reenka

First things first: I hereby solemnly declare today to be Aspen Loff Day (wheeee!!1 confetti for aaaaallll!!) because the glorious, lucid and also hamster-possessing Miss

cursescar has updated(!!) her site with two new (and pornalicious!) H/D fics: `The World' & `Let It Snow', which is so sweet & sour & eeeee realistic & omg delicious in many many ways. She's also put up a Peter/Wendy ficlet which deserves loff, same as all her writing. Therefore, anyone so inclined should feel free to spread said loff to Aspen in the form of squeeing and possibly detailed reviews, as well as tasteful worship and promises of first-born children for some goggle!sex, because it would only be proper. There's no need to thank me for this announcement; you may now go forth and smother Aspen with adoration. Tell her Reena sent you!

Also, hahah, I found a ficlet by

malafede about Draco the Crybaby which I felt I should also pimp. 'Tis great! And interesting, considering my own questions as to how/whether Draco would cry. And stuff.
Oh, and I just wrote a much belated Percy/Oliver grocery shopping drabble for my drabblethon in June -.- ahahaha. Um. Right. And now on to the disgustingly cerebral part of today's post. Skip, skip, skip on ahead.
~~

This is sort of sparked by the discussion on

dorrie6's post asking for reasons why we ship H/D, right. And my answer (eventually) condensed down to: I (want to) believe it's possible for Harry & Draco to 'get over' things and see each other clearly (or something like it). So, it's a question of 'faith'-- or idealism-- vs. 'cynicism'. Because supposedly it's my idealistic 'faith' in love or humanity that makes me believe unlikely things could happen and that people could change (or should change). I did comment at one point to say that I consider myself a mix of an idealist and a cynic, but I don't think that goes far enough.

And I just realized that 'idealism' means something like 'a person who follows their ideals'. And this goes back to Platonic philosophy, where one has a abstract formulation of how reality is, and then one applies that abstract to the imperfect and fractured 'real' world of people and events. So the ideal is basically disconnected from reality at an essential level, and the striving towards the initial form (of Love, of Beauty, what have you) is something worthwhile but ultimately doomed as far as human beings go.

Basically, nothing I believe or want to believe about people or fictional characters is ever something I think up with no regard to reality. Instead, I perceive certain patterns amid the myriad events and stories I come across, and I match them up and interpret them and so on. The perception comes first, and the interpretation follows. That's the only way that makes sense to me; whenever I notice myself making assumptions about how things 'should' work, I try to backtrack and see where the source would lead me. I want to understand people and the world in general; I don't fancy the idea that my ideas are somehow disconnected from reality just because they're not proven at the moment or might never be.

What it comes down to is an inherent difference in method: an idealist or a cynic both sees the world through a defined, preconditioned framework of starting theories. I myself try to perceive things as they actually are while retaining a sort of... vulnerability, I suppose? A hope for the unexpected. A sense of wonder, maybe...? And then, naturally, I formulate opinions (though not conclusions, generally).

I think the capacity to believe in the impossibilities of love (which can be neither proved or disproved) isn't a matter of -faith- but rather interpretation and what your value system is. What does one value about people? What does one think is worthwhile in love-- passion, longevity, understanding, chemistry in general, degree of complementariness? What does one believe one's 'Ultimate Goal' in life & love 'should' be?

In the end, it does come down to what one thinks 'should' be true. I actually hate the word 'should'. I think it's... well, oppressive. I also think lots of people somehow imply it in regular discourse, whether or not they mean to. And in talking about love especially, I don't see how there's a place for that word, really. One may talk about predestination and archetypes and kink and that's all well and good, but love-- as any other emotion-- is irrational and wild (though able to be understood, of course). To predict or decide its course with any certainty seems laughable to me. Who can know what we will-- or can-- become? And why is it idealistic of me to say that?

I have two base principles: one is that of uncertainty. I don't know, so I hope. The other is of balance. I see an overall tendency towards balance in nature itself-- it seems to me that every aspect of the universe, from emotion & consciousness to ecosystems to human bodies strives towards a state of balance, or homeostasis. This isn't an ideal: it's a working hypothesis. There's a difference, isn't there?

So this is what I perceive, witholding judgment: every system I see has checks and balances. There is no presence without a corresponding absence somewhere else. Nature abhors a vacuum, they say, but I've found it also abhors excess when it continues 'too long'. Every naturally evolving system (and human relationships are naturally evolving) only comfortably exists while in a state of equilibrium. In a world where there are Slytherins, for instance, there will always be Gryffindors, and vice versa. In a world where there is good, there will always be evil, because without their mirror/shadow, things lose their definition of identity and become basically amorphous.

Anyway, the way I ship (and the appeal of H/D in particular) does relate to this, actually. I see Harry & Draco as elements of a balanced set-- in fact, I see every single ship I've ever really liked as being elements of a balanced set. Meaning, if you put them together, it's not that they're -equal- (in strength), but that they reach equilibrium. Imbalance can never survive, because nature would eventually compensate by either expelling/trimming the excess or emphasizing the differences (even in relationships which started off with the other person -liking- those differences), often leading to the destruction of said relationships.

The only reason I 'see' them together is because I think it could work (in the 'real world' or whatever passes for real for me at the moment, because there -is- no other world). In the end, any two people -could- be together, and of course none -should- be, but some pairings of two individuals resonate more with me in the sense that they seem more real: i.e., more in tune with the identities of the people involved and with the way the world... works. What I mean is, some pairings are more balanced than others.

Homeostasis is a concept that would mostly be associated with chemistry, perhaps, but I still see imbalance as being temporary in nature rather like an unstable chemical element. It may exist, but it won't last. It will either bond with a stabilizing element to form a balanced system, or it will cease to exist (and some really unbalanced elements need to be forced to exist under extreme laboratory conditions, no less).

H/D is an interesting pairing in that regard. You might say that you would need a special sort of life laboratory to initiate the reaction-- but as far as my perceptions of both their personalities go, I see it as a balanced system once it's given a chance to really -initialize-. That moment of 'seeing' one another that Aja talked about in Dorrie's post-- that's the moment the new element is created. And, I mean, you tell me: am I being purely idealistic or just really abstract? :D