top of page

by Alaina Zhang ​for The 44 North, Newsletter & Reviews Editor


“Please let me keep this memory, just this one.” —Joel Barish, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 

Last quarter, I was lucky enough to take a class called Medieval Dreams and Visions. After reading works by Chaucer, Dante, and other authors who lived centuries ago, we ended the quarter by watching Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind


The 2004 film follows a young man, Joel, as he revisits his diary after several years. Sitting next to the beach, the cold wind slashing against his face, he finds it difficult to recall why there are missing pages in his diary, remembered only by where they were torn away. The hollowness is all-consuming. Soon after, on a train, he meets a young woman named Clementine whom he quickly falls in love with. Later, it’s revealed that the two had previously been in a relationship, which ended poorly: Clementine had undergone a surgery to erase all memories of Joel. The disjointedness Joel feels at the beginning of the film was, in fact, the result of his own surgery to, in turn, forget Clementine.


The dream-like setting of the film lends masterfully to the theme of vulnerability it aims to portray. Not just a romance or sci-fi movie, the story is really about self-confrontation and reconciliation. Joel, upon realizing that he does not in fact want to forget Clementine, is forced to navigate his own brain and walk the memory lane of his mind. One of the most poignant moments in the film is when Joel enters the memory of being bullied by other kids and Clementine—a version of her inside his head—is watching. Childhood trauma is private and often so shameful that adults bury it deep inside themselves. Joel, however, is forced to confront those memories, which shaped who he is now. In a film, it’s healing for us to see Clementine bearing witness, whether real or imagined by Joel; Childhood trauma isn’t observable by our adult friends or partners, even if we verbally share memories with them. The scene ends with Clementine dragging Joel away, and although all of this takes place inside Joel’s mind, it’s real enough to make him—and us—feel seen in a vulnerable moment. 


My perception of the film also shifted because of my class. One of the surrounding questions we were interested in throughout the quarter was why authors across the ages are so drawn to the experience of dreaming and continue to weave it into their works. In the movie, the dream world is less a dream and more a disorganized catalogue of memories, which invite us, alongside the characters, to navigate the reflection, trauma, and life that make up who one is in relationship with others. 


For me, dreams have always been a special source of inspiration—a place where I can witness my deepest desires and hopes materialize in strange ways. My dream world is also a space where I truly feel safe and free, a space available only to myself. Admittedly, I don’t think I’ll ever be able to decipher the meaning of my dreams or know whether they have meaning at all, but what I do believe is that dreams can confirm my insecurities, trauma, restrained feelings, and thoughts. What surfaces in my dreams is a combination of magic and reality in its rawest form, and the act of dreaming alone can be reassurance that my life can take on alternative endings, parallel worlds, and unimaginable possibilities. 


The idea of “making sense” of a dream is, in fact, similar to the art of interpretation itself. In our class, this was one of the reasons we attributed to the prevalence of using dreaming as a storytelling framework. When we read about dreams, there are often at least two, if not more, layers of interpretation at play: We’re simultaneously making sense of a bewildering experience and attempting to decipher why a work was presented through the lens of dreams in the first place. When creatives build dream worlds for us that don’t exist, or exist in a multiverse, the seeds are often personal or collective memory re-imagined. This unique meaning-making opportunity, via dreams, expands how we think and remember. In other words, we can see that more is possible beyond our waking, conscious hours. 


That’s exactly what I felt Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind expressed. After Clementine and Joel realize what they’ve gone through, after they hear the ugly things they said about each other before the surgery, they still decide to give each other another chance—at least in being remembered if not in a relationship. They’re also choosing to give a chance to the idea of a possibility, even if it might not end in the best way. 


Relationships can be terrifying. We can never know what someone else thinks, nor what their words and actions mean. Though the procedure of memory probing and removal in the film seems cinematic and unbelievable,  we, too, probe through our own minds, equipped with nothing but fear, to dig up memories—ones we never wished to revisit—in search of some truth about ourselves. The difference between the film and reality is what makes it most powerful; the story asks: What if we were to show all of this to someone else, who we love, with an equally complex past? Would it really be incriminating? Or would it heal the ways we think we’re alone? Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind provided me with a newfound perspective on what it means to be in a relationship with others, and to be in a relationship with oneself. 


