~~ the monstrous mundane
Jan. 30th, 2004 03:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaHands down, my least favorite moral dilemma in the universe is: do you do the kind, comfortable, reasonable thing or do you do the mad, passionate, unlikely-to-succeed thing. The problem is, everywhere I see this dilemma raised (in fiction anyway), people choose column A. This leads me to sputter and growl and go on about hating people.
Clearly, I always choose column B. My life kind of isn't the best for it, but it's worth it just to know that at least I'm not shoving my passion into a box and labeling it "done". But even as much as I hate seeing this dilemma applied to life in general, when applied to romance, it just maddens me. Infuriates and saddens and depresses. I mean, it makes sense-- picking partners 'cause they're safe and comfortable, on a purely evolutionary level. Mad monkey sex is all well and good, but eventually it grows dull and you want some good old cuddling on the TV couch, right? (Picture me strangling invisible things -here-).
Reading `(Do I Dare) Disturb the Universe' (definitely rec-worthy, but it did a number on me), this sort of hit me full force, because it kind of equates the William part of Spike to the sensible-thing and the Spike part to the mad-thing. There is still love binding it all, but it's different aspects of love, and all this is linked to growth-- the process of growing up, realizing that you can't live the life you used to live. That would be another thing that drives me insane, that idea. I realize life has stages, but the idea that insane adventures are confined to one's wild youth-- that chafes, man. That chafes something fierce. (More strangling ensues.)
And then tying this all to soulhood? Now that -really- messes with my mind.
I wonder, sometimes, why is it that I'm so obsessed with souls in the Jossverse whereas I'm totally blase about the theology of it all outside from that. I think mostly it's because the "Soul Question" in Buffy is really about so much more. It's all intangled with free will and destiny and one's capacity for love & good vs. evil and all those other things that comprise consciousness (which is my favorite overall subject). And it's interesting, isn't it, because one's knee-jerk reaction would be to say that souls -equal- consciousness. Or conscience, at the very least. And yet, Spike seems to completely contradict that view, so really, it's very hard to say -what- his soul -is- exactly. To me, it's much more important that he -wanted- it. I'm not one of those people who thinks he shouldn't have it 'cause it'd compromise his free will-- in fact, souls are supposed to -allow- you free will, aren't they? And if you have it without them, doesn't it follow that Spike -always- had a soul?
Part of the problem is, I don't think it's possible to seriously think about souls apart from their actual historical and theological grounding as an idea. That is, I don't think it's really possible to seriously think about souls in the Jossverse. I can't only refer to the Jossverse souls, especially because apparently Joss never explicitly defined what they represent in a final manner. On the other hand, no matter what they represent, I would have serious theoretical issues with the background ideas, simply because I believe so strongly that souls are an emergent property of all consciousness.
I realize that's a scientific versus a theological view (and the Jossverse is much more rooted in the latter), and maybe I just will never understand this whole separation between desire and will and need fully because I don't really have a Catholic grounding. I'd really be interested in a rigorous Catholic reading of the Jossverse's ideas in this area. So I don't know whether a Christian view would "fit".
I do know that a Freudian view doesn't really fit. If, for instance, you postulate that the soul is equivalent to the superego and the "demon" of a vampire is equivalent to the id, then it makes sense someone wanting/needing a soul, yeah? On the other hand, it would then seem imperative to also require a demon, wouldn't it. What kind of existence is it, being separated from your demon? What kind of love is it, if it's only love of one aspect of someone's self and not another?
I mean, the truth is, all of us humans have a 'demon" within us, and I think this view is arguable in the Jossverse also. These things seem inextricable to me. Demons have souls and souls have demons and if that equation doesn't work for some reason, you redefine either "soul" or "demon", but you keep the equation. That's just how it works-- it's a balance. Yin/yang, all that-- the eternal co-existence of polarities within one's self. In a way, these polarities aren't real, are only in our imagination-- because in "truth", the reality would be nothing so simple and clearly defined. But it does fit as a working theory, just not when you try to separate the demon and soul and attempt to priviledge one over the other. Then it seems like everything falls apart and the world becomes awfully 2-dimensional, like a diorama that fell flat on the table.
