"The next time you drink in the beauty of a sunset, a flower, or a friend, remember this..."
mmm...yes!!
This is from my psychology book (that I happen to be reading ahead).
I really like that God made humans to be able to appreciate the beauty that He created in nature.
that's all.
30 January 2010
29 January 2010
Nehemiah and Ephesians 6
At church a few months ago, Pastor John Gregory preached a sermon in his series about the Speed Bumps of Life.
That day's Speed Bump was Discouragement. The passage he focused on was Nehemiah 4:6-18.
Verses 12b and 13 say (in the New Living Translation) "'They will come from all directions and attack us.' So I placed armed guards behind the lowest parts of the wall in the exposed areas. I stationed the people to stand guard by families, armed with swords, spears, and bows."
The builders of the wall were discouraged: they had gotten halfway finished with their project
The night before I heard that sermon, I had been talking to a new friend and something she said made me realize something I should have realized a long time ago. She mentioned a verse about someone's enemies attacking, and how God delivered. She applied it to life today.
It changed my world. I had always read the historical books as history, not thinking about the way it could relate to my life.
The enemy is, of course, the Devil. He is constantly scheming, attacking, tempting us. He is trying to turn our focus away from God.
So, when I read those verses, I thought about Ephesians 6. "Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes...Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand." (6:11,13)
Now, Nehemiah's struggle was against flesh and blood (verse 12). He was being attacked by tangible, visible, violent enemies. We are attacked quietly. Satan knows the human nature; he knows when we are vulnerable. And that is often when he makes his move.
We must be ready. Paul gives us a clear list of ways to prepare ourselves.
Be the New Testament Nehemiah.
That day's Speed Bump was Discouragement. The passage he focused on was Nehemiah 4:6-18.
Verses 12b and 13 say (in the New Living Translation) "'They will come from all directions and attack us.' So I placed armed guards behind the lowest parts of the wall in the exposed areas. I stationed the people to stand guard by families, armed with swords, spears, and bows."
The builders of the wall were discouraged: they had gotten halfway finished with their project
The night before I heard that sermon, I had been talking to a new friend and something she said made me realize something I should have realized a long time ago. She mentioned a verse about someone's enemies attacking, and how God delivered. She applied it to life today.
It changed my world. I had always read the historical books as history, not thinking about the way it could relate to my life.
The enemy is, of course, the Devil. He is constantly scheming, attacking, tempting us. He is trying to turn our focus away from God.
So, when I read those verses, I thought about Ephesians 6. "Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes...Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand." (6:11,13)
Now, Nehemiah's struggle was against flesh and blood (verse 12). He was being attacked by tangible, visible, violent enemies. We are attacked quietly. Satan knows the human nature; he knows when we are vulnerable. And that is often when he makes his move.
We must be ready. Paul gives us a clear list of ways to prepare ourselves.
Be the New Testament Nehemiah.
this is not a post about my dad.
I was just reading my dad's recent blog posts. One of them from earlier this week was about apologizing to the college student from Dad's alma mater who called him to ask for money.
The caller had a script that Dad allowed him to run through before declining to donate.
Let me pause for a moment to tell you about my dad. He's really smart. He didn't always apply himself in college, having more or less coasted in high school. But he had good test scores and did well on his GREs. (This is in the post.) He went on to work through higher degrees, including a doctorate in some branch of communication. Yeah. Rev. Jon C. Swanson, Ph.D. That's my dad. I call him Dad. He worked in higher education for the first half of my life; now he's a pastor. I like that.
But this post is not about my dad.
It is about conveying tone in writing. My dad is hilarious and has an interesting commentary on the events of everyday life. He writes every day. And his goal, as I understand it, is to make people think. In this post, I do not believe he was trying to change the entire structure of fundraising, but instead to make those involved in fundraising think about their approach and rethink the way they think about potential donors. A few of the comments on the post seem to almost attack him, telling him that his suggestion is unreasonable and would cost more than it was worth.
I was frustrated as I read this. If these readers are new, having never met my dad or read his blog before, they do not understand his tone or intentions. He proposes "what if" ideas, that are usually brilliant. But that is often not how they are interpreted.
