Catching Fire (stupid pun so intended)

"I feel Jesus in the clumsiness of young and awkward lovers." - The Hold Steady

The following was published in the newspaper when my English teacher was in 11th grade, and she cut it out to save in her journal. Today she passed copies out to us.
And since she's usually pretty good about copyright, I'm assuming I'm allowed to share it with you. (Sorry about the masculine pronouns--it was in an advice column addressed to a girl whose boyfriend wanted to run away with her.)

Love, or Infatuation?

Infatuation is instant desire. It is one set of glands calling to another. Love is friendship that has caught fire. It takes root and grows--one day at a time.

Infatuation is marked by a feeling of insecurity. You are excited and eager, but not genuinely happy. There are nagging doubts, unanswered questions, little bits and pieces about your beloved that you would just as soon not examine too closely. It might spoil the dream.

Love is quiet understanding and the mature acceptance of imperfection. It is real. It gives you strength and grows beyond you--to bolster your beloved. You are warmed by his presence, even when he is away. Miles do not separate you. You want him nearer. But near or far, you know he is yours and you can wait.

Infatuation says, "We must get married right away. I can't risk losing him."

Love says, "Be patient. Don't panic. He is yours. Plan your future with confidence."

Infatuation has an element of sexual excitement. If you are honest, you will admit it is difficult to be in one another's company unless you are sure it will end in intimacy. Love is the maturation of friendship. You must be friends before you can be lovers.

Infatuation lacks confidence. When he's away, you wonder if he's cheating. Sometimes you even check.

Love means trust. You are calm, secure and unthreatened. He feels that trust, and it makes him even more trustworthy.

Infatuation might lead you to do things you'll regret later, but love never will.

Love is an upper. It makes you look up. It makes you think up. It makes you a better person that you were before.

"Love is friendship that has caught fire." I love that.


The problem with our language, I think, is that no one knows what the heck "love" means in any given context. This obviously goes for "does he like you, or does he like you like you?" thing, but what about the rest of the time? What about when you're actually in a relationship? Some people throw the word around like it doesn't mean anything, and some people take forever to say it to each other. What about in relationships of the non-romantic variety?


As much as the phrase "no homo" irks me, I think there really is a need for a new word for strong yet completely platonic feelings. The Greeks had what, four words for love? I tell my best friend that I love her all the time. Because I do. And she knows exactly how I mean it, and I can do the same with many other people.


But what about guys? There are male people that I greatly respect, admire, and care about in the same way, but that would just be awkward and weird on both sides. And that seems pretty of unfair to them.


That's straying away from the topic, though. Romeo and Juliet were not in love, but that's the word they used for what they were feeling. "Infatuation" is there, of course, but it has such a negative connotation to it that people don't want to use it. And "deeply in like" doesn't quite have the same ring to it.


And if Romeo and Juliet were shown this newspaper clipping, would they agree that they were infatuated? No. They would use "love" anyway. Which is a problem, for a number of reasons:

1.  It is possible and okay to be in a happy relationship and not be in love. That's why there is "like." The whole emphasis on "he hasn't said I love you!" is ridiculous. You can be attracted to and care about each other without being in love. Or infatuated, for that matter.
2. Glamorizing unhealthy relationships as love makes it seem like said relationships are okay and/or ideal. My sister was listening to a song yesterday about someone who was willing to jump in front of a train for the girl he likes. Risking your life for someone is one thing. I would put my life in a not-insignificant amount of danger for many people. Jumping in front of a freaking train is something else entirely, as is not physically being able to live without someone (unless you've been together for decades, of course).
3. It makes "love" mean less. At some point in the distant future when I am in a relationship I intend to last for a good while, I want to be able to say "I love you" and be told the same thing back and have it mean without question all of the things the newspaper article says it should.

Obviously those just apply to romantic relationships-- I don't see a problem with using "love" in any which way otherwise. It's easy enough to differentiate between love for a food, love for a TV show, and love for a passion. Not to mention deep appreciation/respect/admiration/whathaveyou for a person.


