My Love For The Typewriter

How Whatsapp Taught Me To Let Go

Like many of my peers of this generation, Whatsapp is my life. I probably communicate more words everyday through that app than I do out of my own mouth. And you'll know you're the same when its notification buzz takes over your entire mind and body whenever it comes up, whatever time of day it is. I think I need it so much so that I feel physically and mentally unsafe without it being within arm's reach.

As much as I hate to admit it, I'd like to think that I wouldn't go crazy without my phone, but who am I kidding? I can't put it down. And one fateful, tragic night, a bug had caused my phone to reset completely and wiped its memory clean - my Whatsapp conversation history being one of the unfortunate casualties. I can hear the gasps now. Yes, I am slowly recovering from the emotional trauma. I'd like to thank you all in advance for your thoughts and prayers through these tough times.

Jokes aside, I genuinely felt sad and frustrated about it. It's stupid, and most likely a somewhat overreaction. But to think I had lost all the conversations I've had with all my friends and family really struck me hard. All the jokes, catching up, and heartfelt discussions... just gone. Erased forever and lost in the digital ether, never to be recovered again. How could I ever relive those connections I shared with all these people?

My mum is my biggest subscriber.

But this made me ponder: if I could, would I? Prior to the tragedy, I always had those conversations stored on my phone. Did I ever once go back to them? Truth be told, hardly, but yes - for one particular person, often even. But no one else. And because, embarrassingly, it was the prime example of me living in the past.

See, when we have normal face-to-face interactions, we live in the moment. We experience people and we experience life. We create memories, and that bit of nugget of information is stored in our imperfect brains. And when we choose to relive those moments, we do so through whatever we can mentally recall. However, that recall is blurry. It's filtered by our emotions and faded by time. And every time we turn back and look again, some detail is changed or missing. Fiction becomes fact, and assumptions become the truth.

With Whatsapp, those moments are captured perfectly, word for word. Nothing is misconstrued, and perhaps it is this immaculate snapshot that I felt I lost. But the only time I missed it was when I thought I had nothing left in the present. For the majority of my Whatsapp contacts, I never once went back to what we said. But for this one person, reading back previous conversations meant I could perfectly relive moments of the past.

But that's not how life works. Life is transient. Moments come and go, and the beauty of the world is that nothing is permanent. Stagnancy is boring. We progress with all the people we know, for better or for worse, and that is what makes our individual relationships so unique. We go from strangers to family. We talk, and we learn, and we grow. We love, and we hate, and then we love again. We don't cycle seasons; we age.

Living in the past is no way to live at all, no matter what tinted filters you see it through. To truly appreciate your history is to live the present with the context of the past. What has happened before will always be important, but it shouldn't be where your head and heart is at, because that is something you will never return to. The good news, however, is that there is so much more in the future - better things and worse things. And you'll never find out if you're stuck in the past.

I feel like a lot of my friendships are based on mutual insult.

So here's the twist: my Whatsapp got wiped months ago. And that day, I was honestly at my wit's end. It really ruined my week. But it happened again about a week ago (maybe the real lesson is that I need a new phone). And yes, it annoyed me that I lost some pretty awesome pics, but you know what? It didn't suck nearly as much. I may have lost some text, but I didn't lose any of my relationships. My friends and family are still very much around; they didn't get deleted in the process. And I'll make new conversations and new memories, and everyday, I'll create something worth remembering.

I realised I stopped reading back my conversations with that one contact since the first time I lost my Whatsapp, because I learnt that even if the text exists, the conversation doesn't. It was fleeting, just like everything else. It was created at the time, and it finished at the time. And now, I'll start and end new conversations with that contact about the present. I won't soon forget our past, but if only to build a new future.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, understand that nothing can capture the past so perfectly that it extends its existence - an app, photo, memory, or otherwise. I'm not saying you should completely neglect your past, but don't let it stop you from living in the present, like I did.

Also, back up your Whatsapp history every so often.

How Does This Friendship Thing Work?

Hello once again, loyal reader.

Boy, is it dusty around these parts of this blog. It has been a while, hasn't it? Glad to see you have found your way back safe and sound. Come - we must huddle around these warm words as they come still fresh from the keyboard. But hurry! Who knows how long this harvest will last, before we must brace for yet another hibernation during the next famine of blog entries?

Since I'm currently on holiday, I have had the luxury of some downtime to bring back some life to this flaccid blog of mine. They say it happens to all bloggers at some point, that it's not a big deal, and that every reader has had a blogger go through this type of predicament. I have to say, this lack of vitality has certainly left me feeling rather embarrassed and ashamed. Maybe there's a pill for just this type of problem.

Having now spent a jam-packed week of catch-ups with friends, I've been thinking a lot about how friendships work for adults. For me, it takes that level of conscientious thought to really process something like that. They say you shouldn't fix what isn't broken, and I certainly haven't had any reason to question the relationship I share with my friends. But if that's the case, when do you see improvement if you don't ever ask for more?

