Ocean Blues

An earlier version of the following poem is also published in The Stonefence Review and Graphic Prosetry.


We crack our wrists in sync like we’re the beats

of a live performance.

Sometimes you’re the silence

in the pause

waiting for yourself to bloom lively into rhythm.

Sometimes you’re the silence

at the end of the song, when it’s late

& audience footsteps undulate

a bit like puddles;

once-filtered words come out

a bit mushy,

a bit scrambled like mixed drink.

 

I always wonder what you use to time yourself

because you bleed in & bleed out like ocean.

 

Fish swimming in, sliding through

the dancing kelp in a soundtrack with no volume,

the way you slip out of conversation like

calloused fingertips dragging across a keyboard,

the way you stretch me like a guitar string,

plucked & thrown pillow-melodies.

 

If I’m the music, you’re the hand,

& we make promises to the ears of the living.

You promise me we’ll both make sound

so long as it’s me that you’re playing.

I promise without words, but it’s enough.

 

I wonder if you’ve ever tried

to play a flute while underwater.

 

In my mind, you inhale & thrust your lungs

into the body of a singer.

The singer accepts this transaction as love,

like form of currency &

zips her dress up while she coos your name.

Then she blows bubbles, & the bubbles

tell their friends about you too,

& it goes like this until the body overflows,

& the water spills onto hot dry land,

& all the liquid & sound evaporates,

gets sucked into a thirsty cloud,

& so the whole ocean now is nothing except

the sound of your name in its mouth

as we dream to ourselves that

this catastrophe too must be music.

 

In the silence, I wonder what’s on your mind.

Calculations, maybe, clockwork counting, maybe,

because you could always count

because you could always count

on me to play.

 

I wonder

if you could ever sing a lullaby,

if you could write an anthem for nighttime,

because the thought of you is like a song

that sends me to sleep but still wakes me up,

as if you’re both the beginning & the end,

as if you’re the silence

before & after the music,

as if you’re everything in the music & not,

which would make you the equivalent of everything.

 

& so, I digress,

do you think every song is in love with its writer?

Does every measure love its ending?

Does every organism love its drowning?

 

Somewhere, underwater, a seahorse raises his champagne glass.

A toast, accompanied by crashing waves,

jazz that fizzles into steel tongue laughter.

Somewhere, a lobster grabs a microphone,

shoots a crab in the head with melody.

 

Does every tune end this way,

overflowing with musical doom?

Does every song end with the words,

“I’m in love with you,

and it scares me”?

Because, somehow, I think, I do.

Bildungsroman as Immoral Extra-Relational Fantasy / So Love Isn’t So Simple?

The following poem is also published in The Stonefence Review.


It was interesting the first time,

but now she just wants to banish the butterflies,

mail them away to someone else,

give them pretty feelings to try on.

Anyone can appreciate physical gorgeous in the dressing room

for the first five minutes, anyway. After that, it’s just unfair

to check the mirror & meet the same vision every time.

She turns the lights on & off again

in hopes of seeing something new.

 

Love, like candles & maybe hurricanes, blows over sometimes.

Girl can try to inhale it, savor the foul aftertaste, call it “smoky”

or a nicer word for “shit,”

but, honey, that’s just honey-

coated secret, hiding the undeniable scent of broken.

Outdated sweetness, wind from a window naturally left open.

Not everything is meant to linger. It doesn’t always have to be

somebody’s fault. Still, Girl wonders,

that doesn’t make it right, does it?

 

Like the orbit of Mercury, or

the inevitable crescendo of any hot emotion,

sometimes the breaking just happens. Things get old,

it’s natural to want something new. Trouble is,

love asks for a fair trade. Old bones for new wings.

Break the glass, set the mercury free. If she’s crafty enough,

perhaps, Girl can act like it broke on its own.

 

Today, the glass isn’t thick enough for Girl to feign innocence.

Today, the glass cracks, & the bleeding out begins that way,

like a crash landing: semi-saved by the ocean but ruinous, nonetheless.

Today, the best Girl can do is catch herself drowning,

just before she does something stupid.

 

Sometimes, the only thing Girl can do is live in the past

& keep living in it. Clasp metal to brace her body against the future,

walk backwards to avoid touching the truth

that will eventually step her way.

Until she’s ready to move on, she stays like this.

