Through the course of my "Blogging Around", I saw Thomas's very precise, succinct comment on his blogging experience. He stated roughly that although the concept has it's pitfalls, the benefits of casual free-flow of thought writing are very nice. I responded as such:
"Thomas, I thought you had some great thoughts on here. Whereas I normally take a long time to express a point when writing it, you got the jist of my feelings regarding blogging in some very few sentences. I too feel like the informality (though, yes, the reigns do need to be kept somewhat tight) makes for easy writing and some real thinking that isn't TOO forced. Of course we're going to have some days where we just don't know what to write about a certain assignment, but at least this way we don't have to sound like calculating, expository geniuses while trying to pretend as though we do know what to say.
And by the way, great cartoon. Poor cheerleaders."
Secondly, I responded to Jon's blog, which talked about free-thinking, how he's come to understand his pattern of thinking, and his concerns over the overall "restricted" assignment process of blogging in Mr. Allen's class.
"Hey Jon, love the post. I found it interesting how, right off the bat, you said you felt blogging taught you something about your own thinking. The reason I found that...interesting, I suppose, is because I've never looked at it that way. You've now kind of inspired me to go back and really try to rember WHY I think the way I currently do vs. merely know how I currently think.
Regarding your thoughts on how it's "free flow thinking", I totally agree.
About that last bit though? I recognize that sometimes the prompts and forced, and how that's, well...inconvenient, but many people seem to wish that they hadn't had to do them in the first place. And when thinking about that, I have to disagree a little bit, because school isn't always going to suit our thoughts or needs, nor should it. I think these were made to make us think and, if I may...uncomfortable in our thinking, so that we really examine things to come to a truly thought-out answer. If we had it our way and could just write about anything in english class, I doubt there'd be any challenge to the process and I suspect there'd be little gain from it.
No, the gain that Mr. Allen hoped for may not have been as big as he wished (and that's just a guess). Still, I think it was worth the try. And overall, I think you have a great flow and natural vibe to your blogs, as you do whern you speak. I hope you keep yours up and running :]"
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Metacognition: This Year's Blog
This year's blog process has been one that I've enjoyed. Granted, I felt a bit forced at times, but when something has to be done for school, it's got to be done for school, and I understand that. We can't blog about whatever we well please in this process or else, well, I'll ramble endlessly about art and love, someone else'll ramble about birds, and someone else'll ramble about how this is "like, oo my god, the biggest waste of time I've like ever spent on homework, Mr. Allen!" (This, of course, is a guess. I do, however, think I could find some people who might agree with me.)
In any event, I've enjoyed this process as a way of doing work that doesn't require me to research and doesn't have the teacher's opinions or intended "lessons learned" as the guiding factors of a grade. I need to be awake and cognitive in class, and be ableeto read directions, and, as long as no complications occur, I can do this assignment. I love the fact that the structure by which we're held day in and day out isn't necessarily forced or upheld; I feel it brings a certain unhindered flow of thought into the blog that one wouldn't get elsewhere. When I'm writing in the blog, I'm surprised that thoughts just FLOW out of me. Honestly, I feel like it's harder to write an essay because one feels forced and restricted in the many different ways that essays control/guide the writer (which I don't think I need to explain) and so perhaps it would be a better idea, as an experiment,, to give an assignment, have students blog about it, find their central focus among all the psychobabble, and have them construct an essay from that. No, I'm not a teacher, so I don't find that something I'd sit up at night thinking how to do. But if I was a teacher, that might be how I'd go about things.
In the end, except for the amount of cursing that I'm assuming isn't allowed in school blogs, blog-speak is US speak. It is, more or less, how students speak, unless we're using correct grammar for brownie points or not typing "lol" at every sentence (and we've all wanted to at one time or another). But you probably already know this, Mr. Allen. I'd be surprised if you didn't. So WHY am I telling you? Well--and with my luck, you've probably already deduced this yourself--we come out writing and using writing skills and learning to improve and turning in legible, intelligent, and thoughtful pieces almost every week, and, this being the kicker, without a classic format.
Maybe it's just us.
I know it's not just me (Blogging around has showed me that).
