YOU

You is a psychological thriller ... rom-com series that follows the life and train of thought of one Joe Goldberg, a young, charismatic bookstore manager from a lower middle class, trying to find love in the Big Apple. Joe, brilliantly portrayed by the impeccably cast Penn Badgley falls in love with Elizabeth Lail’s Guinevere Beck, a fledgling writer, who once visits his bookstore. After that, the story follows familiar tropes of the romance genre, but from Joe’s delightfully twisted perspective. I’ve been wracking my brain trying to come up with a proper metaphor to describe this show, but nothing quite fit. It’s “Romeo & Juliet” … if Julia was only looking for a casual hook-up. It’s “Sleepless in Seattle”, but the male lead is a spying … creep, well one who also murders people. It’s clueless “Dexter” in love. It’s Meatloaf’s “I’d do anything for love” without the buts. Whitney Houston’s “I Will Always Love You”, it’s Sinead’s “Nothing compares to you”, and of course, it’s The Police’s “Every Step you take”. It’s like listening to the greatest love songs of all time, but taking them seriously.

---

Why, you ask, is Penn Badgley so perfectly cast? Well, Penn’s breakout role was in a 2007 CW show called Gossip Girl. It showed woes and troubles of rich teen New Yorkers. Their world was ruled by a mysterious gossip site called … you guessed it, Gossip Girl (as voiced by long standing celebrity crush Kristen Bell). The site aggregated gossip and shared it for maximum impact. If you think about it, it was one of the first shows that emphasized the importance of social media. And it … was not great. It was trashy, rich fantasy dramance for young adults. Your sister might’ve seen it, or your girlfriend. It competed for the same audience as Grey’s Anatomy and Pretty Little Liars, two shows which surpassed it in length long ago.

Is this Joe looking at Beck, Dan looking at Serena or Penn in his private life? Nobody knows, because the casting is perfect!

Penn’s character in the Gossip Girl was named Dan Humprey. He was young, aspiring writer from a lower middle-class family. Ross to the show’s Rachel, he could be considered the male lead in an otherwise ensemble show. He was the ultimate romantic good guy. Struggling writer who will love Serena (the main character of the show, and don’t let the Waldorfites convince you otherwise) for who she really is. Because he sees her better than anyone else. Because he knows what she is. That, in itself is interesting, but not quite enough to draw a parallel. Here I feel obliged to put up a spoiler alert for a 10-year-old trashy YA show, so in case that matters to you, skip to the picture below. For everyone else who have seen the show or don’t care, here’s the smoking gun: Penn’s character was actually the admin of the Gossip Girl site! Yes! He was tech-savvy, privacy ignoring manipulator who learned early that the only way you get what you want, is if you take it with your own hands. Or … in his own words: “If I wasn't born into your world … maybe I can write myself into it”. This proves it!

Dan, living in Manhattan his whole life, wanted to be a part of the elite. He chose Serena as his muse, his goal, and started writing. He manipulated, lied and violated the privacy of everyone he knew and cared about. He destroyed his sister’s life. He ruined Serena’s life multiple times, and then manipulated her back into his arms. He wrote a couple of books and got mildly successful, enough to get a job as a bookstore manager. He got Serena in the end, but his obsession drove her away. Over the years he honed his craft, and now he no longer needs to create whole sites to insert himself into the lives of women. Now he simply learns about them. Studies them. Sees them as a character in a book. Manipulates them and himself in order to make a perfect fit, to manufacture ‘the One’. But … that’s just a theory, a film theory!

Now that we have set the basis and explained the show, let’s get to the meat and potatoes of this thing! That’s right, this show is only just beginning!

Of course, … the theory does not stand. Of course, Joe’s childhood is shown in You, and there is no sign of other Humpreys. Joe was a nobody, taken in by the owner of the bookstore he currently manages after a disastrous childhood with an abusive father and a cheating mother. His definition of love is ... warped, to say the least. On one side, father who does not differentiate between violence and affection, and on other side mother who salvation and self-worth in other men.

