The Importance of Being Earnest

In the beginning of the Victorian Era, etiquette and domesticity were very important issues, with which people in high society would preoccupy themselves. Nonetheless, by the end of the period, these values had been declining and the new society, having now different concerns, ridiculed the old values. This satire can be clearly observed in the play The Importance of Being Earnest, where the critique begins in its title: the play depicts that what is important is having the name Earnest (appearance), rather than actually being genuinely earnest.

Oscar Wild satirizes social traditions from the early Victorian Age with great humor and intelligence throughout the play. One of these many moments is the passage quoted above, retrieved from the first act. The quote above illustrates irony about certain social rules of the time and conveys a negative concept of family, since it results in Algy being accompanied of either no women or two. The idea of having two women being family-like corroborates to the ludicrousness being exposed in the play.

Furthermore, many are the passages in the comedy that depict the mockery of the social values and manners of the initial Victorian Period. Three other passages, one from each Act of the play, were chosen to illustrate Wild’s critique. The first is a line from Algy, in Act 1, where he states: “I hate people who are not serious about meals. It is so shallow of them.” (Algy, Act 1). Once more, and often it is so, Algy’s words carry much of the criticism in the play through the use of senseless comments, which praise manners over reason. When Algy affirms that people who are not serious about meals are shallow, it seems straightforward the irony Wild makes use of to satirize the exaggeration of manners used by the society he lived in.

The second passage concerns a conversation between Miss Prism and Cecily, in act 2, in which they say: “Miss Prism: I know no one who has a higher sense of duty and responsibility. Cecily: I suppose this is why he often looks a little bored.” (Miss Prism and Cecily, Act 2). Again, it is possible to notice the inversion of values, where being responsible and dutiful is not seen as a positive thing. It is important to observe that Wild probably refers to the excess of those qualities, very commonly praised in the beginning of the Victorian Era.

Lastly, the third excerpt regards a remark from Lady Bracknell in Act 3, where she states: “ A hundred and thirty thousand pounds! And in the Funds! Miss Cardwell seems to me a most attractive young lady, now that I look at her.” (Lady Bracknell, Act 3). Once more, the idea that appearances and materialism are worth more than character is underscored in this passage. As soon as Lady Bracknell learns of Cecily’s fortune, the latter suddenly becomes fit to marry Lady Bracknell’s nephew, despite Cecily’s character – yet unknown to the Lady. 

Silly novels by Lady novelists

An essay is a brief composition, usually subjective, containing much of the author’s personal view about a subject. Nonetheless, even comprehending the author’s viewpoint, essays usually provide the readership with logical arguments to ground their statements. This is especially true for some of the Victorian prose writers, but on the contrary, other Victorian essayists aimed at stirring the reader’s feelings along with convincing them of their views, this way approaching Romantic traits.

Most of the subjects in the Victorian non-fiction prose dealt with polemic topics in the scope of religion, politics, moral issues, and aesthetic philosophies. The main ambition of the Victorian non-fiction prose was to instruct and inform people. There is where the importance of the essays in this period rests on. On essays, writers exposed their ideas and concerns about social and moral issues, sometimes denouncing inhuman situations, thus calling attention to the matter. They also claimed room for literature in a world where science and materialism ruled. Important authors of the period who wrote essays include Thomas Carlyle, John Ruskin, William Morris, Matthew Arnold, and George Eliot.

In one of the most famous essays by George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans’s pseudonym), “Silly Novels by Lady Novelists”, she discusses the novels written by her contemporary female writers in a tone of irony, humor, and sometimes, even aggressiveness. She satirizes the trivial topics broached by women novelists in her days as well as the inaccuracy of other topics and realities they addressed due to their unfamiliarity to them. To do so, George Eliot mentions many issues she notices in these novels and brings examples to ground her statements. Some of the most important critiques made by Eliot will be broached below.

She begins by affirming that the children depicted in those novels are not realistic because they do not speak like actual children do, but on the contrary, much more eloquently. Then, the “oracular species-novels”, as she entitles them, are criticized. They would consist of novels that expose the writers’ religious, philosophical or moral ideas- which in Eliot’s opinion are quite uninformed. Another important matter she calls the readers’ attention to, is the excessively refined language used in such novels. She writes a sentence using an objective language and then another very flowery to indicate the difference to the reader. She makes herself clear.

