I've spent the last two hours curled up on the couch under a blanket, listening to Sky Blue Sky (twice through...) and reading Love is a Mix Tape.
There's certain things about this novel that remind me of High Fidelity. Much in the same way that High Fidelity isn't a book about music; it's a book about relationships told by a man that is really into music. This book is a memoir of love - real, true love told by a man who's scared to forget a single moment of it. A man who can chronicle his life - and the love of his life - through music.
And I have to say, he's doing a pretty damn good job of it. And much like I wish that I could find my own version of Rob Gordon's Laura, this book reminds me how much I'd love to be in love... There's a great passage in which he describes knowing that he'd never be the same again, just for having met this girl:
"I felt knots untie themselves, knots I didn't know were there. I could already tell that there were things happening deep inside me that were irreversible. Is there any scarier word than 'irreversible'? It's a hiss of a word, full of side effects and mutilations. Severe tire damage - no backing up. Falling in love with Renee felt that way. I felt strange things going on inside me, and I knew that these weren't things I would recover from."
2 comments:
It's been a long time since I devoured a book. For two days I could do little else but read this.
The subtitle of this book is "life and loss, one song at a time."
Well written, and nostalgic for the 90s - a time that for me encompassed my high school and college years and my first real love. And, of course, delved into the nature of love and loss.
I wrote in the initial post about wanting to be in love... but then there is the reminder that with love comes the inevitable loss of the one you love - either through separation or death. And as he points out, everyone secretly wishes to die before their spouse so that they don't have to endure that loss.
Which then brings up the eternal question of is it better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all? I used to think I knew the answer to that question, but I'm not so sure any more. Monks (of almost all religions) remove themselves from this cycle - and in Buddhist terms, there is no way to exit samsara if you are entangled in such a relationship. Even with (and maybe especially with) love, "all life is suffering." I don't think that I could ever go the monastic route...
But it sure would help shelter you from the pain in the ass that women are. =)
Love, and the loss that is inevitable, are very much better to have had in your life than not. Think about it this way...when you take a trip, and something bad occurs that you must overcome (and usually do), you are stronger, more resilient and the wiser for it. If nothing but flowers and sunshine happened in our life, it'd be "kick me in the balls" boring. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" etc. And the loss of love usually doesn't kill you....usually.
The monks aren't necessarily removing themselves from experiencing love. Christian monks, at least, are more in love than most because they're so in love with Christ that they give up ALL worldy experiences to be "wed" to him.
And since we're not talking only about romantic love....Do you think for a second I'd give up knowing my child just so I wouldn't have to lose her to some schmo with a bad haircut and who talks weird when she off and marries the loser? NO. Not for a bleeding second. The joys of the time spent are never lost...if you remember them. They're there for eternity, if you are conscious enough to think of them.
Post a Comment