So, I mean, a fic like '(Do I Dare) Disturb the Universe'-- and possibly a lot of the Jossverse canon-- seem like the most horrible sort of -lies- to me. The world just can't work like that. Love can't split itself into loving the Good and hating the Bad and -survive-. It also can't split itself into loving the Good comfortably, on calm and easy days, and needing the Bad violently, on the dark days of youth. It frightens me, thinking that one's life is really ruled by seasons, and one could -outgrow- the darkness. That after some point, it becomes too much, and unnecessary. That's just a load of metaphysical crap. Crap, crap, crap.
Another thing that bothers the living daylights out of me is the equating of "soul" to a real breathing person. I mean, "William" is Spike's -soul-, even though William was a whole person while living. It doesn't make sense, really, on any level. A soul is noncorporeal. A person -is-. A person is more than the sum of their noncorporeal aspects, but as soon as you admit that, you can no longer in any way associate William-the-Bloody with that amorphous thing known as someone's -soul-. William himself had a soul (by definition, really). Supposedly, when it was taken away, he became "Spike".
Like I said earlier, if you think about this logically, it just doesn't make any -sense-. What, exactly, can possibly exist to animate a corpse if a "soul" is equivalent to "identity"?
And if it isn't, if it's only equivalent to "a conscience", then how could you reduce a whole human being to a conscience or condemn them to death without it? What the hell? How is this different than simply saying "Spike" is equivalent to "William" except that now "William" is "the Bloody"-- that is to say, a killer, who needs to be punished?
'(Do I Dare) Disturb the Universe' doesn't really address any of these points, but it is a good represenation of why I think Buffy/William fics are deeply misguided and nonsensical, really. How in the world can you ship or write about Buffy/William? How can you really get away with saying that Spike isn't William or that William isn't Spike in binary terms? I mean, you can say, William is -more- than Spike, but the only real -addition- that the "Spike" vampire persona has would be experience. And yes, I do think that experience makes one who they are to a large extent-- Spike proves that, doesn't he? Nurture over nature. The people who want unsouled Spike to be redeemed are probably bit nurture-over-nature free will classicists (whether they know it or not). I don't know what my own position makes me-- wanting both free will and innate Selfhood (soul?) to be in harmony. Together. Working at the same time, like in most human beings. I would never choose "Spike" over "William" or "William" over "Spike", though the fic I keep referring to forces the issue, and if I were forced... I would pick Spike, because I think by the end, he does encompass William but not vice-versa.
I do think that choosing William over Spike because William is more safe & normal & comfortable is just a horrible joke, really. William had to have -always- been William the Bloody in -both- senses. If he wasn't, then he wouldn't have become -Spike-: he would've become more like Angelus, who apparently was never a very conscious individual and was likely ruled by his id to start with, so he needs a soul as a metaphysical "fix". I mean, on the other hand, choosing Spike because he's more raw & harsh & exciting is a disservice to him also (as I think we see in Season 6, actually). People who think in those sorts of binary terms really freak me out. Maybe that's why I'm so obsessed with the Jossverse notion of "soul"-- because it hits on my pet peeves regarding binary distinctions and people's need to put things into stupid boxes.
I wouldn't say that a lack of morals or inhibitions is an "addition"-- in any person, the potential to be a murderous beast always resides, after all. So... a really -interesting- fic would be a fic where you show the Spike within the William-- a way of unlocking the deeper layers of his personality without vamping him. It's definitely possible-- just as it was possible to unlock the "higher" levels of -Spike's- personality and getting him to experience more refined emotions such as selfless love and guilt and so on.
~~
I think I've run out of steam. I just love the easy-illustration quality of this whole messy soul business. In HP, for instance, it's nowhere near this clear (in all its fuzziness), so people consistently go and call Draco "an evil brat" without any real mental work done. It's interesting, because in HP, the truly "evil" don't really have a chance for redemption in canon as far as I can see, because there's no nifty "soul" trick to fix anything. The idea of soul is entirely different, as seen through the Dementors. They give you the Dementor's Kiss-- and you basically die. Thus, one can't retain personality or life or -anything- beyond possibly a heartbeat, without a soul. So one assumes Voldemort has one-- it's what's keeping him alive, really, isn't it? As twisted as it is-- it's still -his-, isn't it. Then again, as "undead" as Voldemort is, his body is really always at risk moreso than his consciousness. In Buffy, it's the opposite, isn't it? You can easily be undead based on body alone. So it's a whole different world-view.
There's no real bridge between what people -could- be and what they -are-, in HP. It's just... basically... that they -are- that way, for whatever reason. The Jossverse gives us humans going bonkers evil-twin all the time, and all that's needed is a way to reach the innate goodness in them (through love or magic, generally). Because by being -souled beings-, they contain this spark of innate goodness that can always be reached. So at least there's that. Whereas, I mean, since the books are Harry's pov, we don't get a lot of that sort of thing in HP.
People talk about "William" as the "man within the monster", but I really think that's a horrifically narrow definition of "man", I guess. It seems like by definition, the truly irrevocably "monstrous" would have no real consciousness or capacity for love, and Spike clearly demonstrates both from the start-- not -conscience-, just consciousness. And this potential, I think, defines him. Saves him. I just can't see monstrosity as so easily separable from who someone -is-. You can't really say, "this is the Bad Me" and "this is the Good Me", and even if it works with all other characters (*cough*Angel*cough*), it doesn't work with Spike as he's been characterized, 'cause he's so much in the grey. I suppose a working definition of "monstrosity" would be "lack of humanity", and maybe that's at the crux of my deep, deep issues with applying such a label to Spike, no matter what Joss or anyone else's intent was in writing him.
Clearly, killing in a constant indiscriminate rage isn't precisely "human", but! As soon as that gets "fixed" in any way whatsoever-- as soon as Spike gets beyond that in Season 5-- poof! He's no longer monstrous. I don't care if he's "redeemed" or "souled" or blah-blah-whatever. He's just not -monstrous-. "Evil" is such a distant, righteous term, isn't it? Who even knows what it means? I mean, I'd like someone to really describe it to me, 'cause I don't think most people -know- because their moral world is so tied to their own set of experiences, isn't it? What's "evil" is what you're familiar with seeing as "bad". And how does that apply to Spike? How many ex-killers do most people know, anyway?
Okay, I'm just going around in circles now. I'll stop. I think it's clear I'm not really making progress, but I like raising these questions even if the answers never satisfy me (and maybe they're not supposed to). I think I'm a bit miffed I don't have this much meaty goodness to work with in Draco, btw. It's just that Spike has all this -will-, all this independence and desire and the ability to follow through on it no matter what-- whereas Draco's definitely lacking in the "strong will" department. I mean, he's stubborn-- but to make him a leader, to make him fearless, you'd have to basically change him into something that acts like canon Draco only a smidgeon more than Spike generally acts like William. *sigh*
Also: I have now watched exactly one (1) season one (1) episode (the third one) and I'm now ridiculously in love with Xander. Whoa, man. What -happened- to him?? This is so sad. And-- today! I woke up in full possession of my faculties, and my obsession slightly more manageable. Yeay for team Reena.
Clearly, I always choose column B. My life kind of isn't the best for it, but it's worth it just to know that at least I'm not shoving my passion into a box and labeling it "done". But even as much as I hate seeing this dilemma applied to life in general, when applied to romance, it just maddens me. Infuriates and saddens and depresses. I mean, it makes sense-- picking partners 'cause they're safe and comfortable, on a purely evolutionary level. Mad monkey sex is all well and good, but eventually it grows dull and you want some good old cuddling on the TV couch, right? (Picture me strangling invisible things -here-).
Reading `(Do I Dare) Disturb the Universe' (definitely rec-worthy, but it did a number on me), this sort of hit me full force, because it kind of equates the William part of Spike to the sensible-thing and the Spike part to the mad-thing. There is still love binding it all, but it's different aspects of love, and all this is linked to growth-- the process of growing up, realizing that you can't live the life you used to live. That would be another thing that drives me insane, that idea. I realize life has stages, but the idea that insane adventures are confined to one's wild youth-- that chafes, man. That chafes something fierce. (More strangling ensues.)
And then tying this all to soulhood? Now that -really- messes with my mind.
I wonder, sometimes, why is it that I'm so obsessed with souls in the Jossverse whereas I'm totally blase about the theology of it all outside from that. I think mostly it's because the "Soul Question" in Buffy is really about so much more. It's all intangled with free will and destiny and one's capacity for love & good vs. evil and all those other things that comprise consciousness (which is my favorite overall subject). And it's interesting, isn't it, because one's knee-jerk reaction would be to say that souls -equal- consciousness. Or conscience, at the very least. And yet, Spike seems to completely contradict that view, so really, it's very hard to say -what- his soul -is- exactly. To me, it's much more important that he -wanted- it. I'm not one of those people who thinks he shouldn't have it 'cause it'd compromise his free will-- in fact, souls are supposed to -allow- you free will, aren't they? And if you have it without them, doesn't it follow that Spike -always- had a soul?
Part of the problem is, I don't think it's possible to seriously think about souls apart from their actual historical and theological grounding as an idea. That is, I don't think it's really possible to seriously think about souls in the Jossverse. I can't only refer to the Jossverse souls, especially because apparently Joss never explicitly defined what they represent in a final manner. On the other hand, no matter what they represent, I would have serious theoretical issues with the background ideas, simply because I believe so strongly that souls are an emergent property of all consciousness.
I realize that's a scientific versus a theological view (and the Jossverse is much more rooted in the latter), and maybe I just will never understand this whole separation between desire and will and need fully because I don't really have a Catholic grounding. I'd really be interested in a rigorous Catholic reading of the Jossverse's ideas in this area. So I don't know whether a Christian view would "fit".
I do know that a Freudian view doesn't really fit. If, for instance, you postulate that the soul is equivalent to the superego and the "demon" of a vampire is equivalent to the id, then it makes sense someone wanting/needing a soul, yeah? On the other hand, it would then seem imperative to also require a demon, wouldn't it. What kind of existence is it, being separated from your demon? What kind of love is it, if it's only love of one aspect of someone's self and not another?
I mean, the truth is, all of us humans have a 'demon" within us, and I think this view is arguable in the Jossverse also. These things seem inextricable to me. Demons have souls and souls have demons and if that equation doesn't work for some reason, you redefine either "soul" or "demon", but you keep the equation. That's just how it works-- it's a balance. Yin/yang, all that-- the eternal co-existence of polarities within one's self. In a way, these polarities aren't real, are only in our imagination-- because in "truth", the reality would be nothing so simple and clearly defined. But it does fit as a working theory, just not when you try to separate the demon and soul and attempt to priviledge one over the other. Then it seems like everything falls apart and the world becomes awfully 2-dimensional, like a diorama that fell flat on the table.
So, I mean, a fic like '(Do I Dare) Disturb the Universe'-- and possibly a lot of the Jossverse canon-- seem like the most horrible sort of -lies- to me. The world just can't work like that. Love can't split itself into loving the Good and hating the Bad and -survive-. It also can't split itself into loving the Good comfortably, on calm and easy days, and needing the Bad violently, on the dark days of youth. It frightens me, thinking that one's life is really ruled by seasons, and one could -outgrow- the darkness. That after some point, it becomes too much, and unnecessary. That's just a load of metaphysical crap. Crap, crap, crap.
Another thing that bothers the living daylights out of me is the equating of "soul" to a real breathing person. I mean, "William" is Spike's -soul-, even though William was a whole person while living. It doesn't make sense, really, on any level. A soul is noncorporeal. A person -is-. A person is more than the sum of their noncorporeal aspects, but as soon as you admit that, you can no longer in any way associate William-the-Bloody with that amorphous thing known as someone's -soul-. William himself had a soul (by definition, really). Supposedly, when it was taken away, he became "Spike".