But yeah, those are my thoughts for the day.

 

 

 

The Believing Brain, Part 2: The Biology of Belief

"He who stops being better stops being good." - Oliver Cromwell


Part 2 of The Believing Brain starts out with a chapter on patternicity-- humans' tendency to find patterns where there may or may not be any. This chapter was really cool because it describes an experiment in which it was discovered that pigeons have superstitions.


The pigeons were placed in boxes containing buttons at a suitable height for pecking. Food was delivered to the boxes at random intervals. However, if a pigeon received food after pecking the button one time but not another, it would remember whatever it was that it had done immediately before pecking the button. The result was pigeons spinning around once to the right, hopping, and all other manner of things before pecking the button.


Next there's the chapter on agenticity-- our tendency to assign intention to phenomena. If forces are intelligent rather than inanimate, it's easier to appease them, and easier to survive. One theory about the origin of agenticity is "theory of mind"- I know you have your own thoughts and feelings, and I know you know I know you have them.


The third and final chapter of the section-- the chapter on neurons-- is the point at which I began to like the book less. The complexities of the brain are mind-blowing to be sure, but the author was also a bit rude towards his "opponents" rather than the simple enthusiasm for the topic I'm used to seeing in scientific books. He draws lines between "creationist," "ignores all science," and "needs to be helped as soon as possible," and subtly implies that Islam itself leads to suicide bombing rather than small groups of extremists with their own interpretations. I know a creationist who wants to be a neuroscientist.


Although it was pretty cool to learn that we have a neuron that only fires when we see a picture of Bill Clinton. No one else.

Bam. How awesome is that?

There's also an interesting section on the effects of dopamine and the difference between liking (pleasure) and wanting (motivation).


Rats given lots of dopamine when a button was pressed would literally keep pressing the button until they died of exhaustion (not a bad way to go...). The new research indicates that dopamine is indeed related to wanting rather than simply pleasure.

"'You can block the dopamine system in rats and they will still enjoy rewards, but they just won't work to get them.'"

The wanting rather than simply liking isn't the most encouraging of research given this quote from an article in Psychology Today I just found specifically to prove this point:

"We use the term "falling in love" even though the first giddy days of a new romance feel buoyant, free from gravity, as if some perfectly placed wind were boosting us skyward. That sense of becoming airborne is so unforgettable that years later we may recall it longingly and wonder why relationships now seem so bound-to-Earth. We may even gaze on our partners with some dissatisfaction, measuring them against that lost intensity.

But the gleam of infatuation--if current theory is right--may be largely the product of unexpectedly potent brain chemistry. And the primary ingredient in that chemical brew is dopamine..."

And this, my friends, is why the apparent extent of the pain of break-ups doesn't make any logical sense. The chemical involved in romance is based on wanting rather than liking, and when we're deprived...


Remember when in my post about left brain vs. right brain I said how as much as I like taking personality tests, I hate seeing the results because I don't want to think about them or apply them to myself? I feel the same way about this. Neuroscience is fascinating to be sure, but I prefer to think of my mind as separate from my body/brain even though they're really the same, and I'd rather feel the joy and pain of love without chalking it up to chemicals in my head.


It's great to understand how and why people work the way we do, and I wouldn't be reading this book if I wasn't in favor of learning about it, but when it comes to actually living, I'd rather not quantify it in quite the same way.

Mr. Paranormal Romance

Meet Mr. Paranormal Romance. He won't pay very much attention to you at first, but we fully expect that the two of you will become quite good friends. Or even **waggles eyebrows** friends.


Mr. Paranormal Romance is English. He is tall and dark-haired and ridiculously good-looking (unless he is a werewolf, in which case he will be muscular and tan). His good looks rest mainly in the region of the hair, which is dark. He is also rich. He plays piano and composes his own music. He has great hands, which will be described as smooth, flawless, and long-fingered. He is a loner, but comes out of his shell when he meets you, Miss Reader.


