~~ biting back the romance bug.
Nov. 11th, 2004 02:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaAgain and again, it seems I keep coming back to the question-- What's wrong with romance. I mean, it's pretty obvious that of all human relationships, that of lovers is the least widely acceptable as a topic of serious study, compared to parents & children, siblings, working relationships, friendships. In a universe of cliche, romance (that is, sexual love) has a special place of inspiring a sort of... either disdainful boredom by the enlightened or thoughtless consumption by the masses. I feel like a throw-back, with my lifelong unabashed fascination with the subject, especially considering that in real life I'm rather antisocial, so the romantic theme is largely a theoretical interest. Hum.
The sexual aspect of this is even more looked down upon as a topic of serious inquiry, almost as if to this day, it's seen as a straggling tag-along, to be acknowledged but hopefully swept out of sight unless completely necessary. There seem to be divergent movements, at least within pop culture, to constantly separate & more firmly unite the concepts of sex and love, though of course both acknowledge that they're different (though complementary) things.
I'm not so sure of that.
I'm fascinated by sexuality at least partly because it seems like a natural extension of romantic love (eros being sexual by nature). On the animal level-- certainly recreational sex is known, but this doesn't actually separate it from love, because among bonobos, for instance, the 'love' is still present as a conciliatory experience. If the animal in question -can- pair-bond on any lasting basis, it seems they use sex as a way to assert a certain (temporary or not) relationship as well as to feel good.
Basically, wouldn't most people's response be that porn is the least 'important' subject there is? And the most important, depending on which person you ask when. Personally, I find this dichotomy fascinating-- the way sex is everywhere, all-pervasive, the source of a million-and-one human motivations and consequences for us all, and yet it's commonly considered a lowly (embarrassing) source for inquiry. You can't write/read porn seriously, can you. That'd make you a wanker in the worst way. In denial, even. In desperate need of actual sex, perhaps. Off your head. Etc.
I myself see sex (and romance) everywhere, a background hum in nearly every story. I'm sure hormones have something to do with this, but that can't be all of it-- I remember wondering who would get together with whom in movies and fairy-tales & stories of all sorts when I was a five year-old, too. I don't actually remember a time when I wasn't interested. What does that say about me? Something negative, probably, to most people. I'm just 'such a girl'. I've got to listen to reality, right, where (sexual) love isn't the Most Important Thing; I've got to Get Down To Business.
And yet. And yet, our whole present-day culture is obviously fascinated with the whole concept (which must be why so many people are tired of it, but that doesn't make it any more logical to dismiss).
I think a romantic/sexual relationship can be seen as a really effective lens of understanding people and their effect on one another, but the ramifications of the experiment depend on the people involved. Sometimes it -is- a cliche (in my own understanding) simply because the couple can't find a way to effectively communicate, or conversely because they're so at ease with each other that nothing ever changes between them & no issues get confronted. This confrontation & change-- this ionic bonding-- is the currency and the heart of both drama and one's growth as an invidual. While the covalent, steady bonds we make provide our lifelong foundations and are utterly indispensable, they are too easy and if unchecked, would sink us into a personal rut.
In my own personal experience if nothing else, with the right people involved, an ongoing sexual relationship is probably the sharpest mirror possible for an understanding of oneself. To me, this has always been the core question: Who am I in contrast to the Other? And that is what romantic love tries to show the lovers (and/or the readers). Sex is-- or can be-- the major catalytic act in this process besides talking. Touch remains when words fail. Touch and taste and look and feel the Other-- that's porn for you. At its best, it's visceral, gut-level, deeply honest, no holds barred realism. Aesthetic 'lying' in porn is widely accepted and desirable-- but I would say it's also pure cowardice/escapism. Porn doesn't have to be escapist, which has partly earned it its bad reputation-- I really think so. Erotic fiction can be the most honest, pure-truth thing you (I) can write.
