WITBD: Somebody You're Attracted to is Already in a Committed Romantic Relationship

There they were, just’a walkin’ down the street, singin’ “Do-a-ditty, ditty-dum, ditty-do!” Snappin their fingers and stompin’ to the beat, singin’ “Do-a-ditty, ditty-dum, ditty-do!” They looked good... They looked fine... They looked good, they looked fine, then I... Found out that they were already in a committed romantic relationship...

            If this has never happened to you, then congratulations, you’ve never been single. As for the rest of us, the question becomes: When you find out that someone you’re attracted to is already in a committed romantic relationship, What is to be done?!? Nothing? Something? Something Hoffmanesque?

Let’s run through the requisite questions.

First, those questions that beget information it’s best for us to ferret-out before hand in the name of just knowing enough:

            Question #1: Are you yourself single? If your answer is “No” and you’re getting all hot’n’bothered watching people walk down the street, so to speak, then you’ve probably got some very real relationship Q&A of your own to conduct. If your answer is “Yes,” then proceed to...

Question #2: Is the person married? Do they have a wedding-band on their finger or do you know--first/second/third-hand--that they’re married? If the answer to this question is “Yes” (and their marriage is not an open/polygamist one), then, in my opinion, you’ve entered into the realm of forever holding your “peace” (i.e., I can’t/won’t help you adulterate). If the answer is “No,” then proceed to...

            Question #3: Is the person who’s got you all hot’n’bothered in a committed romantic relationship with someone you yourself know? If your answer is “Yes,” then the question becomes how do you know them? Family member? Friend? Coworker? Acquaintance? Enemy?

The reason the answer to this question matters should be obvious: It will by and large determine the blast radius/fallout of the action you’re entertaining, e.g., if  you try and steal--and it is stealing, sort’a (well get back to this)--your brother’s girlfriend or boyfriend, then expect some nuclear-type sh*t:

If your answer is “No” or “Yes, but I don’t have any real meaningful connection with the other person,” then proceed to...
            Question #4: How attracted are you to the person who’s got you all H&B’d? Is it like a one-prong attraction, i.e., either physical, emotional, intellectual, playful, or spiritual. Or is it multi-prong (intellectual-playful-physical, e.g.)?

If your answer to this question is “One-prong,” then proceed more/less without my blessing, i.e., with my “Really? You’re going to jeopardize another person’s committed romantic relationship for whatever your personal-equivalent to a nice booty is?!?” If your answer is “At least two,” then proceed with my blessing/caution to...

            Question #5: What kind of C.R.R. is the person who’s got you all H&B’d in? Good one? Bad one? Violent one? Long-term? Short-term? If you truly have no means of accessing such information (e.g., if the person in question is a total stranger in a relationship with another total stranger), that’s OK, but try and find out as you go, just to know enough.

If you do have means of accessing such information, then do. And be honest, i.e., if their relationship is a good one, then go forward with that knowledge (“I’m willing to jeopardize a good relationship!”). If it’s a bad one, then go forward with that knowledge. If it’s a violent one, well, then you should probably contact the police.

            On to the questions that have less to do with just knowing-enough and more to do with determining the moral-status of the action we’re entertaining:
            Question #6 (The Big One): Do you consider pursuing someone who’s already in a committed romantic relationship to be “Wrong” or “Evil”?

Before you answer this question for yourself, let’s run it through a variation on Kant’s mechanism for determining the potential wrongness of a given action. According to Kant, we can determine whether we should not undertake a given course of action if it would (1) lead to ANARCHY:

 

And (2) if it disrespects the autonomy of other human beings.

So, if everyone actively pursued the people they were hot’n’bothered by regardless of whether/not those people were already in committed romantic relationships, would that spell the end of committed romantic relationships the world over? Would it undercut their very possibility and thereby bring about the C.R.R.-equivalent of dogs and cats living together?!?

