#normally i would not put the specific post's phrasing on blast but ? what ? guys ??????

[jennycalendar]

just gonna go out and outright say it like . play with the slayer/vampire dichotomy all you want that's cool but maybe comparing spike wearing nikki wood's coat to a "berserker wearing animal skins" is not the win that you think it is and is actually horrendously fucking racist and the fact that apparently a whooOoOle bunch of my mutuals just REBLOGGED that is ! okay! still bothering me the next day

[themurphyzone]

Meta: The Evolution of Heinz and Norm’s Relationship

Any relationship with Heinz is bound to be an interesting one. This post will focus on Norm specifically. AU episodes will not be taken into account. 

Norm first debuted in Greece Lightning. While he wasn’t much more than another invention in this episode, later episodes developed him from minion to son. 

“What did [Perry] do to you? Did the bad little platypus switch you off?” 

Funnily enough, Heinz does express concern for Norm at the end of this episode when Perry switches him off. It’s notable that Norm isn’t destroyed here, and Heinz doesn’t usually express this level of horror towards his other inventions failing. 

Heinz likely did see him as more than another invention early on, but constantly denied it to anyone who implied it. 

Hail Doofania is the first episode where Norm takes on the role as Heinz’s assistant in evil schemes. He’s developed enough sentience to start talking in sentences that aren’t stock sitcom phrases. 

Like most assistants to villains, Norm is unappreciated and berated constantly. 

Sure, Heinz wanted to play hide and seek so he didn’t have to see Norm, but it sure means a lot to this big guy even if he can’t play well. 

“Well, next time you can do all the cooking and I’ll stand around coming up with evil plans that ultimately fail.” 

Norm’s infamous roast. Had to include it. 

“Would it kill you to say please once in a while?” 

The above two lines show that while Norm does love his dad, he isn’t afraid to draw attention to his flaws either. Heinz doesn’t express gratitude for Norm cooking all that potato salad, nor does he say please when being transported to LOVEMUFFIN’s event. 

Since Norm acts and thinks like a human, it would only be right to give him the same level of respect as a human rather than operating under a master/robo-assistant dynamic. 

Undercover Carl shows that Heinz does occasionally humor Norm from time to time with him building the popsicle stick bride. 

Sometimes a parent takes us to a zoo, or they teach us how to cook. We hang onto those memories as proof that they love us, though sometimes they make us feel terrible too without realizing it. 

Heinz has his ups and downs as well. Sometimes he’s appreciative, other times he’ll complain without letting up or not display any tactfulness. When the latter happens, people and platypi get hurt emotionally.  

“I know I didn’t make you that smart, but you can’t even walk straight?” 

Personally I think Heinz has the right to be angry that scalding coffee was dumped on him, but he definitely could’ve scolded Norm more gently. 

Heinz decides to replace Norm without asking how he felt about it. Here Norm is just another appliance that can be replaced when broken. 

Heinz’s main flaw as a parent stems from thoughtlessness. To Vanessa, it manifests as not considering what she’d want and is basing his actions off what he wanted to have as a child. To Norm, he gives many harsh putdowns and treats him as another expendable invention without taking into account that Norm has a very advanced AI and is human in all but physical components only. 

That being said, Heinz is appreciative when Norm saves him. However, it takes a near-death experience to make Heinz say it, and he probably wouldn’t do this in everyday life. I’m sure Heinz will be back to denying he’s Norm’s dad tomorrow. 

And here’s where we get to the main entree. Buckle up folks, I’ve got a lot to say about the episode “A Real Boy.” 

This episode really highlights the favoritism Heinz is unconsciously repeating with Vanessa and Norm. When Heinz thinks he made Vanessa feel terrible, he instantly tries thinking of ways to cheer her up. However, Norm doesn’t know the doting and overprotective father that Vanessa knows. 

“Sir, you can have a game of catch with me. I’ve always thought of you as my fa-”

“Norm, you’re in my light!” 

“-ther.” 

Heinz expresses that he wouldn’t mind having a son, but shows a complete lack of self-awareness towards how Norm is as much a member of the family as Perry the Platypus and Vanessa are. 

With the exception of Phineas and Ferb Busters, in past episodes Norm can usually shrug off Heinz’s hurtful comments with a passive-aggressive remark of his own. 

But now we see that Norm is very much affected by Heinz’s refusal to accept him as a son. 

“And I’m the father! And I have to treat her with the respect she deserves in a caring, fatherly fashion.”

...

“I’ll blast her with one of my inators!”

Of course, blasting your daughter with an inator isn’t exactly respectful, but compare this line to the above with Norm and there’s a huge contrast between how he proudly admits that he’s one child’s father while the other gets the shaft. 

Heinz does not have any positive parental influences to draw from. Since the dynamic in his childhood was golden child/scapegoat, that’s what Heinz learned.

This is going to be hard to admit and I know you guys don’t want to think of Heinz in this way, but Heinz is repeating the emotional abuse he received in childhood on Norm. As stated above, Heinz goes through cycles in which he puts Norm down one moment and plays hide-and-seek and makes popsicle stick brides the next. 

It’s ironic that Heinz is unaware that his treatment of Norm is the most evil he will ever be. 

I’m putting the entire song of A Real Boy here because I want you to pay close attention to the lyrics. 

Norm puts himself down at the beginning of the song, likely with phases that Heinz has used on him. 

Now he asks himself, “If I were a living, breathing human boy, would my father accept me and take me out to do activities that a normal father/son would do?” 

At the end, he tells the backup singers not to worry about him. He’ll be fine. Who cares about what I want, amirite? 

Heinz was in the same boat in his childhood. Constantly putting himself down, asking what he could change about himself to make a parent show their love, and telling himself that the way he’s living is fine and he’d better not sound ungrateful or else. 

I’m hesitating on calling this a lie when Norm claims that he’s Heinz’s son while the latter is affected by his Forget-About-It inator. This is one of those moments where you can understand why someone acts the way they do even if it’s not right. 

Honestly, it feels like I’m going in circles with this whole “here’s a moment where Heinz appreciates Norm and doesn’t put him down and here’s another one where he mistreats Norm!” 

Give credit to Vanessa. She looks out for her siblings regardless of species. 

“It occurs to me that though I’ve never had a son, there is someone who I can always count on to be there. Someone I've begun to think of as family. And that someone is Perry the Platypus. See you around, junkpile.” 

Don’t worry Norm, he’ll treat you better next season. He’s still in denial unfortunately. 

“Try not to be a complete disappointment.”

Oh really? How about you try not to be a complete disappointment cause your brother is way more accomplished than you could ever hope to be, Heinz. 

History is repeating itself. 

It’s interesting how Norm shows similarities to Heinz here. They’re both out to prove themselves to someone, they monologue, and they’d love nothing more than to be accepted by their parent. 

