[just Oscar Wilde and me... not too shabby]

[reenka]

Thinking further about the love semantics thread that won't die, a basic question just struck me: is it even -possible- to call yourself an idealist/romantic if what you idealize is partly the imperfection or flawed nature of something [love]? I mean, is the disagreement because people "fully" idealize love by giving it only its very best possible qualities and I idealize it by just really valuing it in all its messed-up painful glory? On some 'ideal' level that can encompass psycho murderers killing their lovers, I basically think all things that pass for love in any individual are 'Good' & 'Right'; the [often messed-up/crazy/violent] consequences are of course another story. I sometimes get messed up like this 'cause I want to see these things (Love, Imagination, Truth, Reason) as basically positive, but they only are in their application. Even knowing they can be seriously fucked with in practice, I still idealize/super-admire them. Which. Makes me an idealist, non?
    It occurs to me that maybe the idea is that as an idealist, you're supposed to seek perfection in whatever concept/philosophical construct you fancy, and if you don't find it, you find things [reality] lacking and on some level, false. I mean, you'd have to be really mired in semantics to say this, but I suppose this way one can actually argue that I'm not a romantic or an idealist o_0 Which is... REALLY not true. Uh. o_0 But fact remains someone can (and did) disagree with me -because- they're 'a romantic'. *_____*

...Though I used to be more -naive- than I am now, certainly, as well as more depressed & frustrated 'cause I always realized the world pretty much sucked and there was no obvious way to just... y'know, FIX IT (...while remaining basically lazy and avoidant, but shush) :P But then I learned to relax and love the fuck ups. Most of the time. In any case, it's weird to think that 'real' idealism = beating your head against a brick wall because it's not, in fact, a wooden wall-- and THEREFORE IT'S NOT A *REAL* WALL, you see. I hope not. I mean, I already do enough of that anyway (witness my posts on H/D -.-)


At the same time, perhaps one could explain this by saying that I idealize some 'component parts' of love which can be seen as in conflict with each other (ie, both selfishness & selflessness, both passion and self-sacrificing stoicism, um, both yin & yang, Love the Redeemer & Love the Destroyer)-- um. Except they do coexit within most people's hearts & often enough the story of that [eternal] conflict is the point. Whereas other people pick sides, I guess. I constantly have arguments with people where I 'defend' the characters' negative emotions like hatred, anger, lust, fear-- wanting them to be explored rather than 'fixed', but the thing is, it's not like I -prefer- them to the more 'exalted' ones. It's not like I actually prefer paranoia to trust, conflict to balanced harmony-- it's more like I want to see every emotional possibility explored & plumbed to its greatest depth.

(In retrospect, it's even more hilarious that I've become some sort of poster-girl for Love the Destroyer in debates about H/D where I started out as being all about redemption, at least for Draco-- and still am, for both of them, in different ways. It really is that I take the whole Devil's Advocate approach 'cause I think people focus too much on the things that they -want- to see.... And I really think you can be an idealist & say that-- just because I also idealize Truth doesn't make me less of an idealist.)

I think a lot of this is because I do want people (or um, characters I care about, anyway) to be 'healthy' but I also want a dramatic story & I don't want things swept under the rug or even realistically repressed (like Draco 'getting over' his hatred/issues w/Harry 'cause he has bigger & better things to worry about). It's just the way I view the world, too-- I don't think we ever escape our demons, ever 'really get over it' all the way-- even if we think we do, the darkness only settles to wait for its next opportunity. To me, that's romantic-- that sense of continuity even as the emphemeral nature of existence & passionate emotion has its own romanticism. In the end, I think All Things Pass but at the same time we (as individuals) bear the scars, the marks of their passing. That's why I look at people who ship something like Brian/Michael (in QaF) specifically because they're so permanent and B/J just because/in spite of the passionate intensity as missing the big picture. Life is composed of emotions and events that constantly intertwine within the people involved, finding echoes in each other-- so that your love for one person reflects and complements your love for another, and you never really 'get over' your first love so much as find them again and again in little pieces.

People are so tragic and complicated and contradictory-- how could any straight-and-narrow super-defined idealism do them justice?

