A Contribution to Antonio’s Blog by Steven Gregory.

One of the oldest texts in the world, the Tao Te Ching, also happens to be one of the most widely translated books in history. Although its true origins are somewhat unknown, its teachings are said to have began sometime during the Zhou Dynasty, when, as fable has it, a woman finally gave birth to a wrinkly baby with grey hair, after more than 50 years (62 years according to legend) of pregnancy. Laozi, or ‘Old Master’, began teaching himself in the high courts, and soon became disillusioned with the Chinese government and decided to leave. Before leaving however, a guard on China’s border pleaded the wise man to write down his teachings, and thus the Tao Te Ching was born. Composed of 80 chapters, or small poems, Laozi’s teachings deliver a broad spectrum of thought-provoking philosophy that has actually evolved into a religion. Eventually this ancient text was introduced to the West, but unfortunately because there are many cultural and idealistic concepts present in this book for which the West has no knowledge of (or even a word for), the translations are heavily subjective and based on interpretation of the translator. There tend to be three major categories of translations however, the literal translation, the poetic translation, and of course the political translation.

Undoubtedly the most controversial and interpretative chapter is the first. Although across the many translations it expresses the same principal idea, language and diction gives the text different connotations. For example, in the translation by Ursula K. Le Guin, the excerpt, “So the unwanting soul sees what’s hidden, and the ever-wanting soul sees only what it wants” the wording is expressed in a more poetic undertone, suggesting its meaning in not only a physical, but a spiritual sense, unlike the more materialistic translation by S. Mitchell stating, “Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations” which expresses the same general idea, just in a more interpretative and physical sense, rather than with the spiritual aspect. Similarly, Mitchell’s opening chapter states, “The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name” which does attempt to interpret any Eastern concepts, is generally more difficult to understand because of this, compared to the much more flowery “A way can be a guide, but not a fixed path; names can be given, but not permanent labels.” In this translation by Thomas Cleary, the Tao is interpreted to be ‘A way’, a Western idea that does not actually have the same meaning as ‘The Tao’. In fact, the distinction is even made between this ‘way’ as being not a path to follow, but a ‘guide’, even though The Tao is really neither.

In similar fashion, the 77^th chapter is an excellent example of how the Tao Te Ching can be interpreted in a more political sense, focusing on the physical and moral implications amongst a greater society. The excerpt “Those who try to control, who use force to protect their power, go against the direction of the Tao. They take from those who don’t have enough and give to those who have far too much. ” by S. Mitchell chiefly exemplifies this by establishing the presence of the very specific ‘force’ and ‘power’, both words that are usually associated with the government. This is a very political interpretation of the Tao Te Ching as opposed to Yi-Ping Ong’s “It is the Way of Heaven to remove where there is excess and add where there is lack. The way of people is different: they take away where there is need and add where there is surplus” which uses words like ‘excess’ and ‘lack’ that are much more broad and encompassing, thus expanding the overall meaning of the passage beyond just the implied idea of controlling force like a government.

These minor differences amongst the many translations of the Tao Te Ching may not seem like important elements of Taoism, but for a Westerner reading such a translation it may in fact have a surprising effect on that persons view and understanding of The Tao. This is why it is quite important for readers to try and see these various interpretations. This also points to the immense flexibility of the already ambiguous text and philosophy.

(Facebookers, please ignore the double posting)

I always thought I hated comic books. As a kid I avoided shows like X-men and Batman and TNMT, and I have no idea why. Point being, until my favorite kick ass Vampire slayer (Anita Blake) was turned into a comic book, I never read any comics at all. After Anita, I picked up X-Men: The End, and I was stricken with Emma Frost, after that I went on to explore more interesting characters, and actually bought comics for the first time in my life (as a 19 year old no less) I fell in love with Sabretooth, Emma Frost, Mystique, the Silver Surfer, Storm and especially with Deadpool (“Do I still think in those little boxes? Oh how I missed you, what fun we shall have!”)

Shortly after Anita Blake came out, I thought of transferring my favorite creation (Merrick Anatole Silvak) from novel to comic book, I even wrote a small script and drew a small story board that sucked and I scrapped, along with the script. I suspected that the majority of comic book readers (male, straight, teens-thirties) would really not be too interested in a megalomaniacal gay sorcerer (if at all) So I moved on to writing short stories and fantasy novels that included strong leading female and gay characters, ignoring the comic aspect of speculative fiction.