However, Norm shows that he’s willing to break from the mold by developing a weapon to force submission rather than use the normal routine. He’s not afraid to assert his individuality because he wants to win his father’s love through the most effective means possible. 

“If I’m gonna be a conqueror and win my father’s love, I’ll take it to the people with the eagle, not the dove!” 

Norm’s entire motivation for taking over the Tri-State Area is simply to make Heinz proud. How many plans has Heinz scribbled up over the years to make his parents proud only to have them backfire spectacularly? 

Norm fails to realize that Heinz is against complete annihilation because there wouldn’t be anyone left to subjugate. 

As expected, Heinz isn’t happy with Norm’s attempt to take over the Tri-State Area. 

Maybe next time, big guy.

“Space is cold and unforgiving, like my father!” 

Perry, Vanessa, and Norm know when to show sympathy and when not to take Heinz’s crap. That’s what I love about them. 

Norm often delivers scathing remarks that Heinz deserves, whereas Heinz doesn’t badmouth his parents even though it’s completely justified. 

Love at First Byte gives us a huge development in their relationship. Heinz doesn’t automatically disregard Norm’s feelings about not having a date for the block party, and spends the entire episode giving him advice. 

Forgive me for inserting my personal headcanon here, but I believe that in order for Heinz to take this huge step forward, he would need to do some soul-searching about the way he treated Norm in the past. It probably took a few smacks from Perry to drive the point home as well. 

Heinz wingmaning for Norm is great. This episode has a lot of great father/son bonding in general. 

Off topic, but I still want to know what Heinz has against Sagittariuses since that’s my star sign. 

He’s so proud of Norm. 

Fact of life, Heinz. Your children are always going to somehow find themselves in a Romeo and Juliet situation. Without all the dying. 

Another similarity: dates tend to end poorly. 

You’re not father and son until you’re trying to get rid of pests together and fail miserably. 

They’ve both come a long way since Norm was invented in the early summer. 

He’s so proud of his son. 

Conclusion: Heinz and Norm’s relationship is very complex. Even though they had a rocky start and both still have much to learn in the future, Heinz has finally come to accept Norm as a son. 

Themurphyzone is out! Peace! 

[andrewuttaro]

New Look Sabres: GM 34 - NYI - Clap Back

3-2 OT Loss

Coming into this game it was the Eastern Conference’s two 2nd place teams in their divisions. You might have guessed the New York Islanders would be in this position before the season began; but the Sabres being in second place in their division in December is entirely new for most of us younger fans in Buffalo. Colin Miller sneaks an OT winner against Edmonton and next time you look over the Sabres are on a three-game winning streak. Though it may be a streaky stretch since Thanksgiving don’t say they haven’t been tested. None of the opponents on this three-game banger have been slouches. Say what you will about Nashville and a recent slump from St. Louis, they’re not the beneficiaries of a weak part of the schedule. They’ve faced adversity, often early on, in each of those contests. The formula we’ve seen in wins this season is… well not all that consistent. Ralph Krueger has experimented with the deployment so much that is feels pretty normal to see Jeff Skinner dragging any number of different line mates. There only line that seems consistent is Eichel’s. The experimentation has had a very positive impact on the defensive ranks where players who literally asked out in the offseason like Rasmus Ristolainen has seen his career as a Sabre resurrected by the ascendant Brandon Montour. Colin Miller has saved Jake McCabe. Henri Jokiharju has saved Marco Scandella. Weird world, eh? If it gets us win streaks I can’t say I’m complaining. The point here is in a variety of situations this hockey teams has weathered adversity. That’s a big component of championship team. I don’t know if this club is that caliber yet, but they are showing the signs. Today they weathered the adversity with their special teams: can you think of any other game this season where you can say they’ve accomplished that specific feat? Where they weathered adversity WITH THEIR SPECIAL TEAMS? You might look to a few games back in October but its no secret the powerplay has never been totally stellar. Using your weakness as a strength? That’s clap back energy. They had it today.

The first period adversity hit hard today. The Islanders came out with speed and dekes. Linus Ullmark was tested frequently early on. The Isles forecheck was something out of a playoff game. It was so killer that about five minutes in when Ullmark opted to keep the puck in play hoping for a zone exit he was immediately punished. Jeff Skinner kinda laid the puck off the Ullmark who put it back to the boards hoping for Rasmus Dahlin to move on with it and instead Anthony Beauvillier scooped it up and sent it to the streaking Michael Dal Colle. Colle sunk it. It was 1-0 Islanders and the visitors began finding their moments. In the back half of the first period they were able to make more successful zone exits before it degraded back into the dump-in-chase show. What do the tough do when going gets tough? Well… I guess they get tough on the boards. Marco Scandella laid a hard but legal hit on an Islander on the boards and Josh Bailey came after him shortly thereafter for what they call extracurricular activities. It is Saturday though so idk if that’s what you call it, LOL. Both ended up entangled on the ice, but it was the Sabres who went to a powerplay that gave them some momentum that carried into the second period. They got another powerplay early in that period and it was just okay at first. You don’t like the Sabres spending a full 35 seconds of it without the puck but we’re at a phase with this team’s powerplay where you just need to count your blessings. After they got the puck for a sustained time Captain Jack got the puck over to Dahlin at the point who blasted it to Victor Olofsson for the one timer. It went top shelf in and out. With that it was tied and Jack Eichel’s point streak moved to 16 games.

The Sabres penalty kill hasn’t been terrible since Thanksgiving. It got a full workout as the second period went on. One, Two and Three calls against the team from Buffalo. The Risto holding call was very late and Johansson interference call was weak if you ask me but I’m not one to waste time complaining about the refs. Beauvillier certainly sold it hard. Nothing came of those chances and it was a tie game going into the second intermission. Just like all the games in this recent stretch, it could have gone either way by the feel of it. Now I know I just said I’m not the one to complain about refs but one of the things that can decide a game that goes either way are the calls… or the ones you don’t get. There were several egregious non-calls that hurt Buffalo in the third period. For the sake of appearing like I sincerely don’t want to talk about officiating I’ll only point out one of said non-calls. The Sabres are on the powerplay on the only call they got in the third and are doing battle along the walls to the right of Semyon Varlamov in the Islanders net. Jack Eichel gets held and hauled down to the ice. The puck battle is still going on and he looks around in shock that it wasn’t called. He got up and got back to work on the powerplay. A few moments later he got the puck in a frantic stick-whipping match right in front of Varlamov before whipping it into the netting with less than two minutes left in regulation. That’s leadership. That’s not just assurance of his league-leading point streak, that’s the most palpable example of this team’s new clap-back energy. It got this game into overtime. The phrasing of the change we’ve seen in the Sabres under Ralph Krueger was “play connected” but something now plainly obvious after 34 games is that you can complete the sentence: “Play Connected and Clap Back!”