We spend almost a third of our lives in deep sleep, dreaming. Perhaps, like Joel and Clementine, we’re sorting through the entangled web of our dreams, trying to find the confirmation, confidence, and reassurance we all need to move forward when our eyes open again and a new, terrifying, inevitable day awaits us. But the landscape of memory is worth walking, because as Joel and Clementine show us, we’re never the only ones there when we think we’re better off alone.

 

by Gillian Smith-Clark, ​for The 44 North, Editor-in-Chief


Artwork by Logan Brewer
Artwork by Logan Brewer
The Cheque, please..."This is a story about romance. But it is also a story about power."

I’ve felt it before—that subtle tightening in my body when the bill arrives. A kind gesture should feel warm and generous, but sometimes it leaves lingering doubts: What does this cost me?

I’ve always bristled at the word beholden: Obliged, indebted, bound by someone else’s favour. Raised to value independence, I learned to resist becoming indebted to others. Yet I also absorbed the unspoken social rules around me: The expectations about who pays, who owes, and what it all means.


Nowhere does that tension surface more than at the dinner table.


So when an old, gendered trope resurfaced recently as a social media trend—the idea that if a man is serious, generous, masculine, or worth your time, he should always pay on a first date—I found it unsettling. Not because there is anything wrong with generosity. There isn’t. But because the question of who pays for dinner is rarely just about the money.


It’s about expectations, performance, and what we’ve been taught romance should look like—and what we fear if we don’t play along.


The trend took me back, reluctantly, through time to countless restaurant tables and the small, loaded pause that comes when the bill arrives. As a university student, that moment often brought a knot in my stomach and a quiet flicker of anxiety about the balance of my bank account. Whether on a date or simply out with friends, I quickly learned that “splitting the bill 50/50” could mean paying for someone else’s steak when I had ordered soup.


I also remember the enticing pull of letting someone else pick up the tab when my bank account was low, then wondering whether accepting would leave me feeling subtly indebted. Would I seem cheap if I insisted on paying my share? Ungrateful if I hesitated? Difficult? Rude? A “radical feminist”? Or, worse, would accepting the meal create some unspoken expectation I had not agreed to?


This is a story about romance. But it is also a story about power.


When the bill arrives, it often brings with it a surprisingly loaded question: Who pays? Sometimes the terms have been negotiated ahead of time. Often they have not. Sometimes the server places the bill in front of one person, usually the man at the table if the date is heterosexual, and the old script quietly reasserts itself.


On the surface, this looks like a transactional question about money. But underneath it are layers of manners, class, gender, dating etiquette, sexuality, income, pride, fear, and control. Buying dinner and “picking up the cheque” plays into what many of us have been taught to believe romance should look like, and what it can cost us to accept that script without questioning it.


Over time, the hidden cost of letting someone else pay can feel like compounding interest on a credit card we never really wanted in the first place.


This norm didn’t emerge in a vacuum. As historian Moira Weigel explains in Labour of Love, the shift from 19th-century “calling” (a man visiting a woman at home) to “dating” (couples going out in public) moved courtship into spaces where men were treated as hosts—and thus expected to pay. The expectation took root in a world where men held most of the money, mobility, and social power. 


That history matters because the expectation that men should pay was never simply about kindness. It developed in a world where men generally had more money, more mobility, more public freedom, and more social power. By the mid-20th century, the expectation was firmly entrenched, reflecting rigid gender roles: Men as breadwinners and women as dependents. What gets remembered nostalgically as “chivalry” was also part of a broader structure of inequality.


Literature has long understood the darker side of this dynamic. If history explains the origin of this norm, literature exposes its dangers.