 

It is safe to live the same, safe to linger in detritus love.

It is safer to smother the butterflies than to accept them.

 

Yet, even trapped, even mangled, some things refuse to die.

Beloved

after Toni Morrison


something about the color of the sky

before the lights go out

makes me remember your eyes with my hands

and want them, the way

they flutter like beads

when a bracelet is torn open

and scatter like rays of light in broken eyes

 

and here I was, thinking

it wasn’t possible to be loved and heartbroken at once

 

You’re burning in the heat of your own light

and I’m stuck piecing your ashes back together

it’s hard enough to touch you, seething

don’t tear me apart as well

 

glass beads, easy, lying,

the skin-deep kind of deceptive

You think you see right through them

pure honesty is scary, You think

well, here’s something you don’t know about me:
I love you so much I get nightmares sometimes and

isn’t that a little scary too?

 

how sour and stinging it must be

to dissolve someone

when their

arm is around your shoulder

how slippery the floor must be

to wash the memories of Girl down the drain

when her eyes avoid contact with yours

yet stare so close they could be

your own

 

but how sweet You must feel

to have that kind of power in the first place

 

how sweet You must feel

how Beloved.

They’re Demolishing the Bookstore We Went to for Our First Date

Even before any of this happened,

I considered going back.

 

Considered revisiting those walls,

stacked ceiling-high with

sanctuary, old and new, considered

burying myself alive

not in the consolation stories I repeated so many times

I forgot what they originally sounded like, but in

stories we skimmed together,

knowing only half-well at the time

what we would never finish.

 

We still imagined the endings anyway, still

joked about the plot twists of classics the way

you’d tell me when a movie was good

even if you’d only seen bits and pieces of it.

We didn’t buy anything that day.

What happens to the books that never get sold?

 

To be surrounded by shelves upon shelves

of things we said “seemed really interesting”

and not reach the final page of any of them

(except your yearbook, in which I wrote H.A.G.S.).

Is there a word in our combined four vocabularies

for the stories that never get told

because, at some point, there’s no one left to listen?

By which I mean, at some point,

you stopped being there to listen.

 

In any case, that day was the first time I ever told you I loved you.

And later that night was the first time you ever called me back.

 

I must’ve been reading something at the time, I mean

I was so happy I didn’t think

we would ever see each other cry.

That’s what you call

judging a book by the first fifty pages

or loving a song for the first thirty seconds.

I mean, we shared both, so

they’re the same like that.

And, hey, we still haven’t seen each other cry,

so maybe we’d get good reviews

for plot consistency.

 

It was casual, tongue-in-cheek

the first time: “How many weeks will it be

before we see each other again?”

 

I guess I’ve read enough books to get good

at predicting endings,

by which I mean,

a part of me guessed, maybe

we didn’t have much time left by that point.

I binged myself on pieces of you, cramming

a lifetime of words into something so much

less because that’s what I do when I stumble across

theories I don’t like.

I try to prove them wrong.

 

It came out different each second, third, fourth time:

“How many weeks will it be

before we see each other again?”

 

You know, I almost cried

the first time I forgot what you smelled like.

 

Passing the front entrance of that old bookstore,

lip quivering like a baby’s (even though I was supposed

to be the mature one). “No rush,” I said, deep inhale,

“I can come back again, so at least we-

at least I still have this.”

 

In any case, the demolition takes place in 2 months.

Fulfillment Through Deprivation: On Loss in The Metamorphosis and Her

A loss is a thing to be mourned, it seems, especially in the context of love. We consider loss—be it through death, divorce, or estrangement—the worst possible outcome. Yet, there is a kind of collateral enablement that comes with this deprivation, a kind of power that comes with letting go. Both Franz Kafka’s novel The Metamorphosis and Spike Jonze’s film Her star protagonists who experience losses so significant to them that it seems they have been deprived of their lifeblood. However, it is only through the loss of these apparent needs that they can achieve their innermost—subconscious, even—objectives. For Gregor Samsa, this means losing his human form, which is inseparably tethered to his status as a worker, in order to find freedom from an overbearing capitalistic society. For Theodore Twombly, this means losing the love of his life—not once, but twice—in order to conquer his underlying fear of being alone. Where these two protagonists differ, however, is in their willingness to sacrifice these apparent needs. Though Gregor realizes that his humanness is what chains him to servitude and prevents his liberation, he is unwilling to relinquish it; the novel ends with Gregor’s death, as the rest of the world moves on. Theodore, on the other hand, is able to come to terms with his loss and, through this, overcome his most underlying challenge. Unlike The Metamorphosis, Her ends with its protagonist alive and newly embossed with purpose. Through their respective struggles with losing their apparent needs, these protagonists reveal the disheartening truth: that, sometimes, what we think we need is not what we actually need. And, sometimes, we need to lose what we think we need in order to get what we actually need.

