livinwithhumans

[livinwithhumans]

Where the Crawdads Sing: Nature’s Call for Action

Touching, transformational and eloquently written, Delia Owen's debut novel invites us to consider being raised by mother nature. Now, novels about wild child and hermit children are not uncommon. Most of these novels are investigatory as they tend to explore the psychological effects on children who live an isolated life. However, Owens provides a very refreshing take on a little girl, Kya, abandoned by her family at a young age to be raised by the marsh that she spends her life in. Owens chooses to portray mother nature as the ever-lasting, tender, caring and nurturing force whereas most of the humans in the novel often end up abandoning her.

As her family and later her lover, as well as her father figure, abandon her either intentionally or unintentionally, the marsh remains forever present in her life. The one force that never leaves Kya's side. Naturally, the core of this novel pivots on Kya's relationship with the marsh. It is unquestionably the most important relationship in the novel. From a shy, doubting girl, to a curious and bold woman, Kya grows with the animals and plants in the marsh who each teach her something different about human life. The bees teach her how to mate, the birds give her a sense of belonging, the feathers teach her how to love and the shells teach her how to remain strong in the face of adversities. Ironically, it is mother nature who most understands the complexities of humankind and coaches Kya on how she should survive in the world of humans.

It's almost like, with Kya, we too begin to see the human world (ourselves) as a world filled with cruelty, discrimination and abuse. Whereas, the swamp provides a reprieve from this world and a means to understand it as well. Essentially, Owens wants us to witness the unfolding of human conflicts through the lens of the happenings in the marsh. That is to say, whenever Kya is left perplexed about the humans around her, she looks to the marsh to find answers. Unfortunately, one of the answers she finds leads her to commit a life-changing act. Watching a female bee seduce 2 male bees, one of which she kills is a stark image that sticks with Kya and ends up influencing her decision about how to manage her love affair with the town's heartthrob: Chase Andrews.

So, as a whole, the novel's unique quality lies in its portrayal of nature as being the one true mother that will always comfort and support humans. However, we frequently tend to use it for our selfish purposes instead of learning from it and taking care of it.

With the current state of the world, reeling from the effects of climate change, this novel makes a bold entry into the fiction genre with one clear message: mother nature has all the answers to how humans can survive, all we have to do is let it live.

[livinwithhumans]

Not What is Beauty, But Where is it?

Good looks is beauty.

I make this statement not because it’s true, but because it’s a social judgment built within our machinery. When we see someone, we immediately judge their beauty based on how they look.

The tall, young lad with round glasses, a thin frame and combed hair is not as handsome as the rugged man with the messy blonde hair and slight facial hair.

On the other hand, the woman with curves, high-cheekbones and fair skin is definitely more beautiful than the lady with the acne and plump body.

What is beauty? That’s simple: Beauty comes from good looks.

Now picture this: after buying a little girl ice cream because hers fell on the ground, the tall young, lad with a thin frame approaches you, gives you a warm smile and asks after your day. He stands tall, but leans a little, so that you don’t miss hearing him. He patiently waits for your answer and inquires after your family. At the end of the conversation, he wishes you the best with your work and makes a plan to meet up again.

Imagine this now: the very sexy, rugged man approaches you, gives you a bedazzling smile and says “Are you feeling hot, because I think I just raised the temperature off the charts.” Before you can even begin to respond to that, he gives you his number and asks you to call him up sometime for a chat. But wait, before you can confirm whether you’d like to call him or not, he starts telling you how he’s busy on certain days, so you should maybe call him on the days he’s free. That’s not all though he lets you know that he’s a mechanical engineer and that he lives in the posh neighborhood. At this point, you have not spoken a single word and it will remain that way, because soon after, he bids you adieu and prances off like the lithe tiger that he is.

Which one’s more attractive now?

Maybe some would still say the more beautiful looking guy, but I have a hunch that in real life when you meet these people, you’d be repulsed by the second guy. My point is someone who appears beautiful by looks can sometimes become repulsive because of their horrible personality. Of course, this does not mean that beautiful people always have horrible personalities. That is a generalized statement that I would be a hypocrite to make. What I want to show is that beauty does not all come from the looks. The deciding factor of whether someone is attractive or not comes from their disposition, their personality. In my own experience, when I find someone good looking attractive I have become immediately repulsed by them when I see that they possess qualities like self-obsession, hubris and a general disrespect for people.

So, beauty may appear to come from looks, but really it’s in the person’s disposition. A person who looks unattractive can become immediately attractive just because their personality is friendly and endearing. Their personality shines through.

The next time you’re inclined to judge someone by their looks, pause and sift through their personality. You’ll find that there’s a gem hidden in that seemingly mediocre rock.

[livinwithhumans]

The Tell-Tale Heart of Clay Jensen

From its inception to its release, 13RW created quite a whirlwind in the media over allegations that it causes suicide and is insensitive to these issues. Now, at its end, it feels like 13RW has long said goodbye to those times and has embraced the blunt nature with which it discusses teen issues of suicide, abortion, drug abuse, sexual abuse and gun violence. I have always appreciated that the show took these issues head on and did not back down from a fight even when the media and parents were hell-bent on ruining its legacy. 

Season 4 of 13RW comes at a time where we’re all feeling slightly disconcerted and apprehensive of the future what with a deadly virus at large. I’m sure we all must be feeling trapped not only in our homes, but in our own idle and terrified minds with no room for escape, because there is nowhere to escape. Surprisingly enough that is exactly how Clay feels throughout this whole season. Basically, Season 4 has two goals: to mentally push Clay to the metaphorical cliff’s edge and to wrap all the complex and messy emotions in a 5 minute valedictorian speech. The former I was mildly intrigued to explore, the latter I was not impressed with. Let’s take a closer look at what the show has achieved or failed to achieve in its final season. 

Those who know Clay’s character well, know that he’s the sweet guy-next-door who just goes with the flow rarely stopping to question his sometimes irrational actions and poorly-made choices. Like, when he chose to point a gun at Bryce or when he chose to cover up Bryce’s murder. Having been in jail, becoming so involved with the deaths of 2 close friends (Jeff and Hannah) and covering up a murder, it was only a matter of time before he roller-coastered straight into the deep end. There’s only so much one person can take before they crash and burn. Quite literally in this season, because as we see Clay is haunted by dreams of a terrifying Monty, blood everywhere and Bryce. Even the lighting of this season is dark and monochromatic to reflect Clay’s weakened mental state. To be honest, Clay’s go-with-the-flow nature is the source of his mental distress, because for the past few seasons, he has just been coasting along with the other characters never stopping to think that maybe his friends are wrong and that he shouldn’t go along with the choices they’re making. Of course, at the same time, this quality is Clay’s core characteristic, because he is known for being a loyal friend even if being loyal means jeopardizing his own life and health. 