His secondary family, or to be exact, his second father figure was a bookstore owner where he worked and grew up. He was taught at an early age how important it is to take care of books. How to keep them off the sun, how to keep them away from moisture. How to keep them away from destructive oils found in the fingertips of humans and how to keep them away from destructive minds of humans. The owner equated love with protection, and to a kid from a broken family, that made all the sense.

What truly sets this show apart from a million other rom-com/thriller shows and films available is its perspective. We see the world though the eyes of Joe. Not only through his eyes, but through his mind-flow, through his actual thoughts. Authors of the show use every filming trick in the book to make Joe the protagonist, to make us understand him, to see his point of view. They make him a total outsider, commenting and judging people on those small eye-rolling grievances just like we all do, which endears us to him, makes it seem like he understands the viewer. It's the Dexter approach (in the first seasons). Show the character the way it sees itself, and trust the audience enough to make their own judgement.

Joe is also completely oblivious of his own mental processes and how his actions are perceived by others. Absolutely no self awareness. While that is usually very problematic in people whom you wish to help, it is without a doubt fun to watch. It is one of the more humorous aspects of the show, along his silent judgement of others. Even with others, he doesn't actually see his romantic partners. He learns all he can about them, true, he knows a lot, but the way he interprets those facts is based solely on how he wishes to fit them into his own narrative of the world. Big "fuck-off" windows with no drapes? She must like being watched. Leaving the phone unattended? Standing invitation to search through it. Asking a question? Flirting. For a guy obsessed with watching other people, he is astonishingly bad at actually seeing them for what they are. And the people in his life exist on three different levels. Either he idolizes them (his romantic endeavours), villainizes them (anyone that stands in the way of his romantic conquest), or sees them as a tool to be used.

---

Question number two. What is love? I’m not asking that, I’m not a robot, the show poses that question. There are many theories. There’s the Sterneberg’s triangular model of love, consisting of intimacy, commitment and passion. All of them pretty self-explanatory, but let’s go through them anyway (because this post isn’t long enough as it is). Intimacy means that the people in a relationship are close to one another – either by knowing personal information or sharing details of their lives each-other. Commitment usually represents some sort of investment into the longevity of the relationship. Passion … is what you try to search for at 2 am on Pornhub when you can’t sleep. Its the animalistic attraction, the lust and the fantasy of other.

Psychologist Rubin also worked with the three-part model, but replaced commitment with attachment and passion with caring. According to those two, you can get any form of love by combining some (or all) of the three prongs. That is how you find familial love between a mother and a child (attachment+caring), romantic love (intimacy+passion), or even an empty love (commitment alone).

Yet another theory (by Peck, 1978) states that love is a combination of "concern for the spiritual growth of another and simple narcissism". It also is expressed mostly in actions, not feelings. If we take a quick look at Pecks definition of love, through Joe's eyes, one might think he is the embodiment of love. He has high concern for the growth of his partner and, even though he doesn't see it, is highly narcissistic.

He has high concern for the growth of his partner and, even though he doesn't see it, is highly narcisisstic.

Lastly, lets overview the attachment theory. It primarily focuses on the importance of early childhood experiences, and it defies attachment as deep, emotional bond that makes you want to be with another person. Bowlby and Ainsworth researched infant attachment in the 1970s, via so-called Strange situation - a three part experiment that tested the relationship between the child and its primary caregiver. First step was to leave the mother (it was the 70s after all) and the child alone in the room so as to establish the baseline interactions. Then a female stranger entered the room, and the researchers studied the response of the child on the stranger. Lastly, they left the child either alone or with the stranger in the room, and then studied the behavior of the child.

They organized their findings into the attachment theory as we mostly know today. There are four major attachment styles, and depending on your upbringing, you develop into one of them. These are Secure style, Resistant style, Avoidant style and Unresolved/Fearful.

Secure style of attachment is considered the most healthy one. Babies with this style of attachment are comfortable exploring strange new situations, but might be upset if left alone, and are quickly comforted when the parent returns.