Gregor Samsa is introduced as the epitome of working individual. His conscious identity revolves solely around what he believes to be his essentials: going to work and providing for his family. It is a famously incongruous opening scene. Gregor wakes up transformed into a “monstrous insect” but is otherwise unperturbed and returns to sleep (3). He expresses strong displeasure only when his physical discomfort reminds him of his job, grumbling “‘Good Lord…what an exhausting profession I’ve chosen” (4). This initial complaint prompts even more extensive complaints about “‘the agony of traveling’” as Gregor entertains the thought of skipping a bit of work to eat breakfast: “‘I’d like to see my boss’s face if I tried that some time; he’d can me on the spot’” (4). The brief satisfaction that Gregor gains from undermining his boss’s authority, even in his imagination, hints at Gregor’s underlying desire to live according to his own schedule and needs. However, he beats these thoughts away “for the time being,” intentionally displacing them with the acceptance of his reality as a cog in the wheel—specifically, a cog in the wheel who cannot afford to lose his job (4). The prospect of unemployment immediately drives him to his sole other point of concern, his parents’ debt. “‘If I didn’t have to hold back for my parents’ sake,’” he explains, “‘I’d have given notice long ago.’” (4). He switches from these concerns to turn his attention back towards work, as his “‘train leaves at five’” (4).

With this first scene, Kafka offers the readers a look into Gregor’s head, which, despite Gregor’s extraordinary physical transformation, is occupied only with mundane maunderings about work and family finances. It is clear that Gregor dislikes his work but resigns himself to it because he believes he has no other choice. He simply needs to work. At this point in the novel, Gregor has not acknowledged his physical transformation or suffered any interpersonal consequences due to his metamorphosis. Therefore, we can assume that he still identifies as human. His thoughts, then, reflect his human identity: the fact that he ponders exclusively about work, family, and money indicates that he sees himself for the productive value he brings to the workplace and the financial value he brings back home. The authenticity of these thoughts is verified by the fact that Gregor has them even in the intimate space of his bedroom, in the privacy of his own head. He has internalized so deeply his symbiotic relationship with corporate servitude and his justification for it that his mind, it seems, cannot wander to anything else beyond those two subjects. Thus, Kafka establishes Gregor’s apparent need, working to support his family, in order to preface the complications that arise with Kafka’s later revelations of Gregor’s underlying need.

Theodore’s introduction is similarly melancholy; the visual and conversational cues construct his identity for the viewer as an exceedingly lonely man, desperately in need of company. After opening a voice message in which someone calls him “‘sad’” and “‘mopey’,” Theodore walks home, alone, wearing an orange jacket and red shirt, while everyone around him is dressed in neutrals (3:40-5:00). This juxtaposition creates an intense sense of alienation, as Theodore seems visually excluded by his surroundings; the only thing lonelier than being alone is being alone while everyone else is together. Theodore then enters his apartment in the darkness, remaining in the dark as “‘Melancholy Song’”  plays in the background (5:00-5:35). The chronological presentation of these mundane daily tasks conveys routineness, implying that Theodore lives like this—lonely, melancholy, alienated—every day. With Theodore’s first flashback, the viewer gets a glimpse of his past, which is starkly different from his current situation: he moves into an apartment with a woman (his ex-wife, Catherine), they help each other carry furniture, they are physically and emotionally intimate, and there is sunlight pouring into the rooms in every scene (6:07-6:20). This fond reflection, especially when viewed together with the scene immediately following, reveals Theodore’s longing for the past, when he was not alone, as he goes from tender joyfulness with Catherine to discomfort in the darkness, alone (6:20-7:00). His loneliness and discomfort leads him to engage in phone sex with a stranger, indicating his desire for physical intimacy as well (7:20-10:05). The very next day, he purchases an Operating System companion with a “female” voice, displaying his desire for emotional intimacy (11:50-11:56). Evidently, Theodore is lonely and yearns for connection. Thus, like Kafka, Jonze uses an introduction to establish his protagonist’s apparent need.