Finally, another question criticized is that of women wanting to boast about their scholarliness and talk about environments and situations that, it seems to Eliot the writers are ignorant about. As a last remark, it is interesting to wonder about the author’s intentions with the essay. It is difficult to affirm just by reading the essay that Eliot is implying a critique about women’s education beneath the criticism about the works written by the women in her days. However, it seems reasonable to argue that had women had the proper education they lacked, they would be able to write novels that were truly intellectual and meaningful. 

Big cities, better lifestyle

Big cities, better lifestyle

“If I can’t make it there, I can’t make it anywhere” sang Frank Sinatra’s deep voice in the fifties making reference to the American city of New York. The song conveys that there is no other place that provides one with more opportunities to strive and succeed in life than New York. Sinatra goes on: “These little town blues are melting away, I’ll make a brand new start of it in New York”. As opposed to the little towns, New York City, the most populous city in the United States, is significantly influent in the global commerce, culture, finance, media, art, education, entertainment and politics. Is the idea suggested by the nineteen fifties song obsolete? Facts indicate that the cliché is still valid: living in big cities is preferable to living in small cities because access to entertainment, education and above all, healthcare is higher in big cities if compared to towns.

In big cities more options regarding entertainment, shopping and such are more easily found. Sure entertainment can be found in Cedar Grove, Victorville or Pinehurst, small towns in the states of New York, California and Massachusetts respectively. But, to such a minor scale that we cannot compare it to the diverseness with which it can be verified in major cities in the same states. New York, Los Angeles and Chicago supply its people with entertainment, which not only can be found with better ease and speed, but also to a much larger extent and which are internationally acknowledged. The Four Seasons and Lutece in the Big Apple, Brighton Coffee Shop and Dan Tana’s in the City of Angels as well as Capriccio and Blue Ginger in the City on a Hill are famous restaurants, which exemplify such assortment. Other examples are the Manhattan, the Grove and the Copley Place, famous shopping malls in the cities of New York, Los Angeles and Boston respectively, which offer its dwellers much more options in fashion, price and trend.

More important than variety in entertainment is that, in big cities, access to education and, thus, job opportunities is more available. When you think of good education, is Antigua and Barbuda International Institute of Technology the first thing that comes to your mind? Or is it New York University or maybe Columbia University? If we go to the western coast, would you rather enroll your son or daughter in Victorville International University or in UCLA? Now, as an employer in the northeastern America would you rather give a job to a person that has majored from the Methodist University in Pinehurst or from Harvard or MIT? By all means, education in these minor cities is unsatisfactory, but one cannot deny the imposingness and acknowledgement that lies within the universities in the major cities of these states. One would rather choose to study in the latter universities and employ those with such education in contrast to those educated in small town universities.

In addition to that, beyond all considerations, health is the main reason why living in big cities is preferable. Numbers speak for themselves. Current stocktaking of healthcare service in big and small cities depicts considerable difference in number between these two sites. Other than the famous HHC (Health and Hospitals Corporation); which operates the public hospitals and clinics in New York City; controlling over eleven hospitals, four nursing homes, six diagnostic and treatment centers and, 80 community-based primary care sites; the city is equipped with over 52 hospitals among other facilities. Against those numbers, we have six hospitals in the New York state’s small city representative, Cedar Grove. In the Golden State, the survey gives evidence of 81 acute care hospitals containing emergencies located in the big city of Los Angeles against ten in the small town of Victorville. In the state of Massachusetts, 31 hospitals were found in Boston, while in the state’s small city representative, Pinehurst, a couple of emergency rooms and zero hospitals were listed. It is true that if there are more healthcare facilities in major cities rather than in small cities, the likelihood that you will find aid in a quicker period of time within a shorter distance from your neighborhoods in a big city in contrast with small cities is perceptible.  It is also true that a better sense of safety is provided in a place where more options are more accessible in time and space, when you know that health care is only a drive away.

All and all, in agreement with the implications in the famous lines of New York New York, living in big cities still proves to be more advantageous than living in small cities due to the verification of more entertainment, education and, healthcare in the firsts. As it has been stated, both big and small cities are supplied with some of the most essential institutions for the contemporaneous life. However, not only access to them is higher in big cities, but they constitute more acknowledged and assorted instances. If one can have at one’s disposal diversity in restaurants and shopping malls that present more alternatives, variety in options for education that brings more opportunity and vastness in healthcare that produces a better sense of safety, why would one seek for a reduced degree of all those necessary institutions? Having the chance to live in cities that don’t sleep provides its dwellers with more advantages than any little towns with melting away blues do.

Roosevelt versus Washington

“Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere.” –George Washington.

The first president of America, in 1794 encouraged the production of marijuana throughout the state and it took almost two centuries for the drug to be criminalized. According to the National Archives, around 1920 some North American states started turning the drug illicit and marijuana was made illegal for the first time in the United States altogether only in 1937, by the Marijuana Tax Act, a federal law signed by president Roosevelt, when the drug was made illegal for recreational use. That meant that if a person possessed marijuana and did not pay its taxes, that marijuana was considered illegal. That was the result of a fight that started full force in 1930, with the formation of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN). Two Acts from 1952 and 1956 that were passed, the Boggs Act and Narcotics Control Act respectively, increased punishment on the drug, thus contributing to its restraint. What happened from George Washington to Franklin Roosevelt that caused this change? Why has cannabis been prohibited by law? And should this prohibition end?

Such a controversial subject is liable to arise many different positions as well as arguments to support such and all people are entitled to having one. However, reliability of information and consistency is crucial to assembling dependable and irrefutable argumentation. And, despite different viewpoints arguing for the legalization, strong evidence based on studies realized by experts and real life examples illustrate otherwise. Cannabis should continue being illegal in our societies due to its proven dependency development in users, due to not being the exclusive answer to helping cancer patients, and most importantly, due to its being inimical to people’s health.

But what exactly is cannabis legalization? And, furthermore, what precisely is Cannabis sativa? According to The Free Dictionary, Cannabis is “a strong-smelling plant from whose dried leaves a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs are prepared”.  Landes Bioscience Database further explains, “Among the nearly 500 compounds belonging to a large variety of groups, cannabinoids (66 compounds) are typical to this plant”. The bioscience laboratory clarifies still, “while delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is responsible for psychoactive properties of Cannabis some of the other components modulate its activity.” This plant has been utilized for unrecreational use since before the birth of Christ, according to doctor Degenhardt, neurophysiologist from The University of New South Wales. The doctor further adds that only since 50 years ago recreational use has been employed deeply to the plant and that he estimates that presently more than 160 million people use the drug, mostly unlawfully. This happens due to the current state of possession, commerce and use of this plant being illegal in nearly all countries in the world. Thus, this is the reason why some people express the will to legalize it. That is, to make legal the act of planting, cultivating, using, selling and purchasing this plant.

Whether cannabis should be purchased and used legally or not is a matter that has been discussed worldwide for over five decades. There are those who are in favor and those who are against it. Among the most common arguments in favor of the legalization of this drug, according to Marijuana Legalization are the three following:  firstly, that marijuana is not addictive, thus representing no harm to users and consequently, should be legalized; another assertion claimed by cannabis defenders, other than its lack of dependency, is that the drug is not only used for recreational purposes, but it is also useful in other areas such as the paper, rope and clothing industry, and most importantly, it is useful to cancer patients; and an ultimate defense provided is that the drug does not damage human brain and neither does it cause severe health troubles such as cancer, heart problems and birth defects, among others.

Those arguments express some of the views of people in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. They have been assembled in some website dedicated to the cause of fighting to defend their ideals of turning cannabis legal. Nonetheless, this intense discussion is not confined within virtual web pages and, being openly polemic, amasses different stances. The debate over whether this drug should be kept illicit or turned legal encompasses religious, universitarian, political and economic scopes among others. Additionally, contrary to favorable views, not only consistent, but also reliable arguments against this legalization are evidenced.

Firstly, despite defenders claims, cannabis has been proven to have levels of addiction. And addition is clearly an important factor and crucial to the defense presented for the legalization. That is why they want to claim that marijuana is not addictive. Because it would be insensible to argue that “personal freedom” is jeopardized if you cannot use the product you want to and later discover that that same product leaves you no freedom to stop using it. Accordingly, defenders of the cause affirm that marijuana is not addictive. However, no study at this point has been able to prove the drug’s deprivation from addiction. No study has also proven its severe addiction. Neurologist Eric H. Chudler, Ph.D., supported by the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), affirms that “Whether marijuana can produce severe addiction is controversial,” and that  “Only future research will give us the answers”. On the other hand, in The Science of Marijuana (2008), Professor Iverson, from the University of Cambridge in England states, based on his laboratory research and survey research, pointed that between 10 to 30% of regular users will develop a dependency and that around 9% will develop serious addiction. Noticeably, the professor’s researches depict no zeroed statistics. And to responsibly and consistently affirm that a substance is not addictive is to affirm that there is no evidence of dependency shown, what has been proven not to be true.