As far as coming up with some semi-quantifiable system for study of this subject (as I can't help but feel compelled to come up with), there are a few axes to consider in a given couple:
+ High level of inherent interpersonal conflict - (if non-resolvable but self-sustaining, chances are best)
+ Possible progression to resolution or overall apparent relationship arc(s) - (needed to stave off stagnation)
+ Larger significance to each other - (what is the context of the beloved in the lover's life and the ramifications thereof)
+ What are the questions raised for each other & as a couple? - This is largely the romance writer's question. A 'high potential' couple tends to open the door to larger questions-- that is, by exploring the intersection of these two personalities, the metaphorical creases and irritations and interplay between them, one could get at something larger than either of the individuals-- something that transcends them or the duration & nature of their relationship. Love becomes a gateway the way it has always truly been-- the way it was in Romeo & Juliet and the Iliad and the fairy-tale of Beauty and the Beast. That's the beauty of it all-- great romance can never just be about itself. It is always, always a reflection of society at large-- the one that produces the story as much as the one that currently retells it.
These are mirrors-- doorways. Love itself is a doorway to the Other-- romance is the Story that links the separate rooms inside us. Sex is definitive both by its presence and its absence-- and in fact, its aching, hollow absence is often more powerful than any amount of presence. It is really the -anticipation- and the looking-towards-tomorrow that characterizes romantic love-- that unique Mystery, that divine insanity that tells you that the Beloved is deeply unknowable and infinitely desirable of being known. Love centers around Mystery and feeds upon constant communication-- a Look that goes on even when-- especially when-- the Beloved isn't present to be seen.
~~
I'm definitely not repeating the commonly accepted wisdom that close friends shouldn't (or can't) try to be lovers-- far from it. In a sense, friends make the best kind of lovers, since the implied ability to communicate well is simply vital. On the contrary, it merely depends on what kind of friends you are, and whether you really are both compatible & incompatible in the right ways. :>
And yeah, I'll interject and say that this is why pairings which have no inherent personality conflict and are examples of like-with-like seem to be the flaming antithesis of what I see as romantic or sexual. To me this is so basic-- to the point that I think it explains why most of us aren't attracted to our siblings or parents. Thusly-- for me-- James/Sirius, Snape/Draco, Harry/Hermione = ick!! while Fred/George = yum! because that's a complete unit. Which is to say-- it's possible even for sibling pairs to come across as complementary (especially male/female pairs), but it's very rare. And yes, I always harp on about this particular squick, but it's me, what do you expect?
Naturally, I don't mean to overblow this and say romance is -more- important than something or other-- than anything else. I'm more interested in determining its role by somehow overcoming the urge for comparisons, though clearly that's difficult. To rank is human, but to equate is divine, etcetc.
Do I know what I'm talking about? Not as such, no.
~~
Oh, I'd started to read![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mousapelli's `He's not heavy, he's my boggart', when I realized-- I love James. I don't just snicker at him & think he's a cute sort of asshole-- no, I love him. I also feel it might be my calling to abandon slash & start writing James/Lily het, but I might be wrong about that (besides, them being doomed puts a damper on my enthusiasm). Still, I love insensitive, self-centered, given to brash outbursts & mockery, materialistic & pragmatic yet-secretly-romantic James. I think he's starting to remind me of Tamahome, which is rather odd, and yet. Hey, does that make Sirius into Tasuki?? Ahahahah. That James, he's such a kidder.
Thinking of him as an Auror makes me laugh and laugh (and laugh). It's the rebels that make the best cops, y'know (that fascination with authority-- oh yes). What's hilarious, come to think of it, is that I imagine that pre-OoTP, people thought James was kinda like Percy. How hilarious is that?? Ha.
The sexual aspect of this is even more looked down upon as a topic of serious inquiry, almost as if to this day, it's seen as a straggling tag-along, to be acknowledged but hopefully swept out of sight unless completely necessary. There seem to be divergent movements, at least within pop culture, to constantly separate & more firmly unite the concepts of sex and love, though of course both acknowledge that they're different (though complementary) things.
I'm not so sure of that.
I'm fascinated by sexuality at least partly because it seems like a natural extension of romantic love (eros being sexual by nature). On the animal level-- certainly recreational sex is known, but this doesn't actually separate it from love, because among bonobos, for instance, the 'love' is still present as a conciliatory experience. If the animal in question -can- pair-bond on any lasting basis, it seems they use sex as a way to assert a certain (temporary or not) relationship as well as to feel good.
Basically, wouldn't most people's response be that porn is the least 'important' subject there is? And the most important, depending on which person you ask when. Personally, I find this dichotomy fascinating-- the way sex is everywhere, all-pervasive, the source of a million-and-one human motivations and consequences for us all, and yet it's commonly considered a lowly (embarrassing) source for inquiry. You can't write/read porn seriously, can you. That'd make you a wanker in the worst way. In denial, even. In desperate need of actual sex, perhaps. Off your head. Etc.
