![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaSo, I'm avoiding writing more of my Death Eater!Draco fic (um... coincidentally, currently I'm at a rather important Hermione scene) to babble randomly. God, I love babbling randomly. There's porn, art, and babbling-- what else is there in life?? ...Don't answer that.
Basically, I was reading![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lizbee's Hermione character analysis (which is brilliant), and got to thinking about-- well, Hermione-- but also her relationships with Harry & Ron, and how they realize that she's someone who can be difficult to like (which a lot of fanfic rather whitewashes). Naturally a R/Hr vs. H/Hr discussion ensued, though the arguments were actually coherent for once, and it led me to question myself more fully as to why I do prefer Hermione with Ron and what that says about how I see relationships. And of course then I got long-winded.
Anyway, this post is dedicated tocellia, who'd laugh and disagree with me on more than a few counts :D That's what friends are for, right?
So:
Guidelines for Understanding & Predicting Shipping Preferences:
1 - Are 'desirable' relationships equivalent to each person bringing out the best in the other?
This, I feel, is an interesting question, and it's the one that really inspired this whole post. The initial context was the discussion inlizbee's Hermione post about whether Ron and Hermione bring out the best in each other now & would be likely to in a romantic context.
My instinct would be to say 'yes', however at the same time I feel one needs to deal with the idea that a 'desirable' relationship would also hopefully include -challenge-, or a struggle to deal with/overcome the worst in order to then focus on the best. Meaning-- perhaps our personal 'best' isn't necessarily always -just- our positive, useful & constructive qualities. Perhaps it is worthwhile to be able to work through one's issues as well, and have one's partner be there to inspire change and support us in our darker moments as well as encourage us to our greatest heights.
It is somewhat naive to think that we can find just the right person to spend a great, well-adjusted, mostly-happy life with, especially if one is a complicated, difficult sort of person. Some people do achieve this sort of comfortable existence, but those people aren't very interesting as characters... though that's purely my opinion. Regardless, it's been my experience that no matter one's partner, one's life is a series of trials to one's heart and mind, and one isn't the same person, emotionally, in an entirely consistent manner across one's life. Therefore, if one approach brought out one's 'best qualities' at one point, one's own relationship with those qualities and ability to manifest them may change.
What I mean is, if you define the 'best' and the 'height' of your character too early on in your life, then you stand the danger of losing that sense of self, which would be a painful and potentially destructive crisis. If one's relationship with one's partner isn't based on a static sense of each other's personalities but rather a dynamic, evolving attraction & interest in one another, then you really can be there 'for better or for worse', so to speak.
2 - Does two people (friends?) 'squabbling' mean lust and/or 'true love'?
No. It means they have some form of chemistry and what people might call 'spark'. Spark can mean lots of things, most of them not having much to do with long-lasting or healthy relationships, but a number of them perhaps related to um... emotionally compelling/watchable encounters. Makes for good fiction, the way conflict does in general. Saying you like 'squabbling' really means you like conflict-- so I feel it's unjustly made fun of by people who say 'eh, it's been done'. Well, of course it's been done-- all forms of romance are cliche by now; so what?
Clearly, it's going too far to say that's the major or only definitive indicator of romantic potential, but over-simplifying things is a common tactic in debate as a rule.
Usually, I would say that a common factor between people who don't bore each other is a certain moderate but significant amount of disagreements, which is as important as the -agreements- between a couple. The disagreements allow them to feel like they're truly individuals, and they complement each other's views & temperaments without reflecting one's own best & worst traits at oneself. Argument is also what often leads to a chance for -compromise- and greater understanding, instead of merely the assumed (and possibly false) sense of mutual understanding that a more easily agreeable couple may have.