Given their respective introductions, it may seem that Gregor and Theodore have very clear needs which they must satisfy: Gregor to work and support his family, Theodore to form connections with other people. However, the respective creators of these works present these needs in such obvious ways because they intend to complicate the true nature of these priorities. Upon further inspection, we shall find, first, that Gregor and Theodore have needs other than what is explicitly conveyed, and, second, that they must lose these apparent needs in order to satisfy their underlying ones.

Despite Gregor’s repeated insistence that employment and family are his necessary priorities, Kafka reveals, through more subtle images and hints, that these are not his underlying needs. Analyzing the opening scene once more, accounting for these subtleties, delivers a very different impression of Gregor’s supposed needs for work and family. The first sentence of the novel mentions Gregor waking up from “troubled dreams” as a monstrous insect (3). While these “troubled dreams” could refer to Gregor’s literal dreams, a Freudian reading would suggest that they serve a symbolic purpose, perhaps conveying that Gregor’s subconscious is disturbed by his conscious actions and lifestyle. His awakening as an insect, then, represents his awakening from these troubles. In a literal sense, Gregor is separated from his problems by his physical form. Work and family finances are, after all, both exclusively human responsibilities. It is thus hinted at that Gregor’s human form burdens him. In addition, while Kafka describes extensively Gregor’s new insect form (down to the “rigid arches” of his “segmented” belly) as well as Gregor’s surroundings (down to the “glossy” texture of a magazine from which Gregor clipped a picture and the “fur hat[,] fur boa[, and] fur muff” worn by the lady in the picture), Kafka’s only description of Gregor’s human self is “(Samsa was a traveling salesman)” (3). The fact that this comment is sectioned off with parentheses, made almost as an aside, depicts the subject of Gregor’s job as something relatively insignificant. To frame his job in this way may seem incongruous, given that Gregor’s job is essentially the crux of his existence.

However, this is exactly what Kafka suggests: by decreasing the significance of Gregor’s job (relative to trivial details, no less), Kafka subtly conveys that Gregor’s job is not truly fundamental to his existence. This claim is further supported by a scene previously mentioned, in which Gregor talks to himself in his room: “‘If I didn’t have to hold back for my parents’ sake…I’d have given notice long ago.’” (4). Considering that Gregor is alone, it is odd that he would voice this aloud, as if he is insisting to someone else the legitimacy of his need to work. The fact that he feels the need to self-justify implies that Gregor, subconsciously, has reservations about his work-centric lifestyle. Framing his servitude as a need allows him to ignore the heavy question of whether or not this servitude is his actual need. It is only his sudden metamorphosis that can disrupt his blissful ignorance by impairing his ability to serve. With this in mind, we begin to see complexities of Gregor’s underlying needs and identity, beyond what Kafka explicitly conveys.

Similarly, despite Theodore’s apparent commitment to his happiness with Samantha, he is not entirely fulfilled by their relationship because he is only satisfying an apparent need. While Samantha does improve his life in noticeable ways, she is not the solution to what is ultimately a problem with himself: his fear of living as an individual, rather than someone’s other half. If she were the solution to Theodore’s inability to let go of Catherine, then Theodore would not continuously have flashbacks of Catherine after dating Samantha, especially while Samantha excitedly speaks to him (1:10:30-1:10:32). If Samantha were the cure for Theodore’s loneliness, then Theodore would not still be consumed with “‘fear’” and “‘feel[ing] so alone’” as Samantha observes (1:29:34-1:29:48). If Samantha were the solution to Theodore’s struggle with being open in relationships, Theodore would not have responded to the sex surrogate’s description of their relationship as “‘lov[ing] each other without any judgment” with “Wait no that’s not true, it’s more complicated” (1:19:57-1:20:11).