Being at school has taken up such a big part of my life. From kindergarten through to university, it has, for better or worse, taken up a lot of my waking moments (and sleeping ones too, if we're going to count lectures). And almost all my closest friends I have met throughout these school years. But that's pretty much a given for most people I would think. When you're stuck and confined within certain walls, the tightest of friendships form. The only better breeding place for friendships than at schools are either in the army or in prison: take your pick.

However, I'm no longer in school, and neither are my friends. As we've all come to discover at our own pace, working life is very, very different indeed. Simply put, it's a lot harder to see each other. Free time is scarce, and even when it comes by, trying to fight fatigue is a whole other hurdle. You really have to make that extra effort to see one another, even if just to catch up.

I suppose I have a rather skewed perception. My best friends aren't even in the same country as me, let alone the same city. Yet undoubtedly, they are still my best friends. With them, it is by no casual effort that we get to spend some time together, whether that's on the phone, online, or (when all the planets align) in person. But it never really feels like an effort either. I don't necessarily agree that just because we are such close friends, that it means we don't need to try to stay as such. In fact, it takes a lot of proactive endeavour. It's rather a point of feeling that they're worth it. Differing time zones can be an irritating annoyance, but a few early mornings or a couple of late nights are honestly negligible. Spending time with family is very important indeed (something I will never forego), and it's what the holiday seasons are for, but to me, these people are a part of my family. And handwritten letters and planned gatherings might be nice, but for the most part, a simple text will suffice to let someone know you're thinking of them. With whatever excuse life might provide, there's always a way around it if you want it badly enough. You make the sacrifices, you adapt to the circumstances, and you just make it happen. Because if they're not worth the effort, then who is?

I won't sit here and lie and say that I don't miss the ease of being friends at school. They're never that far away, and for the most part, are looking for a distraction from the mundanity of school work. But since then, I've learnt that even though it takes that extra effort, if these people are meant to be in my life, then we'll make it happen from either end. I am the grumpiest person to wake, but I will always lend a willing ear at any time of night. There are no confessions too guilty or too pathetic that would ever cause me to pass judgement on. I will never pretend to know that things will be okay, but I can promise I'll be around when they're not. And I am only able to do these things because I know, in absolute security, that my friends will do no less for me, no questions asked.

Even though I've had these things on my mind (and this post in the drafts section) for a while, I feel that my holiday back home has really made me think twice about this. We all very quickly realised the drastic social and financial differences between work life and school life, but having to actually make an effort to keep friends? Not always so obvious.

The truth is, yes, it gets harder to maintain close friendships. But never forget that there's someone at the other end willing to try just as hard as you will. I am in no way the perfect friend, and I hope that I can rid myself of the bad habits that distances myself from my friends. Whether by conscious thought or by natural effort, I want to put more in. If these people are strange enough to want me around in their lives, I'm going to make damn well sure that I try my best to earn that place - even though I know they'd never ask of that from me.

So from me to you, I hope that the little annoyances in working life don't get in the way of the solid foundations in friends you've formed throughout your school years. Because I'll be damned if now isn't the stage in our lives we need them the most.

League of Legends: A Retcon That Was Needed?

For the more regular readers of my blog, I would like to preface this post with a quick note that this will probably be quite drastic a diversion from my usual content. But without trial, there can be no improvement!

Very recently, the Narrative Team of the game League of Legends decided to retcon their core narrative vehicle and remove it entirely. First off, I'm sure I'll need to quickly explain a couple of the things I mention in that sentence. League of Legends is one of the currently most dominating and popular computer games, and in short, features teams of characters from the spans of a fictional universe fighting against each. If you don't already know this, I'm not entirely sure why you're reading this post, but I digress! Secondly, "recon" is short for "retroactive continuity", and is when the canon of a particular piece of fiction is retroactively changed. For example, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle decided to retcon the death of Sherlock Holmes due to the public demanding the character's return. In other words, it can be used as a last ditch effort for authors to remove themselves from knots they may have tied themselves into earlier that stops them from progressing the continuity the way they wish to. Finally, what the Narrative Team of League of Legends have done to retcon the canon is remove the core storytelling vehicle for the game to exist within its own universe - namely, Summoners and the Institute of War. These two elements on their own allow for the gameplay to make contextual sense within the fictional universe.

To better understand what exactly I'm talking about, here is the article I am referring to.

So, with that out of the way, here is my opinion on the matter. My impression is that the response to this news is largely negative, and in particular, because of the community's emotional tie to these two elements that have become the spine for the lore. And I understand where this is coming from. It would be the equivalent of taking out the element of the Force from the Star Wars lore, or removing the concept of Pokémon being capturable; it doesn't destroy the entire universe, but it does require a lot of change due to the removal of something that is crucial to its structure and existence. In addition, it also means that something needs to take its place to make sense of the continuity, which is a particular problem when the story has come so far already, as is the case for League of Legends and its vast, complex lore. I can see how this change will in effect, cause a lot of its current characters and its main game to make no sense whatsoever without severe rewrite, which, as history has proven, is not a popular move.

