You are not the sun.

Even people who have you pegged all wrong are right about you to some extent.

Anyone who took a high school English class probably remembers being introduced to the Defend, Refute, Or Qualify A Quotation variety of essay. It usually involved being thrown a phrase from Walden and spending a half hour trying to figure out how to have an opinion about a pond. I also remember being told that while defending or refuting are obviously legitimate options on which to base your forthcoming piece of literary brilliance, qualifying is the most complex response, since it forces you, to some extent, to internalize and personalize the quote instead of simply reacting to a pre-established idea.

A couple years ago I wrote a little rant on how I don't particularly buy into rebellion, or rather how I've never particularly minded playing by the rules. I've since become a little frustrated with both extremes (being by-the-book is boring, but a large part of me still believes that rebelling of any kind, outside of political reformation, is also too easy, since it's essentially a brand of conformity masked by angsty poetry and holding cells). The way I see it, obeying is like Defending, rebelling is like Refuting, and Qualifying is the way to go. Wouldn't it be a lot more interesting to figure out how to creatively and selectively apply standards to varying degrees in your life than adhere to a static code of characteristically Pro- or Anti-? I guess that can also be called inconsistency.

Also, I don't think Robert Frost had any idea what he was talking about. When making a life-altering decision, when are there ever just two roads? And even if there were, when is one of them discernibly easier than the other?