To put it simply, the Clay this season is a Clay that has lost all sense of purpose. If you’re thinking, what was his purpose anyway? Well, isn’t it obvious? Season 4 Clay has no one to take care of anymore: no Hannah, no Jeff, no Justin, no Skye, no Tyler, no Ani. He lost Hannah in season 1 where he realized he never did enough to care for her. That’s strike one. He loses Skye in Season 2 after they realize their relationship isn’t healthy, because Clay just wanted to stop her from committing suicide. Strike two. He finds Ani in Season 3 only to lose her in Season 4, because she’s already well-sorted and doesn’t need Clay’s help. That’s strike three. There seems to be a method to his pain where he keeps trying to help girls only to realize that he wasn’t helping them in the right way or that they never needed him. Imagine building up this pain of realizing that the one thing you want to do (care for others) is the one thing that you keep failing at. In fact, in season 4, in the lockdown episode, he questions whether he ever even helped Tyler get through his trauma. Clay’s conflict revolves around the fact that he believes that he was never capable of helping anyone and that makes him feel helpless. And it all starts with Hannah. So, in season 4, when he is left with no one to take care of, he struggles through his own emotionally turbulent journey to discover that before he can help others, he needs to help the most important person in his life: himself. It’s clear that throughout the seasons, Clay has been so involved in solving other people’s problems that he fails to solve his own. Which is why Season 4 had to be about Clay finally getting a chance to breathe and take care of himself. After all, if there is one thing this show has taught us, it is to take care of those around you. And that kind of caring starts only when you take care of yourself. Because, self-care is the essential ingredient in the recipe of life. 

Now, I have to admit: Though it was difficult for me to watch innocent and good Clay doing drugs, having sex, crashing cars, starting protests, burning a car, yelling at principals, and starting fights, it was necessary to have this character grow in this way. He had to venture out of his comfort zone and become crazy in order to realize what truly mattered to him and how to reach his fulfilled self. Of course, this kind of character arc is nothing new. We’ve seen it play out for centuries in popular texts, short stories and famous literature (Hamlet anyone?). In fact, one popular short story that comes to mind is Edgar Allen Poe’s “The Tell-Tale Heart.” Now, you might be wondering wait what? But, if you look closely, Clay’s spiral towards insanity closely charts that of the protagonist in Poe’s story. Let’s call him Joe. 

If you’re a reader of popular literature or have studied English literature, then you had to have encountered Poe’s famous short story, “The Tell-tale Heart.” It basically chronicles the living and breathing nature of guilt which can cause an individual to sabotage themselves. Literally, Joe plots and commits a carefully-planned murder only to have guilt rat him out. In the story, Joe has the police visit him after he commits the murder to investigate his house. After they find nothing, he invites them to stay a little longer and entertains them. He is so confident that he won’t be found that he continues to entertain them knowing that a dead body lies in his room. The guilt of knowing that he stopped someone’s heartbeat makes his heart beat louder and louder with guilt until he cannot take it anymore and he confesses to his crime. Why? Because guilt drives him up the wall and right back down to reveal the dead body parts stashed in his floorboard. Poe very smartly shows how after committing an ill-fated act, guilt leads you to second-guess yourself. Guilt throws suspicion over every small detail until the end result is that you sabotage yourself. And that’s exactly what happens to Clay. The resemblance between Clay’s story and Joe’s is uncanny. It’s almost like the writers of the show wrote Clay’s journey towards insanity with Poe’s story in mind. 

Fare warning: Tread with care, spoilers ahead.

Those who have watched the show know that the threatening phone calls, the graffiti (”Monty was framed”), the disabling of the security cameras and the senior camping trip prank was all dissociative-Clay’s doing. It’s a real mind-blowing scene when it hits Clay that he was the one sabotaging himself. The guilt of covering up Bryce’s murder was slowly killing him from the inside just like it was for Joe. It was like there was a part of Clay that did not want to stay quiet about the coverup and wanted the world to know what had happened exactly like Joe. Joe also could not take the fact that he got away with the murder and had to reveal his true colors. It’s something to think of that guilt can eat so much of your mind and soul that you become suspicious of everyone around you. Clay suspects almost every character (Winston, Diego, Charlie, Estella and even Tyler). His guilt actually turns out to be so murderous that it makes him do all sorts of crazy things that he would never do like start protests and yell at the principal. Now, 13 Reasons Why takes it a step further from Poe’s story by having Clay dissociate, so obviously there’s not too much damage control to do at the end (very convenient). Still, it is something to ponder on: that guilt is such a monstrous beast it can make one sabotage themselves. After all, there’s nothing more mentally and emotionally terrorizing than living with the fear of getting caught. Clay lives and sleeps (barely) with his guilt, never being able to escape it. And that’s why, it’s just easy to let it all out like Joe does at the end of the story. BUT, the major difference in 13RW is that Clay somehow finds a way to circumvent his guilt by justifying his choice of covering up a murder. By the end, he realizes that caring about his friends makes him who he is. With that logic, he comes to the conclusion that if he does something for his friends, then that is naturally right (even if that means killing someone and framing someone else for their murder, apparently). Look, it’s great that he finally understands who he is and what motivates him to behave in a certain way. Basically, losing himself helps him find his right and wrong. But, at the end of the day, morality has to be guided by more than your personal moral compass. It has to follow through with the laws set by society and killing and framing someone is just unjust and illegal no matter who those people are. You cannot justify your actions by saying that “they deserved to die” which, by the way, is what Jessica continues to do. I don’t know on what planet this kind of mentality is healthy, but I guess whatever planet that is, 13RW seems to exist on that sphere because it just ignores the injustice of what these characters chose to do. Yeah, all of them have to come to terms with their guilt, but they also have to realize that living a life carrying this secret is more burdensome than just coming out and saying it. I mean this kind of cover-up will never stop haunting them and they may never be able to move on from the past if they don’t let their guilt scream out from the rooftops. That’s where I think Poe’s story is the winner, because it realizes that you can’t let the guilt eat you up. Guilt exists for a reason so that those who commit crimes are eventually found out. Catharsis exists in letting the guilt shout from the rooftops. 

Unfortunately, though Clay exhibits all the signs of self-sabotage and guilt, he chooses not come out with the truth of his actions and those of his friend’s. According to Poe and me, the confession should have been the ultimate resolution to Clay’s arc. Clay shouldn’t have to suffer through the guilt in order to cover up for his friend’s mistakes. However, Clay’s suffering at the hands of his friends doesn’t matter, because the show chooses to neatly tie up the messy crimes and the horrible mistakes these characters committed in a 3 minute valedictorian speech. A speech which ultimately avows that love and acceptance is key to survival. Though that’s true, let’s be honest, it’s just an easy way to brush off the severity of Alex, Jessica, Ani, Clay, Justin, Charlie, Tyler and Zach‘s mistakes. If love and acceptance was key to survival, then we must put forth the question of whether Jessica, Clay and the rest of the characters have actually forgiven Bryce and Monty for their ill-deeds? Did they accept and understand Bryce when he needed to be? What’s lacking here is that though the characters might have accepted their mistakes in the last episode of the season, it still does not mean that they should not have to pay for their mistakes. Clearly, the show lets them get off easy, because even the police officers involved in the case cover up the truth about Bryce’s killer. Now, i’m going to sidestep here to say that I will acknowledge that the show does try to have the characters confess their guilt in a way so that there can be self-acceptance. Like, when Alex confesses to Winston in detail about why and how he killed Bryce. But, still: What message does this send to viewers? That if you have connections with powerful people you can get away with anything as long as you show regret and guilt for your actions? Regardless of whether or not it is a mistake or whether or not you are sorry for it, no crime should go unpunished and unconfessed. And I think the adults more than anyone have a huge hand in ensuring that the truth about Bryce’s murder never comes out. That being said, I’m not defending Bryce’s character in any way or saying that he was always a good person, but he was a human being regardless of the horrible crimes he committed. He does not deserve to have the truth of his murder hidden. The show seriously makes a huge mistake by having characters like Winston and the police officers decide whether or not they should let the truth of Bryce’s murder come out. 