Let’s imagine that we’re the ones in the C.R.R. and that someone else is H&B’d by us. Let’s imagine that this someone comes up to us and says, “Hey, I’m single, you’re not married, you’re not dating a close friend of mine, I’ve got a serious, like, three-pronged romantic interest in you--physical, physical, and more physical--and, yeah, from what I’ve gathered your present C.R.R. seems like a pretty good one, but... I just wanted to let you know that if you’re interested in jumping ship or just seeing what another ship looks like, you know, like going to a boat-expo or something, well...”

Would we or would we not be free to say just about whatever we wanted in response to such a proposition--e.g., “Sure, my present C.R.R. is THE PITS... I think there’s a motel right down the street!” or, “No, sorry, thanks, my partner’s abusive, but I’m kind’a into it. It’s an S&M thing,” or, “F*ck you, get the h*ll away from me with your stupid/creepy boat-expo analogy!”--and, therefore, decide to either affirm or deny our present committed romantic relationship?

Regarding the question of whether or not the course of action we’re considering undertaking would lead to ANARCHY within the world of committed romantic relationships, the answer seems to be “No, not necessarily,” because the people were interested in might have little/no interest in us.

As to the question of whether or not the course of action we’re considering might disrespect the autonomy--ability to self-legislate--of another human being, well, let’s take a look at it: If we proposition someone in the fashion conjured above, are we taking away the person’s ability to say “Yey” or “Ney” for themselves and their C.R.R.? I don’t think so (see above)...

I can hear someone crying out: But what about the other person in the committed romantic relationship?!? The partner or S.O. or lover... What about disrespecting them? Aren’t we, in effect, talking about stealing someone from them and isn’t that pretty frickin' disrespectful!?!

The dictionary.com definition of stealing is: To take the property of another or others without permission or right, especially secretly or by force. Last time I checked, being in a C.R.R. does not make the privy parties the property of each other (at least, not in most areas of the good ol' U.S. of A). So we’re not talking about stealing...

Let’s imagine, for a moment, that we’re the other person in the committed romantic relationship. Now let’s imagine that our partner/S.O./lover comes to us one day and tells us something like, “Hey, so, this weirdo came up to me and started talking to me about boat-expos and prongs... Super weird... I love you snookums!” Or, heck, let’s imagine that our partner tells us, “Hey, so, I got an offer today, an offer I can’t refuse... I’m breaking up with you.”

In either scenario, can it be argued that the other person's ability to self-legislate and either affirm/deny their C.R.R. for themselves is hampered? Even in the case of the latter scenario, the other person would still have the ability to say “Wait just one gosh-darned minute! I love you, snookums, doesn’t that mean anything!?! Yeah, things haven’t been going well lately, I know, but...”

            From a Kantian perspective, then, the course of action we’re entertaining cannot be said to be “Wrong” or “Evil.” It neither necessarily leads to anarchy nor does it disrespect the autonomy of our fellows. That said, if your answer to Question #6 is still “Yes, I think it’s Wrong/Evil,” then I’m curious why you’ve even made it this far. If your answer is either “No, long live Kant the provocateur!" or "No, all’s fair in love and... basketball,” then go on to...

Question #7: What the heck should I do? In the opinion of yours truly, I think something like, “Hey, I’m single, you’re not married, you’re not dating a close friend of mine, I’ve got a serious, like, three-pronged romantic interest in you and, yeah, from what I’ve gathered your present C.R.R. seems like a pretty good one, but... I just wanted to let you know that if you’re interested,” is a good place to start. And while I can’t advise you regarding the time/place to deliver such a potentially explosive proposition, I can tell you to that you should probably leave out any/all boat-expo analogies.

Oh, and, last but not least: Question #8: How do you feel about getting your a$$ kicked? I'm just asking...

Movie Review: Money Ball

            I wouldn’t pay any more of my hard-earned cash-$ to see Money Ball in theaters again. I wouldn’t go out of my way to Net Flix, On Demand, or Red Box it. But I also wouldn’t necessarily fight it off were it to show up on the old Buub-Tube. Money Ball isn't bad, it’s actually pretty good (I mean, Aaron Sorkin did co-write it).

