<h2>(print: (passage:)'s name)</h2>
<section class="flex-container title">
<section class="titletext">
She was in [[love|truths]]. She had never been in [[love|not really]] before. Never had experienced that tingling that radiated new sensations down her arms, through her legs, a lightness in her feet. But was it [[real|true love]] or just a passing [[fancy|crushed dreams]]?
Time would [[tell|truths]], the stories said. Yet time here might be years or days or decades or minutes or centuries. And she desperately wanted to know now. No [[telling|falsehoods]] what might happen in the future.
//By Deena Larsen for Dr. Ted Fordyce's class as an example of a hypertext that uses semantic and double-meaning links. Download this and open in Twine to see the rationale behind the links. //
</section>
<img src="love300.png" alt=a woman in love with a question mark>
</section>
<!--this passage is setting up three dichotomies on the origin word for each link pair:
a pair showing an ambivilant link that this love could be either way--truth or deception, on the same word.
love going to real love
love going to disappointment and being duped
A more conventional semantic link where the reader going to real will find a real love story and the reader going to fancy will see a fancy, a fantasy love story.
real going to true love
fancy going to crushed dreams
A time dichotomy that is brought out more by the links, which do not go where they are expected.
The future tense tell goes to the past searching for truth, which jars the reader, echoing the mixed up time periods in the sentence
Telling goes to the present and is false, and thus disappoints the reader-->
(input-box:"=XX=")<h2>(print: (passage:)'s name)</h2>
She had [[read about|true love]] love in so many places, so many sonnets. So many songs.
Yet she never [[actually|truths]] finished the songs. She never truly listened to what the next line was, and what lay under the [[surface|always ends]].
(cycling-link:"Moons and junes and ferris wheels","But now it's just another show. . .You leave 'em laughing when you go")
(cycling-link:"'Cause I see sparks fly, whenever you smile","My mind forgets to remind me you're a bad idea")
(cycling-link:"For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright,","Who art as black as hell, as dark as night.")
(cycling-link:"Back in that time when every melody was you and me","The words we used to sing before it went wrong")
(cycling-link:"Listen, as you call my name. . .You're somebody I can believe in","Disenchanted, once more. . . Disillusioned, encore")
<!--this cycling link is actually another type of linking, called allusion. You take certain words from a piece or mention a hero from another story, and that brings in the entire piece.
the link to truths from read about implies that everything you read is true...
really is a functional link going back to the original cycling link where we only see the first line of the song/sonnet and thus we just see the first impressions--which are extended in this node.
linking surface to always ends is again navigational, but I chose the word surface to reflect that if you only see the surface (and do not click deeper into the story being told) you will not get the full story...--><h2>(print: (passage:)'s name)</h2>
The way to tell you are truly in love, someone once told her, was to look in the mirror and repeat the beloved's [[name|truths]]. And see if you smile with your entire face, your forehead, your eyes, your nose, as well as your mouth.
And so she brushed her hair 100 times in the mirror, each time repeating that [[name|falsehoods]].
She thought she could feel the smile each time. But she wasn't [[sure|always ends]].
<!--the origin word name goes to a link truths, which further elaborates on these myths about love. On that node, we see many characters who are not named.
The link from name to falsehoods goes to a scene where she looks at herself in the mirror, so this solidfies her looking within yet also provides a suspicion that nothing is sure, and that this myth may not be true.
here the origin word "sure" on the ending link erodes the fairy tale happily ever after idea implicit in her mother's stories that we hear about in the end. --><h2>(print: (passage:)'s name)</h2>
Wait, what? You thought I was being [[serious|truths]]?
How much of [[an idiot|falsehoods]] could you [[be|always ends]]?
<!--here the text is pretty sparse. The link going from idiot to falsehoods and the ending link going from the origin word " be" implythat she would be an idiot to believe in the inevitable fairy tale ending of happily ever after--><h2>(print: (passage:)'s name)</h2>
When she was young enough to be tucked into bed and told stories, she would shiver down into her covers at the first words, which were [[always|not really]] "Once upon a time, there (cycling-link: "lived a woodcutter in the deep woods", "was a king with three daughters", "dwelt a dryad safe in her tree","used to be a wealthy kingdom by the sea","may have been a couple who loved each other dearly", "may have been a couple who loved each other dearly", "may have been a couple who loved each other dearly", "may have been a couple who loved each other dearly", "may have been a couple who loved each other dearly", "may have been a couple who loved each other dearly")."
She would [[always|true love]] at the end of the story ask her mother if the story were true. Her mother always said, that is as it may be my child. There is [[always|crushed dreams]] a grain of [[truth|falsehoods]] in [[everything|always ends]].
<!--here the origin word "always" goes to opposite places--really, which only looks at the surface of the songs/sonnets that promise love and not really, which goes one line deeper to see that falsehood. This is emphasized by the third "always" origin word which goes to crushed dreams, explaining that she is an idiot to believe in this.
The origin word for the navigational link to always ends is "everything" which provides a contradiction on hermother's words--there may not be a grain of truth in everything. Or everything may not be true.--><h2>(print: (passage:)'s name)</h2>
This is what she kept telling herself. There was no way this could be love. She was too ugly. She was [[an idiot|crushed dreams]] for believing in its [[reality|truths]]. She was too much of a wimp. She wasn't smart. She made mistakes. No one could ever love her.
But then in a corner of her mind, she knew that what she was telling herself wasn't real or fair. She should not be telling these [[untruths|not really]] to herself, let alone anyone else. She could be [[loved|A typical love story]]. [[Truly loved|true love]]. She [[knew it|always ends]].
<!--and here we have an ironic link. Reality goes to truths, which are only half truths, the first half of a love song or sonnet that turns dark in falsehoods...
How would the ending link be different if the origin were just on "it" rather than on "knew it"?
This is linked from "telling" in the title page--and thus the word repetition of telling takes on a new meaning here because that word had been emphasized in the previous node--><h2>(print: (passage:)'s name)</h2>
The stories her mother told her as a child [[always|truths]] ended in they lived happily ever after.
But the stories had (if:visits is 1)[[[different|true love]]](if:visits is 2)[[[untold|crushed dreams]]](if:visits is 3)[[[predictable|truths]]](if:visits is 4)[[[unreal|not really]]](if:visits is 5)[[[believable|truths]]](if:visits >= 6)[[[hidden|falsehoods]]] middles each time.
And thus we come to the end of this typical love story.
<!--This is the key node. Every other node has a link to this node on the last line, so it is an ending...
This subtle difference on the single link in the middle of the sentence leads readers back through the story, and shows the value in repetition--you will not read the same node in the same way twice.
Also this link in the middle of the sentence now sets up a parody of a beginning/middle/ending -->