Though it is the characters that covered up a serious crime, it’s the show that pulls off the biggest cover up of all: it attempts to dismiss its characters mistakes by excusing it as something that should just be understood and accepted rather than confessed. The show values understanding and acceptance over having the truth come out. Of course, understanding and acceptance of your guilt and your mistakes is a huge part of moving on, but confession is the final step to ensuring that these characters do not suffer a life filled with mental agony and despair. I know it seems that Clay’s journey into mental darkness was resolved with some therapy, understanding and self-reflection, we all know that covering up a murder is not a small crime and will eventually become unbearably taxing to the soul like it did for Joe. As Poe very neatly shows in his story, letting the truth come out about your past mistakes and crimes is the only road to living a mentally stable life filled with acceptance, forgiveness and understanding. After all, confession is not only good for the soul, but also for the mind. 

[livinwithhumans]

An Homage to This Is Us’ S2 E17

What makes This Is Us so special?

That is the burning question many critics and fans are asking themselves. What makes us love this show so much? It isn’t like we haven’t seen a drama before (a la Parenthood, Gilmore Girls, Switched at Birth, The Fosters). So, what is it that makes This Is Us stand out among the sea of family dramas that flood our cable every day.

Well, Deja’s very special episode from Season 2 gives us the answer we’ve been yearning for.

Let me walk you through it. Season 2 Episode 17 follows Deja’s journey of being brought up by a struggling teen mother. She is thrown from foster home to foster home until she finally ends up at the Randalls. It’s a heart wrenching episode (which isn’t something new for This Is Us), but it’s also a surprisingly fresh episode. By that I mean, we’re finally getting the story of someone who is not part of the Pearson family. Considering this show is primarily about the Pearsons, why deviate and dedicate a full episode to Deja’s backstory? Now, don’t get me wrong, this isn’t the first time a show has done this. Yes, I’m talking about Stranger Things’ notorious episode 8 which deviated from following the group of youngsters to following just one character’s arc. This was a controversial episode as some argued that it slowed the pace down and was an unnecessary episode. That’s to say, Eleven’s backstory did not require a full episode.

However, This Is Us bravely takes the risk of losing their audience’s attention by diverging from their main plot line. So, why do this? Well, Stranger Things’ may not have been successful at this one-episode-deviation-tactic, but the show writers of This Is Us have done a phenomenal job at maintaining the appropriate narrative pacing that is required in an episode that takes its audience away from the familiar space they’ve been in for so long. In fact, if we look closely at the narrative structure of this episode, notice that each of Deja’s experiences is paired and associated with a similar experience from the Pearson’s life. When Deja’s step dad drinks, we get quick shots of Jack and Kevin drinking. When Deja makes food for her mom, we cut to Rebecca and her kids playing with dough in the kitchen. When Deja thinks of selling her special pendant, we get a quick shot of a young Kevin receiving his dad’s chain as an emotional token.

What do all these experiences have in common? Us. They have us in common. They have the people who experience them in common. Notice, that we don’t get the same exact visual of each experience. Deja has to cook the food for her mom, but the big three are shown to have fun cooking. For them it’s not a necessity, but a luxury. For Deja, it is a necessity. The point isn’t that Deja has it bad and the Pearson’s good, but the fact that they both share a connection through their shared experiences. The point of these quick shots was to show that we’re all connected through the same things we do. Nothing can describe this notion better than Deja’s speech at the end of the episode: “no matter where we are. Poor or rich. We all go to sleep. Every single person in this planet goes to sleep at night”

There is a thread (the thread of our shared experiences) that stitches all our lives together, so that even though we never meet, we are still connected. This is the precise emotion that this episode wants us to feel. And not just this episode, but the whole show. Why do you think the shows jumps back and forth? It’s not just for storytelling purposes, but also to stay true to their title and show what the “this” in the This Is Us is. “This” is our shared experiences that stretches across time, space and distance to connect all of us in a wonderfully, whimsically wicked and beautiful human tapestry. That’s why this episode was a breath of fresh air, because even though it deviated from the Pearsons it found its way to “us,” the humans all across the world who watch this show and share their experiences via their characters. We are like Deja in this episode who journeys through her life not realizing that there are others around the world who have shared the same experience. The purpose of this episode was to remind us of why this show is so beautiful and who makes it beautiful. Yup, you guessed it: it’s us who make this show worth watching; all the people and all the lives that connect through the wonderful experience of life.

So, why is This Is Us so special? Because as Kevin says, “Life is full of color and we each get to come along and add our own color to the painting. And even though it’s not big, it stretches till infinity. And even though some of us have died, we’re all in the painting. There’s no you, me or them. It’s just us. This right here, I think it’s us.”

[livinwithhumans]

A Short Story: Here, we live

Blood gushing from his throat flowed like the Nile River. His bulging eyeballs stared into my own as the life slowly crept out from beneath his flesh. The dry and cracked lips opened slightly as if to deliver a parting speech, but I knew this wasn’t a movie. He didn’t have enough time or oxygen to move his body let alone speak.

I stared down at him, revelling in my victory, and, in return, he shut his eyes. The axe in my hand weighed down on me more with the satisfaction of a job well done than with burden. I sighed – in his end was my beginning. Finally, I will live.

Almost as if he heard my inner speech, Adam opened his bloodshot eyes to give me one final look. What I saw was not contempt, betrayal or even pain, but a serenity that I had never seen in life. That’s when I realized the peace spreading over his complexion was that of death.

That’s how he went; looking into my eyes. The same eyes that had looked over him as he quietly entered the land of dreams. The same eyes that had memorized each crevice of his face and chest. The same eyes that looked into his and had found warmth and comfort. Now, these eyes find only a chilled ice river. One that will break with the slightest weight.

Immediately, I raise my foot and crush it on his eye balls. Squish – like the sound of stepping on grapes to make wine. I won’t look at them anymore. My obligations, promises and commitments to this man have been revoked. I’m free.

There’s more blood now gathering from his eyes and joining the bloody Nile on the concrete. Clatter. I drop the axe. Thud. I kneel. Sniff. I cry. And cry. And cry. A maniac war cry escapes my lips. Not a no, but a yes. I’ve made it. I don’t care if I’m found. Being caught will be my escape – not from him, but from the institution of marriage. The world needs to bear witness to my scream for justice. Mine and every woman who has been abused. For too long we’ve stayed silent. Now, we yell.

My body stops wracking with coughs and the spit dripping from my mouth recedes. I open my eyes and Adam’s juiced out, flattened sclera looks up at me. I get up and walk away until I’m at the door. Size 8 imprints of blood mark the concrete floor. Pausing, I glance back one last time at the man who loved me, but not enough to care for me.

In a while when they come, I’ll leave, but right now, I take my time and marvel at my work. Ten years of hits, punches, shouts, screams, beatings and endless scars end here.