I eventually came up with my new favorite creation, a bisexual teen living vampire named Kevin James Lancaster (no, I did not intend for it too sound like Harry James Fucking Potter, it just unfortunately happened) and then I really wanted to see a bi character in a comic. Then on June 1^st, someone told me about American Comic’s first gay kiss between Rictor  and Shatterstar*

So, I googled (I LOVE google, you can know the basics of virtually anything in a manner of minutes!!) and found that there is a medium sized list of gay superheroes that I was unaware off (I was aware of Emma Frost’s brother Christian, but that’s it, and he had no powers)

First off on the list was obviously Batman and Robin, which is just speculation and the creators deny it, and I myself don’t believe it, but apparently, many people do believe it.

Then on the list is the uber-flamboyant, HIV-positive Hispanic Extrano (Strange in English) in 1988. He could use magic and I consider him generally not interesting.

Alan Moore (one of my favorite comic writers) was the next one to explore Gay and Lesbian Themes in V for Vendetta and Watchmen (That’s probably why he’s a favorite of mine, plus he’s British). At about the same time that The Sandman ( Neil G-something, the same dude who wrote Stardust I think, correct me if I’m wrong, I’m writing from memory here) was exploring themes of transexuality.

Then came Apollo (a superman archetype character) and Midnighter (a batman archetype character) who actually got married and adopted a daughter. I am personally not a fan of Apollo, but Midnighter’s violent take on life I very much enjoy. (I likewise hate both Batman and Superman, I am very much a Marvel kind of person) At this point I realized that Marvel’s giant leap forward was actually long after Apollo and Midnighter got married. Apparently, the Big Gay Kiss happened in the year 2000. Windstorm the publisher of the comic is related legally somehow to DC, and I can’t bloody figure out how. Oh and they’re a British Branch. So no American.

Because I’m on a DC roll, I would like to add now, that the newest incarnation of Batwoman (Kate K-something) is lesbian, and since I’m not a DC comics person, I really don’t know much about that.  (and DC seems generally homophobic, except for Apollo and Midnighter).

But I do know that the amazing Mystique (we’re talking Marvel now, so this I do know) and Destiny (who can tell the future and is blind, wow, big surprise) were lovers, but it was all hush-hush because of Marvel’s ridiculous “no gay” rule. I am not too sure how I feel about the whole sensitive Destiny, very feminine and kick-ass bitch Mystique all in control of the world being a couple because it seems to play too much on the whole masculine lesbian, feminine lesbian, masculine gay, effeminate gay thing. But overall, since I love Mystique, I am willing to overlook what as Moore calls it “that strange attitude towards gays” oh, and Destiny, who I previously hinted that I believed was a boring character, was murdered, so Mystique is alone again.

Then I came across THE couple: Hulkling and Wiccan from Young Avengers (ok, when I said I hated DC I was omitting the Teen Titans) Hulkling is a teen version of the Hulk archetype (not a teenage Bruce whatshisname, just a similar personage ability wise) who is part Skrull and part something else who can shape shift, become somewhat Hulk-like and has the necessary healing factor to go with it (btw, I am not a huge fan of the Hulk or She-Hulk [horrible sexist name] but the 2008 movie was good, therefore I thought I would likewise hate a character named hulkling, but I was wrong) Wiccan is a teenage, male version of another favorite female character of mine, Scarlet Witch. And he totally kicks ass, just like Wanda, plus he’s a guy that adds points to his awesomeness. Their relationship was hinted at from the very beginning, but was confirmed in issue twelve (I think) when they had a very sentimental and cute and awesome set of panels where they decide they are dating, they should go looking for Scarlet Witch, take a trip together, et cetera. ( I can’t do the relationship justice in words).  I absolutely love this couple and I can’t wait for the peck on the cheek that has to come next (unless it already happened and I am already behind again, which happens all the freaking time!!) My favorite quotes from this pair are the following:

“My name’s Billy Kaplan and its official, I have the coolest boyfriend EVER!” – Wiccan

And:

Wiccan: Why bother, he never listens

Hulkling: Hey, I heard that

Wiccan: Oh sure, NOW he listens.

Which I find adorable.

