When I think of writing or creating a story I seem to lean towards wanting to write about forlorn romances with a broader plot line. As a matter of fact in most of the general plots I have concocted in my head throughout the years was never complete without such type of relationship with the lead male character. I find myself drawn to said settings in stories and if backed by other aspects in the narrative that are well done I finish the text. (eventually) That being said I could not imagine any works I would ever do in the future to be at all good, or, rather, authentic, unless there is or was a romance that was not meant to be. It's a common theme in literature and I am not saying it is something I came up with or am the only one who likes it, but I wonder, why are so many people into such topics? In addition, I like plots of young love rather than a more mature love. I say this mostly because it is more believable for the youth to think of love and happiness with another so absolutely than say an adult because the reality of love is not bliss. I like the make believe world of love and what love is in literature, it's so innocent and warm. Has anyone seen 5 centimeters per second? That's a plot that I connect with very easily and feel is an authentic representation of how youthful love dies and so does an aspect of innocence. But there is more to those sorts of plots that overarches the message of the love story as a whole, and that is the anguish of living without that idea of love for the rest of ons life. I would compare this with Plato's dialogue of the man escaping from the cave of darkness and using reason and logic and this forever unable to live in his previous world whether they like to go back or not. Of course this is growing up to "T" but I think some grow up and go on easier than others in certain areas in their life than others. I have a hard time finding these ye of people, or, at least, finding those willing to talk about it. I guess, in a way, that is why I am attracted to the said genre of stories as stated above. Finding those who either don't want to talk about how they feel or never felt or feel said feelings leads me to go and dream those stories or read them. This type of plot arch can be used in literally hundreds if not thousands of settings and coupled with a good narrative could be very successful. (Look at Murakami, he's been writing about the same spaghetti recipe for 30 years.) This leads me to ask this question, do we escape into the literature we are attracted to or create the worlds we do in our heads because the world we live in does not give us the release of whatever emotion or closure we need in aspects of our lives that we lost in our youth? It is said by the age of 30 that A. half your life has passed (the way our brains perceive time) and B. the most poignant memories we will ever have in our lives (14-30) are forever slated in our minds. With this, whatever we lacked or will lack and are unable to fill is transposed in our reading tastes. Maybe I am reading into reading (mo pun intended) too an extreme and maybe it's all just random or a culmination of both or various other things, but I wonder, are we really salves to our past and lack to power to change it that we fantasize of worlds in which someone can relate with you that you can not find in the real world? If so then if it is bled into our reading tastes how muddled has it made other aspects of our lives that we are or are not aware of? It truly is amazing how one instance in your life can really form and heavily dictate you you became and are today. Nature nurture etc. yes and of course our facticity does not define who we are as Sartre once so bluntly stated, but we DO do it, even he did, his conscience being shaped by WWII. If I may, as Nino Rota once so elegantly penned, What Is A Youth? Indeed, what is a youth? Is youth really so paramount in our identity that we are slaves to it for the rest of our lives or is it something that can be so simply as to, "let go?" Some would say either or or both but I question as to what "let go" actually means. Is let go to meaning completely forgetting, or remembering but not let it be part of your life? I think both are impossible to do leu of a TBI. (Although I would question the validly of the claim of it being completely forgotten on metaphysical grounds but that is for another day.) With that, ones facility is part of who they are and helps to define who they are as a person. I argue that Sartre is incorrect that ones facticity does not define them, or, rather, I argue that one's facticity has at least SOMETHING to do with how they are defined and thus their identity. So, notions or phrases that have meanings around the like as "forget and move on" are juvenile and naive because one never can or is able to forget although they are still able to move on, in many various meanings and forms for that matter. The questions is then posed again, all be it phrased differently, what does it mean to "move on?" One could say that by simply living one is moving on even if the past completely and utterly consumes their life to a point of paralysis. Another viewpoint is indeed living a life filled with new experiences that relate, couple or even surpass past experiences but still hold on to the past as a footnote at least in their lives. I argue that that many in life are taking part in the two (there could be more for sure and thus added rightly into this assertion) by the very proof of their reading habits for one example. (Again if one is to believe that reading habits are based on a need to satiate a lack brought about a past occurrence that is unable to be addressed in the world of reality.) One is living their lives both with moving on in a experiential sense and thus making new memories and growing as society deems proper social growth but, at the same time being locked in this complacent state, until the lack is taken care of in real life (again easier said then done), being thus chained to their very past. With this I will say that I personally feel like the stories that role through my head either self created or read blur to a point were my past is brought into question and I thus make up stories of future happenstances. I question if this is a rational thing (probably not) or typical of most people. (Like thinking of what you would do if some crazed gunman came into a building you were in, yeah that's wright we all think about it.) With this, again, I will say that personally I will admit I am a slave to my past and I think most of my life decisions have been based on a few moments that have passed in my youth, and I find that quite astounding to say the least, if not baffling, or perhaps, sad.