Another way to say this is that the importance of conflict in relationships isn't so much in the fighting as the resolution of said fighting. So the fact that Ron & Hermione (for example) fight (or 'squabble') isn't as vital as the fact that they're still friends who've clearly had to work for-- and achieved-- a common language which led to friendship. After all, Ron & Hermione are friends too, just as Harry & Hermione are-- they are just different sorts of friends. They're friends who're constantly in a process of re-evaluating and actively noticing and communicating each other's negative (as well as positive) behaviors. It's a challenge, but they've been willing to give it a go all these years (five, now).
So one might say that couples who squabble or fight essentially challenge each other & don't take each other's presence for granted, at least-- which is actually one criteria for a lasting romance.
3 - What role does (mutual) understanding-- friendship, in other words-- play in the (long-term) 'success' of a romantic relationship?
I feel the qualifiers in my parentheses kind of answer the question-- basically, I feel that mutual understanding is the basis of friendship, and friendship is the most solid foundation possible upon which to build a romance, though naturally it doesn't guaratantee long-term success by any means, and sometimes can end up being a huge mistake. It depends on the character's/person's particular temperament/needs, I think. Spike, for instance, wouldn't do so well in a friendship-based relationship since his brain seems wired to need to worship some nearly untouchable goddess.
Also, if you understand each other 100% or close to it, then there's no 'mystery' or-- well-- romance, really, because romance does include elements of infatuation and excitement which fall outside the basic 'compatibility criteria' people talk about when they debate a pairing's merits. We conveniently forget that most often, people fall for the ones who're bad for them. Usually, 'bad' means the other person makes one's heart beat faster but one knows they're going to go away or break one's heart because they're 'just that sort of person' (funny how that works). Is this good/healthy? No. But it is, in fact, human nature.
Is it human nature to -want- long-term relationship success? Yes. Is it human nature to achieve it in practice? Not in the majority of cases, unless bound by law, it seems like.
Realistically speaking, 'friendship' and 'understanding' are things we want as back-up when the romance/passion dries up. We want some insurance policy to tell us, 'well, we'll have something to talk about when he's limp and she has a headache and the edge has worn off', which is clearly a Good Idea (if rather lacking in the excitement dept., at least for me).
4 - Are 'good' ('healthy') relationships determined by whether the two characters are 'good for each other'?
What is healthy? Is it the same thing for every person/character? Do we all need the same things? Well, on some level, yes: we all need love, attention, some amount of patience and understanding, some amount of willingness to let go and some amount of stubborn faith/trust from our partners. We also need some form of mutual growth so that we don't stagnate and get bored. Hopefully there's a balance.
Essentially this intrinsic 'good' is something that's a question of a particular person's gut-reaction level desires from life, so the answer is different for each person. Our personalities, temperaments & unique histories all determine the outcome, not to mention the overall ideals and our accepted societal concepts of relationships & romance. What we want is often determined by what we're supposed to want, and what we think society expects/demands that we want. It's because of this that so many gay men get married and have 2.5 children (and sometimes then go on to become governors of New Jersey who then resign after outing themselves halfway into their term, but that's neither here nor there).
A 'good' relationship is probably one where both partners manage to fulfill each other's needs, whether or not those needs would be commonly considered 'good' or 'healthy'. Therefore, if Draco wants the comfort of 'belonging' to someone who could take care of him in some way (say, Harry), and Harry wants the comfort of having a surefire love/family to call his own, the relationship would qualify as 'successful' (if by that you mean 'satisfactory to the people in it') on those terms even if a psychologist would call that 'co-dependent and unhealthy'.
What is the huge benefit of directing outside judgment on others' romantic relationships (and labeling them unhealthy or 'bad'), if the two people involved are content?
5 - Finally, what defines 'romantic success'-- whether long-term or short-term? And which is the 'superior' measure?
I think (and this is a purely personal measure), romantic success transcends any measure of duration, so it doesn't matter how long it lasts unless the two people -want- and need it to last. Our relationships tend to be what we need at the time, and a lasting one changes its nature as we ourselves change-- at least, that has been my experience with my most lasting relationships (which are now friendships). I am not the same person I was when I was in love with those people, and our current relationship reflects that, I think. My needs are different, my sense of self is different, and most of all, my -desires- are different.
A relationship that satisfies one's desires is basically one where we have found happiness. Initially, it seemed that mutual happiness is the greatest measure of romantic success, but even that is not entirely true, because sometimes people go through depressive/dark periods of their lives, and being in love doesn't change that-- it just helps confine/limit the effects and possibly duration, but even that can't be depended upon. One might have a 'happy' relationship while one's life is in ruins and one's a complete wreck (not really all that helped by the presence of romance), and conversely one may have an awful charade of a romance while one's life is going great-- in which case one would probably still not feel all that great.
Love doesn't always make us happy, or be our best selves, or content or satisfied by a long shot-- but it is still itself; it is still vitally important to our very functioning. It doesn't always offer comfort-- and often hurts like nothing else-- but holding on to it is its own sweet, delicious torment and rapture. Often enough, we hold on -because- it seems 'wrong' and hopeless; usually, the fact is, eventually we fall (or grow) apart. It doesn't always complete us, and often splits us apart-- but without love, any happiness has a limited reach, I think.
There's no way to say that who we need now is who we'll need 10 years from now; no way to say that they'll need us back now -or- then; no way to make sure one loves the 'right' person or the most reasonable candidate. There's no way to really control or predict any of it, and that's the sheer glory, is it not?
~~
Also. Why is girl!Harry art so hot??! WHY WHY WHYyyyyyy???... Then again, I-- um-- like me some crossdressing!Draco fic, too. Omfg, teh kink!!1
And oh my fuck, woman!Snape has killed me dead. o_0 Of course...djinniyah's Snape is pretty much perfect male -or- female. Wah. And OMG HER TOM!!1
Whoah, baby... Hogwarts' wank Olympics fic <3333333
Basically, I was reading
lizbee's Hermione character analysis (which is brilliant), and got to thinking about-- well, Hermione-- but also her relationships with Harry & Ron, and how they realize that she's someone who can be difficult to like (which a lot of fanfic rather whitewashes). Naturally a R/Hr vs. H/Hr discussion ensued, though the arguments were actually coherent for once, and it led me to question myself more fully as to why I do prefer Hermione with Ron and what that says about how I see relationships. And of course then I got long-winded. Anyway, this post is dedicated to
cellia, who'd laugh and disagree with me on more than a few counts :D That's what friends are for, right?So:
1 - Are 'desirable' relationships equivalent to each person bringing out the best in the other?
This, I feel, is an interesting question, and it's the one that really inspired this whole post. The initial context was the discussion in
lizbee's Hermione post about whether Ron and Hermione bring out the best in each other now & would be likely to in a romantic context.My instinct would be to say 'yes', however at the same time I feel one needs to deal with the idea that a 'desirable' relationship would also hopefully include -challenge-, or a struggle to deal with/overcome the worst in order to then focus on the best. Meaning-- perhaps our personal 'best' isn't necessarily always -just- our positive, useful & constructive qualities. Perhaps it is worthwhile to be able to work through one's issues as well, and have one's partner be there to inspire change and support us in our darker moments as well as encourage us to our greatest heights.
It is somewhat naive to think that we can find just the right person to spend a great, well-adjusted, mostly-happy life with, especially if one is a complicated, difficult sort of person. Some people do achieve this sort of comfortable existence, but those people aren't very interesting as characters... though that's purely my opinion. Regardless, it's been my experience that no matter one's partner, one's life is a series of trials to one's heart and mind, and one isn't the same person, emotionally, in an entirely consistent manner across one's life. Therefore, if one approach brought out one's 'best qualities' at one point, one's own relationship with those qualities and ability to manifest them may change.
What I mean is, if you define the 'best' and the 'height' of your character too early on in your life, then you stand the danger of losing that sense of self, which would be a painful and potentially destructive crisis. If one's relationship with one's partner isn't based on a static sense of each other's personalities but rather a dynamic, evolving attraction & interest in one another, then you really can be there 'for better or for worse', so to speak.