But I seriously think this blog of ours has allowed us, or at least myself, as students, to get the best of both worlds. And through this experience, I've learned that not only can one be unrestricted (outside of a desired subject about which to write) in writing and still be effective, but that it can be done over, and over, and over again, without obsessive control, from day one. I've enjoyed watching myself be a part of that realization, knowing that I can produce "good" information just through being told to "write", and that my education can be taught by a teacher through a method not so intense that students come crawling out of the wall shouting "We don't need no education" (as some inevitably do, sometimes).
This is a great model for continuing material learning in class and for keeping students' writing abilities up to par. What else can I say?
In any event, I've enjoyed this process as a way of doing work that doesn't require me to research and doesn't have the teacher's opinions or intended "lessons learned" as the guiding factors of a grade. I need to be awake and cognitive in class, and be ableeto read directions, and, as long as no complications occur, I can do this assignment. I love the fact that the structure by which we're held day in and day out isn't necessarily forced or upheld; I feel it brings a certain unhindered flow of thought into the blog that one wouldn't get elsewhere. When I'm writing in the blog, I'm surprised that thoughts just FLOW out of me. Honestly, I feel like it's harder to write an essay because one feels forced and restricted in the many different ways that essays control/guide the writer (which I don't think I need to explain) and so perhaps it would be a better idea, as an experiment,, to give an assignment, have students blog about it, find their central focus among all the psychobabble, and have them construct an essay from that. No, I'm not a teacher, so I don't find that something I'd sit up at night thinking how to do. But if I was a teacher, that might be how I'd go about things.
In the end, except for the amount of cursing that I'm assuming isn't allowed in school blogs, blog-speak is US speak. It is, more or less, how students speak, unless we're using correct grammar for brownie points or not typing "lol" at every sentence (and we've all wanted to at one time or another). But you probably already know this, Mr. Allen. I'd be surprised if you didn't. So WHY am I telling you? Well--and with my luck, you've probably already deduced this yourself--we come out writing and using writing skills and learning to improve and turning in legible, intelligent, and thoughtful pieces almost every week, and, this being the kicker, without a classic format.
Maybe it's just us.
I know it's not just me (Blogging around has showed me that).
But I seriously think this blog of ours has allowed us, or at least myself, as students, to get the best of both worlds. And through this experience, I've learned that not only can one be unrestricted (outside of a desired subject about which to write) in writing and still be effective, but that it can be done over, and over, and over again, without obsessive control, from day one. I've enjoyed watching myself be a part of that realization, knowing that I can produce "good" information just through being told to "write", and that my education can be taught by a teacher through a method not so intense that students come crawling out of the wall shouting "We don't need no education" (as some inevitably do, sometimes).
This is a great model for continuing material learning in class and for keeping students' writing abilities up to par. What else can I say?
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Blogging Around
The first blog I responded to was Jamie's. She talked about Growth, in an intellectual sense. She spoke of how we, at earlier points in life, frequently dismiss things because we think we've gained all there is to gain and there's nothing else that could possibly fit its way into our head, because there's simply "nothing more to learn" from it. Looking back, after having read Michael K, she realized that this was not the case, and she's grown to appreciate what she previously dismissed, to which I responded:
"Alright. So. Jamie Tolmatsky could kind of, sort of, be my hero in this blog's case.
Why?
Because (switching to speaking to the writer, now) you 1) acknowledged the fact that at many times people (and especially teens) overlook things because they think they can see everything to be taken from it and find there's nothing to learn, and
2) You've personally recognized that particular ideaology and chosen to move away from it (I never find enough people who think like this and it literally made me incredibly happy to see. It was refreshing, to say the least.)
Oh, and 3)--You actually connected that ideology with something we did in English class. Personally, I can't remember the faintest thing about the "Stone" poem and I'm sure some of the lessons from Michael K, though he's been my favorite character, will wash away over time in the tide of my brain. So the fact that you can make these connections that're required of us and make an actual, valid, (and, if you continue to think this way throughout your life) life-changing distinction from it is...awesome. Keep doin' what you're doin', a'right?"