Additionally, University of Mississippi's Potency Monitoring Project director Mahmoud ElSohly, when interviewed by CNN International in 2009, said that “the average potency of marijuana, as measured by the drug's concentration of the psychoactive ingredient THC, which has risen steadily for three decades, has exceeded 10 percent for the first time – with some plants as high as 30%,” and predicts that “potency will continue to rise”. That is, the hallucinogen effect acts in a shorter period of time, using less of the drug. The Project director’s research also shows that younger, inexperienced users have a higher chance of developing dependency if compared to older users, from former days.

Moreover, Family Doctor alerts that there are two types of dependencies in narcotics: physical and psychological. Psychological being less related to the drug and more to the person. That is, regardless of the drug, anyone can get addicted, depending on the person’s psychological traits. And because marijuana is harmful to the health, even if the addiction was only physical, that would become a problem. So, be it in whichever ambit, whether physical or psychological, with scientific evidence to prove, it is undeniable that marijuana has some level of addictiveness. Yet, even if addiction does not constitute high levels, the benefit of doubt is a logical argument not to turn the drug legal. It is ill advised to decriminalize it, while further researches are being made to verify for more numbers, meanwhile having the population using it, risking having more and more people addicted to it. Furthermore, risking using the drug in order to check whether you are among the 30% or the 70% who will develop addiction does not seem like the most intelligent choice. And even more, if the drug had been proved to have no addition whatsoever, that would still not consist logical argument to legalizing it because the lack of addition does not make a substance fit for use. An example is another drug, the opium. It has been analyzed as less not-addictive than cannabis and it has been past proved that opium is severely detrimental to the health, according to Drugs.

In addition to being addictive, cannabis is not the solo answer to cancer patients. Defenders claim that cannabis can be used for a variety of things, and not only for recreational purposes. Its fiber can be used to make paper, rope and clothing, as well as its THC can be used to ease the pain, insomnia, nausea, loss of appetite and digestion problems from cancer patients.

Nevertheless, those are scarcely the reasons why the gross majority of users want it legal. This idea works very much like a façade of being concerned on behalf of the cancer patients or paper industry and not because of recreational use. The reason behind the illegality of the drug is hardly related to the concern traditional paper manufacturing felt towards the properties of cannabis, contrary to what THC, a website dedicated to the promotion of the drug, states: “ Hemp's potential for producing paper also posed a threat to the timber industry. Evidence suggests that commercial interests having much to lose from hemp competition helped propagate reefer madness hysteria, and used their influence to lobby for Marijuana Prohibition.” On the other hand, in the same paragraph they admit: “It is not known for certain if special interests conspired to destroy the hemp industry via Marijuana Prohibition.”

Moreover, not only cancer patients constitute the least portion of protestants, according to Drug Abuse, but also, as reported by NORML, Kara Rosen, “who is among the more than 100,000 Colorado residents who have become legal users of marijuana since 2009” affirms that in some states where medicinal marijuana is permitted, like Colorado, half the patients use the drug for stress alleviation and insomnia, instead of for cancer.

Actually, further still, this argument discredits the cancer patients, who do indeed benefit from the drug, making it all appear invalid. When perfectly vigorous people with dreadlocks, cannabis plan t-shirt and bloodshot eyes fight alongside cancer patients for the legalization of a drug, pretending they share the same interests with the result, it discredits not only the first, but both.

Furthermore, the American Cancer Society informs that about 30% of the world population suffers from some type of cancer. So if marijuana were decriminalized because of use for some industries or for symptoms lessening to some people (both benefits found in many other sources), once made available to these people, it would also becomes accessible to all the other 4.900.000.000 cancer-free and paper industry uninterested people, who have no reason, according to the argument, to use the drug.

Lastly, marijuana should continue illegal because of all harms cannabis cause, and because it causes more harm than other possible benefits that may come with it, likewise because there are other answers to the problems it could help solve. US National Library of Medicine, a governmental information provider, within the National Institute of Health (NIH) lists over 15 medicines directed for heavy pain releasing, over 200 web pages with names of medication for eating disorder, more than 500 pages listing remedy for sleeping disorder, over 1000 pages with medicine that combat loss of appetite, and more than 2000 pages with names of nausea medication. Clearly, there are a number of other choices to help cancer patients other than cannabis. Thus, constituting no necessity for decriminalizing the drug.