However, having said all that, I think this is a move that needs to be made, but an unfortunate one at that. The Summoner/Institute of War as a storytelling tool and reason for the game to exist is weak, in my opinion. I agree with the Narrative Team when they say it diminishes all the rich characters to simple puppets for players. To justify the game's existence within its universe is a hard task, because it's simply illogical in most cases. It's a tool that seems forced, its ties to the gameplay itself minimal, and has caused awkward links for more than a few of the characters of the universe. It's not a great solution, but was one that worked for the early stages of League of Legends. However, with its current expansive roster, interrelationships, and factions, it can no longer suffice to explain some of the more intricate character backstories and motivations.

So, what are the options then at this point? Break the hearts of the fans of the game and its current lore, or deal with the existing, restrictive narrative boundaries? Well, I think there might be a middle ground - and this is ultimate point of this post. I am on the Narrative Team's side: Summoners and the Institute of War need to go. It is a minimal solution. But instead of retconning it completely, I would say take this opportunity to drastically alter the canon from this point onward. Destroy the Institute of War via a big story event involving all of the newer characters and the established factions. This pays due respect to the long-time fans, and doesn't lessen its importance, but also simultaneously cuts ties from its restraints. As for Summoners, curb them to sideline involvement so that the players still feel involved in the universe and its canon somewhat, and retains the key identity that are the players of the game. The biggest problem with using a retcon as a solution is that it nullifies something that was previously canon - or rather, official. A swerve in direction however does not withdraw what has been established.

My point being is, retconning is a dangerous move, especially when it comes to long-established fanbases. I understand there are particular scenarios where it becomes the best option (if not the only one) to move forward. It's always hard to plan so far ahead that you never trip yourself up when it comes to continuity. But I don't think this is one of them. I always think it's smarter to admit the issue and then move away from it, rather than completely ignoring the problem. Sure, it may be a more clumsy solution, but in a way, it represents the fact that you respect the way the story has unfolded- you just need to turn to a new direction for progression. Change is always risky, but with this alternative, it allows for fans of the old to retain something. When the new stuff comes along, they can then make a decision whether it is to their liking or not. If they do prefer it, perfect. If not, then at the very least, they will have the original content to hold onto. Right now, the Narrative Team has shut this option out, and have taken away from the canon anything fans might prefer.

But all this is just talk. So, how would I go about solving the problem? Here is my stab at it (you'll need to know the basic retconned canon to make sense of this):

• With how the Summoners and the Institute of War have functioned, their control over the champions have attracted many more champions' attention. With worry about too much power being under one roof, the Institute is on the edge of a revolt. The Summoners are split in opinion: disband and hide in fear of retribution by the champions they have summoned, or use their combined power to try and contain the growing danger, even if they don't know if there is a limit.
• There can be of course further plot opportunities as to why there is split opinion, involving the various factions.
• As a result, half the Summoners choose to retreat, and without the combined power, the Institute fails to retain control of all the champions. Some Summoners remain to try and contain the damage of particular champions seeking vengeance and destruction. (This is where I would keep minimal involvement of the Summoners as a concept and involvement in lore.)
• Summoner's Rift is thus abandoned for its original purpose. Moreover, it is explained that the Blue and Red Nexuses of Summoner's Rift are composed of five shards. (Feasible, considering the map's upcoming revamp.) These shards under the possession of the champions heighten their power (e.g. Darius' strength, Ahri's orb powers, Leona's command of the Sun, etc.), and have been a part of the source of power for Summoners. With complete Nexuses, champions assume that it might even be possible to control another champion, as the Summoners have in the past. Thus, these shards pose a desire for all the champions. With the fall of the Institute of War, the shards of multiple Nexuses have been claimed by various champions for their own reasons. 
• Coincidentally, it is discovered that when the two opposing Nexuses are rebuilt using shards, Summoner's Rift comes alive again, and when the Nexus of one colour is destroyed, the other Nexus doubles in number of shards. In essence, it means that champions must gamble their own shards to win more. Hence, you have various champions banding together for their own purposes due to possessing the same coloured shards, and challenging others to a face-off using their own shards.
• To solve the innate problem of champions of the same faction fighting one another, an additional detail of the shards is that they mesmerise its possessor. Those with increasingly more shards are drawn to possess even more, and are drunk with power and greed. This hypnotic effect causes some champions to turn on their own to win more shards on Summoner's Rift. Some also see this as a necessary and acceptable evil, since champions can revive in battle on Summoner's Rift.
• As for why champions revive in battle and all the other rules of gameplay, these are all integral of the power of Summoner's Rift as left behind from its original purpose. (Again, retains somewhat of the old lore.) 

And there you have it: a vehicle for gameplay to exist in its own little world, featuring champions with their own lores, factions, and rivalries, with no restraint of Summoner's Rift on any extension of the overall narrative. Boom!

So how would you re-write League of Legends? Do you think they made the right move with the retcon? Let me know in the comments.