Anyway, in reading this I realized that Northstar is gay, which I someone managed to miss. I have absolutely no idea how I missed it, but I did. And in the Ultimate X-Men incarnation he dates Colossus, no joke. Other noteworthy gay characters in the Marvel universe (recent Marvel universe) are Anole, a lizard-type mutant who was supposed to commit suicide but didn’t cause he’s cool like that. Three characters who I had to wiki cause I have no bloody clue who they are: Phat, Vivisector (sounds too much like viviparous to me, made me laugh, get it? he’s gay and he’s called Vivisector?) and Bloke, all three characters are mercifully dead.  Also included in wiki’s list (which I found far too late in my writing) is someone named Graymalkin who sounds like a character with awesome potential (all of his abilities only work when he’s in the dark!!)  Anole by the way was mentored by Northstar (that was somehow important) Oh and a lesbian character named Karma was listed somewhere in there too.

Ok this brings about the end of my initial look into gay comic book characters. I have a few personal last words.

As a gay man living in America, I appreciate the fact that there are gay superheroes who do not remind me of the gay people I unfortunately know. I say this because I believe that people, gay, bi, straight, or asexual, are all meant to be self-reliant, strong-willed, self-assured and self-critical. Unfortunately, its rarely that I see a gay man be those things in real life, and too often am I reminded that stereotypes are born in reality and that all too often, people who would otherwise have unlimited potential, get caught up in these molds and never move beyond them. I feel like I am surrounded by weak-minded, shallow, emotional gays and lesbians who lose themselves in the stigma and the even worse “pride” that stands as a senseless act of alienation from the rest of society.  I enjoy the Young Avenger’s pairing of Billy and Ted because aside from dealing with real issues like coming out and homophobia, they also continue living as normal a life as any superhero can.

A friend of mine posted this and i felt obligated to repost it here.

When Marriage Between Gays Was a Rite
http://www.global.org/Pub/Gay_Marriate_Rites.asp
An article in the Irish Times that discusses same gender unions in the early church.
by Jim Duffy
Published in 1998
Gay Christians
As the churches struggle with the issue of homosexuality, a long tradition of gay marriage indicates that the Christian attitude towards same sex unions may not always have been as “straight” as is now suggested, writes Jim Duffy.

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The “husband and wife” are in fact two men.

Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual “marriage” is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that “we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life”. More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the “sweet companion and lover” of St. Bacchus.

In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their “marriage”.

The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual “marriage” did exist as late as the 18th century.

Contrary to myth, Christianity’s concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual.

Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the “Office of Same Sex Union” (10th and 11th century Greek) or the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century).

These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th / early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.

Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union”, having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to “vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints”. The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded”.

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic “Office of the Same Sex Union”, uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that antihomosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope’s parish church) in 1578 a many as 13 couples were “married” at Mass with the apparent cooperation of the local clergy, “taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together”, according to a contemporary report.

Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper.

Boswell’s academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.

It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.

www.youtube.com/theamazingatheist.

Go watch!!!

As you may or may not have noticed, I haven’t posted anything in a very long while, and not like I used to post, almost every day. I have a few reasons for this, one of them being that I was not in a writing kind of mood. So many things have happened between my obsessive write a post a day times of Heroes season 3 and June of two-fucking thousand nine.

Several things contributed to this lack of blogging: I finally sat my fat ass down and read Atlas Shrugged. One of my best friends left me, and that hurt. I have been writing back-story and outlines for Blue Willow, which is now a writing project that is a year old. I’ve been reading too much philosophy and the new Anita Blake book came out. Etc, etc. Other things that were good is that Gay marriage is legal in six states (count them SIX!! Of course gay marriage is still banned in 40, count them 40!!) And Barack Obama is delightfully ignoring the gay rights people, and not half as much as should have been already done for the environment is being done. One thing that has been taking up way too much of my time is watching the videos of TJ The Amazing Atheist on YouTube to who I will link and have a video of, just to get your attention.

Also, I have been practicing Neutral Jin on the matter of gay rights, watching from the sidelines and doing nothing much. However, I read one personal account by a Mormon that has changed that attitude, she presented a very flawed, pathetic and basically bullshit reason for not supporting gay marriage. And I there is something that I hate is flawed reasoning and hypocrisy, so I will address that as well. So I have a list of things that I have to write about:

Friendship and preconditions for it.

Views on Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged.

Gay Marriage.

Mormons General Politics, with emphasis on the economy and Human Rights and the environment.

And that is all for now.

