The netflix daredevil series is pretty great. Especially for a superhero show. Right amount of violence, style, flair. And it feels like (even though it’s not the case) Daredevil is more of an anti-villain than a superhero, and I dig that so much more than batman and superman’s b.s.
Batman and superman are overhyped. There, I said it.
There’s a scene mid-way through the series, once Daredevil starts exploring his relationship with his love interest, and she’s starting to catch on to who he really is and what’s becoming, and of course it scares her. Daredevil, being the ballsiest bamf in NYC, is of course brutally honest.
Which is actually a similarity between him and kingpin. They both explore their romance in extremely similar ways) and the writing’s pretty kickass in likening the bamf levels of both characters, making them perfectly parallel, and even gives both the archvillain and protagonist the same dream, but gives both different backgrounds and resources establishes how they operate. That’s the difference between the two. (And that’s why I love good guys who aren’t good because it’s good to be good, and bad guys who have a good reason for being bad.)
Both characters are narcassistic. And equally as unpsychopathic. I like how their relationships work out.
After DareDevil admits that he likes to hurt people. He likes the violence (this’s actually why he’s a superhero – it’s said he’s got a touch of the devil. And, maybe it’s christian-derrived or not, who cares – the point is daredevil’s MO is to push his gifts and love of violence and uses it for good, without going too far. It’s like a man who loves to steal, but decides to steal from the rich, and not enough to make them poor, but also way different than robin hood.)
Well this of course scares his love interest Rosario Dawson. And it should, too. Rosario is a nurse – a healer – and she’s lived a life plagued by people who perpetrate unnecessary violence. Of course she’d abhor it as a concept. And what’s best, is she questions DareDevil if this is actually true. She questions it because she doesn’t wanna believe it, and of course, smart, lawyer DD is well aware of the weight of his answers.
Yet without apology, he doesn’t deny it anyway. (Sign of a great human? Putting forth truth, unabashed?)
Whats interesting to me here is when its important to not compromise and when its important to adjust. Says a lot about the character and what moves them. Anyway
Rosario knows DareDevil’s dreams, and DD’s ultimate ambition. Rosario even almost says she loves him, it’s on the tip of her tongue (it’s excellent how that’s done, it raises expectations that this’s a conversation about love before it dives into being one. Piques the audience)
She goes “I don’t know if you’re really the man I” (pause) “-that I believe you to be.”
This is part of the trouble with revealing an aspect of someone. But it’s still part of the magic of connecting. Growths lead to novel things.
DareDevil starts to get frustrated. Sez, “What do you want from me?”
She goes “What you do is important” she doesn’t want to change him, or make him a thing for her.
And then she unloads, “I just don’t think I can let myself fall in love with someone who’s . . . .so damn close to becoming what he hates.”
Which is a beautiful line.
Daredevil goes “You’re right . . .” *Starts moving* “. . . you shouldn’t.”
And then he walks away.
Kingpin’s relationship follows the same model.
I’ve got no closing point for that. Just, hello, this’s a superhero show, and it’s finally got deepening developing relationships with some of the boldest personality types possible. Which other comic flicks do this – Iron Man? The Watchmen?
No, it’s usually the case that the subject of a hero’s love can’t know their identity. And, all I’m thinking now is, the biggest tragedy of these characters is that they will usually live and die alone, doing what they were driven to do, being loved, abhorred, and painted, for standing out as aspects of what they are. It’s rare to find a character who leads a campaign under an alias, who’s also able to court and form true antagonism to loneliness. When you do dangerous, selfish, reckless things, when you’re that into your self, even if people say they love you – they might be Lois Lane, and have a courted and distant understanding that superman is somewhere between Clark Kent and SuperMan (which’s why Superman will always call Mom, mom.)
And, the audience knows that’s probably not the end. But that’s part of the conflict, and the tension that makes this so much more interesting than DD just getting . . . less DD. The strength of DD’s love for what he has to do overrules what potential this nurse can offer, and, to be true to himself, DD has to fight his own battle. Of course this’ll scare Dawson, but doesn’t the audience want to keep paying attention to see if something can grow instead of being boxed, and how?