2 - Does two people (friends?) 'squabbling' mean lust and/or 'true love'?
No. It means they have some form of chemistry and what people might call 'spark'. Spark can mean lots of things, most of them not having much to do with long-lasting or healthy relationships, but a number of them perhaps related to um... emotionally compelling/watchable encounters. Makes for good fiction, the way conflict does in general. Saying you like 'squabbling' really means you like conflict-- so I feel it's unjustly made fun of by people who say 'eh, it's been done'. Well, of course it's been done-- all forms of romance are cliche by now; so what?
Clearly, it's going too far to say that's the major or only definitive indicator of romantic potential, but over-simplifying things is a common tactic in debate as a rule.
Usually, I would say that a common factor between people who don't bore each other is a certain moderate but significant amount of disagreements, which is as important as the -agreements- between a couple. The disagreements allow them to feel like they're truly individuals, and they complement each other's views & temperaments without reflecting one's own best & worst traits at oneself. Argument is also what often leads to a chance for -compromise- and greater understanding, instead of merely the assumed (and possibly false) sense of mutual understanding that a more easily agreeable couple may have.
Another way to say this is that the importance of conflict in relationships isn't so much in the fighting as the resolution of said fighting. So the fact that Ron & Hermione (for example) fight (or 'squabble') isn't as vital as the fact that they're still friends who've clearly had to work for-- and achieved-- a common language which led to friendship. After all, Ron & Hermione are friends too, just as Harry & Hermione are-- they are just different sorts of friends. They're friends who're constantly in a process of re-evaluating and actively noticing and communicating each other's negative (as well as positive) behaviors. It's a challenge, but they've been willing to give it a go all these years (five, now).
So one might say that couples who squabble or fight essentially challenge each other & don't take each other's presence for granted, at least-- which is actually one criteria for a lasting romance.
3 - What role does (mutual) understanding-- friendship, in other words-- play in the (long-term) 'success' of a romantic relationship?
I feel the qualifiers in my parentheses kind of answer the question-- basically, I feel that mutual understanding is the basis of friendship, and friendship is the most solid foundation possible upon which to build a romance, though naturally it doesn't guaratantee long-term success by any means, and sometimes can end up being a huge mistake. It depends on the character's/person's particular temperament/needs, I think. Spike, for instance, wouldn't do so well in a friendship-based relationship since his brain seems wired to need to worship some nearly untouchable goddess.
Also, if you understand each other 100% or close to it, then there's no 'mystery' or-- well-- romance, really, because romance does include elements of infatuation and excitement which fall outside the basic 'compatibility criteria' people talk about when they debate a pairing's merits. We conveniently forget that most often, people fall for the ones who're bad for them. Usually, 'bad' means the other person makes one's heart beat faster but one knows they're going to go away or break one's heart because they're 'just that sort of person' (funny how that works). Is this good/healthy? No. But it is, in fact, human nature.
Is it human nature to -want- long-term relationship success? Yes. Is it human nature to achieve it in practice? Not in the majority of cases, unless bound by law, it seems like.
Realistically speaking, 'friendship' and 'understanding' are things we want as back-up when the romance/passion dries up. We want some insurance policy to tell us, 'well, we'll have something to talk about when he's limp and she has a headache and the edge has worn off', which is clearly a Good Idea (if rather lacking in the excitement dept., at least for me).
4 - Are 'good' ('healthy') relationships determined by whether the two characters are 'good for each other'?
What is healthy? Is it the same thing for every person/character? Do we all need the same things? Well, on some level, yes: we all need love, attention, some amount of patience and understanding, some amount of willingness to let go and some amount of stubborn faith/trust from our partners. We also need some form of mutual growth so that we don't stagnate and get bored. Hopefully there's a balance.