    Basically, whatever 'it' is, that messy fuzzy-edged emotion, I just want it to be intense. So... does that make me not-an-idealist? Some kind of crossbreed between an idealist romantic & what-- a sensualist? But that's just one form of romanticism (like hey, Oscar Wilde! shout-out!!); a somewhat later form, true, but even the Goths started out as the 'New Romantics'. The Dark Side of life/love/emotion is a long-running thread in romanticism and always has been, hasn't it?? How can you be romantic without being in love with all things fleeting, ephemeral and hidden in twilight? This form is -not- uncommon though (in fact, I'd say it's the most common amongst emo teenagers, anyway), so why do I keep running into these definitional debates?? -.-

I think, though, that at least in fandom, the other type of romanticism predominates-- 'cause shippers especially generally want their couple together & happy (or least well-fucked) willy nilly, and choose their reading accordingly. Not that I don't want my OTPs together in the end (and well-fucked), obviously, but-- the more struggle with their demons there is, the more meaningful it seems. Sometimes I want fluff & snark & banter and day-in-the-life cuteness, but that's the yin-yang thing-- I want this balanced sort of existence. I dunno. :/

Comments

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

Again, can't do details on the series (and never will be able to, because I am never going to read it!) but offhand I'd guess that, from what I'm hearing, that's probably the sticking point. Because I think that's really the sticking point on sociopathy, too - they can be possessive, but it's always going to be about them: their gratification, their object, their toy - they'll see people not as people but as things and they'll want certain people around in the same way I want, say, my computer around. Um, well, I think so anyway - it's been a while since I took psychopathology.

And I'm not sure I actually think there are several romantic "ideals". I mean, I see what you're saying (in the linked to discussion) about how there are a lot of romances where half of the pairing is an unbelievable bastard, but I think a lot of times people consider that a path to the ideal? Which is to say, they're watching and enjoying half of the pairing being an unbelievable bastard because they assume the point of the romance is to ultimately change them into a more selfless, romantic person. Most people, IMO, if you told them... this romance will end with the asshole character still being a huge asshole and he's not going to change even though he will, indeed, fall in love... they'd be uninterested, or at least less interested. Thus the reaction to QAF!

And yeah I like them all, too. But I mean, for me there's different kinds of relationships, and I can... like I can love B/J and B/M at the same time because with B/J there is all that intensity and growth and lessons and scars, and that's fascinating. And then B/M is a totally different kind of relationship and I can dig that too (and it's also dysfunctional in a totally different way.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Theoretically, you're right, I mean that's how it should work, but... we're back to talking about feelings/interpretations again. My 'feeling'/impression was that there was somehow more. Was it an illusion? Maybe. Probably. But the 'feeling' of more was based on an ambiguity/complexity and a changing in the character's self-perception and actions that was a lot more intense and transformative than Brian's arc in QaF.

Hmm... I think you're right that most of the romances I refer to (shoujo manga & 19th century stuff) are about The Bastard's Transformation (...and I actually like that trope a lot... sadly), but. Not speaking of the bastard thing alone, there's variety in terms of how dark the ideal love relationship is in terms of genre (darkness/angst/tragedy level), degree of sexualization, degree of normalization (some would see 'settling down' as anti-romantic, which is why fairy-tales end at the wedding, some would see that sort of thing as signs of devotion & love).

I think I get confused sometimes between my own obsession with all things to do with it and people's different unrelated issues. There's definitely some split between the 'permanence/longevity & kindness/self-sacrifice' camp and the 'intensity/passion & level of sexual attraction' camp. Perhaps you wouldn't call the latter an ideal :> My main point currently is just how ridiculous is it to get to the point where I can't be counted as a romantic >.> Though I mean, I've certainly spent enough time talking about the transformative power of love, so I've paid my dues.... :>

I think I can love the differences for themselves, yeah, but I was also saying that there are reflections and echoes in between one's different relationships with the people one loves. There are similarities even if it's expressed as skewed reflections. I'm not sure if that makes sense; in more real-life terms, it's easier to explain because it's more obvious that one's relationships with different people all address/draw upon the same internal issues in the end and how one loves in -general- reflects one's life outlook & personality.