I like it, and think this resonates because in the real world, where we don’t put on strange outfits to do strange things (unless going to Coachella.) I think to make real connections, you have to be brave and find the right opportunities to be bold about yourself. You have to accept that some people will despise and paint you poorly for trying to do the best towards your dreams. That should be ok, so long as folks pick the right folks. (Maybe the ones who really deserve to be in your life won’t lash out and tell you to not be you as you stumble and run through life’s journey.)
I also think boys (and me) admire daredevil cause he doesn’t trip or get it twisted. He doesn’t give up his dream, or get boxed into being one of his aspects.
Which doesn’t have to be the worst thing in the world, either. Tons of people settle for actually only being what they’re known for. I just think DareDevil’s a much more interesting superhero plotline if he can be DareDevil and find troo wuv for everything that he is, and so far that seems to be happening.
This’s gonna be on a gross topic that most smart men don’t talk about. But because I like figuring out the mechanics of human nature, if possible, I can’t resist.
Love.
Doesn’t that word make yer face crawl immediately? Don’t you wanna put the screen away immediately, jump off, and set back?
If so, chill, it makes you totally like most of the adult world.
Adults wanna believe they have this sort of thing figured out, or won’t want to think about it critically unless it’s shoved in their face, maybe because the subject is “sooooo high school” because, young people can find it novel and new, to have to treat a strong emotional affect with a rationale. So I know, it makes most people go “Oh gawd” and wanna roll eyes and turn away rather than obtaining new information. And that’s fine. But not me, today.
Watching this shrink on Dexter resonated with a lot and now I’m stewing on this model of love that’s making me think, thoughts . . . I’m sorry. I’m sorry!
I really don’t think my mom and dad were in love. At least not by when I was born. I think they were in a functionally dysfunctional relationship. And, that too me wasn’t terrible, just with nasty fights sometimes that were, draining.
In fact, today for the first time I realized that my old man never once used the word “love” in reference to himself. We know he loves his mother because of the lengths he’ll go for her. It’s obvious he loves his children because of what he does for us. (And unfortunately sometimes, to us, because, maybe by definition parents are psychological disturbances 90% of the time they are parenting.) But, I suspect, that my old man realized one day that it’d be practical to build a marriage with the materials he had, that it did, and that he never really got to learn how to express said lovey dovey feels (that I believe, anyone who’s not a psychopath can learn to feel and express towards another, provided that they’re not a dumb-dumb who inspires cynicism.)
And my old man’s a lil special in the head. I think his most valuable advice about love is something along the lines of “we’re all alone in the end.” (Fricken, nietzschie. You’ve affected my dad’s brain too hard.)
And, pretty much my mom’s just smart. Period.
So my view on love has to do with some combination of all the literature I’ve read, my disgust for hollywood’s view of the romantic love that makes a man some self-sacrificing Mr. Perfect who jumps through hoops (eff you hitch, eff you notebook. You’re both stupid and you contribute to lil girls growing stupider.) Then, strangely, my cynicism for romantic love is countered hard by an episode of Star Trek Voyager, when Neelax’s telepathic gf makes some passionate heartfelt speech about how love can hurt, but you have to take a risk cause when you find it, it’s the greatest thing in the yuniverse. I remember watching that when I was 12 or so when sex seemed like, heaven, pretty much, and being like “ha.”
I agree with all of the above, in a mix.
On top of this, Dexter. There’s a shrink in Dexter who makes it possible for dexter’s sis to completely rethink her feels within one episode. And the model of love used, interests me.
It’s pretty much that someone can fulfill all the compulsions that one’s learned to crave in their life. Instinctual arguments are made, and this makes room for stuff like a h00mon needs daddy’s approval, type of issues . . .
On top of this, all the world literature indicating that romantic love IS a culturally bound thing, with lots of similarities. Eastern cultures with the lowest rates of divorce don’t make divorce taboo, as much as fix children up with arranged marriages. This makes a world with interesting stories about intense love, AND, also makes an interesting database for stats. I remember being not surprised that the rates of satisfaction in a long-term companion were HIGHER in later life than our normalized “marry for love, figure it out later” b.s. that does end in a more-often-than-not divorce rate.
And Sir Lancelot.