My second comment was in response to Leanne's Metacognition blog, which showed her frustration with writing a story that felt forced and not entirely hers, hoping for the best in the end. Hoping to clear things up, I responded, saying:
Dear Leannaaa,
In a way, I agree with you. I understand that it sucks to not be able to finish the story you originally intended to write, only to be told to rewrite most of it in another direction, whereupon you feel you've lost that creative drive and you miss your voice.
It's like being given a chance to do something you'll enjoy and then, once you've had a taste of it, someone takes it, alters it, and tells you to enjoy what you can out if it, because they know it'll be better in the long run...somehow.
Now, here's the thing.
I really, really think you should write out the whole story as you originally planned it (if you're still interested in it as it first was). Write it with all the language devices you can, with all your specific twists and turns, with whatever you thought was significant to you, and be able to say that you finished it. You finished YOUR story.
Then, I think you should read it aloud. Read it aloud, find all the awkward sentences and phrases (and no, not "awkward teenage dialogue *chuckle chuckle*", but sentences that just...don't seem right) and try to fix those. Use everything that you've learned so far in all your English classes to make it seem as professional as possible. Because, at least for me, how comfortable we are with our story is determined by how good it sounds, how well it stands up in the boxing ring of criticism against published bigwigs. Of course we may not be necessarily good enough or experienced enough to be published as proifessionals yet, but it's a good thing to base your writing on. In the end, you have to be comfortable with it, to be able to read it and not grimace at what sounds strange or juvenile.
You've got to be willing to be your own critic, I think. Very few people like to be criticised by others who think they have a much better idea of how THEIR story should be written. And that's a valid dislike. In the end, the critic represents the public. So, right now, we have that in Mr. Allen. It doesn't take a genius to see that you're not happy over the laborious revisions, that you want your story to be told, and not a teacher's.
So refresh yourself. Being tied down by criticisms and rules and regulations while writing a story that isn't even yours has GOT to be inhibiting you and your creativity, and that's the last thing anyone wants. So again, refresh yourself. Step back, shake your head violently, and re-write. (Nah, you probably don't want to do this now. But the summer can get kind of boring some days. Maybe try it then :].) And write out your story. Read it aloud, coax the awkward out of the first -draft sentences, and think about all the ways it could be done better. If you enjoy storytelling, and feel like it's worth it to start and finish something so that you can truly call it YOURS (and that feels gooood), then try that out. And no matter how good it may be for the public, it won't really matter; it's your story, written by you, for you. Written freely, happily, and with an open mind.
And, you know...you always have that other "school" one to fall back on ;].
Capice?
"Alright. So. Jamie Tolmatsky could kind of, sort of, be my hero in this blog's case.
Why?
Because (switching to speaking to the writer, now) you 1) acknowledged the fact that at many times people (and especially teens) overlook things because they think they can see everything to be taken from it and find there's nothing to learn, and
2) You've personally recognized that particular ideaology and chosen to move away from it (I never find enough people who think like this and it literally made me incredibly happy to see. It was refreshing, to say the least.)
Oh, and 3)--You actually connected that ideology with something we did in English class. Personally, I can't remember the faintest thing about the "Stone" poem and I'm sure some of the lessons from Michael K, though he's been my favorite character, will wash away over time in the tide of my brain. So the fact that you can make these connections that're required of us and make an actual, valid, (and, if you continue to think this way throughout your life) life-changing distinction from it is...awesome. Keep doin' what you're doin', a'right?"
My second comment was in response to Leanne's Metacognition blog, which showed her frustration with writing a story that felt forced and not entirely hers, hoping for the best in the end. Hoping to clear things up, I responded, saying:
Dear Leannaaa,
In a way, I agree with you. I understand that it sucks to not be able to finish the story you originally intended to write, only to be told to rewrite most of it in another direction, whereupon you feel you've lost that creative drive and you miss your voice.
It's like being given a chance to do something you'll enjoy and then, once you've had a taste of it, someone takes it, alters it, and tells you to enjoy what you can out if it, because they know it'll be better in the long run...somehow.
Now, here's the thing.
