Have you ever been alone in a crowded room when I'm here with you?

Have you ever been alone in a crowded room; well I'm here with you...

A second defence of douchebagotry.

In which Jon Wong defends douchebag behaviour again! Dammit! Could it be that I’ve become more of a douchebag as time passes? Quite possibly. Or maybe I was always a giant douchebag but have only recently begun to realize it? Hmm…

Now, once again, it’s not as if I’ve suddenly had an epiphany that justifies being a douchebag. I have simply come to reconsider some of my notions on what classifies as douchebag behaviour. It’s been a confusing process and I know it opens up a whole other bag of worms; after all, it would be rather hard to argue that you’re not a douchebag if you are constantly behaving as if you were. That’s a thought for another time, though. For now, I just want to expand on the question of whether or not it is considered a douchebag move to distance yourself from a girl simply because you've discovered that you can't or won't date her for any variety of reasons.

When I wrote that last statement, I was originally going to write "you've discovered she has a boyfriend" but balked because a. I realized I've covered this somewhat, and b. because I still haven't been able to make this choice in good conscience and I think it goes beyond the idea I addressed in that article. For those of you who consider that post a TL;DR, it basically goes like this: Compare the girl to a flower. If she has a boyfriend, she will only fully bloom for him and so other guys are justified in deciding not to cultivate a garden that will only ever bloom halfway.

That's the basic point I made (and of course, I would take a whole long post to make it). Lately, though, I've been revisiting that idea and I've decided that it's inadequate. I think it's still true, but I think there's more to the story, mainly because that explanation seems to suggest that guys push girls with boyfriends away because they want something the girls can't give them. Like I said, I think this is true, but I want to delve deeper into what exactly they want and why it's problematic.

Something curious happens to you when you like like someone. It's like suddenly, you become hypersensitive to everything they do. Sometimes, it manifests itself in amazing ways: you refill their tea for them at dim sum without them asking; you slide your seat forward if you're riding shotgun in order to give them more leg room; you notice and remember how they take their coffee...

Sometimes, though, it manifests itself in some pretty shitty ways too. Say you're someone who doesn't usually care if other people don't reply to your texts. Guess what? It matters when the person you like doesn't reply. Say it's usually not a big deal to you if plans fall through. Well, it's kind of a big deal when your plans with the person you like falls through. Say you don't usually care if any specific person doesn't give you attention during a group outing as long as the aggregate combination of the attention you receive throughout the evening is enough to make you feel part of the group. You know where this is going... suddenly, the evening becomes kinda shitty, even though you're the center of attention, because you weren't the focus of attention for that particular person.

That's draining! It sucks the joy out of every freaking thing you do because suddenly, nothing matters unless it somehow involves or is affected by the person you like. But of course, how are they supposed to know this?! Throughout all the shittiness, not an iota of fault lands on the person you like because it's not as if they're mind-readers. How are they supposed to know to be extra conscientious about everything they do because they have the ability to crush your soul with the simplest gesture? They don't. And they never (or rarely) will unless you TELL them that they have this ability.

But what if telling them this is not an option (like if they already have a significant other)? Or what if it's something you don't want to do for various reasons (hopefully, for reasons other than "I'm too scared" although I won't insist that it's not an acceptable response). Sometimes, the only thing you can do is push them away; you force yourself to get to a point where they don't matter as much because allowing them to matter to you means turning into a bipolar fruitcake. There aren't very many ways to curb an emotional response like attraction and sadly, pushing someone away is one of the *less* destructive ways of doing so. I suppose you could martyr yourself and just bottle it all in, but I don't know that that's a particularly healthy way of dealing with your feelings.

Once again, I guess it all comes back to looking out for yourself. Christian once pointed out that self-centered-ness seems to be the underlying quality from which douchbagotry spawns. Maybe that's why my conscience has never been comfortable with making this kind of call; you can't explain that you're not doing it to be a douchebag without letting the cat out of the bag. And if you're willing to do that, you're probably better off just saying it straight without going into why you're about to turn into a giant dick because of it.

*Note: the term "giant dick" was meant to be understood in a figurative sense.

Yes my dear family, having a large-scale skype appointment in the kitchen is a great idea at 6 AM when Jon Wong, who you've relegated to the couch that is literally two feet away from the kitchen in an open-concept house, is driving you to Niagara Falls.

Sleep = unnecessary for long drives.

