Oct
6
Relationsham: Texting Milton Glaser
Filed Under Relationsham
Not too long ago, a friend of mine was telling me about a text he received from a woman friend who was starting to put her feelings “on the line” (the wireless kind) about their relationsham relationship. Never one to have entered the dating scene, I asked my friend what form chivalry takes on in relationship 3.0. (2.0 is so Canterbury Tales). He told me that her romantic confession was unadorned (who needs details?), to the point (who has the time?), and paired down to the absolute essentials (who needs excuses?). Most of all, it was serious, which started to concern him. The text message read “I…U.”
Call me what you will–and don’t bother starting with old fashioned because I date somewhere between Darwin and DOS so reach back into your arsenal for something clever; I’m game–but, excuse me?
Of course. Why didn’t I see this before? A commitment of the heart that resembles a Milton Glaser mad lib at best. Why would there be any confusion?
My postmodern mind wants to read everything into these three, OK, two plus a punctuation mark, “words.” I want to attack feminism and what it has done to the modern female, feeling like they need to behave like a man, when really their weaponry has always been womanhood, with a bra as a sling, and some Gloria Steinem. I want to attack semiotics and all the round-table storyboards in advertising that leave it up to the receiver of the message to interpret the text as they see fit with a magnifying glass missing its lens. I want to attack the world of IM–Crackberrys, Treos– and all of its miss-communication by throwing a hard-cover edition of Eats, Shoots & Leaves until its wireless wires get crossed and our little hand-holding devices gets to see just how us humans feel, all the time. And then I need a cocktail, because as a Canadian, it takes a lot out of you to think about taking action.
When that’s done, I want to return to my modernist mind. The one that just sees the text for what it is: pathetic. Not taking a risk, not taking a stand. A lousy and feeble attempt at a non-declaration. One that suggests that love is the other person’s responsibility and not the one we, everyone, takes up, from the minute they gasp for air when they are first born.
If this text is about not getting hurt, then perhaps it is not about love either. An ellipsis, more relating to the idea of etcetera than the idea of a continuation, feels, in this example, like a summation of a love-less relationship. One that requires the sender to be allusive in case the love-less-ness was one-sided, depending on his response; two-faced, text-to-text traveling long distance; and triple-threated, what he said, what he meant, and what he did.
In, “I…U,” the ellipsis underscores the separation between the two people–the dotted path–not the closeness. And it certainly resists the future-building (every guy’s favourite idea) of the profusion, the plenty, of more, more love, in “I love you….” A text like this, is not the beginning of a fulfilled relationship, but the death-knell ringtone of one that is slowly coming to an end.
Which is just as lucky for my friend who has responded to this text, with get this, nothing–the ultimate statement of communication in today’s (dating) world. Wow! Incredible! Don’t ask me. I operate on the old Chaucerian system. This? This, I don’t…it.
Comments
3 Responses to “Relationsham: Texting Milton Glaser”
Leave a Reply
WOW! This post is AMAZING.
I’ve got two other interpretations of the “…”
1. She is actually typing from the ICU and can’t… lift… finger.
2. She is paranoid to write anything that may get disseminated by accident, or be seen by his work colleagues. (In which case, why not WAIT?)
I love your friend’s reply. I would love to be a fly on the wall when she receives that reply!
(Btw,”as a Canadian, it takes a lot out of you to think about taking action” made me snort my coffee!)
I…U Nats!
The dating world is a different place nowadays. People want quick results with the least amount of unfavorable situations. Not putting everything out there (by everything I mean actual words) so you don’t risk getting your feelings stepped on and trying not to hurt someone’s feelings (not wanting to be the bad guy?) by letting things die off via neglect are the norm of today’s relationsham’s communication.
Girls do it! Guys do it! Even the bees and the trees do it!
Why do things need to be quick? Nobody wants to get hurt, but I feel relationsham responses beget more relationsham responses.
It’s true. The disappearing act (neglect/nothing) seems to be the way things “die off” nowadays. Sad. I think anyone you’ve spent some time with deserves some communication.
However, like I stipulated, I am the dating dinosaur. (Complete with milkshake dust and archival, tangled telephone cord.)
This post is my small way to remind everyone about “remembering love.” (It really, truly, wasn’t that long ago.)