In Boris Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago, Victor Komarovsky offers a chilling portrait of exploitation disguised as romance. Wealthy, polished, and connected, he grooms and manipulates the young Lara, taking her to expensive restaurants and presenting his attention as protection. His fine clothes, grand gestures, and apparent generosity are not evidence of love. They are tools of control.


His gifts are not acts of love; they are investments in her compliance.


Of course, not every polished and wealthy person is a Komarovsky. Most people who offer to pay for dinner are not predators in disguise. But every society has its modern equivalents: People who understand the performance of generosity but not the ethics of it. The lesson is not that we should treat every kind gesture with suspicion. It is that a flawless performance of romance does not tell us what someone will do when the script stops serving them.


Still, there is an unmistakable appeal to traditional dating rules. Clear rules can feel emotionally safe, and human connection thrives on safety. Dating is exhausting. Dating is expensive. Letting someone else pay can feel simple, flattering, and reassuring.


It can also feel fair. In a culture where women are still often underpaid, undervalued, and expected to invest significant time, money, and effort before they even arrive—clothing, grooming, transportation, emotional labour, safety planning—the idea that a man should pay can feel less like entitlement and more like acknowledgment.


And sometimes, paying is simply kind.


A person can pay because they invited someone out. Because they chose the restaurant. Because they can afford it. Because they want to offer something generous without expecting anything in return. There is nothing inherently wrong with treating someone to dinner. It can be a beautiful and thoughtful gesture.


The problem begins when a gesture hardens into a rule: When “I’d love to pay” becomes “men should always pay,” when generosity sours into performance, and romance turns transactional. When the person who pays, consciously or not, begins to feel that they have purchased more than a meal.


A meal should never come with an unspoken price tag. 


Dinner is not debt.


There is another illusion hidden inside the nice dinner too: The illusion of safety. A person who chooses a good restaurant, dresses well, orders confidently, treats the server politely, pays the bill, and tips generously can appear stable, respectful, and trustworthy. Sometimes they are. But presentation is not character. The ability to perform respectability is not the same as being respectable.


Jane Austen built an entire novel around this problem in Pride and Prejudice. Wickham is charming; Darcy is difficult. Wickham performs goodness; Darcy eventually proves his character. The first impression is not the truth, and appearances are not reality.


As Austen puts it, “One has got all the goodness, and the other all the appearance of it.” That distinction—between performance and character—is worth remembering when we romanticize grand gestures.


That is the distinction worth paying attention to. In the context of who pays for dinner, the issue is not simply whether someone pays. It is what that payment does.


Does it create warmth, or pressure? Does it make the other person feel cared for, or managed? Does it leave them feeling free, or subtly indebted?


This is why the old fantasy of being “swept off your feet” also deserves closer scrutiny. In its sweetest, most whimsical form, it simply means surprise, delight, or being deeply moved. But cultural scripts matter. When we romanticize relentless pursuit, grand gestures, and persistence after hesitation or rejection, we risk teaching people to mistake pressure for passion.


Love that refuses to respect hesitation is not romance: It is a red flag.


A healthier version of romance does not require anyone to be overwhelmed, persuaded, purchased, or won. Romance does not have to mean being swept off your feet. Sometimes it means being met on solid ground.


Romance should not require one person to perform power while the other receives it. It should not require a man to prove his worth through dominance, spending, pursuit, or control. It should not require anyone to prove their desirability by being chosen, treated, or won. And it should not require anyone, regardless of gender, sexuality, or relationship structure, to perform a role that does not fit them.


These norms do not only affect men and women in traditional heterosexual relationships. The idea that one person should always pay—whether because of gender, income, masculinity, femininity, status, or some other expectation—creates a cultural script that can make anyone feel like they are failing if they do not conform. Queer couples, non-binary people, and people in non-traditional relationships can all feel the pressure to perform roles they did not choose.


When we internalize these scripts too deeply, we lose the chance to define romance on our own terms.


None of this means every first date must involve a perfectly calculated split; there are many fair ways to handle a bill. The person who invites can pay. Two people can split it. They can take turns. They can choose something inexpensive, like coffee, ice cream, or a walk, especially for a first meeting. One person can offer, and the other can accept, as long as both understand that a gift is not a contract.