It's Okay To Be Happy

Very recently, I experienced one of life's greatest and most rewarding moments. Far beyond the mundanities of childbirth, spiritual enlightenment, and finding one's identity in the world, it was mind-blowing - nay, life-changing. I am a completely different person because of it. What happened, you ask?

I met George R. R. Martin. 

Allow me to repeat that: George R. motherhugging R. Martin. 

Okay, so I suppose it wasn't that momentous. But it was pretty awesome. I was really excited about it, and had been days before leading up to it. I was actually described as "giddy" by friends that were with me, but let's not forget that that is simply a subjective opinion. There is no proof whether that is true or not - as far as I'm aware.

Whilst I'm probably not the world's biggest GRRM fan, I was super happy. And this leads me onto one of my resolutions from this year: 

I need to allow myself to be happy more. 

You know what they never teach you in school? To sum up growing up, it's basically learning that life is full of crap. Bad things happen. They just do. But having said that, sometimes, so do good things.

However, I don't precisely mean the momentous occasions like those I mentioned at the start of this post, because it's easy to be overwhelmed with joy by such big things. I'm talking about the small gifts that life offers you every now and then. 

The times when your jam comes on the radio. 

The spare bits of bubblewrap that you get to pop. 

Freebies.

I don't think I'm a particularly lucky person so to speak (I have to yet to win any prize draw I've ever entered), but I like to think that I allow myself to enjoy these little bits of happiness when I come across them. 

A fantastic video of a corgi diving. (This one gets me every single time.)

Free posters from the cinema. 

The genius that is the Ham Horn app. 

When I finally get 'round to changing my bedsheets and it has that super clean smell.

Sunshine.

I know many people advocate creating and actively finding these instances of happiness, but I think even before that, the first step is accepting the natural ones that just come by happenstance. It is just too easy to let the random curve balls ruin your day and bring you down. So when the good ones come along, I like to think that I let myself fully enjoy them, no matter how fleeting they may be.

And this is all coming from a guy who doesn't think himself too positive a person. Quite honestly, things probably could be a lot better than they currently are in my life right now. But I don't think that that fact should hinder my ability to accept some of the better parts of my day. Queuing up to get GRRM's autograph could have just been another way to spend the afternoon. But instead, I consciously decided to let this make me happy. In fact, there was a young little girl also in queue that day, and to pass the time, she had a bubble gun. And there she was, squirting bubbles all over the street, and laughing hysterically as she popped these tiny, soapy pockets of air. I always hear people saying how much they wish they could be as happy as children are. And I think it's absolutely possible, when you allow yourself to be. As a matter of fact, I realise a lot of people think me 'childish'. But you know what? I don't think that's such a bad trait, within context. Sure, bubbles aren't as breathtaking as they used to be, but there is certainly more than just bubbles to be happy about when you open your eyes.

Like seeing George R.R. Martin's glorious and magnificent beard in person.

Body Image Issues For Men

I think that when most people think of body image issues, it is almost instinctive that they would think the victims are young girls and women. This isn't by any fault or prejudice; it's just probably more common that women are focused upon when the topic is discussed. But I don't necessarily think it's an exclusive problem. Could it be more common for the female gender? Possibly - I don't have the statistics, but definitely not exclusive.

People will say you just have to simply glance at magazines and movies to notice the body image forced upon little girls: flat stomachs, thin arms, generous breasts, curvy thighs, long legs, shapely bums, etc. But men are also featured in magazines and movies: tall, defined abs, powerful arms, sculpted chests, broad shoulders, and yes - tight butts. Because who doesn't love some tight man-cheeks? Yum.

Could he be any Thor stacked?

Thankfully, there have been strides in the right direction as of recently on the topic, at least in my mind. At the very least, it's talked about a lot more. There are some really positive messages going out there about other body types that exist across the spectrum of "beauty". Dove notably have been doing some great work (read: advertising) that has been going pretty viral. This particular image (despite being rather old, Internet-age-wise) circulated around quite a lot:

And I'm sure it's been driven to the ground about its merits. To sum it up, it promotes all forms of realistic, healthy, happy bodies. And that's a beautiful and powerful perspective, especially with the context of concerns that many models on the catwalk might be deemed unhealthily thin.

Here's my point of query: as you read that last sentence, did you automatically think of female models? Okay - I might've misled you a bit on purpose since the image only has women in it, but you get my point: it's an almost instinctive presumption that this issue only affects women.

It's easy to point fingers at media for portraying unrealistic body images for girls, and I do agree there are clear issues present. But what about guys? I myself have fallen victim to it. For the longest time, I thought 'big and tall' was the official standard for handsomeness (I blame the Abercrombiecide). I was never going to be tall, I knew that much for sure, but perhaps I could strive to be big. I could try and bulk up in size by dieting right and working out hard enough. I can't count how many times I've heard female friends of mine swoon over these gigantic men with their chiseled abs and mountainous shoulders. And those tight butts. Damn those tight butts. Why can't I be bootylicious?

I'll be honest: I'd Channing all over that Tatum any day.