Like I said earlier, if you think about this logically, it just doesn't make any -sense-. What, exactly, can possibly exist to animate a corpse if a "soul" is equivalent to "identity"?
And if it isn't, if it's only equivalent to "a conscience", then how could you reduce a whole human being to a conscience or condemn them to death without it? What the hell? How is this different than simply saying "Spike" is equivalent to "William" except that now "William" is "the Bloody"-- that is to say, a killer, who needs to be punished?
'(Do I Dare) Disturb the Universe' doesn't really address any of these points, but it is a good represenation of why I think Buffy/William fics are deeply misguided and nonsensical, really. How in the world can you ship or write about Buffy/William? How can you really get away with saying that Spike isn't William or that William isn't Spike in binary terms? I mean, you can say, William is -more- than Spike, but the only real -addition- that the "Spike" vampire persona has would be experience. And yes, I do think that experience makes one who they are to a large extent-- Spike proves that, doesn't he? Nurture over nature. The people who want unsouled Spike to be redeemed are probably bit nurture-over-nature free will classicists (whether they know it or not). I don't know what my own position makes me-- wanting both free will and innate Selfhood (soul?) to be in harmony. Together. Working at the same time, like in most human beings. I would never choose "Spike" over "William" or "William" over "Spike", though the fic I keep referring to forces the issue, and if I were forced... I would pick Spike, because I think by the end, he does encompass William but not vice-versa.
I do think that choosing William over Spike because William is more safe & normal & comfortable is just a horrible joke, really. William had to have -always- been William the Bloody in -both- senses. If he wasn't, then he wouldn't have become -Spike-: he would've become more like Angelus, who apparently was never a very conscious individual and was likely ruled by his id to start with, so he needs a soul as a metaphysical "fix". I mean, on the other hand, choosing Spike because he's more raw & harsh & exciting is a disservice to him also (as I think we see in Season 6, actually). People who think in those sorts of binary terms really freak me out. Maybe that's why I'm so obsessed with the Jossverse notion of "soul"-- because it hits on my pet peeves regarding binary distinctions and people's need to put things into stupid boxes.
I wouldn't say that a lack of morals or inhibitions is an "addition"-- in any person, the potential to be a murderous beast always resides, after all. So... a really -interesting- fic would be a fic where you show the Spike within the William-- a way of unlocking the deeper layers of his personality without vamping him. It's definitely possible-- just as it was possible to unlock the "higher" levels of -Spike's- personality and getting him to experience more refined emotions such as selfless love and guilt and so on.
~~
I think I've run out of steam. I just love the easy-illustration quality of this whole messy soul business. In HP, for instance, it's nowhere near this clear (in all its fuzziness), so people consistently go and call Draco "an evil brat" without any real mental work done. It's interesting, because in HP, the truly "evil" don't really have a chance for redemption in canon as far as I can see, because there's no nifty "soul" trick to fix anything. The idea of soul is entirely different, as seen through the Dementors. They give you the Dementor's Kiss-- and you basically die. Thus, one can't retain personality or life or -anything- beyond possibly a heartbeat, without a soul. So one assumes Voldemort has one-- it's what's keeping him alive, really, isn't it? As twisted as it is-- it's still -his-, isn't it. Then again, as "undead" as Voldemort is, his body is really always at risk moreso than his consciousness. In Buffy, it's the opposite, isn't it? You can easily be undead based on body alone. So it's a whole different world-view.
There's no real bridge between what people -could- be and what they -are-, in HP. It's just... basically... that they -are- that way, for whatever reason. The Jossverse gives us humans going bonkers evil-twin all the time, and all that's needed is a way to reach the innate goodness in them (through love or magic, generally). Because by being -souled beings-, they contain this spark of innate goodness that can always be reached. So at least there's that. Whereas, I mean, since the books are Harry's pov, we don't get a lot of that sort of thing in HP.