Resistant style is when the child stays very close to their parents and gets extremely upset when they leave, which may even lead to anger when the parent returns. When the child develops Avoidant style, he or she doesn't care if the parent or stranger is in the room. When the babies responses cannot be classified one way or the other, that usually means they developed an Unresolved style of attachment. Usually there is a trauma underlying this style of attachment.

Attachment theory changes slightly when we enter adulthood. In adulthood attachment theory represents how we see ourselves and how we see others, best represented by the graph below.

If you have a positive attitude towards yourself and others, it is more likely you will develop secure style of attachment. If it is easy for you to depend on others and have others depend on you, if you have no problems forming emotional bonds with others and if you do not worry about being alone, this is most likely your style. Usually, that means a person had a history of warm and responsive relationships. Your parents were likely emotionally available, responsive and capable of regulating their own emotions.

People who have developed Resistant attachment style, see themselves negatively and others positively. If you are constantly finding yourself in need of intimacy, approval and responsiveness, if you feel anxious without your partner, if you often doubt your self worth, then you may have developed this style of attachment. Some of the other signs of this style are also high emotional expressiveness, troubles with emotional regulation, and impulsivity in relationships.

If you see yourself positively and others negatively (reverse of the Resistant style), you may have an Avoidant attachment style. For this style it is characteristic that you would feel comfortable alone, without a close emotional relationship. You would need to feel independent and self-sufficient, and would not like to depend on others or see others depend on you. Since people with this style see others less positively than themselves, it makes sense for them to not seek attachment, in fact they usually deny its importance.

Last style of attachment is the fearful, unresolved, unclassified one. Those, whose view of others fluctuates, usually have this style of attachment. This style is usually result of an early trauma, such as abusive parents. People with this style usually want close relationships, but have a hard time trusting others. Because of earlier negative experiences with attachment, they commonly hold themselves as unworthy, and they do all in their power to protect themselves. People with this style tend to seek less intimacy, blaming themselves for previous pain they felt and excusing their current defense mechanisms.

This brings us back to our dear Joe. Joe is special, but never trust a psychologist calling you special. In this case, Joe represents a person with AAD, or Adult Attachment Disorder. AAD develops when a childhood trauma or an childhood attachment disorder goes untreated, as it did with Joe. He went from a broken family to a broken bookstore owner, while slowly adapting to his attachment disorder, and developing defense mechanisms that worked for him. Symptoms of AAD include: impulsiveness, desire for control, lack of trust, lack of responsibility, and addiction. Joe is impulsive, the way he dealt with Peach proves that. He clearly harbors strong desire for control and has lack of trust, considering his spying and stalking. Thanks to his us hearing his thoughts we know how he sees himself and his influence on others, and he is never responsible. We noted before how he is almost clinically unaware of himself. He does not have an addiction (unless you count love as one, which some neuro-psychological models do), but that is fine, because you don't need to have all of the symptoms in order to be psychologically diagnosed with disorder.

Please do not try to put yourselves in these theoretical models.

DISCLAIMER: Please do not try to put yourselves in these theoretical models. What is written here is a very basic overview. Even professionals have a hard time diagnosing themselves, and it is damn near impossible to establish a working diagnosis with a single sentence or two that you think holds true for you. All of the models are also dimensional, not typological - meaning most people are on a spectrum of attributes mentioned above, not an exact representation of a single one. Don't blame your parents. For example, yes, if a parent spends more time with his child, it is more likely for that child to develop secure style of attachment. But if the parent has to work long hours, and can't spend time with the child, then it is more likely for the child to develop one of the insecure styles of attachment, and it is not the fault of the parent. While attachment styles are considered relatively stable throughout a persons life, they are not written in stone. Serious negative life events can lead into more insecure attachment styles, while being in a relationship with a partner that has developed a secure attachment style can lead into developing more secure attachment styles.

---

There is also a significant cultural influence that needs to be understood.