I truly cannot generate anything worthwhile if there are any distractions whatsoever. No wonder I've been a night owl.

A lot of people like to define their relationship in terms of what it's done for them or what they've done for the sake of their significant other. Somehow, this has always struck me as being off-base. If you think of your relationship in terms of anything other than how amazing you are, together, then you haven't quite understood the point.

I need to somehow make this a very public message to people who don't already know me, and I need to do it in such a way that doesn't make me seem like a jerk. Here it is:

There are 2 things I really cannot stand with regards to social interaction. If you are arranging to see me for social reasons, PLEASE do not ask if you can invite someone I don't know. I simply don't know how to refuse you without sounding like a jerk (so I normally don't) but honestly, I hate it when you do this. Unless you are prepared to have me sit in silence and awkwardness the entire evening, stop inviting people I don't know simply because you want to "kill two birds with one stone" by squeezing two separate social spheres into one time slot. Sometimes, you will one-up yourself by asking me during the evening "why" I'm being so quiet and once again, I cannot answer you without sounding like a jerk.

Also, unless I am bringing a girl of some sort with me, please do not ask if you can bring your significant other (whether you are a guy OR girl). Nobody likes being a third wheel and frankly, there are very few couples who don't SUCK at making me feel like I'm not an aforementioned third wheel. I appreciate the fact that they are your significant other so I'm not asking you to choose; I merely request that you ensure that IF you insist on bringing your significant other everywhere, there is a corresponding member of our party with whom I can interact socially when you two are, for lack of a better term, snogging.

I need a polite and PC variant of the above two paragraphs.

I was watching Britney Spears's I Wanna Go music video and it occurred to me to look up her discography on wikipedia. The amount of success she's had is mind-boggling.

Musings on World Spins Madly On by The Weepies.

In my opinion, World Spins Madly On (WSMO) has always been one of the greatest songs ever written by The Weepies. Up until recently, though, I had always interpreted the song in one way and it wasn't until I saw the animation video by Ryan Woodward that I started reconsidering my interpretation. In the end, much like many of my musings lately, I cannot say that one interpretation is definitely more accurate than the other, nor could I even suggest that I consider one interpretation to more meaningful. Rather, I think perhaps this would be a good opportunity to look into how we can create meaning from a beautifully written piece and, by extension, the equally haunting animation that is set to it.

I have always understood WSMO to be a reflective piece on how we come to grips with the reality that relationships are difficult and aren't as perfect as you envision them to be. I feel like most people eventually come to realize this and perhaps this is the kind of discovery is more common when you are younger and learn about how having someone be a part of everything in your life requires some sacrifices. And you know, some people can't live up that. Steve Tannen makes it pretty clear, when he says, "And everything that I said I'd do / like make the world brand new / and take the time for you" that making time for your significant other will always be a challenge. This is especially true when you start to move out of the honeymoon phase and back in reality - and the reality of it all is that there will come a point where taking time for your significant other must be a choice; a choice made in the face of other things you could be doing and opportunities you have to pass up.

However, the most tragic thing about WSMO is this very idea that at the end of the day, the world will continue to go on regardless of the tragedies you face. Whether that is regret for giving up on a relationship or misery over what you no longer have, time still passes. And indeed, the fact that the world continues seems crazy (read: mad) because like all moments of grief, it's hard to conceive that things could just simply continue to move forward, almost as if nothing really matters.

I feel like Ryan Woodward's video validates some of these impressions I've had about WSMO. Here it is, for those of you who have not seen it:

Thought of You from Ryan J Woodward on Vimeo.

I think it's notable that the girl in this video starts off as ghostly and ethereal - as if she is idealized in the mind of this young man - and becomes real at the very end of the animation. I seems as if Woodward is presenting the song as a warning to "getting what you want" because the young man spends the entire animation chasing after this idealized girl, and when he finally holds her and she becomes real, he realizes that she isn't who he thought she'd be; she's not the angel who makes him want to do "everything that he said he'd do." In the end, perhaps the fact that the world spins madly on is as poignant a truth to her as it is to him.

That being said...

In recent months, I've been thinking about WSMO a little differently. Now I'm thinking about whether there's a bigger picture here. When Steve Tannen sings, "the whole world is moving / and I am standing still" I wonder whether the idea of the world spinning madly on is open to a less depressing interpretation. Maybe this idea of the world spinning also speaks to why love is important - so much so that losing it causes you to "wake up and wish that you were dead". I mean, I think about the chaotic state of my life and consider that having someone or thinking about someone as this sort of pillar can maybe help ground us in this world that's constantly spinning.

