Skip to main content

rambles: loving less

so there's this song that plays at work by a certain james morrison and famous accompaniment in which he sings about how he loves the inevitable beloved 'a little less than before.' his justification goes something like 'you just can't help what you can't help. you can't fix what's not been fixed.' his lyrics are a bit more poetic, but not by much. it's catchy, though, so it took me a while to realize that he was singing 'i'm dumping you, hope you don't mind, but it was unavoidable.'

now i've never really been dumped - for obvious and uninteresting reasons - so i suppose it's not my business to comment on the process. but this is just something i don't understand. i am trying to think of a case in which i learned to love someone less as i got to know them better. there have been times when i have thought well of someone, learned more about them, and then thought less of them. but that was mostly an issue of me having false understanding and then gaining new insight. i don't think i've ever fallen out of love - romantically or platonically - except by divine intervention (and i mean that absolutely literally). so i get it if it's about having your illusions conquered by reality. but that's not falling out of love - that's realizing you were loving an illusion. i just don't understand getting tired of someone, having a change of heart in the wrong direction, two-timing your own affections. i don't get it.

i'm not saying this because it's a present and relevant issue for me. i'm not venting; i'm rambling. i just keep hearing the song and wonder what he's talking about. because knowing a person better generally tends to make me love them more, even (and usually especially if) i learn about their failings, their flaws, their major f*** ups. this has been true for family and friends. even crushes that have faded - they usually fade into a better, healthier appreciation of a person - a love that has nothing to do with that yearning for affirmation and affection that defines 'liking'. i do not understand love with condition, with a deadline, with boundaries. it's just not love, then, is it?

maybe it's because i don't get bored with people. i get annoyed alright. you know, when you've been with the same person for days and days and weeks and you just need a break? i get that. i get the need for space. for reprieve. but that's not the same as getting bored with someone. that's getting too close to see them properly. that's when you need to step back and get yourself out of the way for a bit. so you can remember them again. know them again. what is this loss of love? what is this fading? i don't believe in it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can someone please explain why my Quicktime isn't working? Anyone with prophetic awareness of my little Atlas, none so old but recently behaving so?
8 comments
Read more
because you were all wondering what I'm writing my dissertation on, here's a brief synopsis of my 'research context': When James Macpherson published his Fragments of Ancient Poetry in 1760, he went to great lengths to make the Fragments appear to be authentic remains of an ancient, heroic oral tradition. His reasons for this were largely political, and as such, influenced the content of the epics themselves. As an attempt to establish a particularly Scottish identity, the poems were quite effective. However, to do so required both a simplification and a manipulation of traditional mythology. Stripped of anagogical significance, the Ossian epics more or less represented an Enlightenment version of history, tradition, and mythic heritage. The stories themselves were changed by their very purpose and in turn changed the manner of representing myth in future narratives. Moreover, the emphasis on the Ossian epics as authentic tales from the past, as ‘fragments,’ served...
6 comments
Read more
I just finished Shiver , by Maggie Stiefvater, the other day. From the first few chapters, I had every reason to expect this book to rival the other dark-teen-romance novels recently released (you know which ones I mean). And in a way, it did. There was nothing obnoxious about this book. The characters were mostly believable and endearing. The story was subtle and simple. Maybe a little too simple. At times, maybe a little too subtle. The best chapters were the ones from Sam's point of view, when he's a wolf. That doesn't take up a whole lot of the story, unfortunately. I mean, it would seriously hamper the progression of the plot if he was a wolf for much more of the time, but the writing was still at its best then. Perhaps because it seemed that the poetic, lyrical passages were justified. I like Rilke just fine, and I know plenty of people who compose song lyrics in their heads, but Sam as a human was just maybe a little too emo for me. It could just be that I'm almo...
3 comments
Read more