some conclusions, after much thought

it is better to be in love than not to be in love on valentines day. similarly, it is more enjoyable to receive lillies than it is not to receive them. but in general, experiencing (finally!) a valentines day in which my b.lov'd and i are healthy and co-situated does not amount to much. it is nice to look into someone else's eyes and bill and coo, but if one does that on most days, there is very little difference. except perhaps an extra added sense that one is fortunate.

last valentines day, my b.lov'd was across the pond and my friend k-ross gallantly squired me around. k-ross is currently across the pond, whatever pond lies between new york and india. two valentines days ago, i woke in the campus hospital. the present my b.lov'd brought me was a bottle of nyquil and the news that he was off to a concert with k-ross, if that was all right. (it was. i GUESS.) and three valentines days ago, i was across the pond, recovering from substance abuse and moping the even-shorter, even-drabber danish day away in a pub.

four valentines days ago, my b.lov'd and i had only vague knowledge of each other. he had just been spurned; i was feeling cynical about all things romantic. but we started on a collision course and aww. here we are. on thursday, we'll have been here four years.

to be fair, along with nyquil that year he brought me a double cd of beatles songs he had compiled in an order particular and significant. i do like the beatles now, which i didn't once, thanks in some part to him. but i still like lillies more.