I myself see sex (and romance) everywhere, a background hum in nearly every story. I'm sure hormones have something to do with this, but that can't be all of it-- I remember wondering who would get together with whom in movies and fairy-tales & stories of all sorts when I was a five year-old, too. I don't actually remember a time when I wasn't interested. What does that say about me? Something negative, probably, to most people. I'm just 'such a girl'. I've got to listen to reality, right, where (sexual) love isn't the Most Important Thing; I've got to Get Down To Business.
And yet. And yet, our whole present-day culture is obviously fascinated with the whole concept (which must be why so many people are tired of it, but that doesn't make it any more logical to dismiss).
I think a romantic/sexual relationship can be seen as a really effective lens of understanding people and their effect on one another, but the ramifications of the experiment depend on the people involved. Sometimes it -is- a cliche (in my own understanding) simply because the couple can't find a way to effectively communicate, or conversely because they're so at ease with each other that nothing ever changes between them & no issues get confronted. This confrontation & change-- this ionic bonding-- is the currency and the heart of both drama and one's growth as an invidual. While the covalent, steady bonds we make provide our lifelong foundations and are utterly indispensable, they are too easy and if unchecked, would sink us into a personal rut.
In my own personal experience if nothing else, with the right people involved, an ongoing sexual relationship is probably the sharpest mirror possible for an understanding of oneself. To me, this has always been the core question: Who am I in contrast to the Other? And that is what romantic love tries to show the lovers (and/or the readers). Sex is-- or can be-- the major catalytic act in this process besides talking. Touch remains when words fail. Touch and taste and look and feel the Other-- that's porn for you. At its best, it's visceral, gut-level, deeply honest, no holds barred realism. Aesthetic 'lying' in porn is widely accepted and desirable-- but I would say it's also pure cowardice/escapism. Porn doesn't have to be escapist, which has partly earned it its bad reputation-- I really think so. Erotic fiction can be the most honest, pure-truth thing you (I) can write.
As far as coming up with some semi-quantifiable system for study of this subject (as I can't help but feel compelled to come up with), there are a few axes to consider in a given couple:
+ High level of inherent interpersonal conflict - (if non-resolvable but self-sustaining, chances are best)
+ Possible progression to resolution or overall apparent relationship arc(s) - (needed to stave off stagnation)
+ Larger significance to each other - (what is the context of the beloved in the lover's life and the ramifications thereof)
+ What are the questions raised for each other & as a couple? - This is largely the romance writer's question. A 'high potential' couple tends to open the door to larger questions-- that is, by exploring the intersection of these two personalities, the metaphorical creases and irritations and interplay between them, one could get at something larger than either of the individuals-- something that transcends them or the duration & nature of their relationship. Love becomes a gateway the way it has always truly been-- the way it was in Romeo & Juliet and the Iliad and the fairy-tale of Beauty and the Beast. That's the beauty of it all-- great romance can never just be about itself. It is always, always a reflection of society at large-- the one that produces the story as much as the one that currently retells it.
These are mirrors-- doorways. Love itself is a doorway to the Other-- romance is the Story that links the separate rooms inside us. Sex is definitive both by its presence and its absence-- and in fact, its aching, hollow absence is often more powerful than any amount of presence. It is really the -anticipation- and the looking-towards-tomorrow that characterizes romantic love-- that unique Mystery, that divine insanity that tells you that the Beloved is deeply unknowable and infinitely desirable of being known. Love centers around Mystery and feeds upon constant communication-- a Look that goes on even when-- especially when-- the Beloved isn't present to be seen.
~~
I'm definitely not repeating the commonly accepted wisdom that close friends shouldn't (or can't) try to be lovers-- far from it. In a sense, friends make the best kind of lovers, since the implied ability to communicate well is simply vital. On the contrary, it merely depends on what kind of friends you are, and whether you really are both compatible & incompatible in the right ways. :>
And yeah, I'll interject and say that this is why pairings which have no inherent personality conflict and are examples of like-with-like seem to be the flaming antithesis of what I see as romantic or sexual. To me this is so basic-- to the point that I think it explains why most of us aren't attracted to our siblings or parents. Thusly-- for me-- James/Sirius, Snape/Draco, Harry/Hermione = ick!! while Fred/George = yum! because that's a complete unit. Which is to say-- it's possible even for sibling pairs to come across as complementary (especially male/female pairs), but it's very rare. And yes, I always harp on about this particular squick, but it's me, what do you expect?