Essentially this intrinsic 'good' is something that's a question of a particular person's gut-reaction level desires from life, so the answer is different for each person. Our personalities, temperaments & unique histories all determine the outcome, not to mention the overall ideals and our accepted societal concepts of relationships & romance. What we want is often determined by what we're supposed to want, and what we think society expects/demands that we want. It's because of this that so many gay men get married and have 2.5 children (and sometimes then go on to become governors of New Jersey who then resign after outing themselves halfway into their term, but that's neither here nor there).
A 'good' relationship is probably one where both partners manage to fulfill each other's needs, whether or not those needs would be commonly considered 'good' or 'healthy'. Therefore, if Draco wants the comfort of 'belonging' to someone who could take care of him in some way (say, Harry), and Harry wants the comfort of having a surefire love/family to call his own, the relationship would qualify as 'successful' (if by that you mean 'satisfactory to the people in it') on those terms even if a psychologist would call that 'co-dependent and unhealthy'.
What is the huge benefit of directing outside judgment on others' romantic relationships (and labeling them unhealthy or 'bad'), if the two people involved are content?
5 - Finally, what defines 'romantic success'-- whether long-term or short-term? And which is the 'superior' measure?
I think (and this is a purely personal measure), romantic success transcends any measure of duration, so it doesn't matter how long it lasts unless the two people -want- and need it to last. Our relationships tend to be what we need at the time, and a lasting one changes its nature as we ourselves change-- at least, that has been my experience with my most lasting relationships (which are now friendships). I am not the same person I was when I was in love with those people, and our current relationship reflects that, I think. My needs are different, my sense of self is different, and most of all, my -desires- are different.
A relationship that satisfies one's desires is basically one where we have found happiness. Initially, it seemed that mutual happiness is the greatest measure of romantic success, but even that is not entirely true, because sometimes people go through depressive/dark periods of their lives, and being in love doesn't change that-- it just helps confine/limit the effects and possibly duration, but even that can't be depended upon. One might have a 'happy' relationship while one's life is in ruins and one's a complete wreck (not really all that helped by the presence of romance), and conversely one may have an awful charade of a romance while one's life is going great-- in which case one would probably still not feel all that great.
Love doesn't always make us happy, or be our best selves, or content or satisfied by a long shot-- but it is still itself; it is still vitally important to our very functioning. It doesn't always offer comfort-- and often hurts like nothing else-- but holding on to it is its own sweet, delicious torment and rapture. Often enough, we hold on -because- it seems 'wrong' and hopeless; usually, the fact is, eventually we fall (or grow) apart. It doesn't always complete us, and often splits us apart-- but without love, any happiness has a limited reach, I think.
There's no way to say that who we need now is who we'll need 10 years from now; no way to say that they'll need us back now -or- then; no way to make sure one loves the 'right' person or the most reasonable candidate. There's no way to really control or predict any of it, and that's the sheer glory, is it not?
~~
Also. Why is girl!Harry art so hot??! WHY WHY WHYyyyyyy???... Then again, I-- um-- like me some crossdressing!Draco fic, too. Omfg, teh kink!!1
And oh my fuck, woman!Snape has killed me dead. o_0 Of course...
djinniyah's Snape is pretty much perfect male -or- female. Wah. And OMG HER TOM!!1Whoah, baby... Hogwarts' wank Olympics fic <3333333
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-08-28 05:43 pm (UTC)Oh no--you didn't say it at all. I was just commenting on it because that was one of the things people brought up for R/Hr as why they either would or wouldn't be happy.
As for whether longterm marriage is the only test of whether a relationship works I agree too--that's just one possible outcome, not the only one that can be said to have "worked." In fact, that's part of why that one story I referenced rings true to me, because it's not that the R/Hr wasn't real, it just didn't pan out to longterm marriage. In fandom, though, it seems like it's usually all or nothing. Even though you're dealing with kids who are 15, which means probably we shouldn't take too much of how they feel now as an indication of where their lives should go.