I'm Not Naming Names, but . . .

After nearly three months since it all went down, things are really starting to take shape on the Island of Misfit Toys. The Angry White Loner even has not only one but two callings and is proceeding to share the love as only the AWL can.

Just before Gospel Doctrine teachers were called, I also volunteered to teach a lesson from the Old Testament. Why? Because I'm a glutton for punishment, possibly. Or because the chicks dig me.

Take your pick.

Another huge reason I volunteered to teach was that the lesson that week focused heavily on my namesake, Jonathan, who was the son of the Saul, the king of Israel.

Jonathan was an absolute rock star, but he didn't get the attention nor the women that his friend David got. Upon killing Goliath, David became a great hero—something like the Tim Howard of his country. David was also anointed by the prophet Samuel to become the next king of Israel.

As a prince of Israel, Jonathan had every right to be jealous and envious of David. Jonathan had also earlier achieved a rather significant military victory of his own but did not receive the fame nor recognition that David did. Nevertheless, Jonathan remained true to his friend David and helped to save his friend's life from Saul on multiple occasions.

He was an amazing example of friendship and sacrifice and is really a pretty great guy to be named after. If you also look at the etymology of the name Jonathan, it breaks down to "God's Great Gift."

At least, that is what a framed picture my parents gave me when I was a teenager tells me.

Contrast all of this with an episode of "Gilmore Girls" I recently watched, like all of the cool kids do. In this episode, Rory finally cuts the umbilical cord from her mother and goes off to college. She and her frenemy Paris meet one of their roommates, who is named "Tannina" or something akin to that. (It was late; I can't even read my own handwriting.) Paris then, skeptically, asks her if she even know what her name means, and the poor, scared girl replies that she hasn't the faintest clue.

Granted, that's just a random sample. But it does bother the AWL a little bit when he sees the rising generation growing up with names that sound like types of medications, rejected names for elves in the Lord of the Rings/Hobbit universe, or names that were thought up while playing and losing at Boggle. Names like, for example, McFlurghan. Or Buckley.

There's also been a new trend this week. No, not of U.S. presidents casually mentioning, in passing, acts of terrorism on U.S. citizens in airplanes, then telling a bunch of jokes about his vice president/making fun of the GOP, then bravely leading America forward by venturing off to attend a couple of fundraisers to round out his day.

No, the new trend I refer to has been all over Facebook this week, one of people sharing their first names and how their names could be spelled out as an acronym with adjectives used to describe that person. Well, I think that's great. I think taking a look at your own name, what it represents, and also how you represent that name is certainly a worthwhile use of time. So is learning whom you were named after, if that is the case, or even what the word origin of your name is. I'm always intrigued to hear stories like these.

What's in a name? Upon further review, plenty.

Romeo and Juliet, Unchained

Last night, I found myself watching William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, which had arrived earlier in the day via Netflix. Why Romeo and Juliet? It's still better than watching "2 Broke Girls," for example. In some foreign countries, in fact, people are strapped into chairs and forced to watch a marathon of "2 Broke Girls." So far, no one has made it through more than three episodes in one sitting. The last I heard, the United Nations considers this to be an even worse form of torture than waterboarding.

When I mention Romeo and Juliet, I do not refer to the 1968 version, which I saw in eighth grade and which had to be censored by my English teacher. Nor do I mean the math-friendly Romeo + Juliet 1996 remake, which starred future drowning victim Leonardo di Caprio as Romeo. No, the particular version of the film I refer to, scripted by Julian Fellowes of "Downton Abbey" fame, came out last fall and was just released on DVD. It stars Hailee Steinfeld, who was also in the 2010 remake of True Grit, as Juliet.

Girl appears in a lot of remakes a lot of movies, apparently! Am I right?

At any rate, the film, in case you were wondering, is a pretty decent effort, in spite of some extra dialogue added in there by Mr. Fellowes that, I'm sure, the Bard did not mean to be there. It has all of the elements that a Romeo and Juliet movie ought to have: a whirlwind courtship, eloping, family feuds, fighting, murder, and the like. So, in many ways, it is much like a "2 Broke Girls" episode, only with likeable characters, a coherent plot, clever dialogue, and none of that annoying laugh track.

As I watched the movie, I found myself going off on a tangent and thinking about an idea I hadn't previously considered: What if Romeo and Juliet hadn't died so young? What if the friar's note explaining Juliet's "death" had reached Romeo like it was meant to and they, in fact, had survived the whole nasty ordeal? What would the rest of their lives together have been like?

Hollywood would have demanded a sequel, for one thing. And this follow-up effort might show some good times but also depict the two star-crossed lovers growing distant and apart after actually getting to know each other for longer than, say, the two or three infatuated, twitterpated days they spent as a couple in the film. Romeo would eventually grow tired of Juliet's incessant nagging to stop leaving his dirty tights lying all over the cottage and would be annoyed at the Capulet family's many attempts to get her to divorce him and marry someone of a higher social standing, while Juliet would get unnerved each time Romeo murdered yet another member of her family over some petty argument as, say, the proper scoring method in a game of Scattergories.

Would it have lasted even a whole year? A month? A week?

This sequel would, unfortunately, also have a tragic ending. Because if there's one thing movies and TV have taught us, it's that you can't tempt fate, nor can you change it! Juliet, now in her late 30s and sick and tired of the whole sordid affair, confronts Romeo for one last time to see if he really loves her or not before she leaves him forever and runs off with some other guy, probably played by either Mark Ruffalo or Paul Rudd—whoever's cheaper. Unshaven and unkempt, wearing a wife beater, with a beer gut hanging out, and sitting in front of the TV, pretending not to hear her as she pours out her soul, he instead is intently focused on what's on TV.

Naturally, he is watching "2 Broke Girls."