This same situation happens when we write anything (text messages, facebook comments, blog posts). The inflection and facial expression we intend does not make its way through our fingertips, through the keyboard, and onto the screen.
Our words can easily be taken at face value, which is not at all our intention. Is it fair to judge a person you have never met, never heard speak, never seen interviewed, based solely on the words that you have read? I don't think so.
So how do we fix this problem?
Some possible solutions for writers and readers:
1. Parentheses. I use them a lot. It's part of my writing style. It gives me a chance to step away from the words and explain what I'm writing. It helps me stay out of trouble.
2. Make connections. To readers: Make an effort to get to know the writer as more than a writer. Read past posts. Send him/her an email. Understand the story his/her life before he/she wrote the post you are reading. To writers: Give your readers the information they need in order to make an informed decision. Tell your story. Make yourself vulnerable. This might include actually filling out the "about me" section on your profile, which I have not done.
[Digression:
My dad is a speaker, and because I have heard him give sermons, I know how to read his words. Well, I've known him for nearly 19 years, so I can read his words pretty well anyway.]
Connecting the digression:
3. Read the words out loud. You don't have to read them loudly, but read them with a few different tones of voice, approaching the words with different attitudes.
4. Remember that people often write blog posts for their own benefit. Posts express the writer's opinions. No one is saying that you must agree with everything. When you comment, do it graciously. Consider your own words and how you are saying them.
I'm a big fan of number 4. That's the way I write. For me, this is where I say the things that make people annoyed with me. If they want to read it, they can. But they don't have to.
I hope you understand me when I write posts.
Thank you for reading.
The caller had a script that Dad allowed him to run through before declining to donate.
Let me pause for a moment to tell you about my dad. He's really smart. He didn't always apply himself in college, having more or less coasted in high school. But he had good test scores and did well on his GREs. (This is in the post.) He went on to work through higher degrees, including a doctorate in some branch of communication. Yeah. Rev. Jon C. Swanson, Ph.D. That's my dad. I call him Dad. He worked in higher education for the first half of my life; now he's a pastor. I like that.
But this post is not about my dad.
It is about conveying tone in writing. My dad is hilarious and has an interesting commentary on the events of everyday life. He writes every day. And his goal, as I understand it, is to make people think. In this post, I do not believe he was trying to change the entire structure of fundraising, but instead to make those involved in fundraising think about their approach and rethink the way they think about potential donors. A few of the comments on the post seem to almost attack him, telling him that his suggestion is unreasonable and would cost more than it was worth.
I was frustrated as I read this. If these readers are new, having never met my dad or read his blog before, they do not understand his tone or intentions. He proposes "what if" ideas, that are usually brilliant. But that is often not how they are interpreted.
This same situation happens when we write anything (text messages, facebook comments, blog posts). The inflection and facial expression we intend does not make its way through our fingertips, through the keyboard, and onto the screen.
Our words can easily be taken at face value, which is not at all our intention. Is it fair to judge a person you have never met, never heard speak, never seen interviewed, based solely on the words that you have read? I don't think so.
So how do we fix this problem?
Some possible solutions for writers and readers:
1. Parentheses. I use them a lot. It's part of my writing style. It gives me a chance to step away from the words and explain what I'm writing. It helps me stay out of trouble.
2. Make connections. To readers: Make an effort to get to know the writer as more than a writer. Read past posts. Send him/her an email. Understand the story his/her life before he/she wrote the post you are reading. To writers: Give your readers the information they need in order to make an informed decision. Tell your story. Make yourself vulnerable. This might include actually filling out the "about me" section on your profile, which I have not done.
[Digression:
My dad is a speaker, and because I have heard him give sermons, I know how to read his words. Well, I've known him for nearly 19 years, so I can read his words pretty well anyway.]
Connecting the digression:
3. Read the words out loud. You don't have to read them loudly, but read them with a few different tones of voice, approaching the words with different attitudes.
4. Remember that people often write blog posts for their own benefit. Posts express the writer's opinions. No one is saying that you must agree with everything. When you comment, do it graciously. Consider your own words and how you are saying them.