Theodore, like Gregor, is subconsciously aware that pursuing his apparent need does not actually leave him satisfied. And, like Gregor, he does not realize this on his own, since Samantha’s constant presence provides Theodore perpetual instant gratification. While Gregor’s subconscious dissatisfaction manifests itself in his dreams and self-justification, Theodore’s manifests itself in occasional attempts to sabotage his relationship with Samantha. Most notably, after Samantha’s disastrous attempt to have sex with Theodore via surrogate, she sincerely apologizes and repeatedly asks Theodore if he is okay (1:21:20-1:22:10). However, instead of dignifying Samantha’s genuine questions with genuine answers, Theodore takes an offensive stance, judgmentally asking “‘Why do you do that [when you talk]?’” when such questioning is neither warranted nor relevant (1:21:49-1:22:14). And, despite Theodore’s insistence to everyone else that he feels “‘really close to [Samantha]’” (1:02:10-1:02:30), that Samantha is “‘really good for [him]’” (1:07:15-1:07:47), and that he experiences “‘real emotions’” with her (1:08:20-1:08:50), he responds to Samantha’s “‘Fuck you! I’m not pretending!’” with “‘Sometimes, it feels like we are.’” (1:22:57-1:23:04). With this, it becomes clear that being with Samantha does not fix Theodore’s underlying issue, his fear of living by and for himself, and even prevents him from directly confronting it by giving him a crutch on which to fall back.

Thus, in satisfying their apparent needs with temporary solutions, Gregor and Theodore avoid meeting their underlying needs. While Gregor provides for his family as he apparently needs to, he is truly dissatisfied with his life and yearns for freedom. However, so long as he is human, he is capable of working, which is to say, so long as he is human, he is trapped by the system of capitalistic bureaucracy and cannot achieve freedom. Therefore, in order for Gregor to be free from the chains of human responsibility, he must lose his humanness. On a similar note, while Theodore finds a companion in Samantha as he apparently needs to, he too is dissatisfied with his life and struggles to find purpose in his existence as an individual. So long as he is in a romantic relationship with someone, he cannot achieve this end. Therefore, in order for Theodore to conquer his fear of living alone, he must lose both Catherine and Samantha.

It is only after Gregor adjusts to his new insect form and begins to lose his humanness that he experiences the liberation he subconsciously craves. Notwithstanding his isolation, Gregor feels joyful and even relaxed, consumed with “happy absentmindedness”: “He particularly liked hanging from the ceiling high above the room; it was completely different from lying on the floor” (26). In a literal sense, Gregor’s insect form elevates him, as his tarsal claws are what enable him to climb upwards, onto the ceiling. Obviously, humans are physically incapable of replicating this feat, so Gregor’s new form does lend him some physical enhancement. The significance of this enhancement, however, lies in its complete uniqueness. For once, Gregor is unique in the functions which he performs, no longer just an indistinguishable, replaceable employee. His human identity is inseparable from work and servitude. This feeling of being “different” from a prior state is, in and of itself, liberating to him; he “breathe[s] more freely” (26). The symbolic implications of this elevation also reveal the liberation Gregor finds in being un-human. He no longer dwells on the floor, as he both literally and figuratively did when he was a human and allowed himself to be trampled on by his boss and family. He “particularly likes” this change (26). It is worth noting that Kafka does not describe Gregor as particularly liking anything prior to this, except for milk, which, no longer even “taste[s] good to him at all” (18). By highlighting Gregor’s newfound particular preference, Kafka implies that Gregor now, more so than before, is able to enjoy experiences as they come, rather than constantly disregard his current unhappiness with the consolation that his situation will eventually change.

Where Kafka really proves the point that Gregor must lose his humanness in order to obtain freedom, however, is when Grete and Gregor’s mother discuss clearing out Gregor’s room: “[Gregor] would be able to crawl about unhindered in every direction, but at the price of simultaneously swiftly and completely forgetting his human past” (27). Gregor decides he is “unwilling to forego” his last connections to his human self; he is not willing to sacrifice his apparent need in order to satisfy his underlying need (27). The story ends with Gregor dead, as his family—the original motivating force behind Gregor’s work-centric identity—moves on.