I was also thinking how everything has a shadow-- there are traces of different-but-complementary types of behavior (rebellion? ruptures?) that would be quite revealing if studied. Like, there were times (end of Season 1/beginning of Season 2) when Brian was in selfless/doting 'mode' with Justin, and I thought it was quite revealing about their relationship. That's sort of where I was going, but my thoughts are quite loose and scattered on this, obviously :>

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

Well, maybe it was an illusion, or maybe it was the whole feelings creeping in thing? I don't know. Maybe a bit of each, who knows. I'm just thinking... that's probably where the author's coming from, and whether or not you're bound to think of it in the same way is really going back to the authorial intent question.

there's variety in terms of how dark the ideal love relationship is in terms of genre (darkness/angst/tragedy level), degree of sexualization, degree of normalization (some would see 'settling down' as anti-romantic, which is why fairy-tales end at the wedding, some would see that sort of thing as signs of devotion & love)

Agreed, although I'd define that as variety in preferred plots more than variety in ideals of romantic feeling? because what I mean is really that the cultural ideal tends to be love as selflessness - how much sexualization there is will depend on the person (and I think most people want the combination - the chemical ideal merged with the emotional ideal forming the romantic ideal), but I think the underlying desire is USUALLY the same. Obviously there will be exceptions, but I'm talking as a generalization.

There's definitely some split between the 'permanence/longevity & kindness/self-sacrifice' camp and the 'intensity/passion & level of sexual attraction' camp.

I'm honestly not sure I believe that. I think there's a split on the starting point but not the ending point.

One thing I noticed in the QAF shipwars (which are, IMO, the BEST EVER EXAMPLE OF EXACTLY THIS SPLIT because the relationships themselves were specifically presented as divided on this very line) is that, by and large, the major complaint of B/J fans was that Brian and Justin were not allowed to be emotionally intimate/gentle with each other/etc.

And this gave rise to a great deal of fic in which Brian finally shares his feelings, or Brian and Justin break up and have to reconnect as friends before reuniting as lovers, not to mention a number of (IMO bizarre) attempts to reinterpret Brian's actions as being about sacrificing for Justin (like, for example, the people who put forth the idea that Brian fought Stockwell 1. knowing that he'd risk his job and 2. as a sacrifice/showing of love for Justin, instead of 1. thinking he wouldn't get caught and 2. as an act of rebellion against what he viewed as an oppressive political regime). And of course, the anger over the ultimately temporary nature of the relationship being followed up by five million fics about "correcting" this by bringing them back together into a permanent lifelong partnership.

And obviously the big complaint of B/M fans was that Brian and Michael were not allowed to be physically intimate. Which led to a mountain of fic in which Brian and Michael cavort like lusty teenagers and are consumed by passion and physical heat.

And I guess I think these are all ways for each camp to bring their preferred pairing, each of which had HALF of the ideal, into the full ideal. So, to me, the difference is where people are interested in seeing the ideal BEGIN. Which is to say, do people want to see characters begin from the emotionally intimate/self-sacrifice/etc ideal and develop into passion from there or do they want to see characters begin from the passion ideal and develop into selflessness and self-sacrifice from there?

(Uh, for the record, I don't care where it starts or ends, so I'm really just speaking from observation rather than personal perspective).

Also, I'd call you a romantic, but I think the term is loaded for many people in that it signifies a wine and roses outlook and ultimately an expectation of happily ever after.

Like, there were times (end of Season 1/beginning of Season 2) when Brian was in selfless/doting 'mode' with Justin, and I thought it was quite revealing about their relationship.

Eh, I mean with early B/J, there's a lot of stuff that went on that... was meant to portray an almost parental/guardian role more than a lover role. I know that was the case with early S1 and S2 - the end of S1 became more with the blurry.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I guess I wasn't seriously arguing there are different kinds of romantic love; rather, because people keep calling something that registers to me as 'ooh, romantic' as... not, I have to wonder what's going on, y'know? Generally speaking, of course I have a single idea of love and my ideal is singular, but that's why I had such an odd moment questioning whether I'm really a romantic if I find Toreth/Warrick as such. I mean, I KNOW I am. It's just that I don't need everything to be perfect and according to some higher plan, but this doesn't make one not-idealist... I mean, I think so, anyway. But in any case, I was trying out alternative explanations to reconcile this, like the whole 'different ideals' thing; I dunno if I actually believe it, since it only occurred to me half an hour ago :))

Still, 'selflessness' and 'empathy' alone isn't really stronger in romantic love than desire (in terms of most potrayals, anyway); selflessness was a lot more prevalent in courtly Medieval love stories, but we've come a long way since the Arthurian romances to the point where I just don't see a lot of idealized selflessness in any pure/obvious form that much, though it's definitely a part of the big picture generally. What I'm saying is, lust has become a lot more accepted/dominant in modern times as part of the ideal. Though you're right that there's a merging-- people want both ends-- and I myself admitted I like the whole spectrum, the yin & yang. So it's natural.

But yeah, I mentioned the B/M vs B/J thing because it's a good example :D I was saying, though, that the bleed-through is there no matter where you focus-- when I was talking about the big picture and how there's always room for the 'other side' in any pairing (just look at me and my obsession with H/D friendship fics). I think we're approaching the same point from opposite sides, but currently I'm sleepy & my mind's not functioning too well ^^;;; Although what you're describing is shippers/writers -forcing- a balance rather than it already having signs or the -potential- of existing-- which is what I was thinking; that the potential is always there, just because things are never black & white. If something's held back and repressed, I think it'd -naturally- find some expression, though you supplemented this with finding examples in the actual shippers :D

I was just sort of "...where do I go from here" after the being disagreed with on the -grounds- of idealism in the Toreth case, and questioning the nature of idealism and whether I don't qualify anymore, haha. Maybe, if selflessness-alone is love, I really don't-- but I think it's true that the combination is really the secret; it's just that I don't necessarily need to see the selflessness brought about if -for that person-, they have some equivalent (like being SO obsessed with a person they'd risk their life for them even without being selfless). It sort of 'works for me' anyway. But this is possibly where your 'beginnings' thing comes in-- whereas I can accept a beginning in either direction and somewhat prefer conflict/passion, maybe Toreth's protracted stay in the other camp made it impossible for him to fit the ideal also... hm.

And! I would say that the 'meant to portray' thing with B/J gets into meta-issues I wasn't meaning to get into (...again, ahahah). I was thinking of examples of where when I watched, I saw hints of a different dynamic between them emerging, as that complementary shadow I was talking about, and there were some. That's kinda what I meant.

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

Err, I wouldn't know what makes one an idealist - maybe you are one if you want to think you are, if only because wanting to be one implies that you think idealism is good, which is idealistic. ...

I'm not even sure I was really talking about this post itself - mostly just meandering. :p

And I didn't actually mean to say that I think lust is unaccepted - actually at this point I'd say there's more of a preference for pairings that start with lust and move into the selfless/blah blah than the other way around, thus the popularity of the "bastard is reformed by love" trope. More that I thought that the split, which does exist IMO, is about starting points rather than ending points.

Although what you're describing is shippers/writers -forcing- a balance rather than it already having signs or the -potential- of existing-- which is what I was thinking; that the potential is always there, just because things are never black & white.

I'd disagree that it's ALWAYS there, but I do think it's USUALLY there. I think generally a romance will start from one or the other (or somewhere along the spectrum) and the romantic arc is MEANT to involve it drifting into whatever the other area is as well - and I think people often get frustrated and feel unfulfilled when their preferred romance doesn't cross that barrier. In this case I'm talking about shippers forcing the issue because in this specific example, the writers were kind of... purposefully withholding one or the other side from each group, which caused the groups to try and force it, know what I mean? Just because the writers were consciously keeping B/J from what B/M had, and B/M from what B/J had.

And you're right that I'm not actually disagreeing, just talking. ;P

I would say that the 'meant to portray' thing with B/J gets into meta-issues I wasn't meaning to get into

I know, which is why I didn't get too far into it. I will say that the fact that Brian actually called Justin by the nickname he uses on his actual son makes it somewhat less meta, though.

Also, I don't think brian's feelings for Justin were ever entirely selfish, nor do I think they were ever meant to be. But I also don't think they were ever as UNselfish as people like to skew it, especially on a romantic level. Because so much of the early stuff was, I think, Brian trying to protect Justin from a father who was, in terms of attitude, very similar to Brian's own father, or Brian trying to assuage his guilt over being unable to protect Justin - which again spirals out from his having protective/almost parental feelings for him at that point in time. And I think he was trying to make up for that by giving Justin what he felt Justin wanted/needed, but ultimately he couldn't keep it up - and that theme is then echoed in S5 (and actually, S5 and S2 are SERIOUSLY echoes of each other, but I'm going to stfu now).