I really, really think you should write out the whole story as you originally planned it (if you're still interested in it as it first was). Write it with all the language devices you can, with all your specific twists and turns, with whatever you thought was significant to you, and be able to say that you finished it. You finished YOUR story.
Then, I think you should read it aloud. Read it aloud, find all the awkward sentences and phrases (and no, not "awkward teenage dialogue *chuckle chuckle*", but sentences that just...don't seem right) and try to fix those. Use everything that you've learned so far in all your English classes to make it seem as professional as possible. Because, at least for me, how comfortable we are with our story is determined by how good it sounds, how well it stands up in the boxing ring of criticism against published bigwigs. Of course we may not be necessarily good enough or experienced enough to be published as proifessionals yet, but it's a good thing to base your writing on. In the end, you have to be comfortable with it, to be able to read it and not grimace at what sounds strange or juvenile.
You've got to be willing to be your own critic, I think. Very few people like to be criticised by others who think they have a much better idea of how THEIR story should be written. And that's a valid dislike. In the end, the critic represents the public. So, right now, we have that in Mr. Allen. It doesn't take a genius to see that you're not happy over the laborious revisions, that you want your story to be told, and not a teacher's.
So refresh yourself. Being tied down by criticisms and rules and regulations while writing a story that isn't even yours has GOT to be inhibiting you and your creativity, and that's the last thing anyone wants. So again, refresh yourself. Step back, shake your head violently, and re-write. (Nah, you probably don't want to do this now. But the summer can get kind of boring some days. Maybe try it then :].) And write out your story. Read it aloud, coax the awkward out of the first -draft sentences, and think about all the ways it could be done better. If you enjoy storytelling, and feel like it's worth it to start and finish something so that you can truly call it YOURS (and that feels gooood), then try that out. And no matter how good it may be for the public, it won't really matter; it's your story, written by you, for you. Written freely, happily, and with an open mind.
And, you know...you always have that other "school" one to fall back on ;].
Capice?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Metacognition: Short Story
Writing my short story took a lot of improvisation. I had specific events panned out, but not there exact moments. Even some of my most touching or important moments in the story came along as I was writing, but had not been a part prior to then. It came in a steady flow. At time,s I would have to stop and think "what direction is this going in, to what purpose, etc." I'm very happy I stopped and did that at times, because sometimes I got lost in my story.
Anyway, there was no outline on which I checked off every "story landmark, dialogue, etc." This was a rough outline by which I wrote, and I'm happy about that. The story didn't come off as mechanical (at least to me, at the moment), and the characters had voices of their own. Dialogue flowed from my fingers almost effortlessly, as nothing was pressured on the characters. Earlier on, I had to think about dialogue, I had to choreograph tension, and I had to stop to be sure what came next fit the general feel. It showed. Some parts of the original draft I am proud of, but others are, as we'd say in french "pire". Absolutely horrible. You can see that I over thought and though it was meant to be an early A+ effort, I felt the opposite was the result. With the finished version, some of those old elements are kept, and an entire scene is kept, but still almost extensively edited. There was the feel from the rest of the story that it then had to fit with, so that was the only time I stopped and thought and edited with an unfeeling scalpel.
In the end, I couldn't stop myself. Constantly playing, or rather, manipulating writing techniques new and old, trying to display the image in the best way possible, I had to finish the story, but it was going to take longer than expected. I had to do my character justice, and I had to develop his anguish, his blind ingratiation of the love he's been given, and his realization (or lack thereof) that he must make things right. Though it took 12 pages to take him through that humbly set but daringly intimate inward quest, I felt it had to be done. Granted, it always feels close to perfect at the original finish, but I certainly think that that is about the right length for his story. The end was accomplished. I believe the necessary steps to take him there were put in place and taken. I am confident, and I loved the experience.
So now, the ball is in your court, Sr. Allen.