[livinwithhumans]

The Crown: A Monarch’s Marriage to the Consitution

With so many shows about the royals from the White Queen to Reign, it’s definitely becoming harder for shows about the royals to leave their mark in the viewer’s mind. However, Netflix’s The Crown had no problem bringing in the same hype and buzz that surrounded its first season. It’s worth wondering how a season two of what appears to be a very painstakingly slow-moving story about a queen and her prince managed to surprise and attract audiences once again. The obvious reason is that it’s an inside look into the life of one of the most influential people in this world: Queen Elizabeth.

This second season followed a very unique story-telling style where one to two episodes covered a specific phase or event in the Queen’s life. This makes sense considering the writers are trying to give us the best and worst of the queen’s life in ten episodes. However, the narrative style did lead to a pace that lulled the viewers to sleep. I, myself, took two weeks to finish the season (probably the longest I’ve taken for any Netflix show). The pacing was such that I could stroll away from these stories and not bat an eyelid unlike some shows that demand complete emotional and mental investment.

Unlike the first, the second season starts us off with the famous scandal that surrounded Prince Philip and his relationship with Queen Elizabeth. From there, we are taken on a boat ride through one of the major political losses the British government faced at the time: the Suez Canal. After that, we side step a little to focus on Princess Margaret’s love life and her eventual marriage. Finally the show culminates with the Queen’s renowned and successful trip to Kenya, Prince Charles’s struggle to adjust to Gordonstoun School and a brittle reconciliation between Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip. It seems that all of these events are unrelated to each other and thus would offer up an incoherent storyline. But keep in mind these events actually happened in real life and thus there is no obligation that life has to make a story cohesive and well-rounded; that job is up to the writers. This brings me to the point in question what makes this season worth it? In one word, the relationships that make the storyline cohesive.

The tying factor throughout these episodes is the subject of marriage, not between royalties but between two people who really loved each other, but now have to survive a complication in their love life. In essence, season two is sometimes peppered with and for the most part focuses on difficult relationships. One criticism against this season is that it unnecessarily wastes time on Queen Elizabeth’s relationships as well as Princess Margaret’s and other secondary characters like Prince Philip’s equerry Michael Parker, Lord Mountbatten and Prime Minister Macmillan. But, I believe the reason for including fraught marriages is to further exhume and emphasize the frail government of Britain at the time. It is clear that the writers attempt to draw a parallel between the domestic sphere and the political sphere. Just as Queen Elizabeth’s relationship with Prince Philip is going through some tough times, the British government faces the loss of the Suez canal. Here is the first connection to be made between domestic life and political life. On top of that, we also see that Princess Margaret’s husband was clearly an infidel before his marriage. Furthermore, Lord Mountbatten’s marital life is a compromise where his wife does what she wants so long as the appearance of a stable marriage is kept up.  Similarly, Prime Minister Macmillan’s wife is given freedom to have an affair with whoever she wants as long as his good name is not tarnished. In these three marriages, we see a very dismal relationship where neither partner is happy with their marriage, but are yet plowing through in order to appear stable. This is how the British government was operating at the time. From the outside, it appeared under control and stable, but we know underneath that people like Eden and Macmillan who were running the show were weak, spineless and vindictive traditionalists with no eye for progression.

In this way, all the troubling and failed marriages in the show represent the failed British system and the rough time that Queen Elizabeth had to face in those ten years that saw the replacement of three prime ministers. Indeed, the relationship between the government and the monarchy is similar to a marriage where each does not want to have to deal with the other, but is yet forced to due to the constitution. It is clear in the scenes where the queen meets with her prime minister that there is underlying tension which is reflected in the few marriages we have seen on the show like Princess Margaret’s, the queen’s and Lord Mountbatten’s. The only difference, however, is that the prime minister can run away from his duties by resigning, but divorce  is not an option at the time for those who are already married.

By drawing parallels between these two sectors of life, the show brings all the unrelated global events together by demonstrating how when the domestic life is in trouble, the political life comes under trouble as well. Both areas of life are intimately connected such that we can be so bold as to say that the domestic life influences the political life. This is why this season of The Crown spends episodes on end just dealing with the repercussions of Michael Parker’s infidelity on Queen Elizabeth  and Prince Philip’s marriage. The writers want us to view the relationship between the Monarchy and the government as one akin to a marriage that has to survive a lot of mudslinging. That is to say, infidelity is akin to the impetuous decision that Eden makes to pull troops out of the Suez Canal and then falls sick because of the stress from his erroneous decision. Similarly, Macmillan pulls out simply because he is too dastardly to handle the defamation that is wilfully thrown up him by the general public. This is just like Lord Mountbatten and his wife who pull out of their marriage and live separate lives, because they cannot divorce.

At the end, viewers finally get a dialogue between Prince Philip and the Queen where the Queen more or less explicitly talks about the doubts, suspicions and insecurities she has experienced. Of course, it will never be clear whether Prince Philip was unfaithful to the Queen. However, the main take-away point is that it took them ten episodes to finally talk to each other like two equal humans instead of like a Queen to her prince. The estrangement that had taken place over the ten episodes finally smoothed over in the final episode where Prince Philip confesses that he will always love her and vows to never leave her not because he cannot, but because he does not want to. This, I think, is what The Crown wants us to understand about the difficulty of surviving the life of a royal: you may never escape being a royal, but that doesn’t mean you have to surrender all rights to be a human and live your own life. For our politicians, it’s worth understanding that mudslinging may work in global affairs, but a little love in one’s personal life can go a long way to make amends both domestically and globally. 

[livinwithhumans]

Mindhunter: Whose mind is actually being hunted?

Good psychological thrillers (I mean the ones that leave you with goosebumps and chill you to your bone) are hard to come by. So, I was relieved that Mindhunter did not fail in that regard. It has all the making of a bone-chilling TV show on serial killers. But, what’s more is that it comes with its own thrilling surprise reveal. I’m sure you believe that the Mindhunter of this show is Holden Ford, but what you won’t see coming in the last episode is that actually his mind is the one that is being hunted. Don’t believe me? Well, here is a thorough run down of how this show was actually making a subtle play on its title. 

Being a psychological thriller about serial killers, you would expect a plethora of gruesome, violent scenes flooded with mutilated bodies. Yet, all this show gives is a series of indoor conversations between the two cops of this show and a chosen serial killer. What is the point of a show about serial killers if we don’t actually get to see the crime scene? All we are ever given are pictures of the bodies.

The lack of gore bothered me, because it was highly unexpected and uncharacteristic of a show such as Mindhunter. But, when I made it to the last episode, something-so-unsurprising-it-was-obvious was spoken by a peripheral character that it took me off guard. Holden and Wendy arrive at the Georgia District Attorney’s office where she tells them that their “work” is glossing over the victims and the real pain that is suffered. In just a few sentences she reveals the indecency and the actual horror of what Holden and his team are really proposing. Yes, a death penalty is extreme and fighting against is justified, but to defend a serial killer and refuse the victim’s family some closure is beyond overreaching. Holden thinks he is justified in asking the district attorney to have Gene serve his sentence in jail rather than in a death penalty. But as the district attorney puts it “You haven’t seen the bodies. You haven’t seen the horrible acts committed.” These are probably the most transparent lines of this show and they are spoken for the sake of the audience who, like me, are so immersed in Holden’s smooth tactics and easy going conversation style with the serial killers that they have forgotten what a serial killer does. 