(Oh yeah, guess I was a psych major too. But in the end, all that really did on this topic was give me some terminology and stats, and encourage me to think critically, because the experts clearly are clueless. Sorry Social Psychologists, but yer often the blind leading the blind. In a double blind study. With stats.)
So this’s my view, I guess. It’s shared with others, but, not many. My dad’s a fuckin weirdo in the end, but reasonably so, and, I kinda feel like me too. And maybe I will be disconnected in the end from my own feelings if I don’t feel them right.
I do think people are selfish beasts. I also think we’re mystical wonderlands of cerebral wonderful, I think our consciousness is an amazing cosmic phenomona, and at least as interesting as the stuff that made stars stars, but I also think we’re kinda dumb and capable of fooling ourselves because we’re programmed to respond to certain patterns with a mapped-out response, always. Isn’t that why we love certain songs the way and as much as we do?
So regarding bestial responses, I see best friends who suddenly become less friendly when they’re in warmer waters. I’ve seen games get played at work. As in twists and manipulations do occur. I’ve seen sweethearts just see to it that their relationship just . . . festers. I feel I’ve been in love a few times in my life now too. Am big enough to say it, and, I was a sillybutt for doing so. Because I do think I was in love with who the person was, but not who they would also be, and I think I stayed in love with an idea or impression of these people.
And I think those were mistakes which made it hurt. I mean, if someone’s close enough to your heart to make it ache, or worse, when they’re, doing things you think’s hurtful to your dynamic (being cheated on to the point of “yo I can tell something’s up” and then being proven right creates adult feelings, people.) It shouldn’t excuse crazy behavior, but it can make it reasonable to feel certain feels after.
But those times, prove that maybe I’m selfish, maybe kinda evil too. Maybe I should be like my old man, because this selfishness has to plug in to be great, otherwise, it’s merely selfish. And, it’s sad, but true that many people don’t learn love, and don’t need to learn a good love to do alright in life. By societal standards, and on paper. Really, I think in our world and our society, a person is as equally likely to kill another person and procreate, or be a psychopath and procreate and pass on their lizardality, as they are to learn how to realize and express their love towards another person in a way that’s awesome.
Romantically loving another to me right now is on the same plane as feeling passionately good about a song. And that’s not to say it’s a knee-jerk, omgerd, this music is obviously amazing and I will love it forever, cause I don’t believe in unconditional affection.
That stuff implies that you can truly know someone else, and, I’m not sure that’s the case. I think you can see aspects of another. And I know it takes a huge amount of energy to confirm said knowledges, or, you have to have trust.
What a weird thought: You’ve gotta know who you can trust to have a close relationship. Otherwise you’re maybe getting burned by something in the end.
A lot of people don’t know themselves, and rationalize all sorts of b.s. that you can’t even accept their surface level story. And more than people who’re feels that their loving dynamic with another hurts, I believe it’s more likely they’re being delusional and stubborn. And I believe in affection, as a reaction to the world.
That is to say, love IS an imaginary feel in your head that DOES let you feel good for contributing positively to nurturing something with another.
That’s why showing love, as my old man has taught me, is actually more important than saying it or profusing long-winded rants that may or may not be 1900 words according to yer wordpress count. . . .
It feels good. It’s like grooving to that song you love.
I’ll wrap this up: I think some people are searching for a compliment out there in the world. Not a flattering “Your lips are nice” compliment. I think people are searching for complimentary companions when they feel driven to seek love, and kind of filling a hole that that creates until that happens.
I like the hedonic salience model.
I think some have better luck than others about this, too.
And I think, this is where it gets tricky, damage, creates dangerous areas. The diasthesis.
And THIS is where that shrink on dexter changed the entire plot: by articulating why Deb could and should feel the way she feels. In one sesh, she said what Deb had a hard time realizing all along (much like my disjuncture psych sesh, ha) which in hollywood psych sesh, made Deb have a breakthrough. It wasn’t pretty, but it was interesting. And I think maybe it was interesting cause that’s possible:
That it’s amazing to figure out why you might feel the way you feel about someone.
It’s important to not just, consume others, like fast food. First off, disposable garbages goes somewhere, and there’s a lot of that with fast consumption. Secondly, maybe you feel loving feelings at someone for unpretty reasons. The biggest fingerpoint is maybe you lurv someone because they represent yer daddy issues, but that’s just a cliche. There’s other stuff like maybe you were seeking acceptance from someone with a certain feel about their lifestyle all your life and feel like you finally got that. Maybe a person makes you feel like, a kid, and no one’s ever let you while growing up.