Unlike Gregor, Theodore is able to come to terms with his loss; he finally realizes that he can exist with meaning, even without a relationship. The film builds up to this realization by explicitly presenting Theodore’s need for companionship but also displaying the negative effects of this dependence. When Samantha questions Theodore about why he has not finalized his divorce, he tells her “‘I’m not ready. I like being married’” (27:24-27:27). This statement reveals that Theodore is not attached to Catherine specifically but rather the idea of being together with someone. He does not fear losing Catherine in the divorce; he fears being alone because he lacks confidence and purpose as an individual. The only reason why he works up the courage to meet with Catherine to “sign the papers, be divorced, [and] just move forward” is that he believes himself to be securely in a relationship with Samantha by this point (1:03:14-1:03:25). And, even then, he is not completely comfortable with letting Catherine go. When she signs the papers, he remarks, almost alarmed, “‘You don’t have to do it right now,’” revealing his hesitation (1:05:38-1:05:42). Theodore’s hesitation about the divorce is really his hesitation about losing people in general.

It is this underlying fear of being alone which he truly needs to confront and reconcile. However, as mentioned, Theodore cannot confront this true need without losing Samantha first.  The ending reflects this realization, as losing Samantha forces him to confront his aloneness. Whereas he was not fully able to accept his divorce with Catherine when they met in person, Theodore spends the final scene of the film writing a letter to Catherine, this time fully acknowledging that their relationship has ended. He sincerely apologizes for his mistakes, acknowledges his flaws, and tells her that he will continue to love and support her even though they are no longer together (1:54:59-1:56:36). It is a bittersweet ending, but the sun rises in the background, as Theodore sits on a rooftop and shares a smile with his friend (1:56:42-1:57:22). He is no longer in the dark, lonely and grasping for company. It takes losing love for him to realize that he can survive letting go.

Ultimately, both Gregor and Theodore must be rid of their apparent needs in order to satisfy their underlying ones, as it is only through these losses that they can see and experience what they are without those singular, significant pieces. These sacrifices are painful, but as the ending of Her suggests, we cannot live fulfilling lives if we refuse to let go. And, as the ending of The Metamorphosis suggests, to live unfulfilled is to not live at all. The loss in action is almost always a sad thing. But perhaps lacking does not always warrant mourning.

Love and Deception in The Knight from Olmedo

Version Used: Edwards, Gwynne, translator. “The Knight from Olmedo.” Three Major Plays, by Lope de Vega, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 83–167.

The adage love can overcome all problems has, over time, been rivaled by the less idealistic but perhaps more accurate love is not enough to fix all problems. In his tragicomedy The Knight from Olmedo, Lope de Vega presents a yet another claim: sometimes, love is the problem—and people are to blame. It is no secret that love inspires strong emotions, for better or for worse. The Knight from Olmedo explores the “for worse” side of this truth, that both love and the prospect of it can drive humans to emotional extremities. However, while love possesses powerful influence, it is not inherently destructive. Rather, the danger of love stems from its distortion, the problematic human glorification of it. Such is the case for Rodrigo—the poor fool who, hopelessly in love with Ines, turns mad, kills Alonso, then meets his own demise. In juxtaposing quixotic depictions of love with Rodrigo’s less fortunate example, Lope de Vega suggests that the romanticized prospect of love desensitizes people to the reality of it, as people become so consumed with want that they convince themselves that they need and can get. Thus, while love itself is not a villain, the authority with which characters choose to imbue it makes love the singular most destructive force in this play.

The Knight of Olmedo begins with the establishment of love as a positive, influential force in order to contextualize Rodrigo’s insistence on achieving love for himself. The very first line, spoken by Alonso, venerates Love: “Let no one speak the name of Love / Who does not eagerly respond to it” (Act I, pp. 83, lines 1-2). The capitalization of the “L” in “Love” not only elevates love’s status from common noun to proper noun but also names it, as if to personify love as a prominent presence. The fact that love’s authority warrants—demands, even—that love be dignified with an eager response also suggests its elite nature. “And yet,” Alonso continues, “who is there on this earth / Of ours whom it has left untouched?” (Act I, pp. 83, lines 3-4). With this, Alonso makes the secondary point that Love is not just powerful but also ubiquitous; to love and be loved is both desirable and expected. If someone has not experienced love, then, this lacking makes them different from everyone else on earth in a negative way. In theory, the proliferation of something as profound and beautiful as love should be a positive phenomenon.

