Sonnet 138 could've been written by Cameron Crowe

Every single one of Cameron Crowe's movies--Say Anything, Singles, Jerry Maguire, Almost Famous, etc.--are somehow painted as completely romantic and full of idealistic treatment of relationships, but how anyone can find them particularly "romantic" in the traditional Hollywood sense is delusional.

This is not criticism, but observation; in Say Anything, Diane likes Lloyd because she knows that he'll stick around. She doesn't feel much besides respect for him and she doesn't want to go to England alone. In Jerry Maguire, Dorothy acknowledges that Jerry really loves her kid and sure does like her a lot. These are people that settle for very specific needs to be met at the complete neglect of others. This is not "romance," but a sadly common reality. I know a handful of people who are able to find someone who meets their every need, who gives them everything they need and nothing they don't, but these are few and far between (or the people themselves are delusional--having watched Say Anything at least, no exaggeration, 50+ times, it's hard for me to accurately judge).

So what of sonnet 138? "On both sides thus is simple truth suppress'd" is Shakespeare just admitting that the relationship in question isn't really helping either partner out. Between the lies, the deceptions, and the denials, there's a horribly sad undercurrent of resignation. Sure, the narrator is able to regularly get some degree of emotional validation and sexual fulfillment--although it could be argued that sexual fulfillment is simply the abating of a terminal desire rather than a complete satisfaction, much like any other form of hunger--but it's just self-deception.

The relationship described in the sonnet has a really discomforting subtext of prostitution to it. Even if it's not a direct one-to-one exchange of sex/a relationship for monetary compensation, there's still something really off about the narrator acknowledging his own capacity for denial with regard to his lover's additional dalliances.

Maybe I'm an idealist, but I can't stand the cynicism that pervades our society about relationships. There's this theory (most recently espoused on How I Met Your Mother, the only TV show worth watching) that one person in a relationship is the settler, while the other is the reacher. By the end of the episode detailing this condition, it is dismantled as arbitrary negativity and the cultural misprioritization of physical appearance over all other forms of attractiveness, including unquantifiable things like chemistry, emotional connection, etc.

In the political sphere, we're currently hearing all sorts of business about "pragmatism" and the importance of being realistic. But we create our own realities, and the more we choose to settle for less than what we want, the more we'll get just that. I'd rather be disappointed and suffer wave after wave of authentic heartbreak than reliably wake up every morning next to someone whose absence wouldn't make me feel lost at sea.

So, in summary, this sonnet is really well-written and perhaps realistic for some people, but it's bullshit to assume that "realistic" and "good" are mutually inclusive. Saving Private Ryan is realistic. That doesn't mean that we should try to emulate it or accept that as a decent reality.

Wow, that struck a nerve. Sorry 'bout that. As my 500 Days of Summer tirade(s) indicated, I've kinda sorta got strong feelings about this sort of stuff.

Ahem. As you were.