Anyway, there was no outline on which I checked off every "story landmark, dialogue, etc." This was a rough outline by which I wrote, and I'm happy about that. The story didn't come off as mechanical (at least to me, at the moment), and the characters had voices of their own. Dialogue flowed from my fingers almost effortlessly, as nothing was pressured on the characters. Earlier on, I had to think about dialogue, I had to choreograph tension, and I had to stop to be sure what came next fit the general feel. It showed. Some parts of the original draft I am proud of, but others are, as we'd say in french "pire". Absolutely horrible. You can see that I over thought and though it was meant to be an early A+ effort, I felt the opposite was the result. With the finished version, some of those old elements are kept, and an entire scene is kept, but still almost extensively edited. There was the feel from the rest of the story that it then had to fit with, so that was the only time I stopped and thought and edited with an unfeeling scalpel.
In the end, I couldn't stop myself. Constantly playing, or rather, manipulating writing techniques new and old, trying to display the image in the best way possible, I had to finish the story, but it was going to take longer than expected. I had to do my character justice, and I had to develop his anguish, his blind ingratiation of the love he's been given, and his realization (or lack thereof) that he must make things right. Though it took 12 pages to take him through that humbly set but daringly intimate inward quest, I felt it had to be done. Granted, it always feels close to perfect at the original finish, but I certainly think that that is about the right length for his story. The end was accomplished. I believe the necessary steps to take him there were put in place and taken. I am confident, and I loved the experience.
So now, the ball is in your court, Sr. Allen.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Metacognition: Jane Eyre Essay.
Whoof.
It was a doozy.
Although suprisingly not nearly as difficult as I had expected. (Then again, when one specializes in love, it probably shouldn't be such a hard thing to write and ruminate about, no?)
And that's what I experienced this project as being: one big written rumination. I'm not sure whether that was the intended feel to get from it (and I'm almost positive it wasn't) but hey, it's what happened. And it's something I've never experienced on an essay before.
I don't want to say the method Tessa and I developed was haphazard or...aimless, but it developed just as a conversation would. We were to write a dialogue about the GENERAL theory of love and I feel it developed as such; after all, I don't know many people who talk in focused, scripted essay speak.
I feel with this we accomplished a comfortable, authentic dialogue (or trialogue) beyween the characters and discovered a lot about love and it's different modes of existence and requirements, etc. I feel we kept the characters on a tight enough leash to not seem rambling and idiotic, but we also gave them enough room to explore their previous actions and emotions, now that they are "free".
Is till feel, however, a bit unaccomplished regarding the whole essay. I'm not sure there was a strong enough structure, though I feel the desired effect was accomplished. In the end, I left with an empty "has this really been done right?" feeling, probably because I'd never done an essay of this easy style before (and I say easy because I love dialogue and find it very easy to write.)
In the end, I can say that I felt I excercised a whole different pair of muscles and, although it felt awkward and I'm not sure I excercised those weights 100 % correctly, I feel I came out of it with a very appreciated literary experience.
It was a doozy.
Although suprisingly not nearly as difficult as I had expected. (Then again, when one specializes in love, it probably shouldn't be such a hard thing to write and ruminate about, no?)
And that's what I experienced this project as being: one big written rumination. I'm not sure whether that was the intended feel to get from it (and I'm almost positive it wasn't) but hey, it's what happened. And it's something I've never experienced on an essay before.
I don't want to say the method Tessa and I developed was haphazard or...aimless, but it developed just as a conversation would. We were to write a dialogue about the GENERAL theory of love and I feel it developed as such; after all, I don't know many people who talk in focused, scripted essay speak.
I feel with this we accomplished a comfortable, authentic dialogue (or trialogue) beyween the characters and discovered a lot about love and it's different modes of existence and requirements, etc. I feel we kept the characters on a tight enough leash to not seem rambling and idiotic, but we also gave them enough room to explore their previous actions and emotions, now that they are "free".
Is till feel, however, a bit unaccomplished regarding the whole essay. I'm not sure there was a strong enough structure, though I feel the desired effect was accomplished. In the end, I left with an empty "has this really been done right?" feeling, probably because I'd never done an essay of this easy style before (and I say easy because I love dialogue and find it very easy to write.)
In the end, I can say that I felt I excercised a whole different pair of muscles and, although it felt awkward and I'm not sure I excercised those weights 100 % correctly, I feel I came out of it with a very appreciated literary experience.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Captured Thought: Livre d'Amour
Yesterday, while with my friends (one, my best friend, a girl; the other, her boyfriend, a boy) and their romantic habits, walking through the streets of Glenview like a bunch of late-night delinquents, I was struck by an epiphany (actually, the epiphany came hours earlier, but this setting is far funnier, and entirely true).
My epiphany? My brilliant idea destined to revolutionize the fiction industry--a novel about love, written by a young'in, and written for young and old alike? Thanks for asking! It struck me as I walked that late-night street: alone in the dark, unfortunately listening to my friends quite blissfully showing/macking their profound love for one another.
A great image, I know. But I was there.
Anyway, "revenons au mouton", as my french romantic-minded cousins would say; it struck me that this frustration I'd been feeling (that had been slightly amplified by the sheer bliss of my enamored buds, though one could say they themselves are quite beyond the budding stage of their feelings for one another) was probably because of pent-up moments, feelings, thoughts, and memories not yet driven to the point of sheer beaten-to-death awkwardness with my exes.
Oh.
If one hasn't been taking notes of my recent history or brain patterns, one should take into account that I'm very relationship-oriented. A lot of "ex" stuff floating around in life. Yes, it's quite grand.
Anyway, I was struck with the idea to write a book, a chronicle of a disenchanted lover of love. This is one with many exes with whom he has left things unsaid, and who finds himself lost, unable to feel that emotion most essential to him-- all because of tinfoil-wrapped, two month-old, leftover love. And believe me, that leftover love stanks, and it probably doesn't even want to be eaten. In fact, he's sure it doesn't; being revisited is the last thing it wants, but he still finds its aroma savory and sweet. Enough metaphor? I believe the image has been put across as to just what this boy is feeling.
Anyway, he has to do something with himself. Something. Lazy, imprudent, rude or just plain drastic, he doesn't really care. Something. Something is all he needs, he thinks, to set him he free--if that's even what he wants--and boy, is he afraid of that, too. That something that he decides on, though foolish, is this: full frontal, uninhibited, face-to-face, surprisal meetings with those he has fallen in--and, except for one--out of love with. No surprise cell phone calls late at night, no "let's set up a meeting" nonsense, but straight-up, doorstep style surprise encounters.
No, it's not a good idea in the least.
Yes, there are better, more civil, far less creepy ways to reconcile and free the soul with one's lost loves. But...since when has that been worth anything, and since when has that level of creativity been sufficient for a novel? Anyhow, I am highly determined, if not destined, to write this novel,
Then, of course, I find out that there is a John Cusack movie revolving around a similar theme.
Well, to that great inconvenience, I say that I am going to go even DEEPER into that iconic quest, I will put even MORE sinister, sickening pressure on the main character and his contingents (which is far too cold of a word for those for whom he has felt things so deep and burning and passionate), and I will make it known that one does not have to be an adult to be able to express onself in such a manner.
And who knows? They might even make a better movie about my book, non?
I think it's a great captured thought, a formidable starting line. Wish me luck.
My epiphany? My brilliant idea destined to revolutionize the fiction industry--a novel about love, written by a young'in, and written for young and old alike? Thanks for asking! It struck me as I walked that late-night street: alone in the dark, unfortunately listening to my friends quite blissfully showing/macking their profound love for one another.
A great image, I know. But I was there.
Anyway, "revenons au mouton", as my french romantic-minded cousins would say; it struck me that this frustration I'd been feeling (that had been slightly amplified by the sheer bliss of my enamored buds, though one could say they themselves are quite beyond the budding stage of their feelings for one another) was probably because of pent-up moments, feelings, thoughts, and memories not yet driven to the point of sheer beaten-to-death awkwardness with my exes.
Oh.
If one hasn't been taking notes of my recent history or brain patterns, one should take into account that I'm very relationship-oriented. A lot of "ex" stuff floating around in life. Yes, it's quite grand.