However, it is exactly this painting of love in such a positive light that gives love the potential to be dangerous. People, allured by the prospect of this wonderful notion, become desperate for it, become expedient to attain it. In addition, the claim that everyone has experienced love is not only objectively untrue, but it surrounds situations of loveless-ness—including situations of unrequited love, as Alonso remarks, love “only felt by one…falls far short of…perfection”—with stigma, unfairly outcasting those who have not experienced mutual love (Act I, pp. 83, lines 24-25). By opening the play with enumerations about love’s power and prevalence, de Vega establishes a set of ideas about love that Alonso believes. Idealistic, far-fetched, and untrue as these ideas may be, the fact that the protagonist subscribes to them awards them a certain ethos within the context of the play; it can be assumed that Alonso’s beliefs are not starkly in contrast to those of his society. From this, we can draw the conclusion that Alonso’s beliefs about love are at least somewhat commonly held, justifying his reliability as a point of reference. This information enables us to understand the source of Rodrigo’s extreme desperation to experience mutual love and avoid loveless-ness.

De Vega builds on this contextualization, again through Alonso, by foreshadowing the potential dangers of giving love too much authority over oneself, which Rodrigo unfortunately does. Expanding on his earlier comments about love’s immense influence, Alonso suggests that feelings of desire, inseparable from love, overcome his ability to control his actions: “Desire is / The master of my will” (Act I, pp. 84, lines 44-45). Having any character openly surrender themselves to love at the onset of the play suffices to convey that love is appealing enough, powerful enough, and perhaps intoxicating enough to influence judgment and agency. Having the protagonist openly surrender himself to love justifies this surrender—implying that even people of relatively strong character are not immune to love’s charm—and even glorifies it to an extent by lending surrender the ethos of the hero. Again, assuming that Alonso’s views reflect those of his society, the common impression of love thus dictates that it is both excusable and potentially admirable to give oneself to the powerful influence of love. These prevalent beliefs are most likely the beliefs to which Rodrigo is exposed and subscribed. As Rodrigo’s own misfortune later suggests, however, these ideals are misleading and potentially dangerous; love’s potency (and people’s subsequent surrender to it) can be its catastrophic side-effect.

With this establishment of how characters understand love in mind, we can now examine how that misguided understanding unfolds in Rodrigo’s example, ultimately proving that love is the most lethal force in this play. Rodrigo is determined to be loved, though his chances at success are complicated by the fact that his love interest despises him. Ines disdainfully mentions that Rodrigo has “been [her] suitor” “For two / Years now” and “His looks and flattering words turn [her] / To ice” (Act I, pp. 89, lines 181-184). Ines’s harsh rejection, understandably, is a problem for Rodrigo, due to the fact that he loves her. Moreover, this long-standing problem of unrequited love is not one that Rodrigo himself can solve, as he cannot control how Ines perceives him. Even his best efforts are regarded with disgust.

Instead of giving up on Ines and making peace with the reality that she will never return his feelings, Rodrigo becomes increasingly obsessed with acquiring Ines’s love. “The more / Her cruel disdain attempts to kill / My love,” he laments to Fernando, “the more it burns” (Act I, pp. 102, lines 523-525). The parallelism of “The more…the more” indicates a direct relationship between Ines’s disdain and Rodrigo’s love. The disjoint nature of Ines’s and Rodrigo’s respective desires is further emphasized by the juxtaposition of Ines’s “disdain” and Rodrigo’s “love.” Eventually, it becomes undeniable, even to Rodrigo, that his “cause is lost” (Act II, pp. 123, lines 395). Still, Rodrigo does not give up on Ines; he continues to fixate on her but also directs his attention towards resenting Alonso. Given that Ines had been rejecting Rodrigo before even meeting Alonso, Alonso is not responsible for the asymmetrical nature of Rodrigo’s love in any way. Yet, Rodrigo decides that he ought to kill Alonso.

