After and during a Thanksgiving meal at my uncle's house, I was embroiled in discussion with a group of not-so-young teenagers. My cousin, now nineteen and a sophomore at Berkeley, had two of her childhood friends over. One was a year older, the other two years younger. They represented a perfect focus group for me. After giving them a thorough interview about the things they read as a young adult, scrolling through their iPod Nanos, and asking them about their obsessions, I got onto the topic of how they perceived their social status in high school. That somehow led to this gem:

"So when you did stop being shy?" I asked.
Sarah, the oldest one and seemingly very outgoing and probably the most comfortable with who she currently was, reminisced for me. "Like maybe sophomore year of high school."
"Oh yeah? Why?"
"I got my braces off." That answer, cliche because it's absolutely true, dissolved us all into laughter. It was the perfect response and her charming smile afterwards drove home the point.

For most of the evening, I'd been intently studying Ashley and her friends, watching them and more importantly, listening. What I realized is that I hadn't really captured the way real teenagers act/talk like very well in the Chloe book. I wrote teenagers as I've read them before -- it was a rendition based on a rendition. Even though I've been told that my dialogue represents female teens well, I noticed that I really did a piss poor job of capturing the little details that really highlight the way lines are spoken and a conversation is exchanged.

For example, the contrast between the hyper kinetic way one of the girls talked versus the slowly measured way my cousin chose her words and how that difference in energy changes the way you listen and react. And how talking really really fast tends to make a girl seem younger, even if her words are wise beyond her ears.

Plus I didn't put in enough physical cues, the sort that really capture a person. I stuck in some "beats" of course, but they were generic and not so much revealing as functional. The hardest thing I had to learn writing this book was working with dialogue. My first drafts read like screen plays and I found it an entirely new experience to have to vary the visual space of having people talk on a page. I kind of wish I had recorded parts of yesterday's conversation so I could practice recapping it in book fashion.

I've been trying to listen more to the world around me, in an attempt to become a more observant and better writer. It's difficult for me because my memory is terrible nowadays. I purchased a beautiful perfectly sized orange notebook a few weeks ago to carry with me, mainly to write down bits of conversation that I hear. It's not easy though, because people talk faster than I write. And I'm not in the habit of jotting things down quite yet. But I can work at it. For now, I'll just keep my eyes and ears open and find some more teenagers to study.

It's crazy to me how with it teenagers are. From re-meeting and interacting with my sixteen year old cousin this past fall, and exchanging weekly emails with her, I've realized that there really is no intelligence gap. There's an experience gap, a maturity gap (arguably), but there is no intelligence or worldliness gap at all. If anything, teenagers tend to have more stimulating conversations than the ones I'm typically engaged in with my peers, maybe because they (still) possess nimble curious minds and seem to have opinions about everything. Given a choice, I might very well prefer to hang out with the teenage crowd than the post-collegiate crowd. They seem to be more full of life, excitement, and possess this boundless optimism mixed with a wariness that's studied but not yet experienced. It's certainly a more invigorating combination than alcohol and banalness.

"and to answer the 'are we still at odds' portion of the email. the quick answer is no. however, driving home was no joy. i tried to defend my miscommunication, but then i gave up. she gets real agitated when we talk about this stuff. i haven't known her long enough, or well enough, to understand why she gets the way she does when talking about such things. we were nominally okay but she didn't seem like she was having a great day. and then on tuesday, we were trying to discuss going to eat or not eat or something. and i was somewhat snippy and rude (for just one second, and one statement). she wasn't happy about that. but she coughed it down. and then i addressed it later. so far i think she's cried, or i've made her cry, a total of five or six times since sunday. then on wednesday she told me that she didnt want to hang out that night (we were all to go to a friend's for a pizza/grammy's thing) because she was in a funk, sad, and didn't know what to do.

of course, i had also said things to her like 'its really hard for me to care about someone, and it's been interesting to try.' i think she's wondering why i have to try to care, why someone doesn't just automatically care. anyway, i was for sure that once the decline happens, it's irreversible. and maybe it is. this could be much more detailed than you wanted to know. the end of the story is that we're not at odds really but there's much to discuss. and i'd also like to sweep the last week under the carpet, but i don't think i want to.

