~~ biting back the romance bug.

[reenka]

Again 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 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.

Comments

Re: *procrastinates*

[darklites.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, and after OotP I actually had cravings to read Sirius/Remus for a bit. :> I kind of enjoyed the tragic atmosphere that was a part of the whole dynamic after the death.

R/S did become popular way before OotP and the death though. And I guess I was talking more about how it was neat in the way that the characters are paired off. James/Sirius ends unhappily because it's canon that one of them ends up married to someone else; Remus/Sirius ends unhappily because one of them dies, but they can still be The One for each other, I guess?

Re: *procrastinates*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Yeah all right, you've got me (*grumbles*)-- I admit one of the major things that puts me off J/S-type pairings is 'cause in terms of romance, marriage is pretty much worse than death, ahahah. Death is romantic, marriage is evil, evil, eeeeevil (unless you're marrying your True Love Omg, in which case... it might or might not be evil, depending).

So yeah. Er. I actually... er... fell in love with R/S 'cause of `Drawing Down the Moon', which I read pre-OoTP, so I can't talk at -all-, really. I tend to fall for pairings 'cause I read them in fic-- either blatantly in canon or in fanon. I totally don't extrapolate from canon, which makes me some sort of insane blend of canon whore & fanon whore o_0 Er. Text whore??! Er? (Wheeee I confuse EVERYONE!)

So yes, they can still be The One which, I admit, is what I like :>

Re: *procrastinates*

[darklites.livejournal.com]

Haha, yes marriage is totally evil! I would rather my pairings die than get married to someone else. HOW DARE THEY?! Yet I am still attracted to James/Sirius. Hmm.

Hee! I, too, am a canon whore who cannot help but be seduced intermittently by the evils of fanon. Fanon is fun, sometimes. Why deny myself? :)) It does make it hard to be credible about canon, since I like to be. But oh well. Contradictions are interesting, and human. (I contain multitudes, etc.)

Speaking of being whorish, I am rather a comment whore today. O_O

Re: *procrastinates*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hee! Comment-whoring is fun, why deny yourself! Plus, I'm glad you peeked out, you so rarely do :D :D

...And, I contain multitudes, yeah, which all argue with each other :D :D Really, often enough I just take the opposite side whenever I meet someone who sounds a leeetle too sure of themselves on some issue. :> :>

Re: *procrastinates*

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

Er. I actually... er... fell in love with R/S 'cause of `Drawing Down the Moon', which I read pre-OoTP, so I can't talk at -all-, really. I tend to fall for pairings 'cause I read them in fic-- either blatantly in canon or in fanon

*bops you about with a canon!whore stick!*

;)

Damn, Reena. Your journal is like, philosophy central. Why'd I have to go to bed?!?!

Re: *procrastinates*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hehehe I probably deserved that :))
...And really, I should've taken your example, 'cause I went to sleep at 7am o_0 And now woke up at 3pm.
*bops herself for good measure*

Re: *procrastinates*

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

Hee!

This entire conversation I find interesting but also kinda gah? Like I get very twitchy whenever people say they think that R/S is popular because *insert reason here* because it's usually not true. I mean, the reason that gets inserted is generally the kind of reason people come up with to explain other people liking a pairing that the person speaking doesn't quite understand the appeal of. Know what I mean?

I'd get twitchy like that on other pairings too, except I don't know how inaccurate people's reasonings are, since I don't hang around other subfandoms really.

Re: *procrastinates*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Heheh I hope you don't mean I myself was rationalizing S/R-- like, I totally feel it's popular because they 'fit' on several levels-- within the text (as of PoA, at least) and on an archetypical as well as an extrapolative personality-matching level. I think people like couples on a totally instinctive/emotional level so any rationalization is inherently silly. I mean, to me it's so obvious-- how they fit in my head. Even if someone's fic doesn't show it, after the initial 'ahhhh' moment, I already know. It's like an open secret of sorts~:)

Re: *procrastinates*

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

No no no, not you! I was thinking of the "it's popular because it's very neat: James gets Lily, Sirius gets Remus" comment from... posterwhosenameIdon'tremember><? That kind of thing. I mean, not just her, but LOTS of people who aren't particularly fond of a pairing (and I don't mean people who HATE the pairing, just people who don't click with it.) It's like people who say it's because... there aren't any women of their age group to pair them with. Or because... we see sex in male/male friendships all the time. etc etc, all of which basically come off, to me, as attempts by someone who doesn't click with it to understand why other people do.

Re: *procrastinates*

[malafede.livejournal.com]

... or not understanding it. I think many times it's just a way to demonise a position to reassure yourself you're in the right. It's a self-defense. I myself am guilty of this, I know, even if I try to avoid it like the plague because the way H/D shippers or Draco fans get characterised sometimes makes me twitch... though sometimes I can't resist those horrible (and yet so awfully vindictive!) thoughts about why people need fanon Draco because they can't deal with the real thing as the real thing is the Other... and you can see where this goes. It's funny because I always feel that in the attempt to understand people's motivations for demonising the Other I am making them the same disservice, ie turning them into the Other.

Re: *procrastinates*

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

I think many times it's just a way to demonise a position to reassure yourself you're in the right.

Agreed. I try to make positive assumptions about people, though, because R/S shippers get enough negative assumptions for me to know that they suck. If I must make an assumption, I mean. ;)

It's funny because I always feel that in the attempt to understand people's motivations for demonising the Other I am making them the same disservice, ie turning them into the Other.

