Monday, February 6, 2012

Foremost on my Mind: Of Love and Lovers

Love.


They say it makes the world go round. And when you go 'round the world, you see what good and evil it has done in these past 6,000 years: Wars have been started, yet countries have been united; villages have been wiped out, yet warring factions have stopped their genocide—all because of love.


Or maybe it's just politics with a touch of sentiment.


Some of the greatest historic characters have been lovers. Let's see: Romeo and Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra, Edward and Wallis (aka the Duke of Windsor and Mrs. Simpson), George Clooney and—oops, my bad.


Today is the day when lovers express their affection in some form or fashion—or maybe it's just politics with a touch of sentiment—be it through the giving of cards, flowers, chocolates, kisses, and who knows what else. I assume the recipients of said gifts are happy. I know the retailers are.


I've always thought that it would work well for some of us frugally-minded (another word for “cheap”) to celebrate Valentine's Day on February 15 or 16. Why? Well, everything Valentine's-related is marked down and sitting on the clearance table, waiting for the money-conscious consumer (yet another word for “cheap”) to rescue it from a further year in the warehouse, And they're still in pristine shape.


I have no idea where Valentine's Day originated. I've read various accounts (thanks, Uncle John's Bathroom Reader!). I also have access to the Internet, though I didn't research it for this column. Methinks Valentine's Day and Walmart are loosely connected.


You see, it's a long time between Christmas / Boxing Day week and Easter. And a long time in retail without any excuse to lure the customer in is not good. It's my conviction (with tongue firmly planted in cheek) that there must have been an upper-echelon board meeting in Arkansas, or wherever Sam Walton (founder of Walmart) resided, and, behold, Valentine's Day was created. Maybe even in six days.


Valentine's Day is for lovers. Note the word “love,” and the fact that it's plural. Unless the genuine motive is love, why go through the motions? But, then again, that “politics with a touch of sentiment” phrase keeps popping up, doesn't it? And note that “lovers” is plural, as in more than one. That would be two, as opposed to one; and two, as opposed to three.


There are too many who have loved and were loved, but no longer love. Death, desertion, or divorce can do it every time. I wonder how ex-lovers or former lovers (two different concepts here, people) feel about Valentine's Day. I'm sure they don't wander around Walmart around this time of year. How much pain, I wonder, do they carry for a lost love of a distant past?


In a sane culture, it is wise to acknowledge different degrees of tradition. I think we addressed that with the Mennonite wedding column of two weeks ago. You see, not everyone can or will celebrate Valentine's Day the way the retailers or young lovers do. Perhaps it's more controlled, more conservative, and more consistent than the “norm.” We need to cut them some slack, and not assume that they are cold and heartless because there's no Cupid, cards, or chocolate in their world today.


It's just a tradition, people, not a law. It's great for some, but it grates for others.


So Happy Valentine's Day, everyone out there in newspaperland! Celebrate it whatever way you can best express your genuine feelings. Even if the chocolates are a day old.




No comments: