Apparently...
... despite any level of nonchalance an individual portrays, the need for the bittersweet L word still exists, be he/she even remotely aware of it or otherwise.
And unfortunately I'm far from an exception to that.
I stumbled across some old pictures of myself with my old flame, and I suppose it
is true what some people say: that you tend to not remember how the person was, but how they made you feel. Were I to know what he was capable of, I'd be chuckling at myself for having been so naive. But, of course, being the sentimental nerd that I am, I instead found myself longing. Not for him, and not even for the person I thought he was back then, but the sense of security I found myself in; the sense of relief of feeling an invisible entity surrounding you with its presence. And I could probably generalise this idea to any relationship, but given that I'm not all that close with my relatives, I wouldn't really be able to touch on that subject. Maybe that's why relationships seem to weigh doubly to me.
Either that, or I'm just overly sensitive. Ha-ha.
About a year ago, my teacher gave each student in my class a book that he felt represented their personality. Being a Literature teacher (and, I freely and wholly admit, is a beautiful person), he was a difficult man to dissect - basically one of those people who manages to say anything and everything with a double meaning, a lawyer and conversational wizard in his own right. Which is why my friends and I contemplated, for a good half-hour, I might add, why he decided to hand my friend The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes.
No, I never imagined something like that to exist, either.
But this is a man who, after a good two years of observing the minor habits that would usually filter through others, can pinpoint to a good extent the kind of person his student is. Or rather, the way his student thinks. After much deliberation (and attempts to analyse his decision using our despised comrade Structure-Imagery-Diction-Attitude-Theme*), it sort of made sense.
Sort of.
When he handed me a book of poetry, I wasn't all that impressed. Mainly because everyone else seemed to get novels and books upwards of 100 pages (summer was coming, I wanted a free book to read). Death of a Naturalist. I won't pretend I knew what it meant, because I didn't; I later found out that naturalism is "the system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws", which I suppose made much sense, because I tend to justify peoples' actions according to their nature and the typical human psyche (as morally and ethically deviant as they may be) as per my belief that everyone must have a "good" side to them. Why he gave me a book concerning the death of a naturalist, I couldn't quite figure out.
That is, until I realised just how transparent I am when it comes to certain emotions. Specifically those related to romance and my own self-image. The justifications I attempted to adapt to the actions of others were the same ones I used to sabotage my own well-being; by assuming that someone's action was in fact a reaction, I then assumed it was my action that caused them to behave in such a manner, and so began the cyclical dance of self-destruction.
Before I dive headfirst (yet again) in a matter than engages too many emotions I myself am sometimes unaware of, I need to stand at the water's edge and observe my reflection.
I know this may not make sense to quite a few people, and just writing it is sending my brain through multiple waves of insanity. But somehow, seeing my thoughts jotted down semi-obscurely is making it just that more tangible. I suppose ideas truly do possess the highest, most fundamental kind of reality.
"Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself (I am large, I contain multitudes)."
- Walt Whitman
*which is quite useful for poetry analysis