The healthiest approach may not be a single rule, but a shared ethic: No one should feel bought, tested, trapped, or owed.


That ethic matters, because so much dating and relationship advice teaches people to perform roles instead of asking better questions. Is he masculine enough to pay? Is she feminine enough to accept? Did he invest enough? Did she show enough gratitude? These questions reduce people to parts in a very old play.


Better questions might be: Do I feel comfortable? Do I feel respected? Can I say what I want? Can they hear “no”? Does this person’s generosity make me feel freer, or smaller?


Who pays the bill at the end of dinner will never answer all those questions. But sometimes, the way someone handles it tells us more than we expect.


So perhaps the best rule is this: Pay attention not only to who reaches for the bill, but to what happens next.


Many years later, I am no longer that student pinching pennies and silently calculating what I can afford to pay, literally or metaphorically. Now, when I have the opportunity to take someone to dinner and pay for the meal, I try to do it with the quiet understanding that the best kind of generosity does not leave the other person feeling small.


I remember what it was like to be on the other side of that equation: The way a free meal could feel like a gift or a trap, depending on the context. I also understand now that sometimes letting someone pay for dinner, and allowing them to care for me, can be a gift of another kind.


True generosity is not only about what you give. It is about how you allow the other person to receive it: Without strings, without debt, without the unspoken weight of obligation.

And romance, in my opinion, should never begin with debt. Love, in all its forms, should never require anyone to give up even a whisper of their integrity.


So who should pay on a first date? Be prepared to pay for your own meal. Not because generosity is suspect, but because freedom—from obligation, from silent contracts, from the weight of expectations—is priceless. 


by Mikaela Brewer for The 44 North

Senior Editor


Photo of Feels Zine’s “Sexy” issue by Melissa Blackall
Photo of Feels Zine’s “Sexy” issue by Melissa Blackall
“[Q]ueer romances have far fewer representations in the media, and often the ones we do aren’t written by us, and are rooted in pain and trauma. This, for me, is a huge part of why I believe queer love stories are so important to share–because seeing ourselves represented gives those of us who don’t yet feel safe or seen a place to have their experiences reflected back and honoured.”

Editor's Note: Recently, I had a chance to speak with the co-founders of a zine I've long admired. We chatted all things queer love, romance, reclaiming sexiness, and more! Please check out their newest issue, "Hunger," and many others here. —Mikaela


The 44 North (44N): Firstly, before we begin, could you share why you started something like Feels Zine? How do you, your families, ancestors, community, politics, and values braid into your work on these zines? Where/how would you like folks to witness/experience this when spending time with the zines' pages? Is there anything you hope people pay particular attention to? Take action with/from?

Feels Zine (FZ): FEELS started with a dream and a friendship! Hannah, our co-founder and creative director, has worked in magazine design for a long time, but always wanted to have her own. Sarah, the co-founder and editor, is a social worker by trade and a big fan of talking about feelings. After visiting the Toronto Art Book Fair about a decade ago, we made the decision to take the leap and try making our own.


Thematically, it comes from a couple of decades of friendship centred around a deep comfort with each other discussing challenging feelings in a culture that does not always support or encourage it. It is also deeply political in nature, focusing on justice, community care, and storytelling. 


In terms of experiencing FEELS, one thing we’ve really loved is hearing the vast array of rituals people who consume it seem to have that are very personal to them. Just like feelings! We want people to sit with the content in a way that feels most true to them. The content is emotional and often challenging, and we want that to feel as safe as possible. 


Co-founders Hannah (left) and Sarah (right) at a booth offering Feels Zine issues
Co-founders Hannah (left) and Sarah (right) at a booth offering Feels Zine issues

44N: I love that your publication is about feelings. More specifically, I admire the message that our inner worlds aren't necessarily safest when kept private. As you say, "Having an open dialogue about what’s going on inside of us can foster meaningful connection and make us feel less alone, especially in the social-media era that asks us to curate and polish our lives and feelings before sharing them—if we share them at all." When you began curating & creating zines like "Sexy" and your "Queer Romance Mini Zine," I'd love to know how you thought about representing feelings, especially since so many other emotions are present & connected to queer sex positivity, health, and safety. How did these two zines, in particular, fit into the fabric of what Feels Zine is & hopes to do?