If you think about it, all the conversations Holden has with the serial killers are mildly horrific at first, but then lull into a creeping sense of comfort where it is no longer absurd and terrifying that Ed Kemper is demonstrating how to slit a throat in a matter-of-fact way. As if they were discussing how to bake a cake. When we first enter the show, we are wary just like Holden is with his first soiree into the world of serial killers. But once he gets comfortable and gets the hang of talking to them, so do we as viewers become fooled into believing that we are talking to a person who comes from a broken background instead of one who has mutilated and raped innocent girls. It’s hard to distinguish the line of reason from the line of insanity. At what point does the serial killer become irredeemable? Should we even care about them? Just some question to think about.

Holden is shown to be interested in their psychology, but his mind very slowly but easily gets caught up with the disfigured boundaries between sexual play and rape. This is very obviously seen in the scene where his girlfriend is role playing and he is unable to commit to her sexual game because he keeps thinking of how it is all game for the serial killer. We start to see the cracks appear in his own mind. He can’t separate his work self who in some form sympathizes with the serial killer from the private self who enjoys sex and does not see it as a means to control his broken life. This confabulation of both parts of his life is culminated in the last scene of the season where he willingly visits Ed Kemper at his hospital room to apparently have a conversation with him as if they were friends. Remember, this is a serial killer convicted for multiple rapes and murders. It took reaching this scene for me to realize how supremely screwed up Holden’s whole situation was and to realize that I as a viewer had got caught up in it. I was intrigued just like he was. Nevertheless, when Holden walks into Ed’s room, I don’t think he imagined he would be sweating and scared for his life in his presence. And that is the scary part, not that Holden thought he was almost going to be killed by a serial killer, but the fact that he was befriended and hugged by a serial killer. The season ends with him having an anxiety attack which is an extreme reaction to him escaping death by the hands of a serial killer. I think that anxiety attack is actually because Holden realized just how psychologically screwed up he has become for a serial killer like Ed Kemper to think they are friends. What kind of a person is he, if serial killers start to feel comfortable around him enough to hug him? That is what is messed up about this show: the fact that CIA officers investigating the minds of serial killers could become so enthralled by their subjects that they wouldn’t realize when the lines blurred between compassion and the horrific reality of their subject’s actions.

David Fincher intentionally chooses to exclude the gory crime scenes, so that we would feel immersed in the world of serial killers and eventually forget what they do. Indeed, Holden never sees the bodies in real life, only pictures. That is why it is easier for him to disassociate from the horrific nature of his work. Holden does many questionable things like speak things that brings him down to the level of the serial killer in order to extract information from them, but to what end? How many acts like these can be justified until it is just down-right immoral for Holden to be joking around with the serial killer and sexualizing a 14 year old victim even if it is for the purposes of justice. Where should the line be drawn? These are the questions we should be asking ourselves about people like Holden and even psychologists today who are forced to have conversations with psychopaths and sociopaths in order to retrieve valuable information that could help prevent future psychopathic minds from being formed. Yes, it is honorable work, but it comes with its own dangers specifically to the minds of the interviewer who can become psychologically disturbed by what the serial killers/psychopaths say.

It is clear from the gore-less format of this show that Fincher means for us to mull over what happens to the minds of those who believe themselves to be hunting other minds. For Fincher, the hunter (Holden) should be the hunted (investigated),  because after all each of us in our own way is teetering between the threshold of reason and insanity. So, an investigation into the minds of serial killers is actually an exploration of our own psychology and how close we can come to thinking like a serial killer, eventually becoming one  ourselves. This is the scary thought that Fincher leaves us with at the end of the season where Holden, like us, is left at the edge of insanity. 

[livinwithhumans]

The Punisher: As much as you can push  it, you can never tear the delicate envelope of the comic book universe

Let’s talk about how unsympathetic and hypocritical the Frank Castle of Marvel’s the Punisher is. It seems Netflix’s the Punisher is getting all around superb reviews because of an unconventional mode of storytelling and a deviation from the comic book norm. But, does it really meander away from the Marvel universe? Is it possible to customize a character to fit a TV show format when said character will irrevocably be a property of the comic book universe? these are some of the questions I’m mulling over after I finished watching the Punisher and I’ll convince you that the answers to both those questions is a resounding no.

First, let me just start off by saying that I was a huge fan of the Punisher’s portrayal in Daredevil season 2. He was both a horrific yet humane character when he was introduced in Daredevil. Viewers were shown long sequences of violence where Frank is endlessly killing people around him (the stairwell scene, the jail scene). We’re supposed to be afraid of him which I can safely say we are while watching those scenes. However, the interesting tactic that the show writers of Daredevil use is that they insert emotional and sympathetic scenes where we see the Punisher relating his sad story or being hounded by terrible memories of his family’s murder. This is what sold me on the Punisher’s character and I instantly fell in love with the complexity that he offered. He challenged Daredevil by showing him opposing mentalities to the issue of justice and criminality, but he also believe that he was justified (somewhat) in his reasons for killing the “bad guys.” Frank was a no-nonsense, bold and realist character which I immensely respected. Yes, he’s a killer, but he also under no misconceptions that he is a good guy. That is precisely what I loved about the character: the fact that he wasn’t lying to himself about the viciousness and horridity of his actions. He gladly accepts them for what they are and honesty is a trait I always value, be it a protagonist or antagonist. For him, he doesn’t care about saving the world, he just cares about killing the bad people who have corrupted the system, inadvertently leading to the murder of his family. In Daredevil, Punisher’s motto is simple: killing will end the disease of corruption and prevent further deaths of innocent civilians. So, he saves lives by taking lives. One from the many interesting paradoxes that makes up the Punisher’s character.

However, in Marvel’s the Punisher this motto is torn down and revealed to be at its core a hypocritical mentality. Yes, we already knew that, but it seems that the Frank in Punisher is blissfully unaware of what his actions make him. He seemed to be okay with it in Daredevil. He even admitted to it in court and willingly went to jail for it. So what happened in the Punisher? Why is Frank suddenly saying things like “I’m not like Lewis” and “I’m not a terrorist”? Why does he suddenly think he is not murdering, because of a false sense of justice?

I don’t have an answer to that actually, because that is my problem with this version of Frank. He suddenly believes that he is a good guy saving lives and not the misunderstood murderer that he is. It was especially infuriating when in a conversation with Lewis, Lewis asks him to sympathize with his situation because it is the same that Frank comes from and Frank refuses to do so, adamantly saying that he is not like him. Now, you’ll tell me that Lewis killed innocent civilians whereas Frank is just killing the corrupt government officials. Sure, but what about the many soldiers part of the tactical team that get caught in the crossfire. I am specifically referring to the team that Rawlins sent to kill Frank in episode “Gunner” and the assassin team that Rawlins sent to kill Frank in episode 12. Who will answer for the innocent lives that were lost in that battle? Frank? Rawlins? No one seems to care about the many people that he has killed to reach his enemies, Russo and Rawlins. Then, you’ll argue well they were there to kill him, they are part of the conspiracy too. But are they? Do we know that? Or are they just following orders like a certain someone did when he shot Ahmad Zubair?

I am not against the sympathetic portrayal of Frank Castle, but all my sympathy disappears when he attempts to defend himself to Karen or any other character. That’s not the Frank Castle I was introduced to in Daredevil. He did not have any misguided notions of himself as a hero. In fact, he knew he was anything but. So, where is this sudden defensiveness coming? Frank’s character is such that once he starts defending himself, you lose all sympathy for him, because then all his hypocrisy is laid out for us to see. If he thinks he’s not like a terrorist who kills innocent civilians, then why kill all those men that Russo sent to his basement? What was the purpose of throwing around a severed head? Why torture the soldier who didn’t know anything? Doesn’t the fact that he doesn’t know anything clue Frank in to the possibility that maybe, like him, this soldier doesn’t know who he’s sent to kill; he’s just following orders. Why torture, mutilate and kill those people? How many innocent families has he hurt by killing these soldiers?

No other character on this show who supports Frank seems to care about the lives that get taken in his crusade for catharsis. Because, really that scene where he kills all of Russo’s men was just his catharsis. His way of dealing with the pain of being betrayed by a friend. If he were a normal guy, he’d talk it out. But the Punisher kills and we’re supposed to be somehow okay with that. If he thinks he’s a wronged ex-veteran, then how is he helping others like him by killing them? You can see how there’s no sense to his actions anymore. So the fact that he tries to defend them adds more fuel to fire.

What’s more is when Karen, who provides viewers with the sympathetic lens with which we should view Frank, tells Lewis that she does not condone his actions saying that “murdering people is not the way to deal with your being wronged by the legal system,” she pauses a bit to take in the hypocrisy of her own words. Does this sound familiar to you? Because it did to Karen. There was a slight pause after that statement came out of her mouth where she realized that who she described was actually Frank who also kills because he believes he was wronged by government institutions. Karen becomes a hypocrite along with Frank. So, there is no reasonably sympathetic light with which we can view Frank anymore. There is no way to empathize with his situation. Neither himself or Karen can see how screwed up their relationship is. She thinks she is not complicit in his actions. But, she is, because she has helped him and never stopped him from killing. That makes her as responsible and complicit as a bystander. That is one reason why I just couldn’t buy into Frank and Karen’s relationship. I loved their deep connection in Daredevil, but the fact that this time around, they both seem to be ignoring the inconsistencies in their actions and having no real dialogue about the impact that their actions are causing disappointed me. For this reason, I couldn’t relate to why they cared for each other. How could Karen feel anything special for Frank when she explicitly states on the radio station call that she has no sympathy for murders who think they are killing for justice? That is why their relationship just seems impossible until they both figure out their shit.

Saving her life or Madani’s does not make Frank redeemable. And I think that is one question that many of the characters (Curtis, Micro, Karen, Madani) circle around. Is Frank redeemable? Can he come back from the violence? From the endless war he is fighting?

The few final scenes of episode 12 where Rawlins beating Frank is overlaid with scenes of him making love to his wife is the answer we have been waiting on. When she calls him to return home, I wondered whether she was calling him to return from his murder crusade or whether she wanted him to finish exacting his revenge and come home? I think it’s the former, because Frank finally wakes up to kill Rawlins only when Sarah leaves his hand. It seems his love for his family (the only part of him that has preserved his humanity) was keeping him from fulfilling his false sense of justice. He believes that killing the men who murdered his family will provide him with some resolution or closure. But it is obvious it does not when we see him in the last scene of the show: “I’m scared.” He doesn’t know how to be functioning human in society.

And I think that speaks to the fact that he is irredeemable. More so than that, one thing that has driven the inconsistent nature of Frank’s character is the fact that he literally is two people in one body. Even before his family’s murder, it is seen from his memories that his wife worried that he was never really home. He was disturbed by the scenes of war, but also wanted to be a father. He’s caught between trying to be Frank, the loving caring husband and father who is loyal and protects his loved ones and trying to be the Punisher, the killing machine who will stop at nothing to get his revenge. It is like when he is the Punisher his humanity is turned off and all he sees is red. It’s even marked by a change in his voice which becomes more gruff and deeper. The fact is that in this show, Frank tries to be a guardian to micro’s family and tries to care for Karen while at the same time killing people heartlessly. These two sides of his personality cannot co-exist like he wants. they’re incompatible. He can’t pretend like he is a good guy who cares while turning around and killing a few men like it’s any Tuesday. He has to choose. Either kill or retreat.

I know the ending is meant to be hopeful in that he has finally retreated and taken the first step towards rehabilitation, but I’m still not sold on that and that is where the comic book aspect comes in. Not killing Russo is highly uncharacteristic of Frank. He is ruthless and stubborn. He would never turn away from his promise to kill everyone involved in his family’s murder. So why this inconsistent behavior? Why let Russo live? Well, because otherwise we would have some very mad comic book fans who wouldn’t have a teaser for who Season 2′s villain would be.

What I’m saying is Frank’s actions are being censored by the looming presence of the comic book universe that the show writers have to pay respect to. The show writers know they have to provide a badass ending with plenty of teasers for upcoming villains. But, how can you make this a show about a real world topical issue and then suddenly switch gears to succumbing to the tried and tested tropes of the comic book format. Frank falls under that gimmick because the only reason he doesn’t kill Russo is not because he has forgiven (the punisher does not forgive). It is because the writers needed a good segue way for the next villain after Rawlins died. What better way to set up the new villain than for Frank to mangle his best friend’s face so that he could one day return with vengeance.

That is why I think that sometimes turning a comic book property into a 13 hour movie may not give you the best results, because you cannot have the best of both worlds (comic book and real world). Just like Frank can’t be a friend and a protector while still satisfying his passion for killing by going on a killing spree every now and then. I was disappointed in the fact that unlike in Daredevil, this time I had not sympathy for Frank. I did not care that his family dies. I just cared that he was behaving inconsistently with his mentality. If you’re killing then kill, but don’t try to convince other characters that it is the justified means to an end.

To sign off with a last note, although I’m unhappy with Frank Castle, I’m still super enthralled and impressed with Jon Bernthal. He is a superlative actor and no other actor would have been able to deliver the finely nuanced performance that he has. A huge hats off to Jon for playing the character with integrity and transparency even when the character himself has none.

[livinwithhumans]

Supporting Characters are Making a Comeback

If you own a TV or a laptop, then I’m sure you must have had an intimate encounter with Netflix typically in the form of Netflix and chill sessions as is colloquially called. If so, then you also must have heard of Netflix’s two breakout TV shows: Stranger things (2016) and 13 Reasons Why (2017). You may think these two shows are connected just because they’ve catapulted Netflix’s reputation into another universe (the underworld possibly). Well, think again. Surprisingly, both massive hits also sport supporting characters who undergo an untimely demise. What’s interesting is both these characters have garnered internet fame posthumously with graphically emotional memes protesting the injustice of their deaths.

Let me backtrack a bit. Weren’t supporting characters those forgettable faces who were literally the writer’s spare tools, used only when needed? I remember the days nobody cared about the heroine’s best friend who always provided sound advice and never lived any other life. I remember the days supporting characters were referred to as “that girl/guy. you know the one who just parties or is there to make the hero/heroine look good.” Well, those days are gone. Now, supporting characters get eulogies and internet memorials. What happened? Why are Barb and Jeff igniting an internet outcry with millions of voices banding together to demand #justiceforbarb and #jeffatkinsdeservedbetter?