He is very charming and will smile devilishly. He has an ironic sense of humor. He probably has a leadership role. He is intelligent. Actually, he's something of a genius. He's also ridiculously good-looking. And English. 


All of the females (and token gay men) at his school or workplace have been in love with Mr. Paranormal Romance at some point or another. However, strangely enough, none of these people are jealous of Miss Reader after he begins to notice her, unless one of these people is one of Miss Reader's close friends.


Mr. Paranormal Romance has some sort of inner darkness or pain, or a secret that can only be overcome with the help of Miss Reader. This is probably supernatural, or involving his mysterious past. It could be a family curse or he could be of a race far hotter than human despite the fact that humans are by far the most attractive race, since all of the non-humans seem to want to mate with them. 


Have we mentioned that Mr. Paranormal Romance is both good-looking and English? 


Just to make sure that Miss Reader is aware of those two Very Important Facts, Mr. Paranormal Romance will be shirtless for some reason or another fairly soon after she meets him. He may also give a speech or tell a long story so that Miss Reader may lose herself in his voice.


Miss Reader's life will gradually grow to center around Mr. Paranormal Romance. This creates a lot of danger and tension. Mr. Paranormal Romance knows this, and will either attempt to leave in order to protect Miss Reader from his inner darkness, discover a fear of commitment, or assure her of his love. If Mr. Paranormal Romance chooses one of the first two options, he will eventually return and their relationship will be even more serious and passionate than it was before. If they are still in school, they will become engaged before it is culturally expected for their ages. If they are not, their engagement period will be abnormally short.


If he chooses the third option, however,  Miss Reader will discover Mr. I'm Even More Awesome Than That Other Guy Who I Hate And You Should Too. This guy may be Miss Reader's childhood friend, or the Nemesis from Mr. Paranormal Romance's Past. At this point, Mr. Paranormal Romance becomes the villain, due to the revealing of his secret . This dating and/or engagement period will be longer, because Mr. Paranormal Romance will have left Miss Reader with doubt, which will eventually be healed by extraordinary patience and consideration from Mr. I'm Even More Awesome Than That Other Guy Who I Hate And You Should Too.


Pity. Mr. Paranormal Romance was so English and good-looking.

(Post inspired by both The Tough Guide To Fantasyland by Diana Wynne Jones, and Maureen Johnson)

An Abundance of Quotes Part 15

"You can love someone so much, but you can never love people as much as you can miss them." - some John Green book


"It's simple to love someone, but it's hard to know when you need to say it out loud." - Rebecca Stead, When You Reach Me


"There is nothing to fear but fears themselves, such as monsters, rejection, food poisoning, redundancy, monsters, and Oxford commas." - Craig Benzine


"If you want to spit out brilliance, try spitting things out." - rock4ever95


“WORTH IT and perfect are different things. No one’s perfect, yet in romance, everyone becomes WORTH IT. And that’s the trick.” - Maureen Johnson


"Water, taken in moderation, cannot hurt anybody." - Mark Twain (Yes it can *cough* Doctor Who *cough*)


"We are often told that we are what we eat. In our world since the printing press it might be more accurate to say we are what we read. How each of us digests what we read is a mystery. And what people read is sometimes as puzzling as what they really think." - Daniel J. Boorstin, 1989


"Let others be ashamed who have buried themselves in books that they can offer nothing for the common enjoyment." - Cicero, 62 B.C.


I know there's a fair amount of love-related quotes in there. It wasn't intentional. I just stock up on them for awhile in order to make an AoQ post.

In Joy We Face The Storm And Defy It

"It is only in sorrow bad weather masters us; in joy we face the storm and defy it." - Amelia Barr


Now there's a quote that deserves to be at the beginning of a novel.


A recent vlogbrothers video dealt with some of the more commonly-searched things on Google, mocking them while "answering" the questions. It's kind of sad that so many people would search using the queries mentioned-- but I'll let John Green give you the details.


