Readme Matches Daters Through Literary Taste

The Paris Review reports that Readme, a new dating app from Emily Segal and Co–Star founder Banu Guler, asks people to choose between pairs of literary passages. The 50-choice onboarding quiz turns those preferences into one of 12 archetypes, then offers reading recommendations and conversation prompts. Reporter Gemma Sieff completed the quiz and described the output firsthand.
The Paris Review reports that Readme, a new dating app created by brand strategist Emily Segal and Co–Star founder Banu Guler, is using literary preferences as the basis for profiles and matching. Reporter Gemma Sieff attended the launch and later completed the app’s onboarding quiz. The quiz presents 50 unidentified literary passages in pairs and asks the user to choose the one they prefer. Readme reveals each selected author only after the choice. Those answers produce one of 12 archetypes, a written interpretation, suggested first-date questions and a list of recommended books. The reporter received an archetype called the “Resident Artist of the Undertow” and described the resulting prompts and reading list.
Segal and Guler told The Paris Review that the app is focused on literary taste rather than importing Co–Star astrology. Readme’s own copy says its model is grounded in “Lacanian psycholinguistics” and analyzes how desire is organized through language. The report documents the quiz and its output, but it does not provide user totals, safety data, completed-date rates or relationship outcomes. Readme says its matching model is grounded in Lacanian psycholinguistics. That is the platform’s explanation, not an independently validated scientific result. The report shows how the quiz works, but it offers no user totals or evidence that the archetypes improve safety, completed dates or relationships. The psycholinguistic explanation is Readme’s platform claim and should not be treated as independent scientific validation. Founders’ observations about downloads and matches at a launch party are anecdotes, not audited performance evidence.