Anyway, I was struck with the idea to write a book, a chronicle of a disenchanted lover of love. This is one with many exes with whom he has left things unsaid, and who finds himself lost, unable to feel that emotion most essential to him-- all because of tinfoil-wrapped, two month-old, leftover love. And believe me, that leftover love stanks, and it probably doesn't even want to be eaten. In fact, he's sure it doesn't; being revisited is the last thing it wants, but he still finds its aroma savory and sweet. Enough metaphor? I believe the image has been put across as to just what this boy is feeling.
Anyway, he has to do something with himself. Something. Lazy, imprudent, rude or just plain drastic, he doesn't really care. Something. Something is all he needs, he thinks, to set him he free--if that's even what he wants--and boy, is he afraid of that, too. That something that he decides on, though foolish, is this: full frontal, uninhibited, face-to-face, surprisal meetings with those he has fallen in--and, except for one--out of love with. No surprise cell phone calls late at night, no "let's set up a meeting" nonsense, but straight-up, doorstep style surprise encounters.
No, it's not a good idea in the least.
Yes, there are better, more civil, far less creepy ways to reconcile and free the soul with one's lost loves. But...since when has that been worth anything, and since when has that level of creativity been sufficient for a novel? Anyhow, I am highly determined, if not destined, to write this novel,
Then, of course, I find out that there is a John Cusack movie revolving around a similar theme.
Well, to that great inconvenience, I say that I am going to go even DEEPER into that iconic quest, I will put even MORE sinister, sickening pressure on the main character and his contingents (which is far too cold of a word for those for whom he has felt things so deep and burning and passionate), and I will make it known that one does not have to be an adult to be able to express onself in such a manner.
And who knows? They might even make a better movie about my book, non?
I think it's a great captured thought, a formidable starting line. Wish me luck.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Dialectics: Love And Faithfulness
When in love, it's now assumed (for men and women) that both partners remain faithful to one another. Regardless of the circumstances, if they are continually bound by a serious relationship, they would be looked down upon for being unfaithful.
In writing my short story, however, I explore the mind of someone who falls out of love, and someone who could very well become unfaithful, but is bound to his partner by guilt.
In this situation, love has been lost. It is still fresh in his memory, he knows it was very valid, but he feels he has to put on a mask to be a faithful "lover" of sorts. When one is engaged to someone, the common understanding is that the two should be in love, like these two. But when put in this main character's position, one may likely choose to bury their emotions, and stay faithful. This is commonly the nature of how we act; when we discover we are in love, people frequently hide it for a while, waiting/hoping that the person with which they are in love will turn up and proclaim their feelings for them as well, and when someone falls out of love, they may bottle it up for the sake of (take your pic) kids, their economic future, the relationship/freindship as a whole, and the possibility of a change of heart.
But, in seeing this, we know that being faithful does not always mean we have to be in love. Just as some people in love will choose to be unfaithfull because they are, say, sex addicts, some people with no mutual feelings will be faithful. They may do it just because the idea of having a real functional relationship, regardless of emotion involved, means more to them than to be in a relationship in which love is truly a foundation, without which it cannot stand. The knowledge of having a relationship is worth more than the love that comes with it, in other words. That, at least, is the shallow possibility.
In trying to find a solution to this, one would be dealing with matters of he heart, AKA (almost) uncontrollable chemistry, chance, and how attractive you can possibly at any given moment without looking like you're trying too hard. Also, faced with the knowledge that one's partner no longer feels love for them, but is remaining faithful (for whatever their reason meay be, as explained above), one would likely NOT do what is recommended (end the relationship, realize that there are more fish in the sea) and decide to stay with his/her "lover" until the ship can simply noo longer stay afloat. What they don't know is that it's likely it already has sunk, and they're both just waiting for it to simply become too uncomfortable for a relationship to exist. Many of us can relate to this from experience, but still don't exactly which action is right--work at a relationship and really try to keep it going withouu exploring other avenues, or end it because the love simply isn't there anymore.
I deny that the time during which someone has been in a relationship really matters in the decision-making; one can be in a relatinshiip for less than a month and find they are in love regardless.
I deny any feeling that would suggest exploring other people is a good decision; an honest, true, and faithful break is better for people's affection cordiality than anything else (at least, this is what we mostly find to be truth.)
