akers, and how they were part of a “dying breed.” Even as a kid I saw in their eyes the kind of perceptive ability that great coaches and managers have for sports and entertainment talent. These little old women could size up someone in seconds, ascertaining in their personalities the strong and weak points, the eccentricities and predilections and then go off and find someone fitting. They knew good matchmaking was about time and patience. It was about chemistry and understanding, not just understanding the “significant prospect” but understanding the mysteries and fate riddled impositionsHello, Dolly was the Broadway Show then movie based on Thornton Wilder’s “The Matchmaker.” It tells the tale of Dolly Levi, reputed matchmaker, and her secret yearnings for a romance of her own. Carol Channing played her on stage, and Barbra Streisand was Dolly in the film version. The stage musical was a major hit; the film a bit of a flop, given that the sixties were in full swing and Dolly was a little too quaint for that era. The centuries old legacy of matchmaking was shelved for another time. This is the time. Again. Because personal matchmaking is back. I must say, it makes a lot of sense.

In this era of advanced technology, psychographics and personality tests it is gratifying to see the artful practice of matchmaking has returned to us, albeit in a decidedly modern form. The matchmakers of today are reconstituted for a well worn tradition, and are today referred to as consultants. Then, today, who isn’t or doesn’t have a consultant? But I digress. Because it is in the modern age, where we have assumed science has rendered romance a more palpable activity, the new matchmaking sites have the requisite written tests and personal interviews.

Still, the updated traditional matchmaking process offers the welcome qualities of simplicity and intimacy. This is important and one of the major differences between matchmaking and online or even speed dating. Matchmakers, sorry, consultants, believe in the personal touch since it helps determine nuances among the applicants. By sitting down and actually talking to the aspiring romantics, the matchmaker will see if they are shy or awkward, if they stutter, slobber or if their palms start sweating when they draw within ten feet of the opposite sex. In other words, a good matchmaker relies on observation of the total human factor as opposed to mere answers on the page. A good matchmaker offers quality by handpicking each prospective paramour rather than laying out a couple dozen “possibilities.” With a matchmaker it is like the difference between buying at a knowledgeable boutique instead of self-service at the supermarket. If she is doing her job, and it is almost always a “she,” you get a quality candidate, someone in the proverbial ballpark, as opposed to another list of names.

I remember vaguely the couple of little old ladies my grandmother would point out to me as the matchmakers, and how they were part of a “dying breed.” Even as a kid I saw in their eyes the kind of perceptive ability that great coaches and managers have for sports and entertainment talent. These little old women could size up someone in seconds, ascertaining in their personalities the strong and weak points, the eccentricities and predilections and then go off and find someone fitting. They knew good matchmaking was about time and patience. It was about chemistry and understanding, not just understanding the “significant prospect” but understanding the mysteries and fate riddled impositions

t of sense.

In this era of advanced technology, psychographics and personality tests it is gratifying to see the artful practice of matchmaking has returned to us, albeit in a decidedly modern form. The matchmakers of today are reconstituted for a well worn tradition, and are today referred to as consultants. Then, today, who isn’t or doesn’t have a consultant? But I digress. Because it is in the modern age, where we have assumed science has rendered romance a more palpable activity, the new matchmaking sites have the requisite written tests and personal interviews.

Still, the updated traditional matchmaking process offers the welcome qualities of simplicity and intimacy. This is important and one of the major differences between matchmaking and online or even speed dating. Matchmakers, sorry, consultants, believe in the personal touch since it helps determine nuances among the applicants. By sitting down and actually talking to the aspiring romantics, the matchmaker will see if they are shy or awkward, if they stutter, slobber or if their palms start sweating when they draw within ten feet of the opposite sex. In other words, a good matchmaker relies on observation of the total human factor as opposed to mere answers on the page. A good matchmaker offers quality by handpicking each prospective paramour rather than laying out a couple dozen “possibilities.” With a matchmaker it is like the difference between buying at a knowledgeable boutique instead of self-service at the supermarket. If she is doing her job, and it is almost always a “she,” you get a quality candidate, someone in the proverbial ballpark, as opposed to another list of names.