In my opinion, I don't think there's as much concern with this muscular male body image because it appears healthy. I mean, just look at Channing Tatum - he looks like he could outrun a horse. And I tend to agree with that. It's probably a healthy, great-looking shape to be. But does that make this body type the ideal? As a guy, am I expected of this high standard? Would any other shape be acceptable, let alone deemed "attractive"? For me, it's meant that I've always felt lackluster and below-average. I didn't feel 'normal' because I didn't have a six-pack. And no, of course I'm not only surrounded by brawny men with the bodily proportions of a Grecian god, but I see it in movies, in magazines, and in shops - much like women do. And I don't think it's fair just to say that since this body image is healthy, it's okay to make this the norm for all men. There are other body shapes that are healthy, and other body shapes that are handsome, believe it or not. To achieve a physique like that of Hugh Jackman is no easy feat, and it can be quite unbelievable the amount of pressure men are put upon to be no less.

It's hard for dudes to admit they feel self-conscious about their body and that in fact, we really just want to look like ever-popular celebrities. Can you imagine if one of your male friends turned to you during Neighbors and said, "boy, I wish I could look like Zac Efron"? But would it be any less weird if a female friend something similar about an actress?

Zac Efron? More like Zac Ef-me-on-the-couch.

Don't get me wrong - I am in no way diminishing the struggle that girls have to go through to match these supposed ideal body types. And for the most part, I agree that as a gender, they probably have it tougher in this aspect, and I think it's unfortunate that that might be the case. We're plastered with these improbable female proportions that are labelled "perfect", and it's disheartening to hear when someone thinks that's the only body type that can be "beautiful". But I also think that the male gender shouldn't be excluded from the conversation. It's easier than you might think that guys feel self-conscious too when comparing themselves to these male idols, and I for one am not afraid to say I am one of those guys.

If I'm being honest, I personally have changed my entire lifestyle around trying to be healthier and look better. And yet, I'm still unsure all this physical change can ever make me genuinely confident and satisfied with the way my body looks - not until I can make a mental change, too. And a part of me believes this might be because of these unsettling set of ideals that I feel I can never reach. But regardless of my own struggles, I hope those reading this realise that you should be comfortable with whatever size you are, male or female. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise (even family or friends). Remember this: beauty is subjective, healthiness is objective. Don't feel obligated to change how you look; only make a change if you want a change. Go be Hugh Jackman (read: Huge Jacked Man) if that's your goal, but do it because you want to, and do it safely. If you are healthy enough, and you're happy with the way you are, then that's all that matters - much more than trying to look like some fictitious character on screen with a square chest, washboard abs and a really, really tight bum.

My Infinite Year

In just a few days, I will be turning the ripe age of twenty-three. As I've written before, I don't think this'll lead to some sort of instantaneous transformation or magical metamorphosis. But without a doubt, this past year has definitely been hugely significant to me. I think the twenty-third year of my time here on planet Earth has seen more growth as a person more than I could ever imagine. This doesn't necessarily mean improvement exclusively, but rather... change. And it was all due to one tiny flick of a switch in my head.

If I were to summarise all my experiences this year with one word, it would be "new".

From where I was sitting,
the candles show 2 and 3.

The new city I now live in.

The new places I've visited.

The new hobbies I've picked up.

The new healthy lifestyle pursuit.

The new career path I've taken.

The new friends I've made.

The new sense of love.

The new vision of faith.

The new goals I have for myself.

The new pet rabbits.


And the one thing that allowed me to have all these experiences was simply... choice. Ostensibly, nothing changed on the day I turned twenty-two. Nothing shifted in the equilibrium of the universe, and the stars did not align to shine favourably upon me. But this year, I did start to make more conscious decisions. And I realised how wonderful that simple power is.

That very basic thought of personal choice is unbelievably empowering, and it can be found in just the simplest decisions. It can truly be the most liberating feeling. And this year for me was pretty much dictated by such choices. I decided to quit aimlessly pursuing Law and changed careers to something I had a passion in and felt where my strengths could be put to best use. I decided to try to live healthier and be more comfortable about being in my own body (a continuing struggle). I decided to meet new people, even though every single time, it would make me a nervous wreck on the inside. I decided to open up more and try to be more honest, even if it left me feeling vulnerable. I also decided to write more.

Ultimately, I decided to say 'yes' more, even to the situations that I would normally shy away from. (Note: "more", not "always".) Why? Because life is pretty damn awesome, if you think about it. I mean, don't you agree? Just for a moment, think about the infinite possibilities of your life. Not life in general, but your life specifically. Do it.

Sure, you might not get to be an astronaut. You might not discover the cure to cancer. You might not marry Emma Watson. But you might make new friends if you went to that dinner or party with all those strange new people - friends you'll have for years to come. You might discover your new love for music even though you awkwardly have no clue how to act at a concert (seriously, someone tell me once and for all: what am I supposed to do with my hands?!). You might find the dream career you want, even though you'll have to start from scratch. You might fall in love. You might discover the person you truly want to become.

