Spock's Third Essay on Love
Michael Adams
February 14, 1999
Preface
A few years ago, I attended a Creative Writing class. In each of the two years I was in it, I wrote what my teacher titled "Spock's Essay on Love," in celebration of my methodical attitude within the first essay. That first essay practically4 dismembered "love." But the second was a bit more receptive to love, so what should be said in third?
Essay
Cupid lurks in the bushes. A young male and female sit upon a rare park bench. Cupid procures arrows, strangely equipped with heart-shaped heads. He fires... the two are hit... they look at each other... smiles... they embrace. Satisfied in his work, Cupid flies off to seek more "victims."
What of long time friends of similar condition? Being associated for many years, the male may finally understand his female associate, and wish to "further the relationship." The female may reach a similar conclusion. If successful, one of them, or both, will successfully form a new couple, based on love, romance, and hormones, rather than friendly association and need.
And what of enemies? A male, submitting to the power of a strong female, or vice-versa, may eventually grow fond of each other. As long-time friends end up associating, bitter enemies may find themselves enjoying embrace, rather than distance; love, instead of pain.
What does all this mean? They are all forms of love, which develop in their own manner. Random love, associative love, and love of one's enemy, are all methods of ensnaring people into a form of love, that extends beyond crushes, but may not be based on a sexual attraction or other forms. "Common love" as I term it. "Common love" can be both a good and a bad thing. I may not be an expert on it (I presently have a history of zero girlfriends and zero dates at the humble age of seventeen), but I have observed and "brushed-with" enough of the material and concepts to make a conclusion on it.
When one experiences "common love," it seems to create a positive response; a more stable relationship. I compare this to other associations: friends, who do not become very close; promiscuous persons, who seek only sex; financial links, where the couple is tied together only by their finances and enterprises; and the simple crush, which contains both fondness and passion, but is hardly reciprocated or possible to solve (movie persons, singers, etc.). If the love is not totally based on money, sex, or unattainable persons, then it has no other link but pure respect and comprehension. Granted, people may spend their whole lives together and not know each other completely, but that solitary link is there.
And are all such associations based on "common love" successful? Some couples break to satisfy one's other agenda or ambitions; and some give up their own ambitions to aide their new mate. Some couples begin to find increasing disagreement, and succumb to the hostility outside "common love." Some dissociate from "common love," as obsessions of money, overworking, and sexual dissatisfaction infiltrate the association. Some couples never form, its members fearful that a working status quo will be lost to "experimentation."
And what happens when love fails? New hostilities may disrupt careers, homes, photographs that are soon defaced, a so forth. If the couple marries, a cold marriage or hostile divorce and separation of the family results. If the association isn't dissolved right, its descendants and benefactors are harmed in ways that could last for days, months, or even a lifetime.
So what of love? Is it worth it? Its presence may injure other suitors to the couple. Its formation may grant the ultimate encouragement to proceed with new ventures and ideas. It may bring good people together... and ruin others. Overall, as long as love is formed as "common love," and not any other form, and as long as it is carefully sustained... it is worth it.