Times Square Red - Samuel Delaney

Story Summary:

Times Square Red by Samuel Delaney is an analytic essay, and the second portion of a two-part book that focuses on the renovation of Times Square; this portion describes the two main methods of interpersonal communication, contact and networking, and argues that although both are beneficial, contact is the superior of the two and society must work to encourage it rather than continue along its current networking-based path.

Reflections:

In Times Square Red, Delaney makes a clear distinction between the terms “contact” and “networking,” and works hard to prove why “contact” is the superior of the two as a means of interpersonal connection. While he acknowledges that the two aren’t complete opposites and commonalities between the two terms exist, he also defines them in specific ways and provides specific examples of both. While Delaney sees some good in “networking,” he overlooks some of the major overlaps and benefits it has with “contact,” chiefly in his anecdote on page 133 about a young man climbing through his window and into his bed after a social networking event.

Delaney says that the young boy’s “view of what was to be gained by networking was… sadly inflated” (133). The boy’s attempt at networking is described as an example of “the ‘heroic’ extraliterary act,” meaning that he stepped out of the traditional networking space in order to gain attention from someone in a position of power (133). Delaney says that the attempt was ultimately unsuccessful, as ultimately his career was not furthered by the networking; one of the chief reasons he believes contact to be much more beneficial. What Delaney fails to note in this situation is that contact, the kind he so vigorously praises, is entirely present in this “networking” situation.

Delaney said that his “postcoital conversation lasted till dawn” with the young boy (134). He originally describes contact as: “Very importantly, contact is also the intercourse—physical and conversational—that blooms in and as ‘casual sex’” (123). Under this definition, it is clear that his “postcoital conversation” is very much contact. Contact is also very much based upon its pleasantness (183). In this scenario, we assume the sexual encounter is pleasant, and it mirrors many of the other encounters Delaney describes as contact. It is important to note that Delaney acknowledges “networking” as a pleasant experience as well, but in a very different way. The pleasantness present in his sexual encounter with the boy is nowhere to be found in his definition of “networking.” In fact, it goes against it; networking is described as being “safe, monitored, controlled, under surveillance” (193). It is also “heavily dependent on institutions to promote the necessary propinquity… where those with the requisite social skills can maneuver” (129). The sexual encounter described does not occur in an institution, and it is certainly not monitored or controlled. It maneuvers outside of the “safe” typical networking zone. In this way, his “networking” encounter with the boy seems to resemble “contact” even more strongly.

The reason Delaney placed the anecdote under “networking” rather than “contact” was its original premise; the boy’s initial reason for communication, which was one primarily selfish and motive-driven. It was also premeditated, whereas “contact” is primarily random. However, the reason that the contact-like situation came to be seems almost irrelevant when looking at its overall outcome. Although the boy was trying to further his own professional career by “networking,” a pleasurable contact situation arose regardless.

Delaney writes, “Certain benefits from contact, networking simply cannot provide” (173). He proves this to be true in a professional sense; it seems that more careers were furthered through contact than through networking. And yet, in this anecdote, we can see that this statement isn’t entirely true. Networking can provide several benefits that contact provides, until ultimately the line between the two terms is a little more blurred than what Delaney makes them out to be.

Words: 576