I'm a big fan of number 4. That's the way I write. For me, this is where I say the things that make people annoyed with me. If they want to read it, they can. But they don't have to.
I hope you understand me when I write posts.
Thank you for reading.
gah! Edward Rochester!!
Bethel College presents "Jane Eyre the Musical" February 11, 12, and 13. Call the Box Office at 574.807.7080 to order tickets. It is going to be a wonderful show.
If you have not read the book and do not want to know the story until you see the show, stop reading this right now. It will ruin the ending for you. Seriously.
But that is not what this post is about.
And please note that I am writing about the musical, not the book. I haven't read the book.
Also note that this is my opinion. All of my posts are my opinion. And you do not have to agree.
This post is about how I usually want to punch Nate Jackson (Edward Rochester) in the face during Act II, scene vii. (When Alex Cox is playing Rochester, I will probably want to punch him in the face as well, but I've only seen Nate in the role so far.)
Jane Eyre has been living as the governess at Thornfield Hall, Mr. Rochester's residence. She falls in love with him, but he is expected to marry Blanche Ingram. However, he is in love with Jane and makes Blanche stop wanting to marry him. She only wanted to marry him for his money anyway. (Remember the fact that he was intending to marry her. That's part of my point.) He proposes to Jane, calling her his equal. At this point, he seems like a great guy.
Let's move on to the wedding scene. The vicar is performing the ceremony when Mr. Mason enters, declaring that the wedding cannot continue. Rochester encourages the vicar to continue, but Mason insists that Rochester is already married. Rochester tells the vicar to close his book, that there will be no wedding. They return to Thornfield Hall to meet Grace Poole's patient, "[his] lovely wife."
Yep. He's already married. Jerk. As Edward introduces Bertha (who happens to be insane), he says that she's the only woman he will ever sleep with again. He loves Jane and was going to marry her. He was going to marry Blanche.
Jane leaves Thornfield and returns to her aunt, Mrs. Reed. Mrs. Reed dies, leaving Jane a fortune. St. John, the curate of the local parish, befriends Jane, falls in love, and eventually proposes to her. "For now I claim you in holy marriage." Maybe not the best phrasing, but he does acknowledge that she was not made to be the "typical" wife. Unfortunately, Jane does not want to go with him on his missionary journey to India. He tells her to pray for guidance, and while she is praying, she hears Edward's voice calling to her. It's a beautiful scene if you can ignore (forgive) everything he has done. He has not stopped loving her.
I think I feel bad for St. John. And I think I blame Jane. In trying to make herself forget Edward, she tries to love St. John. I think she leads him on a little. He seems to understand her decision to turn him down, but I'm pretty sure he's devastated. I hope he has a good time in India and finds a woman as strong-willed as Jane Eyre.
Jane returns to Thornfield to learn that Bertha has burned the place and jumped to her death. Mr. Rochester is now free to marry Jane. By the way, he was badly injured by the fire and is blind. They get married. They have children. His sight comes back. They are "brave enough for love."
Things I like about Edward Rochester:
He thinks that it is important for Jane to be his "equal."
He sees Jane as a real person, a significant human being, and someone who has value beyond simply wife-hood. (I think I just made up that word.)
He admits to his mistake when he is confronted, and regrets his actions.
He remains committed to Jane.
Things I don't like about Edward Rochester:
He is willing to commit physical adultery by marrying a second wife.
He commits adultery in his heart when he falls in love with Jane.
He lets his physical desires take control with Adele's mother and with Bertha, and does not really love either of them.
I mostly just think he's a jerk. Sure, he feels some remorse. And I believe he truly does love Jane.
And I'm impressed that she can forgive him. I'm not sure how I would conduct myself in that situation.
I really do like this show. It's a wonderful story of forgiveness. In forgiving Edward, Jane gains a love that will last, a new daughter, and later a son.
And it makes a great story to tell at dinner parties.
"Oh, I was just a lowly governess. Then the master and I fell madly in love and were going to be married. But, wait, he already had a wife and she was freaking crazy. So I left, watched my aunt die, got a lot of money, and some guy proposed to me. Then I somehow heard Edward's voice over the moors. So I came back. The crazy wife had destroyed the house and Edward's physique. But that's okay, because she died so I could marry him."
