blessed tome for anyone who loves to spend quality time with the self first and others second.
In short, its life-changing: the book you never realized you needed.
Not only does it contain a fantastic message, but "Quirkyalone" is a really fun book to read. It has an enthusiasm to it that is intoxicating, and its fun style is reminiscent to a notebook full of awesome ideas and notes. So don't come expecting a textbook; this is a go-kart read.
As I said before, it's required reading. Pick up a copy and fall in love with you again. Viva la quirky!
Then, they should read it again when they are in a relationship.
Following that, they should tell everyone they know about this book, whether they are single or not. This is required reading, folks!
"Quirkyalone" is so very important, because the entirety of the message is how important it is to be true to one's self. It's about allowing yourself to be so utterly *you* that the addition of others is a blessing rather than a factor of definition. It's the blessed tome for anyone who loves to spend quality time with the self first and others second.
In short, its life-changing: the book you never realized you needed.
Not only does it contain a fantastic message, but "Quirkyalone" is a really fun book to read. It has an enthusiasm to it that is intoxicating, and its fun style is reminiscent to a notebook full of awesome ideas and notes. So don't come expecting a textbook; this is a go-kart read.
As I said before, it's required reading. Pick up a copy and fall in love with you again. Viva la quirky!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews