![[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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
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.