Brad Pitt, compelling as Billy Beane, basically plays a more introspective version of his character from the Cohen brother’s Burn After Reading--you know, that guy (always eating...):

Jonah Hill proves yet again that he’s just very easy to watch on screen, even in a baseball movie (“I know nothing about sports. I don't even know what a sport is. I have to confess that I'm a little afraid of birds. I am...whatever”).

Wait, was Philip Seymour Hoffman even in Money Ball? He so convincingly and totally just disappears into the character of Oakland A’s manager Art Howe that I had to pay super-close attention to the credits (“He was in the movie!”).

The story revolves around questions I love to see addressed on/in film-- questions of class (New York Yankees: haves; A’s: have-lesses), resentment (Brad Pitt/Billy Beane’s resentment of the scouts that scouted him, back in the day), and, one of my personal faves, the “Should I stay or should I go now? Bow-now-now-now-now-now-now...” question.

             And yet, at the end of it all, Money Ball just seemed like less than the sum of its parts. Yours truly thinks this was probably a function of what seemed to be the story’s interest-in/need-to see Brad Pitt’s Billy Beane as a kind of Game-Changer and Good-Man (the sh*t with his daughter, I mean, come on!?!), the latter part of which was almost entirely absent in another recent quasi-biopic, Sorkin’s far, far superior The Social Network.

Novel+ Review: You Deserve Nothing

This is the first in what will hopefully be a long line of lit reviews. Weather permitting. I say “lit” and not “book” or "novel" because I want to leave it open for me to review books (fiction and non), but also essays, philosophical treatises, long-form journalism, the occasional (like Haley’s comet occasional) poem. You get the idea.

The one and only rule that I’m going to give myself in the days/months/years to come is much like the rule I’ve given myself for movie reviews, ergo, FROM THIS MOMENT FORWARD: If I read it, I review it. No exceptions!

The one exception to the one and only rule is that it’s only really going to be applied to novels. So, like, every novel I read FROM THIS MOMENT FORWARD I have to review, and anything more than that is just like icing on the proverbial cake that I can sort’a add or not add as I see fit. So this isn’t really going to be a “lit” review or a "book" review, more a “Novel+” review.

Novel+ Review: You Deserve Nothing

I’m on vacation down in LA, writing, reading, hanging out with my brother, exploring the Concrete Jungle by foot and by trusty steed, i.e., my bicycle, Baruch:

This past Tuesday, I was exploring the Los Feliz/Vermont area of Los Angeles. Clothing, restaurants, a bookstore. Skylight Books. Walking by their store-front, determined not to enter (I have too many books already), a book actually managed to catch my eye. Or it’s title did: You Deserve Nothing. What a title!

And lo, the author, one Alexander Maksik, was going to be coming to Skylight to do a reading on Wednesday, October 12th... Tomorrow night! So I walked right in there, checked my bag, and checked the book: “A gripping story of power, idealism, and morality... Sartre, Camus...” Sold, 14.99 (plus tax).

I began reading You Deserve Nothing on my walk home from Skylight and basically didn’t stop reading until like five minutes before the next night’s event, about twenty pages from the end, and I had two questions that I absolutely had to ask the author.

            In case you can’t tell, I really liked the novel. It reads fast and easy, in a good way. It’s provocative (also in a good way). It’s jam-packed with EXISTENTIALISM (ditto, which in this case means that the existentialism is fun and accessible without being dumbed down). And it’s very French, i.e. broody/romantic, best appreciated while polishing off a few bottles of wine. Red wine.
            Did I like it enough to read it again? Probably not. Did I like it enough to recommend it others in the hopes of being able to discuss it with them, i.e., you? Sure, if you’re into stuff that makes you feel... sexy. Did I like it enough to be willing to loan it someone else without regard for ever getting it back (the true test of ones love for a novel, in my opinion)? Yes. Everybody? No, definitely not...