The OT was as consistent as the Sabres overall effort today: on point. Buffalo carried the possession in the extra frame and had some sick chances including one where the puck ended up on top of the Isles net. Nonetheless this game was one decided by momentary mistakes. Jack Eichel fanned on a pass in just such a way to allow Beauvillier to pick it up to go off on the breakaway and end the game. The Sabres were narrowly the better team in this game but as fans its hard to feel hard-done-by when their effort throughout was so good. I mean if you want to get pissy about the refs this game feels like the right one to do so. Nonetheless this was a great game. Rasmus Dahlin had a decided lead among defenseman in time-on-ice and while you may know exactly whose second in that category without even looking Dahlin’s play was a very encouraging sign today. Perhaps one player’s absence was very felt on this Sabres team. No, I know Miller was benched in the rotation, but we’ve talked that one to death. How about Zach Bogosian? I think we have to be thankful he wasn’t in this game. Alleged trade request aside he would’ve gotten the Islanders so many more powerplays in this tight game. The guy is more of the Islanders style of fighting a dangerous physical battle when you can just win the right way instead. Hey… what can we get from New York for Bogosian? I digress: after a Post-Thanksgiving resurgence defined by revitalized 5-on-5 play the Sabres almost won this game because of a determined edge in special teams. How wild is that? The Captain’s point total reached a league high on the season at 16 games and apart from the full win what more can you really ask for out of this game? Don’t say better officiating, we all know that won’t happen in this league.

Now we once again find ourselves staring down another tilt with Toronto on Tuesday. This road trip is stacked with a closer against the surging Philadelphia Flyers on Thursday. Toronto is the main course as they’ll have just gotten home from the Western Canada road trip that gave us a hurting last week. They lost to Calgary on Thursday and hopefully Edmonton tonight. You could say they’ll be hungry, but I like to think they’ll feel defeated. Get two points. If the special teams play like this for us on Tuesday I don’t see why not. It just so happens that of right now the Sabres and the Flyers happen to have the same number of points in the standings. Surging or not I like our odds against them too. I was wrong in Western Canada but hopefully the mid-Atlantic treats me better. In the meantime: like, share and comment on this blog. I think the Bills can pull it off on Sunday night football. Let’s Go Buffalo!

Thanks for Reading.

P.S. Considering the snooze-fest that was that early November game against the Isles back in Buffalo I’ll consider this one some revenge.

[f4liveblogarchives]

Fantastic Four Vol. 1 #84

Wed March 14 2018 [20:54:25] <Wackd> OH NO! Doctor Doom's summoned a marching band, the fiend!

[20:55:40] <Wackd> Oh hey, max, you were talking about the Howling Commandos? [20:56:02] <Wackd> Guess who the Three and Crystal have encountered while flying back from Inhuman territory? [20:56:20] <maxwellelvis> Is it Dum-Dum? I hope it's Dum-Dum [20:56:23] <Wackd> ...i just realized [20:56:31] <Wackd> the howling commandos are the original g.i. joes [20:56:35] <Wackd> prove me wrong [20:57:07] <maxwellelvis> If we could retcon Joe Colton as a Howler... [20:57:13] <Wackd> Anyway yeah, it's Fury and Dum-Dum and SHIELD. [20:57:19] <Duraz> their individual gimmicks were more based in personality and stereotypes, rather than outlandish equipment or specialty? [20:57:36] <Wackd> dammit [20:57:39] <Wackd> i am proved wrong [20:58:28] <maxwellelvis> You had the hardbitten leader, the big Irish lad, the Italian movie star, the black jazz musician, the Jewish guy, the Southerner, and the Ivy Leaguer. [20:58:28] <MousaThe14_> Oh I hate that feeling [20:58:36] <maxwellelvis> Who was later replaced by a British guy. [20:58:57] <Duraz> the British guy wasn't an original member? [20:59:01] <maxwellelvis> Nope. [20:59:05] <maxwellelvis> He replaced the Ivy-Leaguer [20:59:10] <Wackd> So! Meanwhile, some old guy is trying to escape from the clutches of... [20:59:13] <Wackd> Well, guess. [20:59:17] <Wackd> Hint: he's on the cover. [20:59:21] <maxwellelvis> DOOM! [21:00:01] <maxwellelvis> There were actually TWO British guys on the Howling Commandoes. [21:00:21] <Inbarfink2> Good night [21:00:27] <maxwellelvis> "Pinky" Pinkerton, and James Falworth, AKA Union Jack [21:00:29] <maxwellelvis> Night [21:00:38] <Wackd> "i will SEND a fully-armed battaLION to reMIND you of my love, da da-da da da, da da-da da DIE da-da"

[21:04:20] <Duraz> those minions remind me of Sentinels [21:04:28] <Wackd> So, Doom sends the poor sap to be reeducated, bemoaning the whole time that he gives his subjects food and shelter and how do they repay him, yadda yadda. [21:05:10] <maxwellelvis> They made me think of Sentinels in the 1994 cartoon [21:05:39] <maxwellelvis> It's easy to forget that Doombots are not the only robotic minions he has. [21:05:46] <Wackd> Meanwhile, we catch up with the Three, Crystal, Fury, and Dugan. Fury reveals that a SHIELD agent disappeared mysteriously after reporting a hidden army, and that they've found a disembodied robot hand with a mind of his own. [21:05:56] <Wackd> A mind that's preoccupied with blasting the shit out of everyone around it. [21:07:01] <Wackd> Johnny reacts like a normal person, and Fury gets mad at him for destroying their lab specimen. [21:07:35] <Wackd> He also asks Reed to take over on this one, since SHIELD is very very busy. [21:07:42] <Wackd> And also only has two guys in it, I guess. [21:07:50] <Wackd> Four is more than two, so. [21:08:14] <Wackd> Reed objects, because he's got a newborn baby he wants to get back to (why the fuck didn't he also get someone to take over for him, ah, whatever), but is quickly persuaded. [21:10:39] <Wackd> And so, the Three and Crystal are dropped into "communist occupied central Europe"! [21:11:04] <MousaThe14_> Specific! [21:11:05] <Wackd> "You--you really shouldn't need to be told this!"

[21:11:21] <maxwellelvis> I actually feel like objecting to your labeling of the Four at this time. [21:11:31] <MousaThe14_> As opposed to the rifle gun posts which are free for all visitors to enjoy [21:11:31] <maxwellelvis> It feels like you don't see Crystal as a "proper" member [21:11:42] <Wackd> It's nothing against Crystal. [21:11:47] <Wackd> I just object to the sidelining of Sue. [21:11:48] <MousaThe14_> the pistol posts are onnly available to civillians on tuesdays [21:11:57] <Wackd> And I want to make a point of her absence. [21:12:01] <MousaThe14_> the AK-47 poses are accessible every other day [21:12:07] <Wackd> Like, if Sue was still here, I'd call them the Five. It doesn't bother me. [21:12:15] <maxwellelvis> Well it's not coming across that way. [21:12:23] <maxwellelvis> In fact, it's coming off as really disrespectful. [21:12:24] <Wackd> And I'll be doing the same thing if/when Reed, Johnny, or Ben leave the team. [21:13:08] <maxwellelvis> Because it implies that you don't see Crystal, Medusa, She-Hulk, She-Thing, etc, as "real" Fantastic Four members. [21:13:21] <Duraz> there's a She-Thing? [21:13:25] <maxwellelvis> Yeah. [21:13:28] <Wackd> I do, I just see Sue as MORE real, I guess? [21:13:43] <maxwellelvis> That doesn't make much sense, Wackd [21:14:00] <maxwellelvis> Also are you noticing the common element in them all? [21:14:10] <MousaThe14_> Oh there was most certainly a She-Thing. I was surprised too,  Ithink I only learned that maybe 2 years ago, maybe three [21:14:15] <Wackd> Okay, hang the fuck on. [21:14:22] <maxwellelvis> I'm just saying [21:14:24] <Wackd> But are ALL OF THEM replacing Sue, though? [21:14:31] <maxwellelvis> Medusa does. [21:14:59] <Duraz> I'll have to look that up [21:14:59] <Wackd> I just. [21:15:36] <Wackd> Look, if I just keep calling them the Four, it--to me--implies Sue's continued presence as a part of the narrative. [21:15:45] <Wackd> And she's really not at this point. [21:15:49] <maxwellelvis> Duraz: I can explain She-Thing. [21:15:58] <maxwellelvis> But Crystal is the fourth right now. [21:16:18] <Wackd> Yes, she is! And she's--you know what? [21:16:23] <Wackd> I'm gonna take a different tact on this. [21:16:38] <Wackd> max, what hypothetical reader are you imagining that won't know that I think Crystal is great? [21:17:00] <Wackd> Like, me implying that is only a problem if someone thinks I'm implying that, and no one does. [21:17:08] <maxwellelvis> I wouldn't. But even so, calling them "The Three and Crystal" just puts her as "and the rest", kinda, subconsciously. [21:17:37] <MousaThe14_> I mean it's weird but I didn't think much of it other than a weird hang up [21:17:44] <Wackd> I mean, also, be fair to me here, it's not like she STAYS a member of the team. [21:18:02] <MousaThe14_> I would just say "the four" to be brief because as of now they are the four [21:18:04] <Wackd> The immortal status quo that will rear its head in the face of all comers is that Fantastic Four = Reed, Sue, Johnny, Ben. [21:18:20] <maxwellelvis> So? [21:18:37] <Wackd> So yeah, uh. She's kinda not a real member of the team. [21:18:41] <maxwellelvis> Does that make characters like Crystal, Medusa, et al "less Fantastic" because they're not founding members? [21:18:50] <Wackd> That's not MY fault, though. Take it up with the writers and editors. [21:19:05] <maxwellelvis> You're the one relegating her to "And the rest" [21:19:49] <Wackd> It's not me! It's the inexorable march of time! [21:21:23] <maxwellelvis> So? [21:21:25] <Wackd> Alright, I'll compromise: How's "the Four minus Sue" instead? [21:21:37] <maxwellelvis> Still seems to discount Crystal. [21:21:41] <maxwellelvis> Just call them the Four [21:22:00] <Wackd> max, I'm sorry buddy, I'm not gonna do that. [21:22:05] <Wackd> The Five minus Sue? [21:22:31] <maxwellelvis> Sue's not on the team right now. [21:22:58] <Wackd> Yes, and that's for reasons that are bad and dumb and I'm not not going to validate them so that you feel like a fictional character is given respect. [21:23:45] <maxwellelvis> What are those reasons other than "Crystal joining the team isn't permanent and she's taking Sue's place"? [21:25:10] <Wackd> The writing is saddling Sue with being the sole caretaker of her newborn child while Reed continues to superhero. And despite being a main character, Sue's motherhood is unworthy of more than three pages every three issues. [21:25:56] <maxwellelvis> So to point this out, you're going to imply that Sue is only filling space? [21:26:00] <maxwellelvis> Crystal [21:26:23] <Wackd> And don't claim "you can't make taking care of a baby exciting" or "no one would want to read it." This comic has found a way to make love triangles, self-loathing, and economic loss work in a superhero punch-em-up context. [21:26:45] <Wackd> I offered to redo my phrasing to put the emphasis on Sue. [21:27:28] <Wackd> Despite my own feelings on this issue, I think you have some valid points, and I am trying to meet you halfway. [21:28:29] <Wackd> I believe there is a way to normalize Crystal as a member of the team without pretending that Sue being shelved is in any way justifiable. [21:31:32] <MousaThe14_> Does this truly deserve all this discussion? [21:32:00] <MousaThe14_> I mean does it truly matter? [21:32:13] <Wackd> THIS IS THE HELL I CHOOSE TO DIE ON [21:32:19] <maxwellelvis> It matters to me. Otherwise I wouldn't be arguing it. [21:32:22] <MousaThe14_> Anyone else feel like we’re overinflati- [21:32:24] <MousaThe14_> Okay [21:32:30] <Wackd> ...that's one hill of a typo [21:32:46] <Wackd> So, uh. [21:32:55] <Wackd> max, do you have ANY wiggle room on this? [21:33:03] <MousaThe14_> I mean, it’s entirely semantical [21:33:12] <MousaThe14_> It’s just a term. [21:33:15] <Wackd> Because if you don't agree to any of these I'm gonna go with Four minus Sue from here on. [21:33:28] <maxwellelvis> "The four and Sue" if she appears with them, is all the wiggle I have. [21:33:31] <maxwellelvis> *Four* [21:33:44] <MousaThe14_> I mean he said he doesn’t think the others are lesser, therefore his phrasing has no implication therein [21:33:46] <Wackd> Well that's, you know. Worse. [21:34:00] <Wackd> I'm not going to imply SUE RICHARDS is not a member of the Fantastic Four. [21:34:06] <MousaThe14_> We know the motive, we know the method [21:34:13] <maxwellelvis> She's on leave. [21:34:19] <Wackd> Yeah I'm with Mousa on this one. [21:34:40] <Wackd> I've made my motives clear. Any hangups anyone has about this are either hypothetical, or you just not believing me when I say things I guess. [21:34:55] <maxwellelvis> Maybe it's a term, but it eats away at me. [21:35:00] <maxwellelvis> It just bugs me. [21:35:01] <MousaThe14_> I feel like this is the kind of thing that people dislike comic geeks for [21:35:30] <Wackd> I don't think you hear many comic geeks arguing in good faith on how to properly respect fictional women. [21:35:37] <MousaThe14_> Like the sort of thing that gives us a bad rep because it’s curative nonsense on an infinitesimal scale [21:35:48] <Wackd> Suppose that's fair. [21:35:58] <MousaThe14_> And now I must help my mom with the piano [21:36:03] <Wackd> Welp. [21:36:14] <maxwellelvis> Especially because in a couple of decades' time the Four is going to look like this https://i.pinimg.com/474x/2c/9b/2c/2c9b2cbd2c812bbeb037484ed1143821--marvel-characters-marvel-heroes.jpg [21:36:15] <Wackd> I'm gonna drive home and I guess I'll finish this issue there. [21:36:35] <maxwellelvis> And what are you going to call them then? "The Two, plus Crystal and Sharon"? [21:36:44] <Wackd> Yes. [21:36:52] <Wackd> That is exactly what I am going to do. [21:37:05] <Wackd> Unless you prefer "the Four minus Sue and Reed." [21:38:20] <Wackd> ANYWAY uh. [21:39:26] <Wackd> It's my chatroom, it's my decision, I'm gonna go with "Five minus Sue". [21:39:48] <Wackd> Motion passes, meeting adjourned, I'm gonna head home. [21:40:03] <maxwellelvis> So what, if an X-Man isn't one of the five founders they're not a "true" X-Man? [21:40:18] <Wackd> I'm Wack'd Johnson, we're done here . [22:10:17] <MousaThe14_> Max, let it go. It’s ultimately no biggie. [22:13:03] <Wackd> Okay, so, I'm home, and I came up with a new solution. [22:14:09] <Wackd> I'm programming a new shortcut into my keyboard. Now, whenever I type F#, it autocorrects to Reed, Johnny, Ben, and Crystal. [22:14:21] <Wackd> And I'll just update the shortcut whenever the roster changes. [22:14:54] <Wackd> Even when it's the usual four. [22:16:06] <Wackd> SO! I'm gonna finish this issue even if it fucking kills me. Let's go. [22:16:52] <maxwellelvis> Wackd: ... fine. [22:17:50] <maxwellelvis> And Mousa, what may not seem like a big deal to you might not necessarily be one to others. [22:17:58] <maxwellelvis> *Be the same to others* [22:18:19] <Wackd> The plan, apparently, is for Reed, Johnny, Ben, and Crystal to get captured by Doctor Doom, and use their access to his castle to find out whether he's behind the robots SHIELD was investigating. [22:19:13] <Wackd> You can hear Loki, Khanberbatch, that guy from Skyfall, and about a hundred others desperately scribbling down notes as they read. [22:19:18] <maxwellelvis> The old "Get our asses kicked so we can find out what he's up to" plan, eh? [22:19:36] <Wackd> I just don't know what they'll do if Doom doesn't have a square glass case to put them in [22:20:53] <Wackd> The guy at the boarder patrol of this communist occupied central European nation is all like "are...you guys sure?" when they try to pass into Latveria. [22:21:37] <Wackd> Reed's like "yeah, we are" and the guard is like "you poor saps." [22:22:05] <Wackd> And so, they drive into Latveria. [22:22:18] <Wackd> And then their car explodes because the road is magnetized. [22:22:27] <Wackd> I feel like that should have the OPPOSITE effect but okay. [22:22:29] <maxwellelvis> When the Communists are scared of this guy, you know you're in trouble. [22:22:32] <MousaThe14_> Freaking magnets [22:22:36] <MousaThe14_> How do they work [22:22:37] <maxwellelvis> Well, I can see how that would - HUH? [22:23:02] <maxwellelvis> (That's a phrase I will gladly steal from the ACEG over and over again) [22:23:27] <Wackd> So, uh, given how much all these folks care about each other, you can guess how well "operation get our asses kicked" goes. [22:23:52] <Wackd> Crystal gets napped, Johnny gets angry, Johnny gets attacked, Reed gets angry, Reed gets attacked, Ben gets angry. [22:23:59] <MousaThe14_> Johnny goes ablaze as soon as- [22:24:01] <Wackd> Fight fight fight. [22:24:02] <MousaThe14_> Called it [22:24:43] <MousaThe14_> God, it’s the world’s most predictable set of dominoes [22:24:46] <Wackd> Also, Doom has the most brilliant plan ever to capture Ben. [22:25:07] <MousaThe14_> He her [22:25:15] <MousaThe14_>  He threw a rock at him [22:25:20] <MousaThe14_> No wait [22:25:28] <Wackd> He shoots a missile in Ben's general direction, and rigs it to pour out sleeping gas when Ben inevitably punches a hole in it. [22:25:33] <MousaThe14_> He threw him, a rock [22:25:48] <MousaThe14_> That’s... [22:25:52] <MousaThe14_> That... [22:25:54] <Wackd> "Punchin' things! My one weakness!" [22:25:54] <MousaThe14_> Okay [22:26:02] <MousaThe14_> I mean, he’s not wrong [22:26:26] <Wackd> I don't think I've ever before seen anyone WEAPONIZE Ben's inability to pass up a chance to punch a thing. [22:26:41] <Wackd> I'm not even being sarcastic. That's brilliant. [22:28:48] <Wackd> Okay, did Stan pick up a book on hypnotism lately? [22:29:28] <Wackd> While Reed, Johnny, Ben, and Crystal were knocked out, Doom hypnotized them to not use their powers anymore. [22:29:42] <Wackd> He's also put the men up in a cushy hotel. [22:31:15] <Wackd> Hey, so, you know how in modern comics, people who live in Latveria are like "our lives are good, and everyone's healthy and happy, and therefore our fascist dictator is a swell guy"? Maaaaybe we shouldn't take that at face value.

