Source: Tumblr
When I was a kid, the first definition of love came from the movies (read SRK movies). Even if he was the bad guy, I believed his love was the right kind of love. And then came the books, the Danielle Steels, the Nora Roberts, the Eric Segals, the Nicholas Sparks, the Cecilia Aherns, it goes on. And then when I began grasping English movies, it was more of Nicholas Sparks, Disneys, Pixars, and it goes on.
Every movie, every book, dripping with love, soaked in mush, drizzled with tears, twisted, construed and shaped the definition of love in a new way. There was everything. Young love. Old love. Long distance love. Disastrous love. Comic love, Emotional love. Mismatched love. Rich love. Poor love.
When did we start referring to books to talk about true love?
It's made up, isn't it? It's the writer's definition of love. It's a play of words.
And with the zillion definitions of love, came a zillion conditions.
It's not love if he can't call you every morning.
It's not love if she can't cook for you every day.
It's not love if he goes out with his friends.
It's not love if she doesn't give up eggs for you.
It's not love if he doesn't say I love you every day.
It's not love if she stopped dressing up for you.
When did we start talking of "unconditional" love as something unique, something elusive?
I've never heard of conditional love. I doubt if anyone has.
What led me to this speculation was a recent conversation I had with a friend. She was a little miffed with how movies showcase over-the-top, too-good-to-be-true, too-illogical-to-be-real kind of love stories. All I could say to calm her down was, "It's fiction. It's a fictional love. Don't let some movie or book define what love means to you. Find your own definition. Create your own definition."
P.S. I am still all for sappy movies. Will continue to be.