           I didn’t wind up asking the author the first of my two questions, and I’m not going to tell you what it was (it has to do with the reason I wouldn't lend it to just anybody and has something to do with why the book's provocative). However, I did ask him my second, which went something like this, “Since your novel deals so much with existentialism, I feel like it’s only fair to put an existential-question to you: On page 241 Mickey tells Will, ‘Will, listen to me. If you don’t remember anything else, remember this: Anyone you can fool isn’t worth loving. You understand me? It’s a young man’s move’--alright, so my question is: Have you been able to successfully follow Mickey’s advice in your own life?”
           The author's answer (and this isn't a spoiler, I assure you), which was, in light of the struggles one of the novel's three narrators, quite... 

Movie Review: Drive

Nicholas Wending Refn, whose writing/directing credits already included two movies I really wanted to see (Valhalla Rising and Bronson), is the man behind Drive, the almost equal parts cool/exciting and disturbing new film starring Ryan “I’m ready for Mainstream, Again!” Gosling, the ever-talented/beautiful Carie Mulligan, and a refreshingly de-typecast Albert Brooks, to name a few.

If you’re someone who considers themselves a film enthusiast and you haven’t seen Drive yet, well, what the hell else do you have going on in your life? Work? Relationships with people? Some other form of hogwash?

 

Drive made me madly-deeply excited to go down to Los Angeles. Drive made me want to be/be-with Ryan Gosling (in almost equally confusing measure). Drive made me want to buy driving gloves and wear my shiny Starter Michigan jacket and cruise around in my ‘84 BMW while wearing sunglasses (at night). Drive made me want to get my watch fixed so that I could have it ticking away while my left (gloved) hand rested on my '84 BMW's steering wheel. Drive made me want to live next door to Carie Mulligan and help her take care of her kid and make out with her in our apartment complex’s elevator. Drive made me wish I could actually write stuff like Nicolas Winding Refn without feeling like a shameless poser. Drive made me happy to be a movie-goer (one of two films to successfully accomplish this feat this year, the other being Midnight in Paris).

In case you can’t tell, I really liked Drive and would gladly fork over some more of my hard-earned $-$ to see it again in theaters. The cinematography, the music, the acting, all of it just totally effused cool, even if Winding Refn’s story suffered somewhat from what I’d call a “closed loop” problem (i.e., its universe was definitely a closed one and I was made awkwardly aware of that fact at a crucial turn in the film; for an explanation of why this is be a problem in/for a story, go watch yourself some Inception).

           Mark my words, Drive will be one of the defining films of/for our generation. The reason I say and believe this with such pompous conviction is because Drive managed to (1) successfully tap into one of what I understand to be our generation’s core problematics/fantasies and (2) proceed to develop said problematic/fantasy into a Hero and a Hero-Arc to match. This is precisely why yours truly, in addition to thinking Drive was super cool/exciting, also found it quite disturbing.
   

What’s the problematic? How to respond to our culture's hyper-manic Awareness of Audience, i.e., our hysteria. In the event that you have absolutely no idea what I mean about when I say “hyper-manic Awareness of Audience” go and check out Andrew Foster Altschul’s Deus Ex Machina, or, if you’re not a big reader, go and watch like two minutes of literally any “reality” TV show. Still not quite sure what I'm talking about? Then ask yourself the following question: How many times a day do I, in order to figure out what to do/how to act/what to say, try and figure out what others' percepctions of my doings/actings/sayings may/may not be? How many times a day do I adjust my doings/actings/sayings accordingly? If your answer to this last question is either "a lot" or "isn't that what I'm supposed to do?" then go and read David Foster Wallace's "Good Old Neon" to see where this ethical-train is probably leading you. If you're not a big reader, then, well, just take my word for it: This is one of our generation's core problematics.
             What's the fantasy that Drive gives us that's rooted in the above problematic? Well, of course, it’s multivalent...