Yep. That's the story of "Jane Eyre the Musical."
In my frustrated words.
If you have not read the book and do not want to know the story until you see the show, stop reading this right now. It will ruin the ending for you. Seriously.
But that is not what this post is about.
And please note that I am writing about the musical, not the book. I haven't read the book.
Also note that this is my opinion. All of my posts are my opinion. And you do not have to agree.
This post is about how I usually want to punch Nate Jackson (Edward Rochester) in the face during Act II, scene vii. (When Alex Cox is playing Rochester, I will probably want to punch him in the face as well, but I've only seen Nate in the role so far.)
Jane Eyre has been living as the governess at Thornfield Hall, Mr. Rochester's residence. She falls in love with him, but he is expected to marry Blanche Ingram. However, he is in love with Jane and makes Blanche stop wanting to marry him. She only wanted to marry him for his money anyway. (Remember the fact that he was intending to marry her. That's part of my point.) He proposes to Jane, calling her his equal. At this point, he seems like a great guy.
Let's move on to the wedding scene. The vicar is performing the ceremony when Mr. Mason enters, declaring that the wedding cannot continue. Rochester encourages the vicar to continue, but Mason insists that Rochester is already married. Rochester tells the vicar to close his book, that there will be no wedding. They return to Thornfield Hall to meet Grace Poole's patient, "[his] lovely wife."
Yep. He's already married. Jerk. As Edward introduces Bertha (who happens to be insane), he says that she's the only woman he will ever sleep with again. He loves Jane and was going to marry her. He was going to marry Blanche.
Jane leaves Thornfield and returns to her aunt, Mrs. Reed. Mrs. Reed dies, leaving Jane a fortune. St. John, the curate of the local parish, befriends Jane, falls in love, and eventually proposes to her. "For now I claim you in holy marriage." Maybe not the best phrasing, but he does acknowledge that she was not made to be the "typical" wife. Unfortunately, Jane does not want to go with him on his missionary journey to India. He tells her to pray for guidance, and while she is praying, she hears Edward's voice calling to her. It's a beautiful scene if you can ignore (forgive) everything he has done. He has not stopped loving her.
I think I feel bad for St. John. And I think I blame Jane. In trying to make herself forget Edward, she tries to love St. John. I think she leads him on a little. He seems to understand her decision to turn him down, but I'm pretty sure he's devastated. I hope he has a good time in India and finds a woman as strong-willed as Jane Eyre.
Jane returns to Thornfield to learn that Bertha has burned the place and jumped to her death. Mr. Rochester is now free to marry Jane. By the way, he was badly injured by the fire and is blind. They get married. They have children. His sight comes back. They are "brave enough for love."
Things I like about Edward Rochester:
He thinks that it is important for Jane to be his "equal."
He sees Jane as a real person, a significant human being, and someone who has value beyond simply wife-hood. (I think I just made up that word.)
He admits to his mistake when he is confronted, and regrets his actions.
He remains committed to Jane.
Things I don't like about Edward Rochester:
He is willing to commit physical adultery by marrying a second wife.
He commits adultery in his heart when he falls in love with Jane.
He lets his physical desires take control with Adele's mother and with Bertha, and does not really love either of them.
I mostly just think he's a jerk. Sure, he feels some remorse. And I believe he truly does love Jane.
And I'm impressed that she can forgive him. I'm not sure how I would conduct myself in that situation.
I really do like this show. It's a wonderful story of forgiveness. In forgiving Edward, Jane gains a love that will last, a new daughter, and later a son.
And it makes a great story to tell at dinner parties.
"Oh, I was just a lowly governess. Then the master and I fell madly in love and were going to be married. But, wait, he already had a wife and she was freaking crazy. So I left, watched my aunt die, got a lot of money, and some guy proposed to me. Then I somehow heard Edward's voice over the moors. So I came back. The crazy wife had destroyed the house and Edward's physique. But that's okay, because she died so I could marry him."
Yep. That's the story of "Jane Eyre the Musical."
In my frustrated words.
28 January 2010
chivalry.
Tonight I opened doors for a few different guys at a couple different times.