One thing is for sure, whatever phenomenon has taken ahold of the internet it is working towards the integrity of a narrative. Because our own life may have people who seem a lot like supporting characters but who are just as complex and profound as we are. Their lives matter just as much as ours. They shouldn’t be ignored or overlooked. This overwhelming attention that Jeff and Barb are receiving is a progressive step forward for our generation. We are recognizing that our stories should start to reflect our lives, because people who may be the supporting characters for us are actually the protagonists for others. Which means their deaths and their lives matter. 

This trend is giving me hope that we will not only start to perceive our cinematic supporting characters as integral to our narrative, but also the people in our lives who we ignore or dismiss as flat. It’s time to live by the mantra that all characters are round. 

[livinwithhumans]

It’s been almost 1 year in our world and 6 months in Daredevil’s since we last saw Matt Murdock and his gang. A lot takes place in this new season in terms of old character development, new character introductions, crazy action sequences and a seriously snazzy setting and ambience. This season was just as addictive as the first one due to its kick ass storyline, but also the bad ass characters that spice up Hell’s Kitchen. One in particular is The Punisher. I’m going to try and write an unbiased review, but beware my love for this character may make me prejudiced against others. He’s that good.

Speaking of, most of you may know him from The Walking Dead, but I had no preconceived notions of him before I went into the show. Honestly, this was the first time I ever saw Jon Bernthal on screen and I was glued. He has a magnetic aura to his acting and a dangerously fragile emotional sensibility which makes you want to hate and love him at the same time. Often times, I was caught condoning his behavior of mass murder and at other times, I turned my head away in revulsion. This, in my opinion, is what any good story should do; make you question everything you stand for, so that you have to break down every  principle and rebuild anew. The question Daredevil seems to pose through The Punisher is whether there even is a moral high ground and low ground. In other words, how can we know for sure who is right and who is wrong. On the one hand, I understand that he wants justice for the wrongs that were done to his family, however on the other hand, I see that with every kill he’s growing into a monster. How do you separate between the human who lives inside and the monster who terrorizes everyone. Nevertheless, Punisher is the one character who makes you doubt our own judicial and moral system and that’s all due  to the phenomenal actor behind the magnificently written character. If for nothing else, Daredevil season 2 is a  must-watch for Punisher alone. He has carried the show on his bare shoulders and testament to that is the fact that even Matt Murdock had to take a back seat to his own show and let Punisher have his show.

Besides the Punisher, I feel that this season Hell’s Kitchen’s ambience was dialed up a notch. It felt more apocalyptic and violent. In all honesty, I binge-watched the whole season in one night, because I felt like I was actually in Hell’s Kitchen and even after I was done I was suffering from a hangover. I kept feeling like I was still in the show. The writers and directors made the setting feel so bona fide that at one point I wanted to live there even though it was strife with death and destruction.

This season, the action sequences were bigger and crazier, but lets hold back on the better, because they may be bigger, but they didn’t have the finesse that season one’s action sequences had. I definitely liked that each character had their own maverick style of fighting, so the sequences were not redundant. But because they forced in a lot of sequences in one episodes, I felt like it was too much and I would occasionally zone out. Having only a few action sequences leaves something to yearn and stay excited for, however Season two didn’t have much of that enthusiasm that I felt so potently in Season one. .

All in all, Daredevil’s Season two is an exhilarating watch packed with drama, love and an overdose of violence. I’d definitely recommend it as a quick pasttime watch. Who knows, you may actually get caught up in the world and decide to stay for another season!

[livinwithhumans]

Love knows no Reason like Darkness see no Light

[livinwithhumans]

There are numerous shows on cable TV that question the presence of true justice in our conduct of law. White Collar is just one from the many that provides a twist on how justice should be served.

We have a conman (illegal) and an FBI agent (legal) working together to solve cases. What I’ve come to notice about this relationship is that it is making a statement about our justice system and how it can be improved towards perfection. The legal system is blind which is why it’s not omnipotent, hence the law on its own cannot vindicate. For example, there are many cases where we see the law only looking at concrete evidence and not at motivation or the character of a person. To spout one example, when our lawman Peter gets arrested for murder, there is gun shot residue, his fingerprints and a bullet from his gun embedded in the victim. From this point of view, the only reasonable conclusion is that Peter did in fact kill a man. However, we, the audience, know that Peter’s character is holistically just and pure giving him no reason to kill someone. Yet, the law only “sees” what’s in front of them and not what’s underneath. For this reason, our conman, Neal, is forced to take illegal means towards getting his friend out of this predicament. Because the law takes its time and cannot be trusted to make the right decision, people are forced to take the wrong route to a right end. 

Another example would be of a couple who kidnaps Peter and Elizabeth. Through the episode we find out that the legal system failed them, as the guy went to jail for being wrongfully accused of a crime and that too by a policeman who exaggerated his crime, so he could be put behind bars. It’s troubling to see how much people like Peter are blinded by the law, so that they are unable to see it’s imperfection. It’s no fault of the couple that they had to rob and steal, because they were wronged by the justice system. So how can we really believe in a justice system that’s held as Gospel when it fails to recognize its own weaknesses.

This is where the conman comes in, as we see Neal and Peter work together to bring criminals down. Neal goes undercover and more often than not uses illegal means to attain evidence against the criminal without which it would take ages to incarcerate the criminal while Peter makes sure the justice system and the FBI will accept this evidence.

In other words, to attain true, omniscient and objective justice, we need to combine the legal and illegal. After all, this justice system is created by humans and there is no black and white with us, it’s all grey. Only makes sense that the law also covers grey grounds in order to vindicate.

In fact, we’ve seen this pairing in modern day superhero shows and comics as well. Part of the allure in superheroes is that they use legal and illegal means to provide fairness. To name a few, there is Flash, Daredevil, Batman and so on, depending on the versions you look at.

Most crime and law shows portray cases where it is glaringly obvious that the law in itself will not be able to incarcerate. The law we’ve created may seem foolproof, but as devious humans goes, we will always find a way to break our own set of rules and figure out a loophole, so why adhere solely to a system that can never be infallible as is believed when we can combine the black and white to create a world that suits the moral and ethical grounds created by humans. 

Justice can only be served when the scales are balanced which is to say when right and wrong meet they cancel each other out to attain an almost perfect balance. After all, we ourselves are imperfect so anything we create will be too implying that the only way to get around is to take an imperfect route.

[livinwithhumans]

Open your eyes and see what you can with them before they close forever

All the Light We Cannot See by Anthony Doerr

[livinwithhumans]

While we await

Traipsing among mother nature’s beautiful scenery really makes me think about how satisfying and pleasing it is just to be around greenery. All you do is sit and stare, but there’s something about nature’s ethereal form that invites us into its arms and caresses us like a mother would. She allows us to lie in her womb and ponder ceaselessly about what exactly awaits us when we are let go.

And we sit there and hope that time stops, the world stops rotating, the wind stops blowing, the trees stop whispering, the ocean stops moving while we enjoy mother nature’s last, fresh breath of love and air before we have to retreat into out techno-infused world.

[livinwithhumans]

Remember how when you were little and there was some boy/girl who would always tease you by pulling your hair, calling you names, making fun of you and generally pissing the hell out of you. You, as a child, reacted normally and hated him/her for being nagging asses. Well, I’m writing today to propose a theory as to why every adult would, then, laughingly suggest to you that maybe this boy/girl actually likes you and why there is some truth to their suggestion. Fare warning though, might not be quite what you expected. (and might not apply to everyone)

So, just like everyone, I was told the same thing when I got teased by a guy: he likes me. My child mind just could not grasp that statement. It just does not make sense and it’s nagged me ever since. So naturally I got to thinking. Why is it that at the age when a boy or girl realizes they’re different from one another, friendly teasing is turned into fledgling love? The boy/girl hurts you, because he/she likes you. It’s a paradox. But maybe not quite.