First valence (for The Guys in the theater, so to speak): That someone Wonderful, someone Worthy (Carrie Mulligan’s character), will become Interested in us (Ryan Gosling’s character) and see through our pronounced, intentional Autism--an Autism that seems to increasingly be put forward as one of our generation’s best and only available responses to the above problematic and which amounts to nothing less than a refusal to "play the game"--and actually do something to get to Know/Understand us better (e.g., C. Mulligan’s tracking R. Gosling down at his work place).

          Second valence (also for The Guys): That someone else (Bryan Cranston’s character), perhaps a group of someones (Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman’s characters), perhaps a group of someones with Money (ditto), will also see through our pronounced autism and see the Skill/Gift/Power, i.e., Value that we've hidden away and reward us with recognition and/or with Money.
          The fantasy's first two valences are best captured/most typified and played-into by two of the film’s songs, both of which are given full plays within the film itself:

• First the Kavinsky song “NIGHTCALL”, which for yours truly highlights the film’s damn-near perfect score (composed by Cliff Martinez), whose chorus, as sung by a female vocalist (Lovefoxx), goes, “There’s something inside you, it’s hard to explain... They’re talking about you boy, but you’re still the same.”
• Second the Desire song “Under Your Spell”, whose chorus, as sung by a female vocalist, goes “I don’t eat... I don’t sleep... I do nothing but think of youuuuu... You’ve got me under your spell, you’ve got me under your spell, you’ve got me under your spell...” (which had a somewhat ironic part of it edited out in/for the film-version of the song, for those of you who’re curious).

The third valence (for The Ladies, so to speak): That in seeing through someone else’s Autism and actually doing something to get to Know that person better, we won’t be making a tragic and/or fatal Mistake (i.e., wind up under the spell of a psycho-killer, e.g.).

            The fourth valence (again, for The Guys): That we will (1) be given an Opportunity to break out of our Autism and do something Heroic, i.e., manifest our Skill/Gift/Power/Value for the sake of the somebody or something actually Worthy and Wonderful (i.e., Carrie Mulligan and Fam. and not Albert Brooks and Co.), and (2) that we will then actually go and do said Heroic thing, thereby Proving the Worth of the Worthy's almost entirely speculative Interest/Investment in us.
            The third and fourth valences of the fantasy of the film really culminate in the other of the film’s big three songs, this one by the band College. It’s called “A Real Hero”, and the chorus, also sung by a female vocalist, goes, “Back against, the wall is ours...With the strength of a willing cause... A pursuit some called outstanding... Or emotionally complex... Against a grain... Left to stop at claims... Of the thoughts your actions entertain... And you, have proved, to be... A real human being... And a real hero.”

The fantasy that Drive gives us is thus two-fold: for "the guys," it's that we can address our generational-cultural Hysteria by adopting kind of intentional Autism and not only still be Valued by someone/something Wonderful/Worthy, but also eventually be given an Opportunity to do something Heroic and, thereby, Prove our own Value/our Inverstor’s initial Speculation r.e. us; for "the ladies," it's that we shouldn't be afraid to be interested in *gulp* Autistic people, they're probably the people with the most to offer in return for our Interest/I... n... v... e... s... t... m... e... n... t.
             As far as fantasies go, this is some pretty powerful sh*t. It's also precisely why I think Drive has been a movie on so many people's minds these past few weeks, and why it will continue to be a movie on our generation's mind for years to come.

   

The reason why I find Drive and its/our fantasy so disturbing isn’t merely because it signals the total reduction of the romantic relationship to the dynamics of an almost entirely speculative investment model (it does, f.y.i.), nor because I think it ultimately locks people into exactly the kind of appearance-driven relationships they were trying to get away from when they decided to go into Autistic-Mode (ask yourself: Would C. Mulligan's character have taken any interest in R. Gosling's had he not been fricking RYAN GOSLING?!?), but because it used to be my fantasy and I know where it took me and what life was like when I got there: