After admitting I have a blog in conversation, and after mucking through the nerd speculation such an admission instigates, I am then often presented with a furrowed brow, a scrunched face.
"Peeps and s'mores you say?" As in, "I don't follow." As in "Are you wasting my time talking nonsense?"
And so I have tried to come up with little summaries of what it is to be classified into two groups that can lead to unforeseen complexities you might never know could stem from such simplicity: a marshmallow.
The concept is based on very real conversations that have actually happened in various situations, and each time the philosophy seems to prove most accurate.
I can remember being no older than 5 and sensing that something was wrong in a situation where peanut butter and jelly were layered intermittently in the same jar. Years later, I myself could feel a scrunch-face coming on after witnessing a seemingly sane, sober citizen reach for a plain old sugar cookie rather than go for chocolate chip, or even just a snickerdoodle.
Thus, the beginning of my subconscious case build. I would watch, take note of these type of tendencies (not like a creep or a stalker, more like a curious cat,
or something friendlier) and who was tending to have them. And I realized, they were usually those people who you could have no problem with on paper, but just can't ever seem to connect to in the real life.
To draw on another analogy, you know when people refer to "burning bridges"? Like "Wellll, you just don't want to burn any bridges"...it makes sense because in case you want to travel back that way you want the bridge to still be there to get across. But, when you travel around for years and years, obviously there must be lots and lots of these bridges, and maybe sometimes there are bridges that help all of the other people get to you in your life...but let's say some of these bridges are like the ones from that Nickelodeon show about the hidden temple or whatever where the only way to get across was if you answered a question correctly.
And so one person gets to the bridge and there lies before him/her 2 of those fun big silver trays that cartoon butlers use.
He lifts the lids of the both of them at the same time.
Looks first at the s'more, smiles.
Looks next at the peep, glares.
Back at the s'more, laughs, and eats it while giddy anticipation fills his thoughts with who he will find ahead who left behind such a treat. (Another metaphor.)
Person #2 walks up shortly thereafter and is presented with the same. Lifts up both lids, and looks confused.
Decides, that this must be one of the less important bridges, hastily chooses the peep because it will be less of a mess and because person #2 is easily attracted to bright colors and shine. Bites into that foamy little chick shaped marshmallow and is immediately blasted back from impact. (Think Nicolas Cage running in Con Air or Face Off or whatever, all greased up with fire in the background.) The bridge is destroyed, blown up, burned for sure. There's no getting across. Luckily, to the left and right there are great places to go too, but therein that single choice marks a significant divergence.
So, I didn't intend to actually preface this one quote with such a lengthy anecdote, but isn't that always the case?
Diana Vreeland was quoted once to say "People who eat white bread have no dreams."
And so (!!), this is what I'm saying!!! This is the same. I mean, talk about validation! You get it right?
And, you know, as I've said before there are always exceptions to a rule. I know there are those super s'mores out there with kitschy little styles who can make peeps look cute, charming, possibly even endearing. The same way someone could probably smack some bologna between two pieces of white bread and eat it as fearlessly as people who can actually make smoking look good, if not healthy.
Cigarettes and Bologna-- What of it?