FZ: With those issues in particular, we wanted to move away from media representations of what it means to be sexy, or what queer romance looks like, and shift the focus back onto how it actually looks in our lives—far messier and more nuanced, but also more real. As a queer person (Sarah here, so speaking for myself), I’ve always found myself disappointed in the majority of representations of queer love and sex—so much so that when I find something I connect to, I won’t shut up about it and am so excited about it. I felt that way in receiving the submissions for those issues—so thrilled to see experiences that might look different from my subjective experiences, but also so similar in the feelings and the authenticity in them. I think this is really the epitome of what we want FEELS to be—a space for something we feel in our guts as true to life.


44N: Issue 18, "Sexy," explored feeling sexy, worth, and desire. Safe, positive sex & sexiness can empower us, as you say, and should be something to celebrate! Across the work included in this zine, how did you curate/capture this beautiful balance of feeling sexy—not only re: sex, but also in how we show up in the world? 

FZ: One thing that people may not know about our process is that, once we put out a call for submissions with our overarching mission statement, we really let the submissions we receive guide the final product. We work hard to curate that mission statement to touch on different viewpoints and angles to a feeling and not lock in on any one element. But at the end of the day, the most important component is how people relate to that statement and that feeling. As much as it would be nice for our egos to say we captured all that, the truth is, the contributors did that work. We also worked hard to curate submissions that explored the spectrum of how sexiness shows up for us—in ourselves, with others, with the world, and how we communicate about it. We don’t want to showcase just one type of experience—we want as many unique experiences as possible.


The front cover of Feels Zine’s “Sexy” issue
The front cover of Feels Zine’s “Sexy” issue

44N: Your "Queer Romance Mini Zine" explored queer romance as an act of resistance & resilience, creating intentional space for queer love stories. I so admire this. And in conversation with what we've been discussing: romance, love, and desire aren't insufficient without sex, of course! Intimacy beyond sex is a vital part of queer love stories, and I'd love to know how this mini zine approached queer romance beyond or alongside sex?

FZ: The complementing mini zines are a concept we’ve used a few times over the years, and come straight from the submissions we receive. Every once in a while, when we’re curating an issue and reviewing submissions, a related but distinct emotion or topic jumps out at us that necessitates space-making. As we worked through our Pride Issue submissions, this became very clear as a topic that was resonating with a lot of people, and a huge component of their subjective queer identities. Romance can involve sex for a lot of people, but it isn’t a necessary component, and we hope that that rings true in the overall storytelling of the Queer Romance mini zine. 


The other thing I would note, which I mentioned above, is that queer romances have far fewer representations in the media, and often the ones we do aren’t written by us, and are rooted in pain and trauma. This, for me, is a huge part of why I believe queer love stories are so important to share–because seeing ourselves represented gives those of us who don’t yet feel safe or seen a place to have their experiences reflected back and honoured.


The front cover of Feels Zine’s “Queer Romance” mini zine
The front cover of Feels Zine’s “Queer Romance” mini zine
About Feels Zine

A collage of Feels Zine issues
A collage of Feels Zine issues

Feels is a publication about feelings. It is a place to explore, to share, and to be honest. Having an open dialogue about what’s going on inside of us can foster meaningful connection and make us feel less alone, especially in the social-media era that asks us to curate and polish our lives and feelings before sharing them — if we share them at all. Feels believes there are no good or bad feelings — the value comes from how we relate to them, how we experience them, and what we learn from them.


Feels believes in inclusion and recognizes that certain voices have been given the lion’s share of the spotlight throughout history. Our pages are for everyone. We are a feminist, sex-positive, 2SLGBTQ*, anti-racist, anti-colonial publication.


—Feels Zine Instagram & website

bottom of page