We've danced around it above, with the pop-cultural references, but now it's time to break it down. It may not seem so, but love actually is all around us. It's in the films and shows, occasionally as the main plot, but much more commonly as a subplot. Is there a superhero saving the world? Of course he has enough time to screw around. FBI agent singularly focused on catching the criminal? He has either a supporting wife, or one that is about to leave him. Joker? Clinically insane, but he can still imagine love. I am not saying if it works or not. I am merely commenting on how common it is. And you do not have to go to the airport to see love, if you live in a moderately big city, all you have to do is look outside. Someone is bound to be trying to sell you something with love. Is it Victoria's secrets? Is it some strange real estate company selling homes? Perhaps a big retail chain? Couple is one of the most common marketing target groups.

Archetypal love in visual art is mostly (key word mostly, not always.) shown as eternal, includes elements of a higher power (God, fate, stars, mostly fate), with problems at the start. I believe that with those parameters you encompass 90% of modern depictions of love, modern meaning in the last 20 years. Even ancient depictions of love, for example Platos separated man, so beloved by Freud. Plato wrote, that man was originally one being, but was split in two by the gods. Now we are aimlessly wondering around, in search of our other half. You have the eternal aspect, since we are talking about souls which are seen as eternal, there is the element of the higher power that split the single being into two, and there are problems at the start of the relationship, namely finding your other half. If you take the stories like Titanic and Romeo & Juliet, even The Notebook, Twilight (don't @ me, you know these are one of the most popular romance films out there) at their face value, what lessions will you learn? "If you jump, I jump". "If you kill yourself, I kill myself". "Go out with me, or I will kill myself".

Love is too commonly depicted as some iteration of co-dependancy ("my life is meaningless without the other person") and manipulation ("If I do that and that and jump through all those hoops, then the other person will love me). Love is supposed to be mutual, but there is nothing mutual in romantic comedies. It is always one side, usually the man, who does all the big sweeping gestures, and it is the job of the female to absorb it all. Women are just going about their day, until a man comes along, and charms them off their feet. Depictions of love in pop culture also barely scratch the surface of real love. They focus primarily on the start of the relationship, and seldom on the dark weird stuff you have to do to keep the relationship going. Finding someone normal is a nightmare. Dating is exhausting. But the finish line in 90% of the films is to get the other person to say "I love you". In real life, that is the easy part. People fall in love all the time. By accident. Its working on the relationship that is the hard part. Most romantic comedies actually show that part of the relationship. It is the relationship that goes up in flames before act 2, so that our protagonist is free to pursue a different, new relationship. The moral is, abandon relationships that require work, and focus on finding someone who will confirm your self-worth with grand romantic gestures.

None of what is depicted in those films is actually a healthy, working relationship, and it only works because the script says so. And because the leads are hot. If someone tried that in real life, 9 out of 10 times they would be strongly suggested to seek psychiatric help. If you look at it through that point of view, it is no wonder that Joe is the way he is. He is an expert at seducing women, at the first part of the relationship, he does the grand romantic gestures, but falls on his face when relationship requires actual work. He is willing to do anything, and he means ANYTHING, for love, because that is what art teaches us. Love transcends time and space, it gives meaning to our whole existence, so it only makes sense to sacrifice everything for it.

And i am telling you right now, through all this stuff I have not become a cynic, i haven't. Call me a sucker, i don't care. Because i do believe in it. Love. Not the "be all, end all" transcendental sent-from-above love, but the more everyday love. Love that is rooted in companionship, helping each other grow. Understanding each other and shared hobbies. But if we've learned one thing today, is that human bonding is complicated, and there are many different ways of experiencing it. As long as your style of bonding suits you (and doesn't hurt other people, JOE), all you have to do is find a person that can reciprocate it, work on it, and live relatively happy, most of the time.

You, at the end of the day (or season) is simply a love story for today’s time. It’s meta. Aware of the genre it is in. And it is satirizing it gleefully. It takes the rules and tropes of the rom-com, and follows them to their inevitable disastrous ending. It’s the Foreigners asking what love is. It’s the Nazareth’s Love hurts. It’s All out of love as sang by Air Supply. The Total Eclipse of my Heart. Leona Lewis's I See You.