![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkai wish i could figure out how desire works. i mean, it seems obvious, but it's not.
can you want something even if it goes against every other instinct you possess? can you want something and yet be unable to ever go after it? can you constantly only go after things you don't really want, and torture yourself with craving the one thing you think you -truly- want, and yet you're afraid that if you ever pursued it, you'd realize that it's cheap like everything else?
or does this all depend on who you are, defining how your desire works? is everything possible, or are certain things only possible for certain sorts of people? are there people who'd realize that they'd wanted something for the longest time, and think about it, consider, and then do nothing about it, repressing the memory into the deepest corner of their conscious mind?
"Those who restrain desire do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained."
every time i came across that quote from blake's poem, i used to smile, because it expressed my own beliefs so succinctly. and yet-- i see people denying themselves all the time, and is it because they're all weak? i -want- desire to be so impossibly powerful that no one could resist its force. i think this the sort of thing where one wants to believe love is stronger than fear, but first one has to really believe that kind of love exists in the first place.
you could see love everywhere-- it could be in a glance, in the turn of a shoulder, in a beat between words. desire could be anger and need could be jealousy and fear could be aggression. when you're growing up, it's especially volatile, and emotions kind of swing and tumble from extreme to extreme without pausing-- and yet, even now, it's hard to really believe it.
i want to write about the subliminal nature of desire-- all subtext and inferences and double meanings. i want to always have that knowledge that this is something else, safe because it never quite surfaces fully enough to be contradicted. i'm frustrated with the way people tend to look for the most obvious solution, the most blatant result from the loudest of sensory cues. "what he said must be what he meant."
i meant to write something about why i'm befuddled by people's disappointment in a pairing like ron/hermione because nothing blatant occurred. what is it that they were expecting? an announcement? kissing in the halls? why is it that the simplest answer has to be true all the time?
we all know there are signs, but sometimes i think i don't know what they are at all.
can you want something even if it goes against every other instinct you possess? can you want something and yet be unable to ever go after it? can you constantly only go after things you don't really want, and torture yourself with craving the one thing you think you -truly- want, and yet you're afraid that if you ever pursued it, you'd realize that it's cheap like everything else?
or does this all depend on who you are, defining how your desire works? is everything possible, or are certain things only possible for certain sorts of people? are there people who'd realize that they'd wanted something for the longest time, and think about it, consider, and then do nothing about it, repressing the memory into the deepest corner of their conscious mind?
"Those who restrain desire do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained."
every time i came across that quote from blake's poem, i used to smile, because it expressed my own beliefs so succinctly. and yet-- i see people denying themselves all the time, and is it because they're all weak? i -want- desire to be so impossibly powerful that no one could resist its force. i think this the sort of thing where one wants to believe love is stronger than fear, but first one has to really believe that kind of love exists in the first place.
you could see love everywhere-- it could be in a glance, in the turn of a shoulder, in a beat between words. desire could be anger and need could be jealousy and fear could be aggression. when you're growing up, it's especially volatile, and emotions kind of swing and tumble from extreme to extreme without pausing-- and yet, even now, it's hard to really believe it.
i want to write about the subliminal nature of desire-- all subtext and inferences and double meanings. i want to always have that knowledge that this is something else, safe because it never quite surfaces fully enough to be contradicted. i'm frustrated with the way people tend to look for the most obvious solution, the most blatant result from the loudest of sensory cues. "what he said must be what he meant."
i meant to write something about why i'm befuddled by people's disappointment in a pairing like ron/hermione because nothing blatant occurred. what is it that they were expecting? an announcement? kissing in the halls? why is it that the simplest answer has to be true all the time?
we all know there are signs, but sometimes i think i don't know what they are at all.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-01 05:08 pm (UTC)Hmm. See, you do have to define "desire" before embarking on any speculation, else it's hard to get closer to the heart of the matter. *g*
I think wrt Harry and Draco -- H. can desire D. w/o giving up his other feelings. But I think that D. has to have *something* that H. lacks, that he needs. And that's why H. would desire him. The brain saying, hmm, I need X and that's where I can get X, so "zing!", person whose brain I am, you now desire person who has X.
This makes me want to keep some records on who I'm attracted to and see what they've got in common.
And wrt Ron/Hermione -- I don't know. But I think it's possible to feel a sort of retroactive desire. Where you're close to someone and one day you open your eyes and you realise how you feel and it does seem to you like you've felt it for a long time, the desire moving backwards in time. [insert some sort of QM metaphor here]
Are we always aware of how we feel? Are we always introspective? Only the Jedi search their feelings all the time. (Hence they're so sensitive and attractive!) And Ron is much less introspective than Hermione, I'd wager.