[22:31:43] <maxwellelvis> "Modern"? [22:32:07] <Wackd> (I mean, we shouldn't take that at face value period, but from an in-universe perspective, Doom canonically threatens everyone into being happy, so) [22:32:09] <maxwellelvis> I have Kooky Quartet-era Avengers comics where throngs of peasants flock to Doom in praise. [22:32:42] <maxwellelvis> I think it's the same one where it's revealed he's used his scientific knowledge to restore a boy's ability to walk. [22:32:57] <maxwellelvis> Unless that's in like an X-Men comic I may have read and forgotten about. [22:33:32] <Wackd> I feel like the tenor of it is different in modern comics? Writers now like to have Latverians make a big deal out of how Doom is beneficial on a societal level, whereas older comics are more likely to have the peasants just revere Doom as a god. [22:34:20] <Wackd> But yes, I'll concede that "Doom's people like him" isn't a terribly new reading. [22:35:36] <Wackd> So! Doom has had his people throw a "Fantastic Four Fiesta Day" for their new guests. [22:36:03] <Wackd> (I dig Crystal's description of the general atmosphere: "Everyone looks so joyful, but they jump at every sound.") [22:36:44] <maxwellelvis> Okay, even under subliminal mind control, this should be setting off every alarm bell in Reed's head [22:36:54] <maxwellelvis> When was the last time Doom EVER said something nice about him? [22:36:55] <Wackd> It is, actually. [22:37:25] <Wackd> Doom only hypnotized them to not use their powers, nothing more. They're otherwise cognizant of the situation. [22:37:47] <maxwellelvis> Ah [22:38:03] <Wackd> Ben is actually kinda buying it, while Johnny and Crystal don't know how to handle the situation if it is a trap. [22:38:30] <Wackd> Reed's decided he's going to "prove to you how free everyone REALLY is", and by "you" he means Ben, I guess? [22:39:27] <Wackd> Anyway, to do this, he makes a run for the border, where he is hit by a stun blast, and warned by Doom's face on a computer screen: "remain here and be eternally happy, or else you die."