The first time, the guy's hands were full. He thanked me for holding the door.
The second time, I was with two friends. (That sounds like the first guy was not a friend. He was. He is. Whatever, I'm tired.) I got to the door first and opened it. One of them walked in and it wasn't a big deal. The second friend insisted that I enter the room before him. He used chivalry as an explanation.
This annoyed me, and I wasted no time in expressing my frustration. I opened the door because I was the first one there. I was being nice. And I fully intended to hold the door for both friends. I almost always hold doors open. It's a way of serving people. Sometimes they thank me, sometimes they don't, sometimes it gets awkward. But it's something I don't mind doing.
When a guy tells me that he should open the door for me just because I happen to be female, I don't really find it that impressive. If I'm on a date, sure, I'll let the guy open the door. But if he doesn't, that's fine. I'm not a huge fan of traditional (stereotypical) gender roles. I don't think that doors should be opened for me because of genetics and anatomy. I think that doors should be opened for me because people are being friendly.
If I open the door for you and you happen to be male, don't argue or stand there waiting for me, just go through the freaking door. I made an effort and I think it should be appreciated.
Chivalry, according to Dictionary.com, is "the sum of the ideal qualifications of a knight, including courtesy, generosity, valor, and dexterity in arms." The rest of the definitions also pertain to knighthood. Boys, we live in the 21st century. We live in the United States. As much as we want to believe that our "knight in shining armor" is coming for us, I think we're all resigned to the idea that he doesn't really exist. At least not in the way he's presented in the modern kind of fairy tales. Prince Charming isn't out there, either.
Maybe I'm just a cynic. Okay, I'm definitely a cynic. But I do believe in love. Real love. The love that is an action, not a feeling. The love that "wills good of another" (Dale and Jonalyn Fincher). I'm not expecting someone to come sweep me off my feet and carry me away. Honestly, if someone sweeps me off my feet, I'll probably be wary of his intentions. Been there, made that mistake, learned from it. I'm waiting for someone who will see me and accept me as an equal partner in a relationship.
When the Finchers were at Bethel, the girls had a special session with Jonalyn. She said something that I think about every time someone thanks a guy for holding a door, just because he's a guy. She said to thank him because what he did was kind and friendly, rather than because it was chivalrous. I think it was about projecting an image on him and forcing him into a certain role. Even if it wasn't, I like that reasoning. I don't want any guy to think that, in order to be "masculine" and fulfill his role as a male, he must have certain characteristics and tendencies.
That's what's been on my mind for the past couple of days.
Good night.
The first time, the guy's hands were full. He thanked me for holding the door.
The second time, I was with two friends. (That sounds like the first guy was not a friend. He was. He is. Whatever, I'm tired.) I got to the door first and opened it. One of them walked in and it wasn't a big deal. The second friend insisted that I enter the room before him. He used chivalry as an explanation.
This annoyed me, and I wasted no time in expressing my frustration. I opened the door because I was the first one there. I was being nice. And I fully intended to hold the door for both friends. I almost always hold doors open. It's a way of serving people. Sometimes they thank me, sometimes they don't, sometimes it gets awkward. But it's something I don't mind doing.
When a guy tells me that he should open the door for me just because I happen to be female, I don't really find it that impressive. If I'm on a date, sure, I'll let the guy open the door. But if he doesn't, that's fine. I'm not a huge fan of traditional (stereotypical) gender roles. I don't think that doors should be opened for me because of genetics and anatomy. I think that doors should be opened for me because people are being friendly.
If I open the door for you and you happen to be male, don't argue or stand there waiting for me, just go through the freaking door. I made an effort and I think it should be appreciated.
Chivalry, according to Dictionary.com, is "the sum of the ideal qualifications of a knight, including courtesy, generosity, valor, and dexterity in arms." The rest of the definitions also pertain to knighthood. Boys, we live in the 21st century. We live in the United States. As much as we want to believe that our "knight in shining armor" is coming for us, I think we're all resigned to the idea that he doesn't really exist. At least not in the way he's presented in the modern kind of fairy tales. Prince Charming isn't out there, either.
