bone of my bone, breath of my breath

"Well, you might say it's because I need you...If you were any other woman, I could tell you I loved you, easily enough, but not you--because you've always seemed to me like a part of myself, and it would be like saying I loved my own eyes or my own mind. But have you ever thought of what it would be to have to live without your mind or your eyes, Kate? To be mad? Or blind?" --from The Perilous Gard by Elizabeth Marie Pope

There is such a thing as a force greater than Love. It's name is Necessity. It's name is Need. nothing would be of any consequence if we did not feel a need for it. Love would be nothing, mean nothing, if we did not need it. government would hold no sway if we did not need organization and structure. laws would not have to be obeyed and reinforced if we did not need justice. religion would be worthless if we did not need God. and death...death would be powerless if we did not need something to fear, or in some cases, if we did not need something to look forward to. we need food, we need water, we need shelter. these are things we assuredly cannot live without and they are all driven by necessity: we would not need these things if we did not need to survive.

and of course the ultimate test of any theory or belief is time. hasn't history proven that force of necessity has lead to great shifts? survival of the fittest is one of the phrases born from Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and surely that advocates the influence of need. the realists were driven by reason, the romantics by passion, but i think the common person is driven most be need.

i do not say all these things to reduce the value of love. i just feel that too much...of everything is about love, these days. if a child becomes delinquent, a lot of people believe its because they didn't have enough love. but in a lot of the cases i have seen, too much love is the cause--spoiling the child, letting them do whatever they want because you love them too much to inhibit them...i think its ridiculous. love has become the poorest excuse for apathy and indolence. love and freedom both. i do not care about your stupid ideals or your notions of freedom and love for all. i do believe in compassion, but that does not mean i will let a mother have her unwanted child killed just because she is my sister and i love her. if she were my sister the more i would reprimand her or prevent her from doing such a thing because i love her. when you speak such a word, don't think of what it means--think of what you're willing to do in the name of it. when you say it, don't just say it with your mouth because that's not where it comes from. its not just a word with an inevitable meaning, it entails so much more. and i truly, truly hate it when people use love as an excuse for whatever crap they're pulling. it's like those people who rebel because they have no idea what they want to do with the rest of their lives.

so next time someone tells you that "all you need is love" remember that Need is the one cock of the walk, and Love is never used properly.

Humanity

the thing about science fiction books is that the stories are set in alternate universes, or in a highly futuristic world. this brings the science fiction author to wonder what life would be like on an unknown planet--in an unknowable future. this makes the science fiction author question humanity and what kind of repercussions progress would have on the human psyche.

i think what strikes me most about the science fiction books i have read (which amounts to about three) is that the human characters...evolve into people who are heartless or cold or hardened by time. in every science fiction book i have read, humanities capacity for compassion, for kindness and morality has been questioned. as if knowledge and progress and higher levels of technology will destroy the moral fabric or very humanity of the species of man. i don't believe this. i think people a century from now will be just as humane. there will be villians, of course, criminals--for there have always been those--but i have not lost faith that humankind in the future will be very much the same.

knowledge is...fickle. the ancient greeks and hebrew knew that the world was round, but during Columbus' day, it was widely known that the earth was flat. Copernicus and the great minds of that day and age presented theories of the universe that they knew were valid: the earth was the center of the universe and the sun, moon, and other planets revolved around the earth; the planets hovered in their own spheres with no center to revolve around. but now we know that the sun is the center of the universe. sure, there is evidence, but what about that frenchman who found the first dinosaur bones and drew his concept of the iguanadon, with the claw of its opposable thumb atop its nose like a rhinoceras? though he had evidence, we now know that the iguanadon stood on two legs, not four, and that it had a thumb with a sharp claw on it as defense against carnivorous enemies. as time goes on, many people are confident that we will know a lot more and that knowing more will affect us. but, honestly, the flu virus evolves faster than we do. humans have stayed the same for a long time. its true that languages have changed--and if you believe linguistic determinism--this also means that our ways of thinking have changed, but we have not changed much over the centuries. Shakespeare knew his share of crude jokes just like we do today. Ovid--or was it Catullus?--wrote a book dedicated completely to sexual pleasure with vivid graphics to boot and whose to say no one does that now? there are still thieves, there are still rapists, there are still tyrants. do you say the world, that humans, have changed a lot since the old days?

Shakespeare lived in the 15 and 1600s. they did not bathe everyday. they ate mostly meat--if one were rich--or bread--if one were poor. they cleaned their teeth only occasionally when they stumbled across a barber at a communal fair. they baited bears and wore suffocating clothing. they drank ale. we don't do those things anymore, but we are still much the same. some might even say we are kinder, less murderous, that times are a little bit less tumultuous. some would say western civilization is in decline. whatever you might believe, the Elizabethan age was almost 500 years ago and people are still much the same. in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, scientists predicted that flying cars would exist by the year 2000. there are pictures and diagrams of them. that never came to pass and we are still very much on the road.

the earth's natural resources are running out--i watched environmentalists debate about how to survive with our thinning resources on TV--but that doesn't mean we're going to start colonies on the moon. what does the moon have to offer us? or mars? to discover another inhabitable planet will take centuries, maybe. until then, we won't change much. people complain that technology is progressing too fast, but on the whole, it really isn't.

i think a lot of people forget about nostalgia. progress happens in a bang, in a burst so that the world is revolutionized in a matter of years. but then the people realize how far they've come but still aren't content and then they reminisce the good old days when they were certain they were happier and the world reverts back to customs and traditions or beliefs that made them happy in the past. like fashion. once the new millenium hit and there was a new, better computer out every few months, people started dressing like they did in the past. first, my freshman year of highschool, it was capri pants and quarter-sleeved shirts like those of the 50s. then there came the revival of the bell-bottoms or flared jeans sophomore year. now a punk 80s hybrid is in style. we always look back once we've progressed too fast. it seems to be the natural way of things. nostalgia tempers our progressive speed. nostalgia sparks the rebels that keep the war-mongers and future-power seekers in check.

where i work is a good example. an independent bookstore is forced to support itself. a lot of independent restaurants and shops are. juxtaposed to this are the huge chains that monopolize the world market: barnes and nobles, borders, taco bell. i have nothing against either independents or big chains. but there are those that refuse to go to barnes and nobles. they always come to the store spoutin' anti-chain propaganda, like independent bookstores are the only thing keeping humanity humane. there is a book out called Going, Going and its about one girl's quest to save independent stores. there's a movie with Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks called You've Got the Mail that does the same. we always look back. we always resist heartlessness. and i think that's part of the reason why humans don't evolve as quickly. the flu virus has no heart, no brain. but most of all, it has no memory. it doesn't remember what it was like in the past when people didn't get immunized. it just changes out of necessity. survival. i am happy to say that humans have their share of reason and can therefore survive without forgetting.

just like all things that are worthwhile, humans are a paradox. we are capable of immense progress, but then we cripple ourselves with our nostalgia. we are capable of breakthrough discoveries, but then we discover something else that either refutes our alters that first discovery. so, here's to us and all our shortcomings. i've never been prouder to be the quintessence of dust.

i watched I, Robot last week. Spooner describes his idea of a good advertisement for US Robotics. there is a carpenter making a beautiful chair out of wood, cut, then there's a robot making a better chair more efficiently. the catchphrase: "US Robotics: Shittin' on the Little Guy". then the fade out. would you buy the chair made by the carpenter, or the chair made by the robot which would most likely cost less?

compere guilleri

there have been no revelations as of late so i fear this post will be considerably dull.

there was a woman at the bookstore today who brought in her two children. they were sucking on lollipops. after spending twenty minutes in the store and buying $27 worth of books, i went around the store windexing everything they had touched. i was disgusted. and the girl was a brat too. her mom says, "I just bought you a book, darling, what do you say?" and her little darling replied, "good." as if she were some kind of queen lauding a servant of hers for getting what she wanted! if you plan to have children, raise them right. for all our sakes.

there is...a mysterious young man i see around the plaza a lot. he either works there or goes to the uni across the street. i first encountered him in the sandwich place across from the bookstore. i was paying for my order when i dropped my wallet and everything fell out. i bent down to start picking things up and he was suddenly beside me helping me gather my credit cards and whatnot. i didn't get a good look at his face then because i was afraid he was only helping me so that he could nick one of my credit cards, but when i double-checked later on, nothing was missing. i didn't even thank him, which made me feel bad. as i waited for my sandwich he sat outside waiting for his and i couldn't bring myself to go up to him and say thank you. i left without saying a word to him.

i saw him about a month later. i went outside to bring in the cart and flowers since it was closing time and i nearly bumped into him. i saw him again last month: he was buying a sandwich from the same place and i watched him through the bookstore window. when he actually came in to look around, i hid behind the register like a coward. he didn't stay long, though because his cell-phone rang and he went out to answer it. its strange, but i've gotten so used to seeing him that i recognized his back walking into the sandwich place today. seeing him makes me feel jittery--the way i feel before a performance or when i have to do some kind of oral presentation. part of me thinks its because i never thanked him properly. the other part of me thinks i kind of like him. but i'm almost sure i don't. you can be nervous around a guy without liking him, right?

the wedding is fast approaching. my sister is beginning to move her things over to her fiance's apartment. but it still hasn't hit me yet. at the bridal shower, when i saw all the gifts being given to her wrapped in white and silver, i couldn't convince myself that it was her birthday. these gifts were for her wedding and i realized--for a little bit, at least--that she was really getting married. i sometimes think its not fair: the fact that she's getting married so early. i'm nineteen and i had to host that bridal shower! i also have to give a maid of honor speech and throw a bachelorette party! we always said we would move out of the house and live together once i got into college, but now that will never happen. it could've happened if she were to marry four years from now, but that's not how it turned out.

there is so much i want to do before i get married--if i get married--that i can't understand why she doesn't want to wait. i want to see the world! i want to travel and learn another language. i want to get my masters in London and live in France for at least a year. i want to learn to play the cello. in other words, i want to be free. and i will be. i think she's wasting some of the best years of her life getting married right out of college. but she's never wanted anything more than to get married and have children and raise a family. this i do not understand.

my mother has this superstition. i have a mark on one of my toes. she says that if someone is born with a mark anywhere on their foot, they're destined to travel and go places. my godfather thinks i'm going to marry a diplomat. ever since i got a recruiting letter from the NSA, my father has been urging me to join. either way, i'm definitely going places.

but not yet. first i must wean my parents so that they won't miss me too badly when i am gone. i don't think they'd be able to bear it if my sister were to move out and i were to leave as well. they've focused their lives on the both of us for so long that they are finding it hard to do things by themselves--just the two of them. sometimes my sister and i deliberately stay away so that they are forced to face each other. they are gradually getting better at it.

as i have no work tomorrow, i'll probably spend the rest of the evening watching movies and finishing Ender's Game.

ah, yes. Ender's Game. the first time i heard that title it seemed to linger--like the name of ancient cities: Byzantium, Damascus, Pompeii. now that i have begun reading it, i am disappointed. but then again i was never one for hardcore science fiction. so far it has a little too much coarse bravado as if the author overdid the heartlessness of the "system". its set in a world where families are regulated and parents obliged to have only two children. anymore than that would be considered illegal. its futuristic. a critic called it "intense" and i think i agree, but its not the kind of intensity i find intriguing. Ender's older brother, Peter, is a character reminiscent of East of Eden's Charles Trask, and by allusion, to the wicked biblical brother Cain. i never liked stories with that kind of archetypal character. i prefer to associate with characters that have a little more common sense. and i think this book lacks some of that. its a little too much fiction.

i rather liked the book Operation Red Jericho although some of the graphics were distracting and the characters too plucky. i can't say that i've read a book recently that i would highly recommend. but for future reference, i need to buy decent editions of the Marianstat trilogy...