Sometimes it worries me to look at my Stats page and see what Google searches brought people here. Also, it's strange to see which combinations of keywords leave me on the first page.


Examples from this week:

• "is rangers apprentice gay"
• "craig benzine gay"

At least we know what the greater internet cares about now (To be fair, most of the other Google-based views were from keywords involving books.)


I've no idea about Craig, but Ranger's Apprentice actually seems to be fairly asexual.


And on that note, a question for you: do you prefer romance written by a male author or by a female author, regardless of the gender of the main character? Is there much of a difference?


(This came up while reading RA#9 over the weekend-- my best friend said the romance doesn't measure up because it was written by a guy. I think that what little romance there is is very sweet. In fact, I think most of the best romance I've read was written by guys. I guess "best" is up for debate, though. Go ahead and put your thoughts on that in the comments too, if you want.)

The Mists of Avalon: Dualism

I started reading Boy Meets Boy by David Levithan today. It's shorter than I expected. It's better than I expected. Paul feels very real to me.


Which means that I finally finished Mists of Avalon. Fantastic book. Lots to think about. With "reader's circle" questions in the back, which I'm looking forward to answering on here. Avoid those if you're planning on reading it and don't want to be spoiled.


Before I get into the first of those questions...let's have a quote. Lyrics, actually.


"Hey Molly, can we go to the dance? 
If you don't want to, then I'll understand.
But if you like me, then won't you come take my hand
And if you'll love me, I'll never play Halo again."


-Mike Lombardo in "Hey Molly" from Songs For A New Day.


That song is amazing. And that last line (I wonder what this says about me) might be the most romantic thing I've ever heard. Maybe it's just that I know a few guys who love their Halo. Maybe it means I haven't heard much romantic stuff. Sometimes you've got to forgo the flowery language and be honest.


"The Mists of Avalon revolves around a number of dualities: male/female, Christianity/Druidism, duty/desire. How were these dualities represented in the book? What others can you think of?"


NOTE: In the answering of this question, when I talk about Christianity, I mean Christianity within the book. Not (necessarily) in general.


Male/female was constantly explored because in the religion of Avalon, sex (well, the bond between lovers) is one of the most powerful of magics, as well as one of the most powerful Mysteries. Plus, everyone in the entire book is pretty much lusting after everyone else.
It's the core of magical realism: the paradox of the union of opposites (according to the dictionary definition). Which means...magical sex, I guess, in this case. Some of the biggest magic Morgaine did was through the power of priest/priestess united. In this case, the male/female duality was very strong- especially when considered that it was alongside the Christianity/Druidism duality.


I liked the C/D duality best. Throughout the book, various characters are constantly saying that "All Gods are one God, all Goddesses are one Goddess." meaning that Christians should be okay with the Druids. Morgaine was constantly fighting against the Christianization of Britain, but in the process became just like those she fought - uncompromising, intolerant, and bigoted. 
Example: Morgaine mocks the priests for claiming they are doing the "will of God" when really they're just doing what they want, but she falls prey to that as well, claiming to do the "will of the Goddess," when really she's just clinging to the religion she holds near and dear.
While I adore the Mysteries of Avalon and their entire thing, I actually agreed with Merlin Kevin (there were two- the traditional Merlin and then he died and Kevin Harper took up the mantle) in that the Holy Druidic Regalia should have been put to use in Christianity. The age of Avalon was over, so why not preserve what remnants of the Mysteries that could be saved?
The entire message of the book (well, the religious message, anyway) was "all religions are one- so be tolerant of each other."


Okay, maybe I liked the duty/desire duality best.