So what should one do? How can these two terms, these two states of being and action, exist together without any faults? Can we make a general statement and rule in the best interests of ever relationship? Well, as some famous person once said, "for every complicated problem, there is a simple, and wrong solution." I, for one, agree with this wholeheartedly. Every relationship must solve its problems individdually, as they are all different (if only incredibly slightly) and they all deal with different personalities. So, there is not one solution for everything, for maintaining that love and faithfulness go together, and one is not left without the other. But, some guidelines may be good to keep in mind:
-Do not cheat. Do not. You hhve made a commitment and even sociopaths should know this is morally wrong.
-If you're going to say "I love you," you'd better mean it. A lie as big as that can not go down well, I believe many people can tell you.
-The person you are in a relationship with hopefully loves you just as much as you do them. If this is not the case, one has to let go. Maybe then, they may see what they were missing, and maybe in leaving them, you will see what you were missing in the outside world.
Maybe.
And this is where love always gets messy.
In writing my short story, however, I explore the mind of someone who falls out of love, and someone who could very well become unfaithful, but is bound to his partner by guilt.
In this situation, love has been lost. It is still fresh in his memory, he knows it was very valid, but he feels he has to put on a mask to be a faithful "lover" of sorts. When one is engaged to someone, the common understanding is that the two should be in love, like these two. But when put in this main character's position, one may likely choose to bury their emotions, and stay faithful. This is commonly the nature of how we act; when we discover we are in love, people frequently hide it for a while, waiting/hoping that the person with which they are in love will turn up and proclaim their feelings for them as well, and when someone falls out of love, they may bottle it up for the sake of (take your pic) kids, their economic future, the relationship/freindship as a whole, and the possibility of a change of heart.
But, in seeing this, we know that being faithful does not always mean we have to be in love. Just as some people in love will choose to be unfaithfull because they are, say, sex addicts, some people with no mutual feelings will be faithful. They may do it just because the idea of having a real functional relationship, regardless of emotion involved, means more to them than to be in a relationship in which love is truly a foundation, without which it cannot stand. The knowledge of having a relationship is worth more than the love that comes with it, in other words. That, at least, is the shallow possibility.
In trying to find a solution to this, one would be dealing with matters of he heart, AKA (almost) uncontrollable chemistry, chance, and how attractive you can possibly at any given moment without looking like you're trying too hard. Also, faced with the knowledge that one's partner no longer feels love for them, but is remaining faithful (for whatever their reason meay be, as explained above), one would likely NOT do what is recommended (end the relationship, realize that there are more fish in the sea) and decide to stay with his/her "lover" until the ship can simply noo longer stay afloat. What they don't know is that it's likely it already has sunk, and they're both just waiting for it to simply become too uncomfortable for a relationship to exist. Many of us can relate to this from experience, but still don't exactly which action is right--work at a relationship and really try to keep it going withouu exploring other avenues, or end it because the love simply isn't there anymore.
I deny that the time during which someone has been in a relationship really matters in the decision-making; one can be in a relatinshiip for less than a month and find they are in love regardless.
I deny any feeling that would suggest exploring other people is a good decision; an honest, true, and faithful break is better for people's affection cordiality than anything else (at least, this is what we mostly find to be truth.)
So what should one do? How can these two terms, these two states of being and action, exist together without any faults? Can we make a general statement and rule in the best interests of ever relationship? Well, as some famous person once said, "for every complicated problem, there is a simple, and wrong solution." I, for one, agree with this wholeheartedly. Every relationship must solve its problems individdually, as they are all different (if only incredibly slightly) and they all deal with different personalities. So, there is not one solution for everything, for maintaining that love and faithfulness go together, and one is not left without the other. But, some guidelines may be good to keep in mind:
-Do not cheat. Do not. You hhve made a commitment and even sociopaths should know this is morally wrong.
-If you're going to say "I love you," you'd better mean it. A lie as big as that can not go down well, I believe many people can tell you.
-The person you are in a relationship with hopefully loves you just as much as you do them. If this is not the case, one has to let go. Maybe then, they may see what they were missing, and maybe in leaving them, you will see what you were missing in the outside world.
Maybe.
And this is where love always gets messy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)