My mom saw one of my junior high friends the other day. She asked for my e-mail address, my mom gave it to her, and I just got an e-mail from her this afternoon. This is a person I grew up with. We were very close in the fifth through eighth grades, but we lost touch over the years
(
Read more... )
The email I sent was pretty plain, to the effect of, "Hey, I think I used to know you, if you are the guy who went to such-and-such school," and so forth. I didn't really get into reminscing or any of that jazz, mainly because I wasn't even sure who I was talking to.
So Peter, then at Harvard, fires back an email that is enthusiastic, verbose, and even a little lyrical. This thing is an F'ing showboat of clever writing. He tells me all about the great things he's doing at Harvard, the brilliant people he learns from and with, the highlights of highschool, and questions about the same for me.
And I caught myself bringing out the mental yardstick. It made me want to cry. Before all this, I'd been feeling pretty good about myself (after all, you don't look to renew old acquaintances when you feel like shit--only when you're at the top of your game). But then Peter's "reality" smacked me in the face. I was going to a third rate college (a generous estimation) spinning my wheels taking dull required coursework. I was living in the seedy part of a dull town. I had no real interests or hobbies that would be worth talking about. I felt like something the cat drug in.
And if you ask me, that's likely to be the case in any reunion of people who used to be close but now have no bonds between them aside from nostalgia. I have a sort of cynical take on friendships as a result. I don't believe in unbreakable bonds, especially when those bonds were forged in childhood. I believe that friendships will wither and die without at least occasional attention. They cannot be put aside for years at a time and resumed at a more convenient date.
Maybe it's like cleaning out your closet, you know? You see that shirt hanging there, and you haven't worn it in years. You know you should just get rid of it. But remember that one night you wore it to that party? You think you looked pretty good that night.. maybe you should just hang on to the shirt for a while, because you'll regret it as soon as its gone.
Hogwash. People change, their styles change, times change, and circumstances definitely change. Friendships require effort, and the ones that offer nothing more than a glimpse at a past you'll never experience again just aren't worth it.
Am I close?
Reply
So true. I think many people who read that would disagree initially, but when you really think about it, it's dead on. The only "unbreakable bonds" I have in my life are with my parents and other family members. Happy memories and experiences may forever link you with others, but they sure as hell don't keep you together.
But...
I'm a bit worried that I've started a pattern in my life, a cyclical thing. About every five to seven years I lose touch with the people I'm friends with and I find new friends. When I do this, I fail to maintain contact with the people I once considered friends. For instance, I don't communicate from anyone I went to college with, even though I made some great connections. I can't figure out if this is a conscious thing having to do with my psyche and personality, or if it has to do with the normal development of life (moving on to new things and places, etc). Maybe it's a bit of both. It still concerns me.
One of my friends now is best friends with the same guys he knew in high school. He's 28 years old.
Reply
Here's another contraversial point of cynicism: I believe that I (and probably everyone else) have room for only a certain number of friendships at any given time. This is probably because of the fact that bonds of friendship require energy and maintenance. There is a limit. Which means that since I've held on to so many friendships from the old days, I don't make new friends easily. What makes this theory so contraversial is the extension into family dynamics. You know that trite story about the young child who throws fits because the new baby is getting all the attention? Mom tells him "just because I love the baby doesn't mean I have to love you any less." The whitest of lies. The new baby will cost that child some portion of his mother's love. Not the degree to which she loves him, but the degree to which he will feel her love.
Now, I'm not going to go so far as to say that arithmetic rules apply. A second child does not cut the love in half. But the expressions of love will probably be distributed between the children--and because those gestures take energy, like maintenance of friendships, there is also a limit.
Reply
I wonder if, when and if I become a parent, the old adage that you love all of your children equally will hold true.
Yes, and I think what we're talking about here has a lot to do with the difference between friends and acquaintances.
Reply
Leave a comment