i've given a lot of thought to how much i distance myself from people, and not just in relationships. i can't figure out how or why. i think i seem like i'm pretty close and open to just about everyone, and i am, but on an almost superficial-ish level. and i'm finding out that during this so called relationship, that i'm so much more aware of my motivations and reactions to everything. like i'm so clear about everything.

do you want someone more or less sassy than you? assuming 'sassy' is a good way to describe yourself (which is not how i would describe you, but just humor me). would you constantly be trying to out-sass someone if you went out with someone who was sassier than you? basically i'm wondering if you'd want to be with someone who had less than, equal, or more personality than you (at least outwardly)."
-Feb 2006-

Oh love at first sight. It's so damn magical mythical isn't it? Can you tell I just came back from watching Twilight? All those long tortured stare downs between Edward and Bella. Goodness gracious. Part of you just wants to scream "Get it on!" but the other part of you wants to drag those delicious moments out forever.

Most everyone has had an experience like that in their past, when you just knew that you and someone special should get together. That's what usually happens to me. Not that I look at someone and feel like we are destined for each other, but within the first minutes of our interaction, I can pretty much already figure out if I like this person. I'm not a wishy washy type of liker. I just know. The most honest and dramatic instance of this was probably with my last ex. It certainly wasn't like we saw each other and fell in love but afterwards we both admitted to this instant chemistry that was different than just simple attraction.

From our first fleeting interactions to when she actually started hanging out with us/me, there was this clear and undeniable sense that we were definitely going down the path of romance. It's an addictive feeling. Embarking on those first few weeks (or hours) of hanging out and finding yourself falling in love -- if not actually in love in love -- and having every moment and spare thought directed toward the other person. That's what relationships are all about right? Wanting to be with someone so much that everything else fades into the distance? That's the magic of it anyway.

I'm a bit notorious for smothering the object of my affection with attention in the first few months. I lather up the attention, I present this incredibly fun and devoted side, and then I get the girl, thus portending a long gradual slide into inattention and problems. So that initial burst of enthusiasm, if you can call it that, never sustains itself. Not for lack of trying but something in my nature is always looking for that next big hit, the rush that can really only come about from having new people and relationships.

"Hey girl how you doing
Do you feel like talking?
Or do you need me to call you back
You from round what way and when's your birthday
Or what's your zodiac sign
Well I'm a Virgo so my sign's compatible
What you do for fun cause I don't drink or club
I just like to chill with somebody like you

Everything is cool when love is all brand new
Cause you're learning me and I'm learning you"
-Musiq Soulchild, Newness-

What I'm learning though, as reflection on a long string of failed relationships, is that the initial rush combined with attraction doesn't have to equate to relationship. In fact, I'm sort of deciding that being in the zone of just really admiring and loving that grey space is perhaps all I need. It keeps me on edge. Like the possibility of something happening, along with the safety of having nothing happen, might work out best for me. Looking at it that way, I'm faced with confusion about what a workable relationship is anymore.

I'd rather not repeat mistakes of the past but I find myself unable to get excited about dating someone without that rush. I mean, I fear that the pace I'm historically used to will lead to the exact same dead ends. I've been told that maybe the issue is that I need to be dating someone who can continually excite and stimulate me. Once that newness wears off, I need to be sure that the person I'm in a relationship with can continually makes things fresh. But that goes against everything I know and understand about relationships.

It seems to me like relationships are mostly about building and maintaining your own two person island. The trees go here, Thursdays go there, the moat is this deep and this wide, and the whole point of it is to be in familiar space. Relationships are about building a safe place and comfort. To step away from that paradigm is not only new territory but also something I don't really have a roadmap for.

Examples is what I need, I need examples of relationships that aren't insular by creation. Or maybe I just need to watch more Twilight.

As is wont to happen when a couple of guys get together at a bar, the talk turned to women. We ran through the usual debates and comments -- rehashing them because this wasn't a familiar guy grouping, at least to me. "Which city has the hotter girls?" "What do you look for in a girl?" That kind of thing. With a five to one single to taken ratio, we had a lot of opinions but not a lot of options.