People talk about "William" as the "man within the monster", but I really think that's a horrifically narrow definition of "man", I guess. It seems like by definition, the truly irrevocably "monstrous" would have no real consciousness or capacity for love, and Spike clearly demonstrates both from the start-- not -conscience-, just consciousness. And this potential, I think, defines him. Saves him. I just can't see monstrosity as so easily separable from who someone -is-. You can't really say, "this is the Bad Me" and "this is the Good Me", and even if it works with all other characters (*cough*Angel*cough*), it doesn't work with Spike as he's been characterized, 'cause he's so much in the grey. I suppose a working definition of "monstrosity" would be "lack of humanity", and maybe that's at the crux of my deep, deep issues with applying such a label to Spike, no matter what Joss or anyone else's intent was in writing him.
Clearly, killing in a constant indiscriminate rage isn't precisely "human", but! As soon as that gets "fixed" in any way whatsoever-- as soon as Spike gets beyond that in Season 5-- poof! He's no longer monstrous. I don't care if he's "redeemed" or "souled" or blah-blah-whatever. He's just not -monstrous-. "Evil" is such a distant, righteous term, isn't it? Who even knows what it means? I mean, I'd like someone to really describe it to me, 'cause I don't think most people -know- because their moral world is so tied to their own set of experiences, isn't it? What's "evil" is what you're familiar with seeing as "bad". And how does that apply to Spike? How many ex-killers do most people know, anyway?
Okay, I'm just going around in circles now. I'll stop. I think it's clear I'm not really making progress, but I like raising these questions even if the answers never satisfy me (and maybe they're not supposed to). I think I'm a bit miffed I don't have this much meaty goodness to work with in Draco, btw. It's just that Spike has all this -will-, all this independence and desire and the ability to follow through on it no matter what-- whereas Draco's definitely lacking in the "strong will" department. I mean, he's stubborn-- but to make him a leader, to make him fearless, you'd have to basically change him into something that acts like canon Draco only a smidgeon more than Spike generally acts like William. *sigh*
Also: I have now watched exactly one (1) season one (1) episode (the third one) and I'm now ridiculously in love with Xander. Whoa, man. What -happened- to him?? This is so sad. And-- today! I woke up in full possession of my faculties, and my obsession slightly more manageable. Yeay for team Reena.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-30 02:36 pm (UTC)You do realize you've just made non-monogamy, or at least serial monogamy sound good to me, right??
*shudder*
(easily swayed to the Dark Side, I am.)
no subject
Date: 2004-01-30 02:43 pm (UTC)So yeah, if you want to hear all about monogamy and the challenges thereof, give me a call. ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-01-30 03:00 pm (UTC)Both people have to be a bit mad, a lot passionate, and pretty romantic & willing to overlook things. They have to be rather hedonistic and probably rather immature. But I think it's possible-- just that most people don't -really- want it enough to hold on to it.
I know because it's pretty hard staying passionate about -anything-. Like writing, even. Or living. But the trick is the same-- being really willing to be vulnerable. 'Cause I think the comfortability is just another way of shutting off your emotions, being numb.
It's not about monogamy for me, see. It's about being wild-- and people associate that with non-monogamy, right? Except I think that part's immaterial. Like... I could easily see how Spike & Dru slept around on each other and maybe even didn't live/sleep together for years or decades, y'know? But they were still passionately in love because they never -grew up-, really, never saw each other in a different way. So it's a question of not growing up all the way, of not -changing- too much.
And it's not like you can stop yourself from changing, really. But hopefully that raw hungry part in you that wants -more-... hopefully that could find a partner to feed on and never run dry. Someone who'd feed on your passion as you feed on theirs.
See, old married couples still get angry at each other, right? Still have knock-out-drag-down fights. There's that adrenaline. If you want to rip out their hair by the roots and stomp on their entrails and bite down on their mouth until they bleed-- you're on the right trail. I think. I'm sounding scary & insane, aren't I? :>
no subject
Date: 2004-01-30 05:41 pm (UTC)Real life has the passion, but it also needs the moments of boredom and stillness and trust and companionship because passion is exhausting and it is not something that nature intended to last long-term. And the kind of passion you're talking about is something that burns out between two people fairly quickly. It can be rekindled between them in various ways, of course, but you can't live your life that way. It's just not possible.