I've been writing and thinking about love for a long time but I don't often reflect on what it is about love that is so great or so important. It's easy to point at love and say "the fact that we do things (sometimes, amazing things) for the sake of love illustrates the beauty of it," but what do we get from it at the end of the day? The fact that we can achieve (for lack of a better word) moral fiber, beauty, and truth for the sake of love doesn't quite answer the question of what it is about love that makes us want to strive for these "higher pleasures" in the first place.

In my quest for an answer, I've had two moments where I think I may have scratched the surface of what love does for us. The first was the moment when I thought about how disorienting it is for the world to be constantly spinning around us - always changing, never predictable - and how wonderful it is to be able to ground yourself in someone else. I actually came to this realization after one particularly hectic and stressful day of teaching when I took my phone out and saw that someone had sent me a "Tell me about your day/hope you're ok" text. That was it, you know? But the simplicity of just having someone in your life who does this already justifies the idea of love to me.

The second moment I had came when I was watching How I Met Your Mother and caught a line from the song that was playing during the season 5 finale. The line, written by A Fine Frenzy, goes like this: "All for love, we become / larger than lifesize, we become / great in the eyes of someone." I realized, in that moment, that that was it. In the struggle to find meaning in what we do and to figure out if our lives holds any significance, love gives us a validation for our existence. We feel like we're more than ourselves; we become more than what we would ever be on our own and for those of us who fail to achieve fame and fortune, this is important to helping us live our lives as fundamentally good people.

It may be too ambitious of a task for me to dictate what every individual should consider important. I've come to realize, though, that I should at least understand why the things I consider important are valid. In the end, I have no idea whether either of my interpretations of WSMO is correct; but if I helps me gain a better understanding of why love is important, well, that's really all the justification I need isn't it?

Jon Wong in a moment of old-man curmudgeonism, aka "this is what a year of teaching will do to you":

(Facebook status)
Friend: "Give me one good reason to study."
Me: "You are in no way else contributing to society?"

Turns out I'm almost as busy, now that school is over, as I was before it was over. Nonetheless, since Canada Post has resumed business, I feel like I ought to resume my own writing habits as well. Imma start with this one, titled, "Why my first time playing at a bar will also be my last." This may well be a very rambly post because my aversion to playing in bars combines a number of problems I have with certain kinds of music, bars, and the people who go to them.

About a month ago, I had the opportunity to perform at an open mic at one of the local bars in Fort McMurray. One of my only friends in Fort McMurray plays shows on a regular basis and hosted the open mic event. The problem was that there seemed to be a dearth of willing participants in said event and as far as I understood, if no one wanted to play at open mic, my friend would be obligated to play throughout the entire ordeal. It was in this way that I found myself acquiescing to his request that I play a few songs.

Now, I've played in front of crowds before. There've been a few coffee houses and residence-related open mics at Queen's and I do remember being satisfied with how those events went. However, playing at a bar has made me realize that there is something about the particular venue that is "the bar" that made me realize, quickly, that my first time playing in a bar will quite likely end up being my last (and only time will tell whether this is Fort McMurray-specific).

The first thing, which is to be expected, I suppose, is that for most of the time, you function primarily as background noise. Not very many people go the bars to watch you perform. That, in itself, is not really problematic - it's the nature of the job, so to speak. The reason I don't like playing in bars has to do with what you have to do to get the crowd involved and/or how you have to handle the occasional request.

In my experience, there is only one way to get the crowd involved and that is to play a song to which everyone can chant the words. I have learned that there is a certain little group of songs that tends to be requested a lot, which everyone seems to know the words to. These songs include such smash hits such as Home for a Rest, Wonderwall, Don't Stop Believing, and Little Lion Man. Play one of the these four songs and you are bound to get a large percentage of the bar up and chanting alongside you. This, I suppose, should be gratifying if "audience participation" is something that you care about (and I suppose a lot of performers do). That time I played at the open mic, I didn't even have to consider whether or not I wanted audience participation. Someone requested Little Lion Man before I got very far into my set and I had to tell him that I legitimately didn't know how to play the song (though I can't imagine that it's very hard).