As I said, this sort of phenomenon usually occurs around the age that a child is beginning to be hyper-aware of their gender and what that entails. Feelings, emotions and hormones rise up from deep in the sea of their mind and body and notify their brain that drastic changes are occurring. Imagine, seeing your male/female friend everyday of your life as just a human being you love being around. One day, you wake up and see him/her with sexual feelings pertinent to lust or love.

Now, this onslaught of intense and terrifyingly daunting emotions is enough to make an adult cry with happiness or sadness. So, imagine how a child might feel to realize that there is something different about their friend that is making them feel something they don’t like. Of course, unconsciously we all have dormant sexual feelings towards everyone, but consciously society has taught us not to entertain those desires. That child might, then, unconsciously attribute these heavy emotions to their friend’s presence and unintentionally target them. They dislike how their friend makes them feel so they start to push his/her friend away. Hurt them, ridicule them, make a joke out of them, so that they don’t have to face how they feel about his/her friend. And thus, the statement, he/she teases you cause he/she likes you finds some truth.

Now, this phase only lasts for so long before we get used to those desires and become capable of handling them. That does not, however, mean that we don’t still behave in a similar way when we are adults. You must wonder why there are films and shows that portray heartbreaking relationships where people push others away and hurt them endlessly. This is just an adult version of the childhood teasing and mocking except more dramatic and painful. The person who pushes the other away in a relationship and hurts them could be feeling emotions towards them that they just don’t want to (because of reasons), so in order to evade the situation they do the easiest thing which is to make the other person hate them, so that it’ll be easier to let go.

One TV relationship that comes to mind is Sherlock and Molly. Sherlock insults Molly in every way possible and basically rejects her every single time she comes on to her. Why? Well apply our theory. He knows deep down how much he will fall for this girl and so to protect himself and herself from a life of incessant pain and hurt, he pushes her away as best he can. Also, this is related to the character. Since we know he is a machine who will do everything in his power not to feel anything towards any human, a powerful emotion such as love would definitely throw his system off, making it impossible for him to function as a “high-functioning sociopath.” Of course, he’s trying to protect his mental stability (mind palace) from a tsunami of emotions and in the process he also protects her from his dangerous life. Maybe he also feels he’s not worthy of her love. There are countless reasons as to why Sherlock pushes Molly away, but only one that holds true in all situations: he loves her so much, he’d do anything to protect her and save her from himself. Now, that’s a self-sacrificing individual if I‘ve ever seen one.

Point is, love and hurt go hand in hand, so don’t be too quick to dismiss someone’s mockery or teasing as hatred for you. Chances are they might be in need of a little love and this is their way of signaling to you that they wish you could see that and save them from themselves. (Also, this theory does not apply to every situation - bullying is something else altogether - and may apply to non-romantic relationships).

[livinwithhumans]

Superhuman vs. Super Humans

At least once in our lives, we’ve all wished we could be the guy who can fly or the guy who can be invisible or the guy who can run at the speed of light. We’ve all contemplated what it would be like to own these powers. That’s why we take so much pleasure from their stories: we think they have something unattainable. Gives us a chance to live a life like theirs.

But, what we don’t realize is we have something they can never have.

You know I’ve heard stories of the times when love bloomed with a few side glances. But they’re not just a story, they’re also a reality. We communicate to each other with our eyes and faces - WITHOUT TALKING - all the time! Like when you have to tell your nosy daughter to stop prying in someone’s business with a pointed glare. Or when you want to tell your partner you love them with a gaze that can melt any heart. Or when you look at someone without speaking to tell them that you enjoy the peaceful silence they share together. Or when you smile to a stranger and make their day without even knowing it. I could keep going, because I’m sure there are countless expressions I haven’t covered yet. The bottom line is that we think we can’t communicate without a common language, but there are some expressions and stares that are universal across all cultures. Imagine, being able to tell the french guy you love him with just a loving gaze and smile. No words required, just your body language. I’d say that’s a power in itself. A special superpower where you can say a variation of things without talking. And we thought language is a barrier. The only barrier is us believing that it is one.

What about how we can tell what someone close to use really feeling despite them saying otherwise? Like a mother always knowing when her child is crying despite her not crying at all. Or a best friend knowing when her friend is upset, because she carries a careful smile to hide her sadness. Or a loved one who knows you like a good book to tell when you’re giddy and when you’re sad. It’s in all the little things we discover about each other that we are able to love and care for one another. And communicate with each other without requiring much effort or energy. It’s natural. We’re gifted with this powerful prize and yet we see ourselves as a disability. Poor, weak, fragile. Human.

And that’s not it, we can do so much more than would seem imaginable or possible. We somehow continue to love even when we’re hurt. Who can say that they are strong enough to keep loving despite knowing that it might break their heart again. Requires an immense amount of courage and will to keep living despite the adversities. But we do it. Don’t we?

Who’s to say we’re not already a super human? Who’s to say we don’t already have powers that can save us? Once we start appreciating the potential stuffed in us we will no longer need to rely on our fantasies of indestructible heroes saving the day.

I say if we all really open our eyes to the good in us and the world and the potential it has, maybe, just maybe, we’ll be able to live in harmony. And maybe we will no longer require the services of a superhero flying or speeding in to save the day. Because then we’ll have each other to help us up when we’re down. We won’t need a superhuman, because we’ll finally be human.

[livinwithhumans]

Threading a Life

I haven’t crossed death from too close in my life as of yet, which is why I’ve always wondered how deep and searing the pain is of a loved one’s death. I have witnessed many people who have suffered the death of their loved ones. I’ve seen them wail and bawl. So much so that I couldn’t stand being in their presence. It’s like a hand has reached down and jerked at their heart strings. The anguish is something one can never know without experiencing it themselves.

It is just this anguish and excruciating pain that made me think about why death hurts the living?

I thought long and hard and tried to place myself in that situation (not a pleasing thing to do, but I did anyways) and here’s a working theory I devised.

In our lifetime we meet thousands of people. Think of our life as a thread that when encountering someone becomes tied to their thread. Now, how strong the knot is depends on your relationship. There’ll be a stronger knot with your best friend than a stranger you just met. The difference is attributed to how well you know them and feel for them. I believe that when you give someone details about your life, yourself and so much more that encompasses the essence of who you are, you essentially surrender that part of your life over to them. Think of it like the threads of your lives are no longer ties, but have merged to become one. Each of you is giving and taking parts of each other’s life. That’s how you form space for someone in your heart and life. It’s like now there’s a non-tangible aural bond between you. And now that you’ve given over a part of your life to them, they leave the world. When that happens, it would be like the thread unraveling and being yanked from you. Imagine the pain of having something be part of who you are and then being wrenched away from you.

In so many words, that is why death is so painful to the living. With that someones’ death, that thread of your life has died too. And what’s left in its place is agony. Which eventually becomes a bruise that hurts only when fondled with. After all, there is still some thread that waits to be sown to another’s, not to replace that lifeless part, but to repair it with the strength and connection of another.