Over the years, since as I was old enough to read, I have hungered for knowledge. Knowledge, my Dad always told me, is power, and as cliché as that sounds, he’s right. And that hunger has overwhelmed all of the other thing s that a human craves: acceptance, community, happiness, and just recently, spirituality. Perhaps the one thing I haven’t been able to lose is my ability to love, and that seriously bothers me.
My quest for knowledge brought me face-a-face with religion, and I soaked up what it had to teach. I’ve been Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, Pagan, and Agnostic, before I finally managed to see though all of the illusions, and wove my own. Catholicism has roots in paganism, Mormonism had roots in the Occult teachings of the Great Hermes, the same Hermes that taught Anton Le Vey and Alistair Crowley about the Demons of Hell and of the Satanic tradition, Islam was Judaism and Catholicism repackaged with hints of Arabian Paganism, Paganism was based on imagination and love. And every religion I’ve been a part (save Paganism) requires your fear and your blind adoration. They require that once you’ve accepted them, you cannot accept any other knowledge, and if you do, it must be though their filter. Religion, is indeed a virus, it drives men and women mad, insane with a pathetic urge to make life mean exactly what they want it to be. It drives them to embrace their own selfless ambitions and ideas because it gives them the illusion of power; it gives them something to back up their prejudices and their rage,
And that was one thing that I never managed to learn. My prejudices are backed up by me, my own selfish desires, not someone else’s. Agnosticism allowed me the luxury of apathy, but I grew sick of it, apathy can be beautiful, but most often it leaves a sour taste in your mouth. I wanted more, and I stumbled into Atheism, and my world made sense again.
As an atheist I grew, faster than I did before. The rules of other people began to fail to apply to me, everything began to evolve into something coherent and progressive, rather than obscene and repressive like faith. The great arguments that I listened to in religion became just mouth moving, uttering words that only make sense if you believe in other words, that on their own are just as meaningless as the first. Arguing with such men is futile, they circle around their lies like vultures around a corpse, and nothing can bring them down. I’m not saying its not fun to argue with them, but you never manage to get anywhere.
But I realized as I went along that everything I believed in, in a philosophical sense already had a name. It had a holy book, and that holy book had been in my possession for years: the Tao Te Ching of Laozi.
The Tao Te Ching is still my holy book of choice, its nothing really holy about it, its nothing more than 5000 Chinese characters written on paper, and overall it seems nothing more than a collection of poems. To others it s political manifesto, but to me, it’s a set of paradoxes that appear to be absurd to most, but those who have seen beyond their own illusions, it’s a guide, a subtle but firm guide that points in all directions at once. I believe that the Tao is something most people who can see though the illusion follow on their own, they don’t need the Tao Te Ching, but it helps. The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. And so I follow the Tao as a philosophy, not as a religion. I am still an Atheist, but I am also a Taoist, I suspect tht before I graduate, I may even have lost the Tao and moved on, but that is also what I believed about Anam Cara, and I still (sadly) believe in that, despite the evidence against it (Patrik, Trevor, Tatum, Daniel)
To me Laozi and Zhuangzi are great teachers who much like Jesus, had an intelligence that far surpassed that of everyone else. They had vision, they had a truth in their eyes that could not be denied, a madness that can only be found when a human finds himself face to face with the undeniable reality of our world, beyond the illusions and the lies and the dreams that never seem to go away.

I feel, out of place in my world, the older generation seems hell-bent on holding on to their traditions, traditions that are nothing more than an overgrown and overstayed fad. And as I see younger people, I see the same mistakes, recycled again, with their own feverish idealism and a complete disregard for reality. When I see the older set, I feel a sense of pleasure knowing that soon they will be faced with rot and ash, their belief nothing but memories in the cosmos, their existence nothing more than a hint of the past. When I see the younger people around I feel sad, knowing that my life will be dictated to me by their collective naitivite. Some make me envious, that i can’t feel that sense of humility, sometimes I fear that I may crave that sentiment of happiness, of unitary. And then I see the shadows behind the spiraling minarets, I see the beggars in the alleys under the beautiful temples, and I remember that these young people only are one with the beauty and ignore the ugly. All the world knowing that beauty is beautiful makes ugliness. I hope that someday they realize that the higher they build and the higher they reach, the lower they drive other people, the deeper they are forced into the primal mud from which we came.

After a disappointing Friday night, mainly after i found out that i was not getting two tickets for the Wolverine World Premiere, i decided to see a movie. So i went to the 12:20 am showing of The Soloist.

Right away i caught on to the who schizophrenia thing right off. I really enjoyed Jamie Foxx’s role, and he pulled it off to perfection. He really did have the world on two strings!!

