When it comes to being friends or enemies, is it better to be friends with someone some of the time rather than not at all? That is, can’t one be both in some capacity rather than solely one or the other? Is friendship a case of some being better than none, or a case of all or nothing where none is preferable if all could not be had? You know where I stand on this from my quote if you can’t be friends, try to be frenemies.
Frenemy is the portmanteau combining friend and enemy. You could be a frenemy in being friend and enemy at mutually exclusive times, or be both at the same time in more nuanced ways, like getting your friend things they want that aren’t good for them.
Valuing friendship as much as I do, being friends some of the time is better than being friends none of the time. Nobody needs more enemies in life, though with some so-called friends, you wouldn’t need enemies as the idiom with friends like that, who needs enemies? suggests. As a result, even if I didn’t think I could be friends with someone, I think of them in terms of being their frenemy. I try to find things in common with them to share and bond on, even if there weren’t much, and try to be friends just on that. It will lessen my hate or dislike for them on other matters, and maybe even allow for the slimmest of chances that they and I might become friends in the long run, or at least more friend than enemy. It would be far from the first time that enemies became frenemies, then eventually, friends!
This post is one of 70 quotes I wrote, each with an accompanying essay, in my e-book and paperback Stars I Put in my Sky to Live By, on Amazon or Smashwords (choose your price including free!).