I remember vaguely the couple of little old ladies my grandmother would point out to me as the matchmakers, and how they were part of a “dying breed.” Even as a kid I saw in their eyes the kind of perceptive ability that great coaches and managers have for sports and entertainment talent. These little old women could size up someone in seconds, ascertaining in their personalities the strong and weak points, the eccentricities and predilections and then go off and find someone fitting. They knew good matchmaking was about time and patience. It was about chemistry and understanding, not just understanding the “significant prospect” but understanding the mysteries and fate riddled impositions

dated traditional matchmaking process offers the welcome qualities of simplicity and intimacy. This is important and one of the major differences between matchmaking and online or even speed dating. Matchmakers, sorry, consultants, believe in the personal touch since it helps determine nuances among the applicants. By sitting down and actually talking to the aspiring romantics, the matchmaker will see if they are shy or awkward, if they stutter, slobber or if their palms start sweating when they draw within ten feet of the opposite sex. In other words, a good matchmaker relies on observation of the total human factor as opposed to mere answers on the page. A good matchmaker offers quality by handpicking each prospective paramour rather than laying out a couple dozen “possibilities.” With a matchmaker it is like the difference between buying at a knowledgeable boutique instead of self-service at the supermarket. If she is doing her job, and it is almost always a “she,” you get a quality candidate, someone in the proverbial ballpark, as opposed to another list of names.

I remember vaguely the couple of little old ladies my grandmother would point out to me as the matchmakers, and how they were part of a “dying breed.” Even as a kid I saw in their eyes the kind of perceptive ability that great coaches and managers have for sports and entertainment talent. These little old women could size up someone in seconds, ascertaining in their personalities the strong and weak points, the eccentricities and predilections and then go off and find someone fitting. They knew good matchmaking was about time and patience. It was about chemistry and understanding, not just understanding the “significant prospect” but understanding the mysteries and fate riddled impositions

tion of the total human factor as opposed to mere answers on the page. A good matchmaker offers quality by handpicking each prospective paramour rather than laying out a couple dozen “possibilities.” With a matchmaker it is like the difference between buying at a knowledgeable boutique instead of self-service at the supermarket. If she is doing her job, and it is almost always a “she,” you get a quality candidate, someone in the proverbial ballpark, as opposed to another list of names.

I remember vaguely the couple of little old ladies my grandmother would point out to me as the matchmakers, and how they were part of a “dying breed.” Even as a kid I saw in their eyes the kind of perceptive ability that great coaches and managers have for sports and entertainment talent. These little old women could size up someone in seconds, ascertaining in their personalities the strong and weak points, the eccentricities and predilections and then go off and find someone fitting. They knew good matchmaking was about time and patience. It was about chemistry and understanding, not just understanding the “significant prospect” but understanding the mysteries and fate riddled impositions

akers, and how they were part of a “dying breed.” Even as a kid I saw in their eyes the kind of perceptive ability that great coaches and managers have for sports and entertainment talent. These little old women could size up someone in seconds, ascertaining in their personalities the strong and weak points, the eccentricities and predilections and then go off and find someone fitting. They knew good matchmaking was about time and patience. It was about chemistry and understanding, not just understanding the “significant prospect” but understanding the mysteries and fate riddled impositions of life itself.

So now in our world of shorthand and short cuts, the failures of millions to find compatibility in that wild and wicked world of ours, we have returned to the venerable matchmaker. In a world where advanced communications systems and instant messaging have left ourselves where we began—out with the boys or home alone with the cat, a quart of ice cream and a couple of video DVD’s—we maybe realize the more we talk, the less we comprehend. In a world where everyone walks around with a telephone jammed in his ear, it becomes increasingly difficulty to filter the ingenuousness of a romantic entreaty from one more stupid line. After nine million email exchanges that have given us hope and then dashed them into futility, it is often hard to tell the prospects from the projects.

Many of us have had it up to here, buying so many new pairs of underwear for so many thankless dates they should list our names on a plaque in Victoria’s Secret or Neiman Marcus. We have anointed ourselves with perfume and cologne by the gallon, both foreign and domestic. We have gone to the gym, been waxed, wrapped and had so many makeovers and changeovers we have to consult our driver’s license to see who we really are. We have speed dated, slow danced and resorted to the kindness of strangers. And, finally, we are turning again to something so old it is new. The matchmaker.

Matchmakers are important because they refuse to abide by the status quo. If they are really good, they defy even acknowledging the so-called box, yet alone thinking inside or out of it. They have a feeling for what works. They are instant background checks all to themselves, knowing just who they are putting together. They use modern methods for running background checks, and they take the time to ask around about past loves and present endeavors. A true matchmaker in the tradition of Dolly Levi would scoff at the notion that marriages enjoy little more than a fifty-fifty chance of survival. A good matchmaker knows that leaving the toilet seat up isn’t credible grounds for divorce, anymore than cooking just like mom is necessarily an asset. A good matchmaker knows life and love with all its mysteries, and how relationships can grow, providing richer rewards over many years. Matchmakers have returned to us because like the relationships they arrange, they are bu