This, I suppose, is the main reason I don't like playing in bars. When you play songs that aren't frat-boy-chanting tunes, people tend to just tune you out as background noise. The only time they truly pay attention to what you're singing is when you play something like Don't Stop Believing and that kinda sucks, you know? Because when you're up there on stage playing Pills, or Closer, or World Spins Madly On - those are the songs for which you wish people would stop what they're doing and listen; those are the sentiments you want people to take away with them when they leave the bar; those are the songs whose names you wish people would ask you about as you're packing up and they're walking out the door. Instead, people will go about their business until some doink suddenly thinks to himself, "Hey, I wonder if this guy can play Home for a Rest?"

You know what the worst thing about all this is? In a different life and world, I would have liked songs like Little Lion Man, Wonderwall, Don't Stop Believing, and Home for a Rest. This speaks to an issue that Grant has already covered but here's my take on it anyway. I'm willing to bet a hefty sum of money that the people who request these songs at bars are of the same mold as those people at those parties who used to either play these same songs on the acoustic guitar, or request that YOU play these songs on the acoustic guitar so that they can sing along (it is for this reason that I have refused to play these songs at said parties).

Historically, there has always been something very disturbing about certain guys who love these songs and in retrospect, I think Grant is accurate in his assessment that these songs have long been favored by frat-boys because they convey the notion that, "while I may seem like a sleaze-bag, let me demonstrate that I understand the sentiments of a song with decidedly non-sleazy lyrics in order to prove that there's more to me than meets the eye." And to quote my friend, Grant, "Alpha-males love to give credence to this notion and they love songs that let them flex this particular muscle. Most of the time girls love them to flex this muscle too (let's not lie to ourselves: that's why it works)." Once again, we may laugh at this video but when all is said and done, it is funny because it's true and thus horrifying as a result.

Of course, this rule does not apply to every guy who loves these songs, in the same way that not all girls are naive enough to fall for the guys who love these songs for these reasons. However, this is the thing I hate the most about all of this: the percentage of guys and girls to whom this theory applies has already crossed the threshold required to make this a reasonable assumption, rather than an exception. As a result, songs whose lyrics aren't inherently sleazy have now become an anthem of sorts for sleazy guys. Little Lion Man is particularly guilty of this since its lyrics are more than just an expression of emotion; they are an expression of emotion that has a direct bearing on the nature of guilt and regret.

I use the word "guilty" but I'm still undecided as to whether or not artists ought to be held entirely responsible for the effects of their works. I've always balked at the idea of attributing the reactions to a piece of art to its creator. Nonetheless, the sentiments of Little Lion Man seem to mesh so well with the type of sentiments one might expect from a sleazy frat-boy that I maintain that the song, at least, is guilty of the effect it has produced, namely that of allowing people to commit heinous acts of douchebagotry so long as they can convey the notion that they are adequately repentant after the act has been committed. Indeed this is a particularly disturbing notion because the juxtaposition between a moment of (feigned) self-awareness with an entire evening of sleaziness stands out opposed to a consistent stream of sensitivity. Every time I hear this line, "It was not your fault but mine / and it was your heart on the line / I really fucked it up this time / didn't I, my dear," I think about what a douchebag he must be. However, it has become apparent to me that this is not necessarily the sentiment shared by others. Rather, it has somehow morphed into "how noble of him to admit that he's wrong."

There's something very off-putting about the fact that we willingly allow ourselves to forget about the situation that led to Mr. Mumford writing these lyrics and instead, allow ourselves to focus on how noble it is that he isn't hiding his regret. In fact, it is this very line that inspired me to write this particular passage from my novel:

"There is a reason why a girl does not become emotionally attached to every other guy she comes across. It is part of our defense mechanism, in a way. But when she does, you have a responsibility not to be tray that trust because you are no longer just any other guy. [A girl] can, and does, expect the worst from guys at a bar; she should not have to expect or condone the worst from [her boyfriend]. It is true that we are human. But when you hold someone's happiness, feelings, and trust in the palm of your hands, you are simply expected to be better than that. It might not be fair but it comes with the territory."

It's gotten to a point where all this has become a sort of unspoken understanding in the way our society works. Certain guys will continue to use these songs as a way of asserting their "sensitive" side in order to convince certain girls that underneath their slimy exterior, they have a self-aware and emotional side that has only been brought on because that particular girl is special enough to make him feel like he can "show that side of himself". And as long as this keeps being the case, I will continue to loathe playing these songs in bars - and until people stop asking me to play these songs in bars, I will continue to loathe playing in bars in general.