Some like to say life is like walking a path with forks in the road every now and then that command you to make a choice. But what if for every step you take in life, you could turn left or you could turn right? What if you could also choose to go straight ahead? Or backwards? Or even up? I also used to think life was like a path; now I think it's more like an open field.

This may be The Fault In Our Stars speaking, but you have infinite potential as a person because you have an infinite number of decisions you can make to determine who you are. Sure, you might just be this one person, and your life has its limitations; the same goes for everyone else. But within those boundaries lies your own set of infinite possibilities, different from anyone else's. And only you have the power to make those decisions.

I have hardly reached any of the goals I have set for myself, and I'm still bound by the responsibilities and constraints of my situation. I also understand that I have been incredibly blessed to have so much in my life, which has opened up many opportunities for me. But more importantly and more than ever, I feel in command of my life. Without a doubt, I have made some bad choices this past year - deplorable, regretful, horrid decisions. But I also made a few good ones. And that sense of reward is definitely worth the risk.

With my blog posts, I hope that I can intrigue a reader enough to plant a thought. I'm not looking to change lives with my writing, but for me, it's infinitely awesome that words I write might make someone think differently, even if just the tiniest bit. I can't imagine that anyone that finishes reading this will run out the door, quit his/her job, and dedicate his/her life to being the first person to ever breakdance on Mars. But I do hope that maybe this will persuade someone to own their decisions, good or bad. Be responsible for your own happiness and your own sadness - every decision you make is your decision. And if you feel like there are elements of life influencing that decision, it is because you allow it to. You regard it as important/relevant/necessary enough to impact your decisions, and that makes a lot of sense. But I hope that you can appreciate that it is still your decision. Because if it ends up well, it'll be infinitely more rewarding when you own it.

Despite the numerous pitfalls I stumbled upon this year, I'm pretty satisfied with my twenty-third year. It was far from perfect, and me even more so, but maybe that just leaves room for more awesome this coming year.

Here's to twenty-three.

A Love Letter To Plain Jane

Meet Plain Jane. 

She's pretty plain. 

Plain hair, plain eyes, plain face

- much the same. 

She has plain friends, and a plain job - all tame.

Leading the life of the exceedingly mundane.

I suppose there isn't much else to say about Plain Jane,

like picking out a droplet in a torrent of plain rain. 

-----

I overheard (read: not eavesdropped) on the Tube the other day a conversation between two guys, discussing their ventures of the previous night:

So are you gonna see her again?

I dunno. She's kinda plain. 

Although engrossed in my book (John Green's Looking for Alaska, if you were wondering), that word just stuck with me for a while - plain. What's so wrong about being plain?

I think too many people might be overlooking Plain Janes. I'm not judging those two gentlemen on the Tube in any way - to each his own, I say. I totally understand that everyone has their own preferences. But I've never understood why 'plain' every ought to be unappealing. In fact, I very much like plain.

I guess for me, plain connotes comfort. Comfort in the sense that there is a certain simplicity in beauty - a sort of quiet radiance. Homely, even (and even that word carries a negative physical connotation - why should something of the home be deemed unattractive?). Some girls scream hotness; some girls hum with prettiness. I guess I just always imagined myself with the latter (not that I don't really, really appreciate the former). You grab someone that's hot, but you hold someone plain. You hug someone hot, but you embrace someone plain. You make out with hot, but you kiss plain.

With Plain Janes, they look better dressed in baggy pyjama pants and your ill-fitting t-shirt than they do in a strapless, backless, midriff-less, and whatever-the-heck-is-left-less dress - not that they couldn't rock one, of course. They tie their hair up (because let's be honest: it's just more practical) over burning in curls, and they shuffle in bunny-shaped slippers rather than tiptoeing in 9-inch heels. They don't need make-up, because that stuff gets in the way when you peck them on the cheek ("Mmm... your blush tastes like chemicals. The good kind."), and they look better barefaced anyway; it's just easier to see more of them without the make-up hiding it all.

You don't have to take a Plain Jane fine dining every weekend, and have to pretend to enjoy delicately minuscule portions on humourously gigantic dishes, because she'll be willing to dig in with her hands the overcooked chicken wings you made whilst you watch stupid movies like The Hangover with your legs criss-crossed on the bed - AND she'll tell you it tastes good. But when you're not cosying up, Plain Janes also enjoy a little me time now and again, and you do your bit to protect that little sanctuary she so needs, as will she when you go "hang out with duh bros".

Plain Janes never tell you you're perfect just to stroke your ego, because she knows you're smart enough to know that's not true. Instead, she'll tell you straight up what you're not good at, because she'll follow up with how you can change that about yourself, and that she'll be besides you along the way. Plain Janes will never tell you you're invincible - but they will certainly make you feel so.

And the best thing about Plain Janes is when things are at their worst. When you fight, Plain Janes never scream, or throw things at you, or furiously and dramatically storm out the front door. They fight because they care. And when the fury dies down, you know you can sit down with Plain Jane at the edge of your bed and talk things out. You can apologise to a Plain Jane, because Plain Janes forgive and never hold grudges. And then you learn to treat Plain Jane better because you don't have to decipher some cryptically hidden message behind her "I'm fine. Really.".