And thank god, because otherwise nothing would get done.
Let me put it this way: when you fall in love with someone, for the first couple of years, you spend all your time looking deep into the other person's eyes. But eventually you take the person's hand and together you both stand beside each other and look at the world together. And engage with it.
This is real life, and I don't find that depressing ... I find that much more challenging and exciting and, when you think about it, a lot more romantic than any fanfiction you see out there.
I think it's a terrible and sad mistake when people think that the end of passion means that love is gone or that this person is not the right person for them. And then they drop the person and move on. The kind of heart-pounding-in-your-chest lust that you're talking about always ends in a relationship (ALWAYS), and to be honest, I don't think it has anything at all to do with love anyway. Love, rather, is what's around when your hormones stop screaming and mating frenziedly. Love is not lust and passion and infatuation. Love is something a lot messier and more prosaic and a hell of a lot more difficult to attain, and hence worthwhile. The lust and the passion is just one element of that.
And sure, you can have the kind of relationship that relies upon adrenaline-pumping fights to keep the excitement going for decade after decade. But when you think about it, that's a pretty sad way to keep love alive. In fact, it sounds like a strategy to avoid real intimacy.
"Comfortability" is not about being numb, it's about trust and vulnerability and knowing that someone loves you enough to go out in the middle of a blizzard and get you cold medicine, and who thinks you're beautiful first thing in the morning, and will stay up all night talking with you about your work because you both find it so interesting.
All of these things, for me, are very passionate gestures. Whereas fighting is really not all that fun. ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-01-30 06:00 pm (UTC)I don't know what it is, that makes me not want to live in the real world, where the quiet strength is, where the real rewards are. It's a sort of denial, but I don't even know of -what- anymore. I think it's like... thrill-seeking, you know. Things that make you feel -alive-, things that -burn-. It's addiction and I know it, but without it I just fade away. I think if you're healthy, that's what life is like-- it's sharing and looking at the future together and helping each other and understanding. And yeah, having to fight in order to connect -is- pretty fucked up, and I don't know when fucked up became more attractive to me than healthiness.
Because, you know, I -admit- it's fucked up, I just -like- it more. And I think when I take my own issues & I try to figure out theory, the theory I come up with is necessarily skewed, of course. I mean, I retain the ability to see clearly if I -try-, it's just most times people don't call me on it (and I really appreciate it when they do-- it's like a breath of fresh air).
*sigh*
I just -need- passion-- not necessarily love/lust-type passion, but passion in general, so much. And it used to be that my outlet was work-- my passion was writing and dreaming. But it easily transfers to romantic love for me, and then I forget that another person isn't the same deal as the stuff inside me, which is okay to keep burning because there's always more. And maybe that's not true either, and I can't keep burning myself either-- I probably can't, but it's just when I don't, I feel all flat and empty and I hate that.
I mean, thanks, you know. I haven't thought about it in that way, because yes, it -is- about avoidance, really, even in the stories. Buffy/Spike, Harry/Draco (from Buffy & Harry's pov, which is what I identify with) are all about avoidance, I think. Grabbing at the pointy sharp dangerous thing because there's a sort of desire for one's own annihilation involved. If one does achieve balance, happiness, then it all evens out... maybe that's why I don't like to read about how it turns out.
But you're right. That's not love. I mean, it's a part of love, it's just not -all- of love-- and I know that, I do. I'm so afraid of boredom, though, of mundanity. I love -life-, reality, all of that, but I don't fit in very well so it's hard to accept it. A part of me is always insists that if I can't live my dreams, I don't want to live, period. Not in a suicidal way, just in an avoidant way.
Er. That was prolly way tmi, but.
Still, have to disagree about the fighting not being fun-- depends who you're fighting with, and whether it turns both of you on. Some people are crazy, it's true~:)
And I think it's a choice, of a sort, whether one finds "mundane" life depressing or not, y'know. Expectations, all that.