AS YOU LIKE IT

First love is a little foolishness and a lot of curiosity. To what extent is G.B.Shaw's doggerel justifiable, is something worth giving a profuse thought to,when we put into question, the panache lying beneath the palpitations of a Romeo, when he stops blathering, stands beneath the facade of the quasi-quagmire labyrinth of the palais of his dreams,beside his (first of many to be) Juliets. But then isn't Romeo and Juliet tragedy in itself ?


I would rather fancy questioning, being in the stead of Shaw, if it was the first love he meant or was it an intention to mean one's first affair? It should not take me by surprise if someone turns up with questions on love. But whether it be an affair or love, the cruelty of Providence lies in the fact that it uses us, with love just being an expression for the continuation of its domineering presence, for the continuation of its creation, for He needs someone to make Him feel His presence, His potency. Writing so, neither do I intend to hurt a theist, nor do I aim at doing so.


Just love. Shaw called first love as foolishness and curiosity. Taking stands on his point view, curiosity seems to be a far fetched thought. Yet again, you never know the moment you fall in love. What can be yet another question is when does one know one loves someone? It was easy on the part of Longfellow to say- "It is easy to know that you are in love once you are in love." But he doesn't seem to make a point and we can't stand by romanticism.


I just am reminded of the silver screen, which portrays this feeling for various age groups, in various situations. My obsession with Wilde again brings to my mind- "There can be passion, enmity, infatuation, friendship but there is no place for love between a man and a woman". A man always likes to be called a woman's 'first love' and probably a week or two after they start seeing each other he takes a chance. On the other hand, a woman always desires to be a man's last romance. A serious point that I might have brought forward lies in the two different terms that I used for men and women. This also puts forth that women 'fall in love' when they get tired of loneliness, and men because they are too curious. Doesn't Shaw stand justified ? At least when it comes to 'curiosity'. Foolishness need no mention since the aforementioned thoughts speak aloud my views on his second stance.


Just because you like someone, or someone makes you feel at home in the one's company, does not have any implication of love. Methinks love is just a gross exaggeration of one's liking for someone over the others. Love is a temporary insanity curable by marriage. But again Shaw's influence crops up- Isn't marriage a alliance between a man who can't sleep with his window shut and a woman who Do you need any reason to love? (I admit I do not understand half the things he says.) Why do you love someone? Just because you like someone, it is appreciation ; someone loves you, its reciprocation ; you feel for the one, its compassion ; you want someone, its desire, lust or perhaps need, not love. So how would you define love? How do you get to know you love someone? Or is love some sort of a bondage? Does love demand faithfulness to the extent of spending your life on the whole with an individual? Can't you fall in love with two persons simultaneously? Just because you see some one other than the one who knows you love the one, would it mean you don't love the former anymore? Is love all about compatibility? Or is it the complementary nature that defines a 'successful love'?


Countless questions, and only a few to answer. Probably I should end up getting answers to my questions, as they are now projected. I would prefer falling in love, though.


Wait! Before you start thinking the mental state I was in before putting my thoughts to pen and paper, just a reminder-
Its not the end; and I am not in LOVE.
(At least now things should turn around; I am still waiting!!! )