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

As time goes on, I'm more and more glad I never watched S5 -.-;; I think it almost reminds me to how X-Files ended up when they really 'dealt' with the Mulder/Scully romance (although instead of 'just sex' that was 'just friendship', but anyway). I generally really hate it when these things come to a head and we have some definitive event that makes everything in the past have a different shape from then on. Even when the transformation/resolution is 'positive' 'cause things worked out, I feel so much more at peace before the cataclysm. Which may be why I'm not so much about how things turn out in B/J or any pairing in general-- I don't like the sense that 'okay, verdict's in, journey's over, let's all move on now', whether 'move on' means 'grow up and get married and have babies' or 'realize this isn't working out & split amicably'. In thaaaat sense, I can sort of dig the constant limbo of Brian&Michael's relationship-- even empathize with the idea of not wanting to change it 'cause it's too important. Except for the lack of sex and the presence of other partners (which would personally irritate me were I to be invested), I like the no-beginning-no-end part of things.... THOUGH THIS IS A TANGENT, heh.

You're probably right that it's "usually" there and I guess it's true that the writers are the ones that forced the split in nature between B/M & B/J purposefully; maybe I was just like those shippers who write fics forcing the characters into roles they don't experience in canon. Well, it's not so much that I'd write it or project it onto canon as feeling that there's always that shadow of possibility because the 'arc of love' is natural rather than only typical for fics. Relationships also naturally evolve in the direction of balance (eventually), if the individuals in them are remotely healthy/normal-- or they break before that point, of course, for a million reasons. What am I even saying -.- Geh.

...I think the verdict is that I shouldn't mix-and-match my personal half-baked philosophies and any sort of canon, it just confuses everyone, especially me -.- Heheh, um... my original point is that whatever the motivation, and even if it's repressed or not expressed, I see linkages and echoes between a person's different relationships and 'shadows' within a single relationship, no matter its main 'theme' or nature, when the person slips and something extra leaks in. I think making the comparison with Brian and the way Justin 'echoed' his relationship with his father is sort of what I mean-- that interconnectedness is perfectly natural. Of course, I think I'm totally biased in favor of seeing things in terms of systems and associative similarities connected to the differences... if that makes sense, which it probably doesn't -.-

I would never imagine holding Brian up as some poster-boy for unselfish love, hahaha, especially not with Justin (though his relationship with Michael is an interesting reflection on him... hm, compartmentalized, I guess). I guess people do like blowing things out of proportion, which makes others think all people who share the opinion even a little must be extremists too. ^^;;; Actually, I think the glimmers [of selfless behavior] are more interesting/telling -because- they're glimmers, threads within a larger fabric. I guess I saw the protectiveness and thought he saw some of himself in Justin but that didn't feel like the whole story because pinning any one reason/feeling for a character's behavior always rings false to me? Or something. Must eat before I try to think :>

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

LOL, I don't know, I really love S5 but at the same time i realize that my ABILITY to love S5 has a lot to do with my lack of investment in any particular pairing. And I know you're more about, I guess, the journey than the destination (although I don't know if that's how you'd phrase it?), which I love about you. I actually am as well, which is why people are always complaining about my ambiguous fic endings and the ends left untied. ;)

That said, I'm not sure what you mean about an event that makes everything in the past have a different shape from then on - do you mean it colors past events, or that it severs things that were previous possible, or what?

And I don't know, I mean like I've said before, I think a lot of it came from viewing a WIP and making judgments based on that. Because if you're used to that particular kind of arc, as we all are - the bastard redeemed story, or the lust-turns-to-romantic-love-turns-to-true-love arc, then obviously that's what you're going to expect and I don't really think there's anything odd about that. I do think some people have trouble letting go of ultimately inaccurate assumptions though.

I would never imagine holding Brian up as some poster-boy for unselfish love

HAHAHHA yeah some people do though. And I think Brian's relationship with Michael had a lot of selfish aspects to it, too. Primarily possessiveness - but they did sort of fade over time. And I think he showed... I don't know. I want to say that I think the only truly selfless thing he ever did for Justin was send him to NY, but I can't remember the entire series offhand so I may be wrong.