Stuff like that.
I think the real point here, that it’s important and real real emotionally smart to take a step back and figure out why you might feel the way you do about a person. Ask yourself if you actually care for a person and the potential of who they’re likely to become, or if you care about them as an IDEA of a person, and how you feel about that idea, like a song.
Cause people ain’t music tracks, and a love of songs is often transient. Even if classic.
(Consuming music is a funny process . . . )
Cause we can all be built with doubt, and I’d like to find a human creature who’s self-contained to the point that they can’t be deprived of something in life until they have some. I’m sure they exist, but they’re also ubermen. This creates that diasthesis where, maybe you can become a song addict. Except you call it love.
Maybe then you should take a step back.
Because in another breath I think maybe my dad is right. You don’t know who someone is going to be their whole life, or their reasons for being the way they are around you.
Cause I dunno. If you die in your sleep, don’t you die alone? I think, there is that possibility where life is a dream, and we’re all dumb perceivers who’re being affected by the world we’re affecting through these senses. I’m just rambling here about the sense of love, and think I’m a lil less cynical in that, the idea of investing in another resonates with something.
I think in these cultures that arrange marriages, it means success if done right. Like a measure of life success. In lots of these cultures something is deemed wrong with you if you don’t marry and flourish right, so, the lesson to living learners is, work to your love, do it right, and when it’s received, that’ll make you feel good, and that’ll work. And then it does significantly more than 50% of the time, and partners report way more HAPPINESS AND SATISFACTION (and reciprocity) with each other than in america.
The other idea here, is acknowledging that some people aren’t what you expect them to be. Or they change. Or maybe they’ve been different all along. This is what I wonder now. The note of TMI, and full disclosure, and playing others, and getting played, and playing one’s self. The last one scares me with some people. I think maybe that scares me about myself! And all of this happens all the time, so I think that Star Trek voyager note comes into play too.
That cranberries song “You have my heart so don’t hurt me” – the first girl I ever loved quoted that to warn me to be responsible. (And that was wise because that made me think so and so I was, sorta. And she wasn’t, extremely. But, us being dumb adolescents isn’t what’s important.) But maybe we should be aware if we’re giving our hearts to people who’re selfish or damaged and gonna be like “WHAT DOOOOO *flails wildly*” once circumstances are a certain way
What is important is the idea, and the quote. Because I’ve felt it – loved ones – lovers, friends, family alike, can inspire you more than anything, even if you don’t realize it, lots of great actions have been taken simply to earn the right audience, or to express to the right audience, and love doing that. This is where the power of family can contribute such a fundamental power to a person’s ability to actualize and be the best they can be in life.
So, it’s weird. Yes, it’s a combination of a dysfunctional marriage, textbooks, Dexter, Star Trek, a bunch weird music and stories, but it’s what I’m coming to terms with. And one maybe shouldn’t use the L-word as justification or an excuse to be crazy, because it’s a feeling, and all creatures with anything more than a lizard brain has crazy feelings. I guess . . . imagine if you love a song, and can constantly hear it. If it starts to drive you in a bad direction, Americans get to question and throw away the source real fast. Which maybe should happen.
A specialness of being human is recognizing those feels and deciding if you’re going to be a wizard about them. As such, the only rules about the L-word that I’m aware of is that it works if you nurture it right (usually, intentionally.) And, even if you do, sometimes it doesn’t work, and in that case, you’re probably a delusional dumb dumb who’s turning into a toolbag in the presence of someone who doesn’t like the idea you represent to them.
I dunno if I’m more cynical or idealistic here. It’s kind of just a model that I believe right now. If you start to feel feels towards another, why? There’s probably a selfish reason, and, not to say that’s evil, just, does something selfish about it apply? If you wanna love someone over time, don’t you think you oughta question how they’re likely to be over time? Cause by definition, love is an investment. Life is limited by time, and energy too. It seems infinite while you have it, and no longer. Which is why feelings like jealousy have evolved as disturbing emotions over an entire species.
Eric is the Best 