For me it was particularly nice because i know some of the homeless around ASU, we meet on the streets quite frequently, one of them for example has a PhD in anthropology, i learned a lot from him after sneaking into Jack in the Box to steal him a drink (technically it wasn’t stolen! i did nothing illegal)

The idea of a genius homeless guy may seem strange to many, but its not to me. everywhere i go i see the homeless, and if i can, i learn their stories. Most of them don’t want to go back to “normal” society, they are quite content where they are. Often i wonder if they have stumbled upon a greater truth that i can’t see.

It reminds me of Madman from Hex and the City (Simon Green, wonderful author!) He was a genius who stumbled upon The Truth, the Truth were nothing can hide, and he went crazy and ended up on the street. That’s how most homeless are, they know something, and they’ve run away from all the madness and created their own.

Anyway, at one point in the film i got to laugh out loud at teh audience. It was during a minute (possibly more) long period of synchronization between color and music that closely resembles the visualizations on Windows Media Player. Most of the audience scoffed and booed at teh screen and their sad minute of shame, i laughed at them. I can recognize synesthesia when i see it. which made me gape, schizophrenia and synesthesia? poor guy, amazing guy, i mean, just WOW!!

For those of you who didn’t know, synesthesia is one of my favorite things in the world, while not synesthetic myself, i really appreciate a nice story with it. (Freddie Highmore, my favorite actor, is rumored ot play a synesthtic boy in a film adaptation of Beautiful Miscellaneous)

Anyway, The soloist, the plot is a but weak, the acting is AMAZING, teh going is slow and the movie is a tad long, btu you must, MUST go and see it!!

<!– @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –>

OK, so in about 24 hours, it will be my twenty first birthday, and i had to share that.

Anyway. i have decided to read the Bible from Page one of Genesis to the last Amen of the Revelations, including the Apocrypha, again. Because i found my Bible knowledge slipping just a little. And that bothers me, no Christian should be able to out quote me, its just not right at all. Now don’t worry i won’t actually believe any of it, its mostly for entertainment purposes, but i wanted to share this little journey into the Hebrew and Christian Bibles with me. After this maybe i should read the Book of Mormon. Maybe the Quran too. But for now I will begin with the Hebrew Bible.

Next stop: Genesis.

Wish me luck!!

I am celebrating. These past seven days have been amazing when it comes to gay rights.
Sweden, an already liberal country, moved forward and legalized gay marriage, adding themselves to a growing list of countries whose civil, human and equal rights are further ahead than us at the USA. America is quickly losing its claim as the best country in the world, and very much losing its authority in the world. Well, partially, this week, Vermont and Iowa legalized gay marriage as well. Iowa came as a shock, but Vermont I kind of expected, even though I was actually worried for a while, especially after the governor vetoed the bill. But this morning when I saw a gay marriage alert in my e-mail inbox, I was exited after I read it; of course I saw a whole list of annoying conservative posts (some on blogs) on the conservative websites, like the ever amusing Americans for Truth, and a few others. After I read through those and laughed at them I needed up being very happy.

While reading my old textbook for English 101, I found a section in it about what the author calls “Cultural Assumptions” that is things that we take for granted.
The examples she gives are:

1-Communities accept us for who we are
2-True love conquers all, and
3-Entertainment is just for fun

I don’t know about anyone else, but I never believed these things.

Communities accept you as long as you provide them with the sense of dominance or a reason to admire you or a sense of assistance. That is, that people will accept you in a community as long as you make them feel like they can be in control, they can count on you for help or you remind them of what you want to accomplish or what you have accomplished.

True love, what the fuck is “true love”? I love you, you love me too? How do you even define that? if it is the willingness to sacrifice everything for a person because you love them, then it does not conquer all. Because I have been willing to do anything to help a person I loved, and it was all for nothing. So I don’t believe that. They’re too many factors for True Love to even be able to gain a foothold in our lives.

“The soap operas, the fairy tales, they all lie, True Love does not conquer all”- Anita Blake.

Entertainment is just for fun.

huh? It may start out that way, but int he end you always take away something with you always. Whether it be a “Never do that again” or a “the relationship between Catherine and Heathcliff reminds me of my relationship with Daniel” or even a “can a Demon be hurt by fire?” which is at least a stray thought that may invoke more thinking. It might of been fun, but you noticed something, something stayed with you. And that is more than just “fun”