[monoshah]

Love: Everything I learned in a year

A year ago, I set myself on an inquiry of love. I wanted to see if love really is all that its hyped up to be. Being someone whose not had much skill in managing relationships, I though it was high time I actually study this thing we all seemingly long for.

At first, the idea of people not doing such an inquiry struck me. I mean think about it- we’re all, for better or for worse, advocates of love. At each stage of our lives, love has an important part to play, and yet- we fail to put in the work to study it. We just “let it happen”, as if its this magical thing that the universe just gives us.

But what if we looked closely? What if we stopped assuming that a tiny baby with wings and an arrow controlled our destinies?

So, for the past year, I made it a point to put it under a microscope and see it for what it is, not what the media portrays it to be. Every other month, I read a book about it, sometimes, I didn’t find any insight, while other times, I found lessons hidden inside long paragraphs of sophisticated language.In addition to that, I started reflecting more on my skills pertaining to relationships, trying to discover patterns. 

Either way, there are somethings I learned. Regardless of what your relationship status is, I hope this soothes you.

P.S: You may notice that I’ve used my own example from past relationships to convey certain points. The idea here isn’t to make you feel bad for me (you can if you want to though). Instead, it’s to encourage you to try and apply it to your own life. 

 Lessons

Context: Crushes Lesson: Crushes are delusional 

If we really examine our crushes under a microscope, we’d realize how irrational our assumptions about them are. Think about it- one look at someone, and somehow, we know exactly what kind of person they are, the vulnerabilities they share. What’s worse, the seemingly trivial things they do or possess makes us even more attracted to them: the way they comb their hair, that little mark under their right chin. We use these little things to paint a picture of who they are as individuals.

So, if we try to eliminate the romanticized filter, they, just like anyone else, would seem so normal. All of our assumptions drop as we see reality.

After I read about this, I thought about applying it in my life. So, every time I felt attracted to someone, I journaled about it. I asked myself the seemingly tough question- why? As in- why am I attracted to this individual?

Strangely enough, I could never answer it. I could never think about rational reasons for my crush. Here’s a snapshot of a paragraph from my journal after I started crushing on someone at work and thought about getting some perspective about it by journaling.

“Okay, I think it started when she slacked you- there you are, missed you. You looked up and there she was, smiling, as she steadily used her right forefinger to place some strands of her air behind her ear. It looked so theatrical, as if she’d been practicing the same move for weeks, just for you. And yet, it was so normal. So, Monil, think about it- that one move made you picture how happily the two of you would be in the future. A seemingly trivial move, and there you were- so sure that she was the one”

So, should we completely disregard our crushes? Of course not, regardless of how irrational, they’re fucking amazing. Then, instead of blindly believing in them, maybe this knowledge will make us question it. So, in the future, we make wiser choices.

Context: Romanticism Lesson: After a point, romanticism has the power to ruin love.

We’ve all been there- that sweet honeymoon phase where everything is just so amazing. Whatever our partners do, it somehow makes us feel good. The way they talk on the phone, those cute fights when they don’t hang up and ask you to (don’t deny it, you know you’ve been there).

Now, that’s great isn’t it? It makes us believe that this is it, we’ve done it. This is love and oh my god, its so beautiful. She/he has to be the one, there’s no doubt to it.

However, what happens when the things we realize during that phase are tested against time? That is- we try to evaluate our relationships based on the honeymoon phase? We’re bound to find loopholes. Those cute love songs no longer do it for us, and it seems like, like we’re going farther and farther away from our sweet ideal phase, something has to be wrong right?

Wrong.

I learned that the major issue new couples face during love comes from the sweet poison that is romanticism. Unfortunately, there is little we can do to escape it, the society wraps it up and presents it to us in the form of media. So, of course we’ll believe that we’re the next Romeo and Juliet, how could we not be?

The major problem with romanticism is rooted in how it changes our perception of love. It makes us strongly believe that if we’re with the right partner, we will feel right. Forget reason, its all about feelings. And, the only way for us to feel better is to follow an invisible script (so to speak), a template, both of which are made by the society, updated with the modern culture.

This very template tells us what is “normal” in love, or worse- how a relationship should unfold, in and out of bed. So, one might righteously assume that this template has been written “by the Gods”, or in other words- “its always been like this”.  Interestingly enough, romanticism has its history.

The ideology emerged in Europe around mid eighteenth century through the minds and hearts of poets, philosophers, and writers.  And since then, it has taken over modern society. I can literally go on and on about exactly how it ruined love, but I’ll let the masters do that for you. 

Context: How we choose our partners Lesson: There is a reason for our “type”

Each of us has a type, whether we admit to it or not, we often find ourselves dating similar types of people. Now, instead of labeling these types as “assholes” or “nice guys”, what if we questioned why we have the types we do?

Why, for example, do I only date people who are hard to please emotionally? What’s worse, I started noticing that I actually enjoy the toxicity of our relationship. In a very real sense, I like my love to be unrequited. I mean, who doesn’t want to walk around with heartbreak songs blasting through the headphones in the street and feeling like they’re the only ones?!

Despite the momentary pride, that’s madness.

And, when (as they say) the “stars do align”, and my partner starts feeling the same, I feel like all the excitement is lost. In a way, I don’t really want you to love me, but I will keep loving you, to a point where you will feel suffocated. 

To put this habit into perspective, here’s Alain De Boton in his book Essays in Love: 

“We fall in love because we long to escape from ourselves with someone as beautiful, intelligent, and witty as we are ugly, stupid, and dull. But what if such a perfect being should one day turn around and decide they will love us back? We can only be somewhat shocked-how can they be as wonderful as we had hoped when they have the bad taste to approve of someone like us?” 

Such insanity begs to be inquired.

