Love is not Valentine
THE EDITOR, Madam:
Maybe Valentine’s Day was created as a kind of robotic recurrence of romantic festival than for any affection of note. Love is always noteworthy, but it is of interest that a quality that is so personal and unique to each of its possessor could find such collective fire of harmony by the mere turning of a new day.
Maybe one of the disclaimers against Valentine’s Day, apart from its connection to paganism, is the large number of spousal abuse and even murder occurring almost in unison with the celebration of love. Or maybe love is wicked, as many females will confess “a caww him lov mi meck him a beat an betta bruise mi op!”
Maybe love is not the “ever-fixed mark of faithfulness” that Shakespeare imagined but is the mark of certain death for a spouse who attempts to change with the changing of time and seasons. For how do you reconcile two emotions so adversarial to each other, as love and hate, and settle them into a resolution of love? Sorry, I believe in love but not in Valentine’s Day.
Love should not be an expression that lacks the value of its own appearance, like an imitation rose made of plastic while lacking the reality it is feigning. You cannot set an appointment date for love any more than you can set a date to tell men to love their spouses and to stop murdering and abusing them, even though most men may tell you dem lov dem ooman tu deat! – which may really mean a 'lov-an-kill yu' kind of relationship.
Love happens on its own time and circumstance; it cannot be pushed or coerced. So apart from the repulsion of a day for love along with its unsavoury roots, I think Valentine’s Day is a cursory and automated pastime that seeks to distort real and sustainable love. Maybe even the fact of its own celebration is a commentary on the deficit.