Most likely, Rodrigo cannot cope with the notion that mutual love does not occur to everyone and thus feels the need to blame something tangible. Alonso, as Ines’s current love interest, is an easy scapegoat. Rodrigo’s earliest remark about his jealousy is that he “observed [Alonso] carefully…prompted by this jealous heart” (Act II, pp. 123, lines 377-378). In the next act, he, increasingly passionate, entertains the intrusive thought of Alonso’s death: “I’m so jealous…I long to see him dead” (Act III, pp. 146, lines 175-176). Soon after, he is pushed to a breaking point, “driven mad with jealousy” (Act III, pp. 146, lines 183). While Rodrigo repeatedly claims that he wants to murder Alonso out of jealousy, this jealousy stems directly from his obsession with achieving mutual love: he would not view Alonso as an obstacle to mutual love if he did not believe there was, in fact, mutual love waiting for him on the other side. Two whole years of rejection from Ines—even without Alonso’s influence—should have made it clear to Rodrigo that mutual love (at least from Ines) is not written in the stars for him. Yet, he still clings to the prospect of love because he has internalized the aforementioned notions surrounding it: that love is a powerful force of good, that everyone should be in mutual love, that to give oneself entirely to love is excusable and admirable. Thus, the murder is the result of Rodrigo’s self-deception regarding the possibility of mutual love. The crescendo of Rodrigo’s jealousy from Act II to Act III, in addition to that jealousy’s existence, furthers the claim of love’s destructive potential. Not only is the effect of love on Rodrigo strong, but it is parasitic, viral in the way it increasingly (as opposed to stagnantly) corrupts his morality, mental stability, and judgment.

In perpetuating a culture of and harboring extreme desires for mutual love, the characters in this play create another dangerous by-product: the fear of loveless-ness. Everyone wants love; everyone wants to believe that they can have it. Rodrigo is no exception. When people desperately desire love, they are willing to do almost anything for it. Conversely, when people desperately fear loveless-ness, they are willing to do anything to avoid it. One could reasonably speculate, then, that this second motivating force of fear rivals, or maybe even surpasses, the first motivating force of desire. The way Rodrigo phrases it himself is that he “cannot stand” or “endure” the reality that Ines loves Alonso and therefore does not return Rodrigo’s love (Act III, pp. 140, lines 26-28). The fact that he, on an existential level, cannot bear this reality indicates that he does not just want to believe that there is hope for himself; he needs to. Consequently, when the possibility of living without mutual love becomes increasingly likely, as is the case, Rodrigo resorts to self-deception as a solution. This deception allows him to avoid a painful confrontation with reality but also renders him delusional. Delusion and resentment, albeit misaimed resentment, make a deadly combination.

It is worth noting that Rodrigo is an otherwise non-deceptive character. Rodrigo does not lie to anyone else. In fact, he is exceedingly transparent. He reveals his inner thoughts to Fernando, even though they convey that he is vulnerable and awkward: “This sword of mine, quite useless…I [feel] embarrassed” (Act III, pp. 139, line 3-4). He reveals to Alonso that he intends to kill him dishonorably, even though this revelation exposes Rodrigo as a coward: “I come to kill / You, not to challenge you!” (Act III, pp. 159, lines 544-545). All this goes to show that desperation for love can put an otherwise honest man into a perpetual state of deception, specifically self-deception. Rodrigo fools himself and lets himself be fooled into believing that killing Alonso will fix his primary problem, his unrequited love for Ines. Rodrigo himself even admits that his idea is mad and uncharacteristic of himself, but “Love has made [him] so!” (Act II, pp. 125, line 439). With this, Rodrigo concedes that he has surrendered his judgment to love but also suggests that love is the one in control, not himself. It is, perhaps, tempting to blame or ridicule Rodrigo for succumbing to these desires. However, we must recall that surrendering oneself to love is both a socially acceptable and even admirable belief. Though extreme in his interpretation, Rodrigo is actually thinking in accordance with common perceptions of love. It is these perceptions which imbue love with the authority to reign over judgment. It is these perceptions which render love dangerous.

The play supposedly ends on a positive note, at least leaving the reader with a sense of schadenfreude, when the King quickly declares, “Cut off their evil heads” to punish Rodrigo and his accomplices for killing Alonso (Act III, pp. 167, line 754). But, is this not a tragedy as well? A man so desperate for mutual love that he willingly deludes himself just so that he can cope with being alive.

In exploring the alternatives to successful mutual love through Rodrigo, Lope de Vega presents us with reality—that love is not always glorious and mutual—and reveals the dangers of our refusal to confront that truth. The bane is not always the obstacle standing in the way of love. The bane is the insistence that the love is there, even when it is not. Humans treat loveless-ness as if it is something to fear, when the most fearful thing about loveless-ness is the measures to which humans will desperately go in order to avoid it. It is these human actions, rooted in delusions about love, that deal severe and lasting damage: self-delusion, loss of sense, moral degradation, wasted time, literal death. Love is not inherently destructive. People make it so.