Gwenhwyfar...I mostly despised her. She hated herself for loving Lancelet, but then she'd decide not to care anymore, and then she'd go back to hating herself...
Morgaine initially refused Lancelet because she'd sworn an oath to the Goddess to keep her virginity until the proper time...but everything would have turned out better if she'd ignored her oath. For Avalon, anyway.
Arthur was in love with Morgaine (his sister), but obviously couldn't do anything about that or even acknowledge the son they'd accidentally had together (long story- it was a Mystery rite for Arthur's kingmaking, and neither of them knew it was the other.)
Everyone would have ended up happy if they'd given over to their desire, but because they stuck with duty they accomplished more, whether for better or for worse.
And Morgause...hilarious character. We initially meet her with the description "looks lustfully on anything shaped like a man," and she doesn't change. Over the course of the entire book, she and her lovers were the talk of the court. And her husband was pretty much the same. She eventually turned over to blood sorcery- sacrificing dogs to gain power and plotting against her family in order to get her sons nearer the throne.
She and Nimue were the only ones who got to go with both. And Nimue ended up committing suicide because of it (VERY long story involving more of these famed Mysteries. I love the Mysteries.)


In this case, I think the book was saying "Stick to your duty because it's the right thing to do...but things might turn out better if you act impulsively...but you can't know until afterwards, and too bad for you."


As for other dualities...hm. I thought of one earlier today.

And So It Begins

About ten seconds ago, I did something rather important, relatively speaking.

I emailed my query letter to an agent. Kristen Nelson, of the Pub Rants blog, to be precise.

And now I wait 5-10 days. Far more than likely, I'll get my first rejection letter, which will be ironically exciting in and of itself.

On an unrelated note:

Following a lot of literary blogs can get confusing. Ms. Nelson is the agent representing the Gallagher Girls series, which is the book of the month at Readergirlz  The Eragon fansite I follow posted about the Harry Potter Alliance last week. Various authors and agents know each other, and they mention each other in their posts. It's rather annoying to have to figure out who a person is before I read their post.

Also:

I found some romance earlier today that is non-cliche and slightly cheesy, except since its so unbelievably honest it doesn't seem that way. Unfortunately, I can't read it to you at a meeting, as it is private. Private, as in the "letter from my dad to my mom" kind of way. And non-cliche in the "We're already married and have kids" sense. 

I don't want to say anything more than that, but my dad is a great writer when he wants to be. I only wish he had the time and inclination.

On Romance

The challenge for next week's meeting is to write non-cheesy, non-cliche romance. I look forward to hearing what everyone comes up with.


However, I am not participating in this challenge (speaking of which, I need to write something to bring...).
Why is this?


Because I don't believe there is such a thing as non-cheesy, non-cliche romance. And (of course) I'm going to tell you why.


What is the definition of cheesy? 
Well, when it comes to romance, it's usually honest and/or poetic dialogue. 


What is the definition of cliche?
Something that has happened/been done so many times before that people are over that plot line.


And what about romance?


Romance has literally been around as long as humans have been. Yes, it's come a long way since the days of "Hey! You're an available (male/female)! Let's mate!" but it was around at the beginning of our species, and it still happens today.


There have been an awful lot of humans since the beginning of our species. That's a lot of coupling. I would argue that the various generic "plot lines" have all been enacted by various couples so many times that they have all become "over-used," making it cliche. Even the people against cliche romance are cliche, because there's been loads of them as well.


Every romance is its own story, but there's only so many general paths to tread. The details and the outcome will be different, but if you zoom out, it's basically one of a set many of different things. So all romance is cliche.


Now let's move on to cheesy.


I am a girl, and most of my friends are girls, and I don't know the opinions of my guy friends on this matter, so keep that in mind while reading the next part of the post (and the above).


We read/watch/hear about so much romance, whether it's intentional or not; fictional or not; willingly or not, that "cheesy" romance is subconsciously embedded in our brains to some degree. So even if we don't expect our own romances to match it, we still treat it that way in our minds. If you do it right, you're not disappointed when it doesn't turn out to be a fairy tale, but the undercurrents remain. 


No, the knights don't sweep the princesses off their feet anymore, but the mental image is still there, and we ascend into the realms of metaphor.


So if all romance is still cheesy to some degree within our minds, when writing from first person, it's not possible to write a non-cheesy romance. On the surface it might be "non-cheesy" and "non-cliche," but on the inside, it still is.