And I stand by my statement that you can't desire something you have. You can *enjoy* it, but you can't desire it.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-01 05:26 pm (UTC)i totally see what you're saying, about needing something he doesn't have. hmmm. yes, yes, i see the pattern. like an immune deficiency-- you get a craving, then, and you can't stop it but it doesn't (necessarily) stop -you-.
and well, hmmm, to define desire......
well, to me, romantic desire (of the sense that blake used it in), would be-- craving the possession of something, the intoxication of the craving itself and wanting it to last and last, the sense that this feeling can't possibly last because with every moment it continues, it is eating away at one's sense of self, and the craving to incorporate the object of one's desire into one's own self, to merge with it until one possesses and is possessed in return.
although i dunno if that's quite a definition, it's what comes to mind~:)
and yah, the ron/hermione is clearly possible because people go around unaware of things all the time, but i just start to wonder, because everybody in fandom seems to want -proof-, which i don't know if it's realistic, even. and everyone defines terms differently so proof is something else for them entirely. so even something simple-- a sign like ron giving hermione perfume for christmas or harry thinking hermione reminds him of mrs weasley-- means entirely different things to different people, in terms of their relationship to the idea of "desire".
and man, i love talking like this, even though it embarrasses me ^^
no subject
Date: 2003-07-01 07:01 pm (UTC)Yeah, I think the subconscious is responsible for a lot of this. Of course, there's evolution too. And that's a whole nother kettle of worms.
the craving to incorporate the object of one's desire into one's own self
Very interesting! I think that this kind of desire can never be satisfied -- certainly not in the long term. It wants to break down boundaries that can't be broken down. Because we can't completely possess each other.
Though if we could -- how scary. What you say about it eating away at one's sense of self -- that's the danger, I think. That the desire will consume you.
Which is different from love, I think. Love is more about respecting the boundaries and maybe growing together so that the boundaries are less.
Ron and Hermione -- there were signs, yes, and I was pleased to see them. I don't know what I wanted, though. For Harry to see a bit of how Ron feels, maybe?
I think from a narrative point of view, Hr & R can't get together yet -- it would completely unbalance the H-R-Hr relationship.
Really, though, I'm just so in love with ickle Ronniekins that I want him to be happy. *g*
no subject
Date: 2003-07-01 10:47 pm (UTC)it also raises interesting questions of just how does love manage to arise -from- desire, and how does it manage not to feel like a lessening of intensity, but a heightening. and whether you can -love- while still having all sorts of negative feelings, or whether love would somehow put a veil over them. but it's an entirely theoretical question, since there's just so few ways harry would love malfoy (or even vice versa) before desiring him. you'd have to have anger/desire/need/love in something like that order, unless you're redeeming malfoy in harry's eyes and that's just -really- difficult and almost no one does that convincingly.
plus, having harry only love him because he's "good" and lovable now seems to defeat the purpose.
which is another strange contradiction, isn't it. i mean, all the people who want "redeemed" draco forget that it's the unredeemed draco that must attract both them and harry.
and wah, i doubt harry would -ever- both delving into the depths of how ron feels -now- if he didn't during `goblet of fire'.
hee. i really do wonder whether jkr -knows- what's going through all the different character's heads, btw. i'd give good money for a look into her malfoy, oh yes~:)
no subject
Date: 2003-07-02 12:39 am (UTC)We love our family, because of physical proximity and because of the proximity of the relationship -- our society considers these close bonds, and so they are.
We love our friends because of the time we spend with them, whether in the flesh or on the phone or AIM or email or whathaveyou. That love may endure even without contact, but the contact must exist in order for the love to grow in the first place.
We can love people whom we don't even especially like, just because they're around all the time.
So I think you're right that Harry can't love Draco without desiring him first. (Unless they're locked up together for six months or something. *g*) I don't think Harry would consciously expect to love Draco. But he could grow to love him, simply from extended contact with him.
So far as proximity is concerned, I think that if Harry were obsessing over Draco, because he desired him, even if Draco weren't around, that's still closeness wrt my theory and so Harry could begin to love Draco.
That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-02 12:49 am (UTC)*pets your theory*
no, really, i love the idea that he'd get to love/like/something-surely draco if they were forced into close proximity for some extended period of time, except this breaks down since harry canonically doesn't love the dursleys (and plenty of people don't love their families), but then, he doesn't desire the dursleys either... i guess.
so yah, i love it because it sounds like often enough it's true, although not always true and there must be other factors that go into why we love some people but not others, you know-- no matter how much one wishes it were otherwise, sometimes you just -hate- someone more, the more you spend time with them, and sometimes you start off liking a person and then the more time you spend with them, the less you want/like/love them. people are weird like that, and divorces strangely common -.-
this may be different somewhat with a starting point of desire being there already-- or the potential-- ust; but i suppose love can't be summoned quite -that- easily or... well... people wouldn't spend all this time moaning about how they have no one to love, right. and didn't ron & hermione have sparks before they either desired -or- loved one another?
so there's this question of immediate emotion and potential and so on.
that said, i think your theory is quite clever, really >:D
no subject
Date: 2003-07-02 01:04 am (UTC)So, for Harry and Draco, the desire is the proximity. And if they *act* on that desire, well, that's closer yet. It doesn't guarantee that there will be love, but there's certainly more potential than if they just harassed each other once in a while.
WRT Ron & Hermione, I think that sparkage is a form of desire, just a weak one. Sparkage says "hey, you might like this". (Unless by sparks you meant that they sniped at each other a lot and made each other crazy. *g*)
And why the hell am I not in bed?
no subject
Date: 2003-07-02 01:38 am (UTC)except, you know, not quite.
and you're quite right, and yah, that's why i was all "!!" and thinking, "heeeeyyyy, draco trilogy", except not, 'cause not so much with the raging hormones, but i mean, polyjuice potion = promiximity, eheheheh.
and it's hilarious how often i've referred to that without having read anything but draco veritas, really -.-
so yes. and you're up because of our completely scintillating conversation, obviously >:D
no subject
Date: 2003-07-02 07:10 am (UTC)I've never read any of the Draco trilogy and really haven't any idea of the plot, so those refs are lost on me. :)
And this has helped me work out some stuff necessary for a fic, so thank you. :) Plus it was all scintillating and everything.