I thought I was the only one who had random and slightly disquieting thoughts about such inconsistencies. ;)

Like, I have been driven completely out of my skull mad by people whining that everyone thinks they're wrong and no one takes their views seriously, and everyone is closed-minded and evil for not respecting their opinions when their opinion is clearly the correct one and everyone should agree with them, because anyone who disagrees is wrong.

Ouch. Headhitdesk.

Re: *procrastinates*

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Though, I wanted to add, sometimes it's just cool to try and understand why certain social trends unfold. I don't think Darklites was trying to demonise S/R, it's just interesting to try and explain where it's popularity comes from, what universal buttons it pushes. I don't like to hear that all H/D shippers are in for fanon Draco, but I think it's actually true that the appeal that archetypes has on girls is a factor. :)

Re: *procrastinates*

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

Agreed again. However, I do think that, if you DON'T click with the pairing/trend, it's very difficult to get an accurate read on why people do... because the people who like the thing just come from a completely different perspective, and if one person is looking at Remus/Sirius from the left and the other from the right, they just don't see the same thing.

It's also difficult if you DO click with it, but for a different reason - you're often going to be too close to see the overall pattern.

Re: *procrastinates*

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Really the only way to understand people is to be both a positive, open-minded person willing to attune him/herself with a vision and also being capable of using a scientific method, ie my psychologist. Ahaha. I mean, sociologists aren't trying to get the moral high-ground, are they? Though there's "intellectuals" with an agenda, too.

Re: *procrastinates*

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

Yep. I was thinking, in fact, that people who don't ship one half of a pairing with someone else is probably more likely to understand the appeal (even if they don't like it themselves) than someone who does. Because there's just agenda in there, mucking things up.

This is why I love psychology, though; I like analyzing things like that.

Re: *procrastinates*

[darklites.livejournal.com]

Oh dear, I wasn't trying to step into the territory of people who like the pairing! I wouldn't be so arrogant as to think I could explain exactly why it speaks to them :/ - I doubt we ourselves can really truly understand why we are so drawn to our pairings, except for them having values and emotional triggers that speak to us.

I did say that it was only 'one of the reasons', and that there were certainly reasons R/S was popular on its own merit - their dynamic has issues of friendship, trust, betrayal, forgiveness, and growing up. I was just pondering one of the reasons for its popularity (rather than wanting to 'explain it away' in one fell swoop) - I think that if canonically one of them had married someone else (or if there had been other substantial love interests with their own interesting issues handy), there'd be far less of it.

There's always a bland reason for a pairing's popularity, and although it never sounds very nice, I guess I figure there's some sort of truth to it, too. I hate to think a major reason for the popularity for Harry/Draco is because of the ostensible 'aesthetic' quality they have together, but it definitely is. It doesn't discount the fact that there are many more reasons to like it, though. Just like I don't think it really discounts the reasons behind R/S to say that it's popular in many ways because of its 'neatness' (or differently phrased, its ability to have a 'togetherness'-esque ending).

Re: *procrastinates*

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

I think that if canonically one of them had married someone else (or if there had been other substantial love interests with their own interesting issues handy), there'd be far less of it.

I didn't think you were trying to discount it! I just get a bit irritated when people say things like that, because, in my experience, anyway, they are rarely accurate.

For example, I get what you mean about there always being a bland reason, and I agree, but from what experience I have in the R/S subfandom, it's not the 'togetherness'y ending, it's the perception of canon compatibility.

Because the R/S subfandom has what I can only call a fairly peculiar fixation on canon (not only the degree of the fixation but the flavor of it) rather akin to some het shippers who are constantly arguing about whose ship is more canon. This is also a major reason they (R/S shippers) get the reputation for being intolerant, preachy canon-thumpers... and also why it attracts so many people who are het shippers except for R/S. And no, if one of them married someone else it wouldn't be as popular, but I'd theorize that it's not because it would no longer be neat, but because it would no longer be perceived as canon-friendly by the very people who make it popular now.

Re: *procrastinates*

[darklites.livejournal.com]

but I'd theorize that it's not because it would no longer be neat, but because it would no longer be perceived as canon-friendly by the very people who make it popular now.

Actually that is kind of what I meant by the 'neatness' - R/S has no canonical messiness to get in the way. That is, that it became popular in some ways because there were no canonical barriers that would contradict it. If one of them did marry someone else, like with J/S, it would need to be explained, which is messy. For example, it's arguable that James and Sirius had a closer/deeper relationship than Sirius and Remus, but fewer people want to write it because of the Lily factor, which makes things messy. Er, that was sort of what I was getting at. I may have defined things badly there.

Of course I've not been exposed to that much Sirius/Remus (I've only read a very small amount), so my guess may very well be off the mark. It wasn't my intention to presume to speak for people who would know better. I was sort of more trying to ferret out the reason for the lack of James/Sirius written in fandom. You may smack me for my ignorance, if you like. :D

Re: *procrastinates*

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

That is, that it became popular in some ways because there were no canonical barriers that would contradict it.

Well, if that's what you meant, I don't disagree. ;) It's the "together"ness implication I objected to: that it was popular largely because it paired everyone off nicely into One True Loves.

Anyway, I think the main two reasons for the lack of James/Sirius are Lily and time. Like, when we see James at 15 years old, he's already fantasizing about Lily and showing off for girls, so when did this happen? Before he fell for Lily would be a bit young, and then... he's in love with Lily. And then he dies. So there's no real time.

Also, I think the time limitation in itself is pretty crippling, because there's just not much maneuvering room.