The conversation turned to what particular traits about women intimidated us. Intelligence, money, age, experience? I said that a girl's cool factor could definitely intimidate me, especially in relation to this one girl from college, whom I've (rightly) dubbed "the coolest girl/person ever." She's seriously the only person I consciously just felt nervous about talking to and years later, I still feel the residual nervousness of those (non-)interactions.

Someone else said that beauty intimidated them. Like he would be very self conscious around a really attractive woman. In his mind he could picture the future and how it would be to fend off other pursuers. Then we reminded him that this wouldn't be in terms of a relationship, but just in the getting to know you stage. Even worse he said. He'd be even more aware of the "Who is that douchebag with the hot chick?" comments.

One of the guys, someone I don't know very well, said that he couldn't date someone smarter than him. We made the obligatory "Everyone is smarter than you" jokes but then dug a little deeper. What do you mean by intelligence and how much smarter would she have to be? Would being say, a lawyer or engineer, qualify her as too smart? The flippant reply was that she could be smart but not smart enough to realize that she should be dating better than him. Which was the perfect humorous answer but also probably a little bit true.

Another guy then brought up how he'd feel intimidated by a girl who was more worldly or cultured. Like if they'd been around and seen a lot of the world or experienced more of life. That would make him less sure of himself. It was interesting to see what people answered, even if it was just bar talk and not necessarily anything to be taken seriously.

The conversation wrapped up and we headed out.

It didn't pass me by that we were off to meet two successful girl friends for dinner. One is a lawyer and recently moved into the city. She's expecting her bar results this Friday. Her firm has had only one person fail in the past four years. That's apparently insane because the passage rate for the California bar is only 40%. It goes without saying that she's working for a top firm. Our other female dinner companion has been steadily working on her grad school applications for awhile now, fitting that task around her day job helping a Nobel winner with his research. Of the other two girls who'd normally be accompanying us for dinner, one was a law student and the other was more highly paid than any male there. By a long shot.

We're no dummies but it seems like we tend to know, as a general rule, women who are more accomplished than us on most levels. Money, intelligence, (looks), skills, coolness, culture, and any and all of everything we'd just talked about. So what did we have going for us? Well, we were men. And um, men rule?

All I can say is thank god for electronics that break and things that need to be moved or hung up occasionally.

I'm up in the Bay now, for a span of three to four weeks. Upon landing and taking my bags into her apartment, George and I strolled down the block for donuts and coffee. My stock is recently high with her so she's been gracious enough to allow me to stay. I also quickly helped her spring clean and find some space for my luggage, my new computer desk, and my presence. The hope is that she'll find having me around so joyous that I can be here for an extended amount of time. This represents the longest period we'll have had occupying the same space since high school and it could lead to some momentous brother-sister breakthroughs. Or she'll tire of me and want to kick me out. Let's hope for the former.

In my idealized San Francisco life I picture myself wandering the city from one end to the other, iPod blasting and my feet never tiring. I'd drop in on friends during their lunch hours while spending the mornings and early afternoons at a cafe reading and writing. After six days of this I'll have met a new acquaintance that will quickly become a friend. She/he will introduce me to their social circle and I will have an opportunity to explore the side of the Bay that I've suspected but never seen. That acquaintance will be a writer or an artist, and also available to hang out during normal person working hours. I will be inspired and creative and finish a book proposal that will instantly get sold because of how marketable it is. Then when unemployment runs out, I will take a part time job that doesn't require much brain power but helps to pay the bills.

And I will finally have bills. Rent, electricity, cable, Internet, and cell phone. Plus a monthly budget that involves lots of movies. I will be technically poor but rich in spirit and culture. I will live in a three person apartment far away from the parts of town that teem with unwashed homeless people. But close enough to a bus line that I understand. I will be carless but friends will be willing to pick me up -- once in awhile.

I will have two special friends. One I'll meet for dinner every Wednesday (or Thursday) and talk about things that we can't talk about in the presence of others. Mainly gossip and "What did you think when?..." The other will be someone I never see but spend hours on the phone with as I walk the city. I will also date. Perhaps just one or two but they will be learning experiences.

That's how San Francisco will be, once I can muster up the courage to face the winds and go outside.