I get that the impression I might be giving is that I only like Plain Janes. But my message is quite the contrary. It's really that we (me included) should be open to all Janes: Plain Janes, Hot Janes, Nerdy Janes, Cute Janes, Smart Janes, Quiet Janes... and all the Janes in between. Some Janes are even both Plain and Hot! Everyone has their own Jane. But I think the Plain Janes mostly get overlooked - and I'm here to say I, for one, like Plain Janes.

Because, after all, I'm pretty Plain James.

-----

But one fine day, along came Plain James,

Who saw Plain Jane - but not quite the same. 

As he tried to conjure something poetic and witty,

All he could think was how she's just plain pretty.

Her hair, piano black,

with a scent on your pillow stays.

Her eyes, deep hazel,

translates her heart with its gaze.

And a face unforgettable, 

not even willpower could erase. 

Her friends are her family, that she fights unconditionally for.

Her job is her passion; a pursuit not a chore. 

She was waiting for someone with better vocabulary

(or at least someone who writes poems that are a little less ordinary).

But to Plain James, none stood out more than Plain Jane,

like picking out constellations from a sky of plain planes.

If you're wondering who wrote the abysmal Hallmark doggerel that sandwiches this post: yes, it was me. I am not a poet, nor do I intend to be. The entire thing wouldn't fit on a public restroom wall. 

Nature vs. Nurture vs. Soup

The classic 'nature versus nurture' debate basically centres around the question of what determines an individual's traits: are they innately preprogrammed into the person's mind at birth, or are they products of environmental and third party sources? Essentially, the question is: what makes each of us the way we are? Well, I don't fully comprehend the debate, but I'd like to think of myself like a soup. Yes, a soup. Because I'm composed of a multitude of delicious ingredients, all thrown into one big pot and mixed into a scrumptious blend - yet I am still the chef. Here's why. 

Not so much chef (or soup, as a matter of fact),
but I am at least wearing an apron.

I've often attributed most of the successes in my life to others. I'm not sure when I first unearthed the thought, but I have said on a number of occasions that "I surround myself with people that are better than me". By that, I don't actually think people are directly comparable. And that statement is in fact very important to how this little theory of mine works.

You see, no one person is better than the other. But that person might be better at something specifically. So, the way I like to see those around me is that each and every one of them is better than me in one way or another (and in most cases, many ways). Sometimes, I'll know right off the bat what that might be - I'll notice they're consistently hardworking, or that they are very knowledgeable about a certain topic, or they're undoubtedly passionate about their craft - and sometimes, it might be something hidden that becomes increasingly evident over time.

Whilst this applies to everyone I meet to some degree or another, there are a handful of unique individuals I've come across that are apart from the rest. I've had the utmost honour and joy of meeting some incredibly wonderful people in my life. Four of them I've known since birth, and have had a hand in raising me and shaping me as a person ever since, to this very day. But others I've met along the way. They are all extra special to me, and even though a few of them have come and gone, they mean the world to me. These are the people that I know for sure, without a doubt, are better than me in many, if not all, respects. I love, respect and look up to them, because I know they have and are so much more than I am. These are the people I always have in my mind, and always hope to emulate. 

How this all ties into the nurture argument is that all of these people influence me. When I see these great qualities, I hope that I too can embody them. But does that mean that by just being around these awesome people, I can just absorb and photosynthesise their awesomeness? Hardly. 

Here's where I think nature kicks in. You see, it takes that thing in between my ears to determine how I can mimic these qualities. Seeing is one thing; doing is another. That is what I like to think what my personal growth is about essentially: seeing what I want to achieve, and going on to achieve it. The first part is easy-peasy when you see the good that people are capable of. The second part is the real uphill climb. 

My nature also determines which elements I choose to absorb. Just as everyone has redeeming qualities, so do they have darker ones. I myself am certainly no exception. No-one is perfect, and sometimes, the distinction isn't as clear as day and night. What makes each of us unique, I think, is how our nature distinguishes those grey areas, and then goes on to let nurture influence us. 

I'm quite sure I've taken the whole nature vs. nurture debate completely out of context, but I hope you can see the good in the mess that this post might have been (see what I did there?). Keep in mind that we can always learn something from others, and that everyone is great in their own individual way. If we can pick and mix qualities we like, then we should always try to see the best in everyone we meet. But when it comes down to it, what you specifically choose to allow to influence you, is what makes you... well, you.

Everyone in my life has been giving me these wonderful ingredients to work with. But the chef's hat is still on my head, and what makes it into the final dish is my say. And I'd like to think there's something quite wonderful about that sentiment.

Also, if you're wondering, the soup I happen to be is a lobster bisque. I'm fancy like that.

What kind of soup are you?

The Love Currency

Apparently, today's Valentine's Day.

Apparently, that means I should be spending it with a loved one.

Apparently, that requires a loved one.

Apparently, I shall be blogging instead.