Brian's feelings for Justin... I think they started from lust, turned into protectiveness, became caring-due-to-propinquity and eventually evolved into romantic love. But I mean, that was a really complicated relationship, I think.

I think the verdict is that I shouldn't mix-and-match my personal half-baked philosophies and any sort of canon, it just confuses everyone, especially me -.-

LOL!! Eh, you know me, I try to keep my personal philosophies out of all canons just on principle. One of the major reasons I'm an authorial intent adherent, though, is that if I judge what characters do/feel on my own perspective there's always going to be these points where I'm like "okay yeah but if he feels ____ then why the hell is he doing ____??!" whereas if I listen to the author things usually make more sense/hang together better, at least in my experience. Like with the Brian and Michael thing, as soon as I found that out, a LOT of things I'd been trying to figure out suddenly made sense to me in a thoroughly elegant way. Whereas if I'd said, I get that they meant for him to feel like that, but I don't accept it, then I'd still be trying to piecemail together explanations for things that are, therefore, incongruous.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Aww ♥. *laughs* It's my indecisive fuzzy nature having at least some positive :> :>
That said, I'm not sure what you mean about an event that makes everything in the past have a different shape from then on - do you mean it colors past events, or that it severs things that were previous possible, or what?
Yep-- it's that bit with 'coloring past events' combined with severing possibilities (man, do I hate -that-). The only time I accept severed possibilities is when I believe these characters have truly found (or will always believe they've found) the One Thing They Want in life. This happens convincingly v. rarely, but I'm happy when it does-- you have to work hard, but it's possible for me to find that some people are just-- simple, and simply meant to work together 4EVA AND EVA. I'm particularly liable to think this if you have a real partnership rather than a romantic one-- one that is -also- but not primarily romantic -or- 'just friendship'. In terms of working partnerships, I find I can believe that they can say 'this is my life-- this is it' and I'll be like 'siiiiiiigh' :D

But the other reason I'd probably have trouble with S5 is just like you said-- 'people' had trouble 'letting go' of 'ultimately inaccurate assumptions'; fact is, as long as I don't actually -watch- it, I can know what happened without it really hitting me in any visceral sense and making me seriously process it emotionally. In my case, the spirit is willing (to reprocess) but the heart has troubles and rebels; since you don't have to deal with it so much, just take my word for it-- it's not fun. :P Even so, I too have trouble feeling like '...okay, this doesn't work' and would usually go with authorial intent IF I feel that's the one elegant explanation that makes it all hang together. That's why my arguments about The Administration are kind of "...." because like, I'm NOT against listening to the author about certain things and am actually positive about communication with the author, etc, it's just that sometimes I feel things are best left ambiguous-- it may not be more elegant, but it still allows me to both enjoy emotionally and be rational without too much conflict. I dunno if that makes sense, but. *coughs*

Your saying that about how Brian's relationship with Michael had 'selfish aspects' is EXACTLY what I meant about bleed-through and shadow-aspects and the big picture!! :D :D I think it's a lot easier to find examples of selfishness in people/behaviors (not just in Brian) than selflessness, though. It's not that I think Brian was 'selfless' with Justin so much as there were other threads besides just attraction, obviously, and if you stop before making Brian into a woobie, they're still important. That's what rounds things out and makes them more like realistic whole relationships and not just manifestations of ideal (like 'the selfish/sexual one' & 'the selfless/pure-friendship/love one', y'know). I don't want to overly emphasize these traces or whatever, but at the same time I like the sense of balance it gives me (...probably a little too much...)

The thing is, it's not like I -project- any philosophy onto a given text; I just sort of react & see reflections of things that relate to my overall ideals/feelings in what happens in a story (which I think is natural). It's not like I would then expect the story to reflect the story in my head (...though that's definitely a danger, true)-- but ideally that wouldn't have to happen, I guess. I really love meta :D Like, when I read a story especially (rather rarer in things I watch), I love it when it makes me think about larger issues and my own attitudes towards those issues evolves. I tend to like the stories that 'fit' me philosophically moreso than I do those that don't, too-- I think that's natural in that even you like Brian because you admire him or feel he stands for something you respect, non? Something like that, anyway ^^; heh