Naturally, I don't mean to overblow this and say romance is -more- important than something or other-- than anything else. I'm more interested in determining its role by somehow overcoming the urge for comparisons, though clearly that's difficult. To rank is human, but to equate is divine, etcetc.
Do I know what I'm talking about? Not as such, no.
~~
Oh, I'd started to read
mousapelli's `He's not heavy, he's my boggart', when I realized-- I love James. I don't just snicker at him & think he's a cute sort of asshole-- no, I love him. I also feel it might be my calling to abandon slash & start writing James/Lily het, but I might be wrong about that (besides, them being doomed puts a damper on my enthusiasm). Still, I love insensitive, self-centered, given to brash outbursts & mockery, materialistic & pragmatic yet-secretly-romantic James. I think he's starting to remind me of Tamahome, which is rather odd, and yet. Hey, does that make Sirius into Tasuki?? Ahahahah. That James, he's such a kidder. Thinking of him as an Auror makes me laugh and laugh (and laugh). It's the rebels that make the best cops, y'know (that fascination with authority-- oh yes). What's hilarious, come to think of it, is that I imagine that pre-OoTP, people thought James was kinda like Percy. How hilarious is that?? Ha.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: *procrastinates*
Date: 2004-11-11 12:56 am (UTC)That's just not true. I mean, what you're saying it's that it doesn't follow the traditional story arc of prejudice/hate to rediscovery/love (sparkles happen). Sirius/James just deals with different (possibly more realistic, possibly more nihilist) sides of humanity. It's obsession, codependence, megalomania, irreverence, pathological ego-issues, domination, withdrawal. It's the inherent isolation of closed systems. It's homosocial behaviour. It's more a story than a love story, I think. Plus, this is people who know how to have fun.
Re: *procrastinates*
Date: 2004-11-11 01:12 am (UTC)The nihilist thing, I'll give you, and that's likely what makes my teeth ache with it. I'm pretty cynical when you push me-- that is, it might seem like I have my head in the clouds, but that's not really true. But nihilism is just as escapist/unrealistic as idealism is-- in fact, they're flip-sides of each other. It sort of makes me stomach hurt because it's so melodramatic and full of itself as a philosophy and as far as most believers being assholes I want to smack doesn't hurt.
Any passionate relationship can have obsession & codepedence-- that's just intense love. I can write any pairing with these attributes-- James/Lily no less so than James/Sirius. James is plenty obsessed with Lily, it seems, though the codependence implies insecurity which James doesn't seem given to.
Pathological ego-issues and the closed system thing... you're exactly right, more a story than a love story, which is why I can't see it in a romantic light. As a romance. And I'm always judging pairings by the 'how romantic' mark 'cause... to me love stories that aren't romantic just make me depressed and nauseous, which... seems to be going too far in the quest for realism. You can have feel-good realism, too. Or at least something with hope attached-- though clearly James/Lily is doomed, which is, as I said, why I don't really want to write it.
And as I keep saying-- I'm interested in their friendship-- homosocial behavior, etc. Yes. Romance-- it's just not cut out for.
Re: *procrastinates*
Date: 2004-11-11 01:19 am (UTC)Ahahah, I really think we'll never have anything other than H/D in common ship-wise because I hate romance as I see it basically as a way to spit on the common man and his shortcomings.
Re: *procrastinates*
Date: 2004-11-11 01:27 am (UTC)Perhaps we cannot achieve High Romance, in other words, but the story itself has value to comfort, inspire and touch people. That's why I started out my whole post with saying, 'my interest in romance is purely theoretical....'
Re: *procrastinates*
Date: 2004-11-11 02:07 am (UTC)Re: *procrastinates*
Date: 2004-11-11 01:21 am (UTC)Re: *procrastinates*
Date: 2004-11-11 01:32 am (UTC)In a way, codependency is also the opposite of 'agape' love, because it is need-without-end-- without the ability to let go which lets you appreciate what you have in the first place. If you appreciate it because you can't not, then you're basically the same as an infant 'appreciating' (aka using) its mother. Which-- if one aspired to this as a love goal-- is just really sad to imagine going on and on and on, to me.