Here's one I made earlier.

We all love differently. Yes, it is true that we have similar relationships, such as the ones we have with family, friends, and partners, and we do all share love with those people. We care about them, we trust them, we want to make them happy... the whole shebang. But when you say "I love you" to these people, what does it really mean?

There is no single definition of love (put away your dictionaries, please). When we each love another person, that connection we feel is very personal and unique. So how do we then go about valuing love? How can we say that we truly love someone, or are truly loved by someone?

The titular character from the Pixar short, The Blue Umbrella, which I made.

I was discussing this topic with a good friend of mine, and the analogy of money as love came to mind that I found easy to understand (I know it sounds cold, but bear with me). For each individual connection we have with another person, wealth would represent how much love we have to give, and the spending of the money would be expressions of love, whatever that may be. Say for example, two people are dating. The man tells the woman, "I'm filthy rich, but I can't show you my bank account or tell you how much money I have". The woman only has this man's word to believe, so she can only depend on what he is willing to spend on her. Sadly, he replies, "Sorry babe. All my money is locked up in bonds right now. I can't tell you for sure when I'll be able to spend money on you, but it might happen in the future. But I really am rich". Now the woman is a little more unsure. What if he ends up never spending any money on her at all? But this woman is devoted, and decides to stick around with this supposedly 'rich' man. Some time down the line, that fateful day arrives. "Honey," he says, "the bonds have opened up! I can now finally spend my money on you!". Fantastic - it was what she had been hoping for. But to her dismay, he continued, "I can spend all of my £10 on you now!".

It's a bit far-fetched, I know. Relationships of love are never easily simplified (and how dare I compare precious love to cold, hard cash!), but the point I was trying to bring forward was that the man was not actually lying about being rich. Sure, it would've been better if he were able to express his love earlier on, but these things take time to learn. But he certainly didn't lie about being rich. See, because in his eyes, having £10 could mean being 'rich'. You can't blame him for having different values of what counts as being 'rich'. And yes, maybe the woman did expect more, but she also did no wrong by valuing 'rich' as more than £10.

Sometimes, it's not even about what you value as the love you can give, but how you value love. Because we all see our own form of love from our own angles, it's not entirely impossible for someone that is selfish, demanding, or even abusive, to think that they are in love with their partner. To them, their words and actions are suitable of a loving relationship, and in their minds, they are being as loving as they can be. They can still say "I love you", and fully mean it. But in actual fact, it really depends on how the other person values and receives this love, and what it means to them.

The other takeaway I was trying to make with my analogy is that wealth does not equate expenditure (I have a feeling my economics friends are rubbing off on me). You can be the richest man on earth, having all the love to give to devote to one person, but what does it mean if you can't spend any of it? Why would it matter if you are fully capable of endearing love if you can't express it to that person? That person wouldn't get anything out of that belief. Furthermore, as I discussed before, what is to say that that wealth exists if there is no proof of it? Could you be lying to yourself and others?

I know this all seems very doubtful of those that say they love and I come across as very bitter (Bah! Bumhug! That's the phrase, right?), but I don't mean it that way. Some people find it easier to 'spend' their love more so than others; we're all different in our expressions. And at other times, believing in someone that they love you is enough. The woman in my analogy wasn't being blind or foolish - she was being faithful and committed. Maybe for most people, they would want and ask for more money. But maybe for her, she only needs a little expenditure, and that would be sufficient to make her happy.

And there are certainly different ways of expressing our feelings for others. Where one man may employ elaborate and grand gestures of adoration using timed fireworks, choreographed dancers and synchronised flying doves, the simple embrace of another man may mean equally as much to their respective partners. All this talk about money spending might make me sound very shallow, but these expressions might not even be physical actions. It could be the emotional support when things get rough, the little considerate thoughts and time devoted to listening and understanding, or the kind words that make their day. And as receivers of love, we may seek and ask for different things too. But the important balance in relationships is to understand both the capabilities of giving love, and the desired expectations of receiving love. When two people are in a bond where their capabilities and expectations meet for one another, that is when you have a strong, healthy, and wonderful relationship.

And don't think I'm only talking about lovers (that word somehow makes me cringe); this goes for all types of relationships. Whether you're relearning what your mother would like to hear you say on Mother's Day, or you've got your friend's back in his time of need, or you're looking to take your relationship to the next level of commitment, we need to grasp and accept our counterpart's values of love. How should they see me as a person? What types of responsibilities should I uptake for them? What can they trust me with? What can I do to make them happy? How should I support different aspects of their life? What do they regard as expressions of love?

So I think back to my own wealth and my own spending with each person that I care about. I have been very lucky to have such giving people in my life, so I try to consider what ways I can spend my love on them, and wonder if I have enough to give. But the truth behind my analogy is that we are all rich. We can all be billionaires, with plenty to spare. As humans, we are all capable of being rich with love. It just depends on whether we allow ourselves to be full of love, whether we can learn how to express it in the right way for each of our counterparts, and whether we are willing to when we do know how.

So... anyone have any spare change?