If I may put it bluntly- I learned that we seek familiarity, not love. That is, we try to replicate the kind of love we were used to in our childhood, to adult life. Therefore, the reason why I choose such partners is because they replicate the love I received when I was a little kid. Similarly, I don’t want anyone to love me because I genuinely feel I don’t deserve it.

(Note- If you feel like blaming your parents, check out this and this post).

The solution, then, so to speak, is internal healing. I can’t and shouldn’t expect another individual to heal me, for me. That’s my responsibility. Only when I heal from the inside, can I love more authentically on the outside.

Context:  The way we choose our partners Lesson: Modern Metrics for attraction are trivial

Although Romanticism ruined love, to some extent, it did make falling in love easy. It taught us that importance of physical attraction in the realm of love. And, given the obedient students that we are of the society, we followed it blindly. Then, entered technology and now, not only do we confidently fall for someone by the way they look, but we do it in front of our screens. Its as easy as swiping right.

So, it always amazed me- as much as physical attraction is important, what are some other, more realistic metrics we can use to choose our partners wisely? And interestingly enough, I found that these very metrics, in a way, can help us go beyond our feelings and tap into a more trustworthy resource- reason.

I’m sure you must’ve heard the phrase- when in doubt, go old school.

So, I did.

I wondered- what was love like before romanticism? And came across a wonderful play written by Plato, called Symposium.

A symposium, in greek, is a drinking party. The plot is simple- a couple of philosophers attend a drinking party and each one of them ends up giving a speech about what they consider love to be. Think about it- a bunch of people whose profession was literally to just sit and think, come together, in the presence of a lot of alcohol, and try to solve the mystery of love.

Naturally, I picked up some great insights. Amongst all the speeches, Diotima (a fictional character made by Socrates) seemed to have given the most serious one (picked up from GradeSaver):

“First, Love leads a person to love one body and beget beautiful ideas. From these ideas, this person realizes that the beauty of one body is found in all bodies and if he is seeking beauty in form, he must see beauty in all bodies and become lover to all beautiful bodies. After that, the person moves on to thinking the beauty of souls is greater than the beauty of bodies. Here, Diotima specifically refers to giving birth through the soul to make young men better. This results in the lover seeing love in activities and eyes, over the beauty of bodies. Ella also refers to these as beautiful customs, from which the lover loves beautiful things, or other kinds of knowledge. The lover will lastly fall on giving birth to many beautiful ideas and theories, finding love of wisdom. This love never passes away and is always beautiful. The end lesson is learning of this very Beauty (wisdom), coming to know what is beautiful. Only at this point will a lover be able to give birth to true virtue. This person will be loved by the gods and is one of the few who could become immortal. The “Rites of Love,” otherwise referred to as the “Ladder of Love,” is the ultimate conclusion in Diotima’s speech. The last rung of the ladder makes one a “lover of wisdom,” or a philosopher, which in one respect is not surprising, since Plato is a philosopher. Philosophy is love’s highest expression, which allows a person to see Beauty.”

So, one way to contemplate this to reality is to use “the love of wisdom” as a spearhead in our relationships. No longer will beauty mean something superficial and time bounded. More importantly- no longer will we stay in love through instinct. Maybe this will help us think about tapping into another useful resource- reason. 

Context: The “right” person Lesson: Why we will all end up marrying the wrong person

There is a lot of emphasis on finding the “right” partner, someone who can magically understand our mood, who can tell us why we’re upset even if we ourselves can’t quite grasp the reason. So naturally, if our current relationship starts becoming boring, we confidently believe that its the partner. That, they’re not “right” for us.

A natural second though, then, is to believe that there is someone out there for us. We don’t want to even think about (let alone acknowledge) the seemingly anxious thought that maybe, just maybe- there is no one out there for us, that, the dots that make up love are joined by co-incidence and not design. That maybe the universe doesn’t really give a fuck about us (or anyone else for that matter). 

And, because we fail to acknowledge such a thought, our search for the right partner never ends. Strangely enough, most of us don’t even know why we may consider someone as the “right” person, our only metric being- “she/he should understand me one hundred percent, cure my loneliness, answer the scary question of what my purpose is on this planet, and of course- be amazing in bed.”

I learned that as much as we want it to be true, there is no right person for anyone. That the cupid is too young and immature to direct us to our right partner. Practically,  the biggest reason for this stems from the obviously tough (and yet seemingly simple) fact that we cannot fully understand ourselves, let alone make sense of another human being for a lifetime.

Here’s Alain De Boton in his popular NY Times Article “Why you will marry the wrong person”: Marriage ends up as a hopeful, generous, infinitely kind gamble taken by two people who don’t know yet who they are or who the other might be, binding themselves to a future they cannot conceive of and have carefully avoided investigating.

This, as mentioned before, is rooted from the fact that love, ever since romanticism was born, is guided by instinct.

You can read the entire article here, or better- buy the book he wrote about it.

So, in hindsight, if there is no right person for us, what’s the silver lining? The abundance of opportunity. Think about it- if there is no right person for us, that also means that there is no wrong person for us. This makes us acknowledge a soothing reality- that whoever we’re with or will be with, will disappoint us and make us happy at the same time. Our metric, then, isn’t a 4.0. 

Instead, In Alain’s words, it’s-

The person who is best suited to us is not the person who shares our every taste (he or she doesn’t exist), but the person who can negotiate differences in taste intelligently — the person who is good at disagreement. Rather than some notional idea of perfect complementarity, it is the capacity to tolerate differences with generosity that is the true marker of the “not overly wrong” person. Compatibility is an achievement of love; it must not be its precondition.

Context: Attachement Styles Lesson: Why we are, the way we are to our partners

If I started drawing insights from every relationship I’ve had to date, one thing in particular would stand out- the painful memory of being overly attached to my partner. At first, looking at it naively, it just confirmed a rather boastful belief that I had about myself- that I’m just a hopeless romantic.

And, despite the seemingly great status that title carried in itself, being a hopeless romantic is painful. It requires total and utter submission, to give yourself up and trust your significant other. Forget healthy boundaries and say goodbye to your self esteem.

So, just like everything else, I put this under a microscope. I asked myself- why? Why do I do this every time? In a very real sense, I wanted to see if being a “hopeless romantic” was worth it.

Fortunately, I found my answers in a book called Attached, by Amir Levine and Rachel S.F. Heller.  It deduced three typical attachment styles in every adult relationship:Anxious, Avoidant, and Secure.

An anxious attachment style encompasses a painful hobby of being preoccupied with one’s relationship and feeling worried about our partners ability to love us back. There- I hit the jackpot.

Avoidant’s are the exact opposite. For them, intimacy equates to a loss of interdependency and so they try to minimize closeness as much as possible.

As you might’ve guessed, an anxious-avoidant pair serves as the perfect toxic playground. While one person tries to pull, the other one is pushing. Thus, tension is always present.

A secured relationship style is the goal, where, people are comfortable with intimacy and are warm and loving.