Finally, rather than being deprived of causing harm, cannabis has been proven to do the opposite precisely. A number of experts offer consistent evidence to support that. First, on the whole, breathing smoke of any type is harmful to the human health. With cannabis smoke, not only the user is inhaling smoke, but also he or she is holding it there for a long time and that is injurious to the tissue. In fact, a study conducted by the British Lung Foundation with doctor Mark Britton, chairman of the Foundation, established that cannabis cigarettes are almost 10 times more damaging than tobacco cigarettes. He further informs that his research has shown evidence that the tar from cannabis cigarettes contains 50% more cancer causing carcinogens than tobacco cigarettes.

Neurologist Eric H. Chudler, Ph.D., supported by the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), states that “Because there is a high level of tar and other chemicals in marijuana, smoking it is similar to smoking cigarettes. The lungs get a big dose of chemicals that increase the chances of lung problems and cancer later in life”. Doctor Chudler supplements that marijuana’s THC “acts on cannabinoid receptors which are found on neurons in many places in the brain. These brain areas are involved in memory (the hippocampus), concentration (cerebral cortex), perception (sensory portions of the cerebral cortex) and movement (the cerebellum, substantia nigra, globus pallidus). When THC activates cannabinoid receptors, it interferes with the normal functioning of these brain areas.” And this interference, in higher dosage, is likely to cause hallucinations, delusions, impaired memory, and disorientation. Additionally, THC can affect two neurotransmitters: norepinephrine and dopamine. Serotonin and GABA levels may also be altered, according to doctor Chudler.

Another expert, Neurophysiologist and researcher doctor Tanya Zilberter, has evidenced in her researches over 20 years, that in beginning users, the most common reactions to the drug are anxiety, panic reactions including tachycardia, and psychotic symptoms. The average heart rate increases between 20% and 100% just after using marijuana and this effect can last for three hours. This increases significantly the risks of undergoing a heart attack. On the other hand, chronic users are likely to suffer from memory deficits and motor performance impairment. Decreased levels of testosterone and increased rates of birth defects in babies born to mothers taken cannabis during pregnancy are other adverse effects. Doctor Zilberter explains still:

Cannabis use changes brain functions that can be detected by modern methods like positron emission tomography, and electroencephalography. Among most reproducible effects of cannabis withdrawal are: lower brain blood flow in certain regions of brain cortex, less activity in brain regions involved in memory and attention and changes in cannabinoid receptor activity in the hippocampus, prefrontal cortex, and cerebellum.

In what concerns neurophysiology still, Anxiety Panic Hub shows that marijuana can cause panic attacks and if there is an existing condition, the risk of triggering it is high. Mental Health Examiner, Paul Bright, conducted a research that proves that adolescent users, who are still in development, can have basic emotional development inhibited and progress into paranoia. The International Mental Health Research Organization cites 30 studies that show the emergency of schizophrenia being higher in younger users of cannabis.

Lastly and perhaps more importantly, the European Respiratory Journal, an official scientific journal, presents a study performed by 9 doctors and 3 medical institutes, which demonstrates the connection between cannabis use and lung cancer. Their abstract informs: “the risk of lung cancer increased 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2–15) for each joint-yr of cannabis smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking, and 7% (95% CI 5–9) for each pack-yr of cigarette smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cannabis smoking. The highest tertile of cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (relative risk 5.7 (95% CI 1.5–21.6)), after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking”. So it cannot be stated that marijuana does not harm health.

In sum, because marijuana is not free from causing dependency, as well as because it is not the only remedy for cancer patients, and finally because it is harmful to the health, marijuana should not be legalized. After analyzing such steady evidence, not only is it possible to perceive why president Franklin Roosevelt made marijuana illicit, but also, it is possible to perceive why it should continue that way.

The most important room

The concept of important, like all concepts, varies from person to person, age to age, gender to gender, culture to culture. What may be considered an important room in a house to a 19 year-old girl in Thailand may not coincide with the definition of the middle aged military from Kansas.  It is central from the beginning to establish what this concept represents to me. Important to me in regard to a room in a house is that it provides safety, infra structure, minimum of comfort, and chiefly that it provides me privacy. A house is not a house to me if there can’t be any privacy in it. In the contemporary life where one is to study, work –sometimes in more than one place, raise a family and manage a house, privacy and time for one’s self is of utter importance. The criteria thus that will be used here to choose a room is that which fits better in my idea of importance.

To do so, it is necessary to know all possibilities in order to choose from them. So, a question that could be risen is: what are the rooms a house can have?