Maybe I'm just a cynic. Okay, I'm definitely a cynic. But I do believe in love. Real love. The love that is an action, not a feeling. The love that "wills good of another" (Dale and Jonalyn Fincher). I'm not expecting someone to come sweep me off my feet and carry me away. Honestly, if someone sweeps me off my feet, I'll probably be wary of his intentions. Been there, made that mistake, learned from it. I'm waiting for someone who will see me and accept me as an equal partner in a relationship.
When the Finchers were at Bethel, the girls had a special session with Jonalyn. She said something that I think about every time someone thanks a guy for holding a door, just because he's a guy. She said to thank him because what he did was kind and friendly, rather than because it was chivalrous. I think it was about projecting an image on him and forcing him into a certain role. Even if it wasn't, I like that reasoning. I don't want any guy to think that, in order to be "masculine" and fulfill his role as a male, he must have certain characteristics and tendencies.
That's what's been on my mind for the past couple of days.
Good night.
27 January 2010
"what it means in movies" expanded and explained.
Posts like these usually get me in trouble, so I'm going to be VERY vague.
But I haven't posted a "here's what's going on in my life" type post in a while.
So, there's this guy. Obviously. and I guess like him as much. I like him as I can say that I like someone after only speaking to him a couple times and noticing his behavior in class. Which, for me, is actually not very much, but for the purpose of this post, I like him.
He's a funny guy. He's a nice guy. He's a pretty dang smart guy. And, most important, he's a solid Christian guy. Apparently he has a really cool story, that I will ask him about someday. A friend of mine told about me three months ago to ask this guy about his life. Instead, I'm learning about him as we get to know each other.
Last week, I was watching him a little bit during an event we both happened to be attending, and I noticed (probably because I was hoping for it) that as he was glancing around the room through the night he happened to hold my gaze for an extra couple of seconds. I wanted so badly to keep looking at him and let the moment develop. But I'm always afraid that a guy is going to think I'm a creeper, and I looked away every time, always smiling. "Sticky eyes" is the phrase used in Angus, Thongs, and Full-Frontal Snogging (the book, not the new television series). You hold the guy's gaze as you look away. It's supposed to be romantic and flirtatious. It's just weird, but I do it anyway.
You know that moment in every love story movie? The one when the main guy and the main girl see each other for the first time. The scene slows down, the music changes, and it's like they're the only people in the room. Well, if I read into what was happening that night, it would have been that moment. Unfortunately, I don't have the greatest track record with guys. This has made me believe that I will never have that moment. I watch those movies all the time and I make fun of them because it's never like that. (Of course, I secretly want that moment with every fiber of my being.) So I convinced myself that we just happened to be glancing at each other at the same time. It happened every time he happened to glance at me, but was just a coincidence. (If you know me well, you probably know that I tend to believe in coincidences.)
More recently, we've been making and maintaining eye contact. We've been hanging out. We've been having real conversations about all kinds of things. It's a grand time. It isn't going anywhere, and that's fine. I like being friends with this guy. I'd like to eventually be more than friends. But it's okay for now.
Hooray for Hope's personal life. :-)
Now, to all the people (and there are about six people in this group) who are encouraging me to date a certain someone, shut up. I know that he's a great guy. He's smart, relatively funny, he loves Jesus, and I can have intelligent conversations with him. I love my friendship with him. But I don't have any interest in ever dating him. He's not my "someday guy." (That was a "Cougar Town" reference. I hope someone picked up on it.) I'm not attracted to him. We have some fundamental disagreements. I'M NOT GOING TO DATE HIM, NO MATTER HOW OFTEN YOU BRING IT UP. So please, for the sake of my friendship with you and with him, STOP!!
Thanks.
But I haven't posted a "here's what's going on in my life" type post in a while.
So, there's this guy. Obviously. and I guess like him as much. I like him as I can say that I like someone after only speaking to him a couple times and noticing his behavior in class. Which, for me, is actually not very much, but for the purpose of this post, I like him.
He's a funny guy. He's a nice guy. He's a pretty dang smart guy. And, most important, he's a solid Christian guy. Apparently he has a really cool story, that I will ask him about someday. A friend of mine told about me three months ago to ask this guy about his life. Instead, I'm learning about him as we get to know each other.