More than simply making sense out of my misery, this book also served as a guide, helping me think about what I can do in my future relationships for not feeling so painful. In that context, I learned that instead of changing my attachment style, I have to use it as a roadmap to select partners. That is- I have to think twice before being involved with someone with a avoidant attachment style, and this is the hardest part. Why? Because of the push-pull habit I described above. Anxious and avoidance complement each other. Additionally, the reason why I’ve never attracted someone with a secured attachment style is because to me, there’s no excitement present in that relationship. Secured people communicate their wants and needs clearly. They don’t send mixed signals and I find that boring, given that I’ve learned to work really hard for love.

To put this lesson bluntly- I have to stop equating my anxious attachment style to passion and love. Its not.

Second, I have to stop labelling my “neediness” as good or bad. And, further, acknowledge that I too deserve compatibility and love.

Apply this to yourself: what’s your attachment style? How has that impacted your past or present relationships? 

Context: “How did you two meet?” Lesson: Coincidence has a big hand to play in our love stories

There is a sense of pride that we feel as couples, when someone asks us the typical question- how did you two meet?

Most often than not, our answer revolves around the magical statement- it was just so meant to be. And yet, if we really think about it, that hardly seems to be the case.

Let's say you met your partner at a party. You ordered a Diet Coke with lime and you noticed the bartender take out two glasses. She gave one to you and as you looked up, the other glass was given to someone else. Your eyes met with his, he raised his glass and so did you, and then the two of you got talking. He shared his aspirations of being an architect, while you tried not to blabber too much about how much you love graphic designing.

The mutuality of both of you using the right side of your brains as a profession made you wonder- wow, this is so meant to be.

Then, he shared his embarrassment of ordering a Diet Coke with lime and you reassured him that his drink choice didn’t make him not cool or not young enough. That act of reassurance made you fantasize about how perfect this relationship would be.

In a way, you started following a script, a script, that, although written and edited by the media and culture, made you think it was written by cupid- just for you. All the while, forgetting that at any moment, you had the chance to tear that script, change the ink of the pen you were writing it, or close the book altogether.

Alright, let’s back up a bit.

What if you decided not to attend the party? What if you chose staying in and reading a good book? What if you decided to get another drink? The point is- there are so many possibilities, so many scenarios that could’ve played out.

I learned that we fall in love by coincidence, not design. There is no one up there writing our love stories, for better or for worse, we have the ability to do it ourselves. Maybe this makes you a tad upset, but give it a minute and think about it- because there is no predetermined “right place” or “right time”, there is also no wrong place or wrong time.

Choice has always been with us, and it always will be. So, the next time people ask your partner and you that question about how the two of you met- really think about it, how did the two of you meet? And then question the typical norm of crediting cupid.

Context: How Love Stories Typically End Lesson: The other side of happily ever after

If we take notes about what every love story typically consists of, we can find ourselves jotting down the following:

- Every love story has a nemesis that has to be defeated - Most of the time, both individuals are never on the same page - When they are- they meet and the story ends

And we fucking love it. Don’t get me wrong, despite studying this for a year now, every time I pick up a typical romance book, I can’t let go of it. Romance novels emphasize romanticism, they make us believe that maybe, just maybe, our horribleness is worthy of love too.

That of course there’s a special determined someone for us, who will step in and just cure our misery, who will let make living just a tad bit better. 

That said, here’s the problem I have with them- the ending.

More often than not, love stories end at a point where real life starts. In actuality, “happily ever after” encompasses marriage, kids, death, and what not. Isn’t that where we really need some guidance? I mean, modern culture has taught us romanticism well, we’re all brilliantly aware of how to handle the honeymoon phase, the things to say to our crushes, the songs to listen to; unfortunately, we’re pretty blindfolded in the next stage- that is, living a life with them.

We don’t know what to do when suddenly our partner starts disagreeing with us, when they can’t quite get along with your friends, when they leave the bathroom lights on; wouldn’t we all want to see what would’ve happened if Romeo and Juliet got an apartment in Brooklyn and started living a life together?

Of course we would, it’s an area we’re not at all educated about.

Now, most definitely, its not a perfect science. If there’s one thing we know about relationships, its that we can’t really master them. Its a tight rope between two cliffs, we’re all just.. trying our best not to fall. That said, just because we can’t master them doesn’t mean we can’t explore the other side, look at it, be curios about it, and if we’re lucky- learn something from it.

Fortunately, I found the perfect book that explores this concept, The Course Of Love by Alain De Boton. The best part about this book isn’t how the two individuals meet, instead, it’s what happens after they meet and fall in love- marriage, kids, death, and what not. The book explores fascinating questions like- why, after being so sure that our partner is the right one, do we start realizing that maybe we’ve made a mistake? How and why do couples loose the “spark”?

All I’d say is- get the book, read it, and treat it like your bible for relationships.

If you do, I’d suggest reading Essays in Love first, it was his first book. Although it doesn’t cover marriage, the text still explores the first few phases of love- crushes, breakups, affairs, etc. 

Ending Thoughts

Our modern definition of love acknowledges the reality that love stories don’t end with the two individuals meet. They go on, in fact, it’s essential for them to go on, given life,

So, how can we use this insight?

We can let it change our perspective of love and relationships. We can, in a very real sense, let it change the typical attitude we have towards it- a sense of wonder, something that the cupid/God controls. Instead, we can finally consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, love is more deliberate, more logical, and thus- a skill that can be learned.

What this means is, the next time we crush on someone, we don’t let it fully consume us, we acknowledge that yes- they’re lovely, of course they’re perfect for us, but at the same time, there’s a side of them we haven’t seen yet. Not because they’re hiding it, but because we’re blindfolded by love. 

The point isn’t to point out faults in love, it’s to let a little bit of cynicism help us stay aware of what’s happening.

When I started on this endeavor, a quote by Victor Frankyl amazed me. In his book Man’s Search For Meaning, he said- “The salvation of man is through love and in love”, and after everything I’ve learned, I think he’s right. 

The problem with quotes and phrases about love is that they’re very vague. Which is why they need to be delayered. These sayings make us believe that the right approach to love has to be taken from the surface, however, we need to delayer it. We need to get rid of the really attractive bottle cap and pour out the contents of the bottle. Then, be curious about it and hopefully- learn something from it. 

Real love in essence is transparency. Not only is it in acknowledging the scars both partners share but also how those scars affect how they are and what they do in relationships. That is where, I reckon, the whole salvation thing comes in; when we’re not only accepted for who we are but also loved for it.

I hope this post made you (at the least) think about the possibility that love isn’t random, it doesn’t happen when the stars align. Instead, it’s something that can be logical, something that can be guided by reason. That doesn’t necessarily make love unsexy or unromantic, it actually makes it sustainable, so you can grow in and with it.