Some say a house is not a house without a kitchen. This is probably one of the most requested rooms in a house. The kitchen is equipped to prepare food, which is one of the basic infra structure of the human being. Whether it is mandatory to have one inside a house or not, is another matter altogether. Well, it is well advised to have food in a house – in contrast to eating out, but having a room only for this purpose is not compulsory. One can after all eat food that has not been prepared by one’s own hands.

Dining rooms represent to me a less of essential more of aesthetics room in a house. That is to say, evidently one can eat in a bedroom or porch or any other room without the need of a specific place set only with a table and chairs used for eating. Despite this fact, it of course  makes a house more complete and welcoming.

As much uncomfortable as a house would be without a living room, I am convinced a house would still be very livable nonetheless. Sure a living room provides a house with coziness and a better sense of organization, but one can live without a television set in a room for itself. One can live without a television set, period.

It is said that without a bedroom, nobody would be able to sleep. Or rather, it would become quite an unpleasant rest. Or else, a rest with little privacy. Nevertheless not even teenagers can have complete privacy in a bedroom, no matter how much they try and mind you, they try it greatly. The reason why that is lies on the fact that bedrooms were architectured for the solo intent of resting and keeping one’s personal possessions. Although even with this aim, the room was not planned to necessarily fulfill its function for a person only. How many bedrooms after all don’t we know that are shared among sisters or brothers and husbands and wives? I myself shared my room with my elder sister for years. Moreover, isn’t it a waste of space having a room served only for sleeping?

Lastly we have the Bathroom. Oh, the bathroom. There is no such place a person can have more privacy in than a bathroom. I mean few people- to say the most- would dare trouble one when one crosses the threshold of a bathroom. Consider that a person is a married adult with children and who works like any ordinary breadwinner; consider further that the family is a typical Italian descendant family that is very keen on Sunday lunches with aunts and cousins and grandparents and all the sort. Now consider that it is a Sunday, the day reserved for rest, and the whole family is united. Now picture the house and all its rooms. The kitchen will most definitely be crowded with the women, cooking and excitedly chatting about grandmother. The latter of which will very comfortably be sitting by the television with the favorite uncles, in the living room, discussing the president’s newest speech. Right beside it, in the dining room, the preacher aunt will be having a stern conversation with the eldest son about the seriousness of marriage, while, in the bedroom, the daughters will be showing the cousins daddy’s new medal. Now, where can daddy stay for five minutes to catch his breath in this midst? Yes, exactly: the bathroom. There, no one will bother him – at least for some minutes. He can always just shut the toilet’s top, sit on it, take a deep, lone breath and think straight for the first time during the week. Maybe he can even engage in a quick reading before returning to the mayhem.

In summary, it is clear that all rooms are assets to a house. Though if it is needed to prioritize some over others, or better, one over all, choices have to be done, which obviously rules options out and, though the general importance of most rooms is undeniable, the one room that cannot be left out of a house is the bathroom, for reasons altogether unconventional.

Meet Archie

  

            He was late, he could tell. The night was reaching its turning point and he’d arrived in the imminence. But Archie was always late. He believed that either the fretful or underprivileged types get early at such occasions. As he was none, he just didn’t care about arriving on time.

            It was 1:06 am, The Joker was packed and people were already on fuddled stages. There had more girls than guys inside, most of whom were good-looking and had impeccable make-up on, in spite of the heat. They danced provocatively, teasing the men –and to Archie's amusement, girls- around. On the other side of the club, by the white loungish sofa arrangement, were the couples that by this time were already hooked up. Some bitter, yet-not-hooked-up women near by seemed to tell with their looks some of the couples to get a room.

By the bar were the permanent shy and the eager-to-get-a-drink-and-head-back ones. An amusing combination to stare at. A young, punk-looking bartender juggled fetching people’s drinks, keeping the counter clean and flirting at the same time. His mouth piercing and beams told Archie he liked his job.

On the dance floor some bodies seemed many, inserted in that setting with the loud, involving beat; the half lit environment; colorful lights that danced amid people; peeks, glares, breathing, movement, vanity, shots; people on their best, most attractive outfit, behavior, smiles. Speed varied into very fast and slow motion according to people’s intentions and closeness. It all just takes one in, empties one’s mind and focuses one’s attention to it, the dance, the girls, the throbbing of the room, the breathing, the speed, the shots, the people.

He was blond and attractive, he could have any of those beautiful faces in the room and he knew it. He was bold but didn't cross lines; stout but elegant; aware of his potential but kept it down. Had that subtle rare combination that hardly made him cocky. He was confident. What’s wrong with being confident?