~~ 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 01:45 am (UTC)I missed this the first time 'round, so focussed on the James/Lily thing, heh. I am not sure how true this is, because do we really have no inherent personality conflicts with our siblings/parents? I am not sure this is a good comparison. And doesn't the whole 'bickering' romance cliche have more in common with a sibling relationship than anything else?
I think the reason I feel James/Sirius is that it seems that even after all these years, it's James who is still Sirius's center, you know? He was the one Sirius measured his whole life by, and there is something romantic in that to me (gah, how did I get H/D parallels into J/S?!). I guess to me J/S doesn't have an arc but they have an underlying connection of sorts that will carry them together throughout their lives. I suppose it could just be a platonic one, though. I'm torn on the idea of having a friendship be the most important relationship in your life, you know? In some ways it's so beautiful to me that I am almost dizzy by it, but then of course that whole sex thing gets in the way. Like you said, it seems that sexual love brings two people together to a place where nothing else can get you. I feel like James and Sirius are, for each other, That Person in their lives, that is, The Most Important. So yeah - Dilemma.
When you think about it J/L is totally Mills and Boon-esque!! The man is arrogant and dashing and popular, the woman tries to resist him. She is Fiesty (as evidenced by the red hair, because, y'know, that is the Symbol of The Feisty Woman). She refuses to have anything to do with him. The man has always known that they will be together, and knows she secretly wants him. Cue succeeding events where the woman will realise - gasp! - he was right! Eep. Thinking of it that way, I am almost scared of it.
Oh, and regarding the porn bit. I find that really interesting too, and I personally think that the backlash against porn is mainly due to sexuality being so fluid, so what is sexy to one person may not be sexy to another. Which is why the violence in pornography is so often called 'degrading to women', even though that line of argument is probably just as degrading to women since it implies that a streamline of sexual fetishes is disallowed, and there are 'male' and 'female' categories of sexual taste. Radical feminists totally scare me, man.
psst, I accidentally posted under the journal I sometimes lurk by when I am bored/have extra time, so I deleted it hahaha. *blush*
Re: *procrastinates*
Date: 2004-11-11 02:34 am (UTC)I think there -are- parallels between J/S & H/D-- just ask
James & Sirius definitely do have a connection (why would I deny it? it's way obvious)-- I was only talking about different kinds of connective bonds (comparing it to chemistry & ionic/opposites vs. covalent/alike). I did say, also, that covalent-type friendship bonds are the foundations upon which most of us build our lives-- what more tribute could I give it? I am not in any way trying to undermine the importance of such a friendship. I am just saying it's not romantic, that is all.
I feel odd and unhappy about Sirius being so very focused on James post-Azkaban, but I feel it's just a sign of how messed-up Sirius is as much as how tight they were. Sirius is unhinged and obsessed-- it's not a 'normal' (if passionate) friendship so much as a complete mental break where he totally had to survive Azkaban by focusing all his will on revenge for James & Lily. It was the most important relationship because he really didn't have a life-- or what life he had was a tragedy. I really think it's a vital missing piece to show what his life was like post-Hogwarts but pre-Azkaban-- how did Sirius deal with married James and how close was he to Remus and the possibility that he -was- and still didn't trust him 'cause of the war going on just breaks me as much as anything. In fact, most things about both Remus & Sirius break me if I think about them too long.
I think it's a sign to what a pet of pop-culture romance I am that I don't mind (and in fact encourage) Mills & Boon!J/L. :> I was thinking recently of your list of 'types of romantics' & types of pairings they're attracted to-- and realized I fit under -every- type of romantic you listed :D I even kinda like Snape/Hermione! ^^;
I do think that sexuality might be fluid, but there wouldn't be backlash and hate if people weren't afraid of these differences and of their own strong preferences one way or the other, too :>
Re: *procrastinates*
Date: 2004-11-11 03:08 am (UTC)Oh man, Mills and Boon scares me. In my last two years of high school, I went to an all-girls' Christian boarding school (and did not have any slashy experiences. IT IS ALL A LIE. hahaha. Although there were rumors. And we did all play up the joke.), and one of the people there had like, a huge collection that we'd giggle insanely over after curfew. And when I think of M&S type stories I just think of the gigglefits we'd have over the horrible porn in them haha.
I think I'm a romantic, but not a pop-culture romantic. Because in most pop-culture films the shmoopy romance makes my brain bleed, but for some reason, H/D just makes me turn into a puddle of GOO. I think my RL friends would not recognise me. But then again, I find fics where they kill each other totally romantic, so. :D
Re: *procrastinates*
Date: 2004-11-11 03:21 am (UTC)Y'know, I'm not even sure what Mills & Boon is, there for a second there I'd thought it was the Archie cartoons (with the blonde girl & the brunette-- I have -no- idea why) which is why I said 'yeah, sure'. Hehehe though it's true I like a lot of pop-culture romance, I -am- picky :> I mean, I like `The Breakfast Club' & various Brat Pack movies, various wartime spunky-modern-woman-meets-good-old-boy movies, comic pairings like Rogue/Gambit and various TV things like uh... well, Buffy/Spike & Mulder/Scully comes to mind. That's all pop-culture but I don't think it's shmoopy necessarily. Then again, deathfic of any kind just depresses the hell out of me. Wah, am chicken :>
Re: *procrastinates*
Date: 2004-11-11 03:38 am (UTC)I hate deathfic too, but somehow it is all right if they kill each other. Especially if they both die! I have issues. ;)
And ah, yeah. My issues with pop culture romance is that good girl/bad boy thing. I can't stand it. (I have a lot of friends who love it. I cry inside every time.) I am meaner to pop culture than you, heh. Your examples are less shallow than mine. :D
Re: *procrastinates*
Date: 2004-11-11 03:46 am (UTC)I've never actually read fic where they kill each other o_0 It's always one of them killing the other & then the other killing themselves (or something) in my memory, which sucks donkey balls as far as I'm concerned.
I like good-girl/bad-boy when it's done well (as with most other cliches), like with Buffy, say-- mostly 'cause I like the good/bad contrast or contrast of any sort. I like the 'bad' & 'good' to have some depth, of course (y'know, evil vampire, Slayer-- now those be some stakes... er... so to speak).
I think JKR hates the bad-boy-loving thing too, if that makes you any happier, though~:))
Re: *procrastinates*
Date: 2004-11-11 04:01 am (UTC)Yeah, I was talking about the bad versions of that good girl/bad boy cliche - I probably just burn from all those terrible incarnations.
JKR only hates the bad boy loving thing on the surface! Sirius and James are SO more the rouguish bad boys than say, Snape, who canonically has no charm whatsoever. And Draco, who's just a twitty idiot who flails to be on par with Harry (why does that idea make me love him even more??). And Lucius, who has turned into a joke, hahaha. Even Harry has a bit of that bad boy edge. He has dark angst! He is angry! Grrr! Feel the masculinity of his doom as a 'marked man'! She sekritly adores bad boys, and is just hiding behind the Gryffindor labels!