Last week, I was watching him a little bit during an event we both happened to be attending, and I noticed (probably because I was hoping for it) that as he was glancing around the room through the night he happened to hold my gaze for an extra couple of seconds. I wanted so badly to keep looking at him and let the moment develop. But I'm always afraid that a guy is going to think I'm a creeper, and I looked away every time, always smiling. "Sticky eyes" is the phrase used in Angus, Thongs, and Full-Frontal Snogging (the book, not the new television series). You hold the guy's gaze as you look away. It's supposed to be romantic and flirtatious. It's just weird, but I do it anyway.
You know that moment in every love story movie? The one when the main guy and the main girl see each other for the first time. The scene slows down, the music changes, and it's like they're the only people in the room. Well, if I read into what was happening that night, it would have been that moment. Unfortunately, I don't have the greatest track record with guys. This has made me believe that I will never have that moment. I watch those movies all the time and I make fun of them because it's never like that. (Of course, I secretly want that moment with every fiber of my being.) So I convinced myself that we just happened to be glancing at each other at the same time. It happened every time he happened to glance at me, but was just a coincidence. (If you know me well, you probably know that I tend to believe in coincidences.)
More recently, we've been making and maintaining eye contact. We've been hanging out. We've been having real conversations about all kinds of things. It's a grand time. It isn't going anywhere, and that's fine. I like being friends with this guy. I'd like to eventually be more than friends. But it's okay for now.
Hooray for Hope's personal life. :-)
Now, to all the people (and there are about six people in this group) who are encouraging me to date a certain someone, shut up. I know that he's a great guy. He's smart, relatively funny, he loves Jesus, and I can have intelligent conversations with him. I love my friendship with him. But I don't have any interest in ever dating him. He's not my "someday guy." (That was a "Cougar Town" reference. I hope someone picked up on it.) I'm not attracted to him. We have some fundamental disagreements. I'M NOT GOING TO DATE HIM, NO MATTER HOW OFTEN YOU BRING IT UP. So please, for the sake of my friendship with you and with him, STOP!!
Thanks.
25 January 2010
what it means in movies.
Ten days ago
I noticed that you looked at me
While I was looking at you
And I wondered what it meant.
But I didn't want to think too much about it
Because I never would have noticed
If I hadn't been looking at you first.
Our eyes met across the room
And I make it more poetic
Than I think it really was.
I wish that it meant
What it means in movies
When a girl's eyes and a boy's eyes meet.
But I've given up believing
That life can ever be that way:
That a glance will mean
What it means in movies.
In movies, when a girl's eyes and a boy's eyes meet
You know that they'll fall in love.
But when my eyes and your eyes meet
I lose my nerve and just stare at my feet.
I convince myself that you're just scanning the room
And I drag myself down,
I hold myself back.
Thinking I know that you're thinking
"Who is this girl?
and why is she so prone to smiling?"
But then today
You glanced at me
At the same time that I glanced at you
We both looked away
And then we both looked back.
And it could be from a scene in some movie.
So maybe I'm not crazy
And maybe we can write a story
And all of this will mean
Exactly what it means in movies.
I noticed that you looked at me
While I was looking at you
And I wondered what it meant.
But I didn't want to think too much about it
Because I never would have noticed
If I hadn't been looking at you first.
Our eyes met across the room
And I make it more poetic
Than I think it really was.
I wish that it meant
What it means in movies
When a girl's eyes and a boy's eyes meet.
But I've given up believing
That life can ever be that way:
That a glance will mean
What it means in movies.
In movies, when a girl's eyes and a boy's eyes meet
You know that they'll fall in love.
But when my eyes and your eyes meet
I lose my nerve and just stare at my feet.
I convince myself that you're just scanning the room
And I drag myself down,
I hold myself back.
Thinking I know that you're thinking
"Who is this girl?
and why is she so prone to smiling?"
But then today
You glanced at me
At the same time that I glanced at you
We both looked away
And then we both looked back.
And it could be from a scene in some movie.
So maybe I'm not crazy
And maybe we can write a story
And all of this will mean
Exactly what it means in movies.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)