Sunday, May 24, 2009

Which side of paradise?

Upon finishing "This Side of Paradise" by F. Scott Fitzgerald, there are certain themes that Fitzgerald throws at the reader that warrant further thought.
At the conclusion of the novel, Amory (protagonist) asserts that the intelligent women he meets through the course of his life are all hampered by gawking suitors and the need to 'come out' in society, and marriage.
Eleanor, one such woman with which Amory associates, at one point laments,
"Rotton, rotten old world ... oh, why am I a girl? Why am I not a stupid --? Look at you; you're stupider than I am ... you can play around with girls without being involved in meshes of sentiment, and you can do anything and be justified- and here am I with the brains to do everything, yet tied to the sinking ship of future matrimony. "
This first hint at the restrictions of marriage, which is somewhat dissolved in current society, melts into Amory's final conclusions about the good ol' "ball and chain," where his reasoning is thus:
Well-educated man marries. No matter his social philosophy, his job is to "provide and hold fast." He is resigned to life's windowless treadmill. He is no longer a help to society. This well-educated man becomes "spiritually married."
Sidenote: The "spiritually unmarried" are men whose wives have no social ambition, the ones who fell off the treadmill, the congressmen you can't bribe, the presidents who aren't politicians, etc.
So, the spiritually married man uses society as is, in all of its follies and weaknesses, to get ahead at any cost. The smarter married man can rise in the current system, and sees no reason to change it, because with its flaws he is getting ahead.
The unmarried man "seeks for new systems that will control or counteract human nature." His struggle is to guide and control life. Essentially, progress strives when men do not settle into the hamster-wheel of life's systems.
Now, Amory (Fitzgerald) takes this further into an argument for socialism, but stopping here and looking at the restrictions of the marital structure and what that yields, even today, is fascinating. For instance; how many college students take progressive statuses until settling down into conservative life, two children, white picket fence, puppy?
The phrase "getting comfy" was born from couples who disregard even physical upkeep due to the acceptance of their significant other.
Something about human nature leads to ceasing to produce anything except children and paychecks when we pair-off.
Perhaps there exists some grander
feeling that can not be understood until coupled; and indeed, even early relationships have lead to a certain laziness and desire to spend every waking moment with one single person. Biology supports a natural urge to reproduce for the furthering of the race. So as animals, it makes sense. But this lull is still so hard to avoid as highly-educated (or simply educated) beings.
Personally, I fall victim to an occasional relationship desire, but at the conclusion of every single one, breathe a sigh of relief and delve into projects, both physical and mental, cast aside while under the veil of 'love' or whatever attack form it takes.
My Amory conclusion is less a conclusion than a form of questions: Solo is more productive, but how is one to avoid the relationship pull? Can sex be platonic to take care of urges while releasing one unscathed? Do we need partnership other than sex (since sex seems to be the biological necessity)? If one resolves to forever be a progressive thinker, must he/she also resolve to never be tied to another, at least in society's formal mode?
Honestly, the answer to the latter may be yes.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Change shmange

Change.
President Obama used it and used it well to get himself to the top, but now the word has almost morphed meanings.
Regardless, I find myself in a stage of change, but perhaps a better word is blindsighted. In the span of about a week I have lost a pet (RIP Patti) and gained a much larger one, I have successfully escorted my best friend out of my world until January '10 and finally, I have come across a very unintended career that leaves me with new transportation, presumably better health, a blackberry, too much money and less free time. Summer makes this explosion slightly more catastrophic, as does the jump into adulthood.
This job has been a long time coming, but in the way that the horizon over the ocean is a long time coming: I thought it would never come, and wasn't really expecting it to. I just knew it existed and admired it from afar. Now that it is upon me, I'm ready to take on its challanges, but not without a certain moral hesitation.
First, money has nothing to do with my taking this job. Note: this is actually a positive point that has enabled me to move forward with the decision. I want the challenge of the job. Plain and simple. The idea of being at the bottom of the todem pole because I deserve to be there motivates me. About this I am excited.
However, a childhood dream of becoming a journalist has been cut short when it was very close to being realized. Granted, the reason for taking an "adult" job had to do with constant frustration related to waiting around for 20-somethings to die before I could move up the journalistic ladder, meanwhile editing writing sans heart/skill. But, nonethless, I can't help but think how satisfying it would have been to move. Up.
Since the two-week notice has been placed, the decision is made and life goals will inevitably change and the sprint to the end, while done on different turf, will be just as satisfying.
After all, it's all in the challenge ... right?