~~ 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}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-11 12:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-11 12:59 pm (UTC)But I do think Malafede's right on the spunk vs. rotten bastard thing. ;) I expect she was more in the Ginny mold than the... err, I dunno, Weasley twins mold. Although I think James and Sirius seemed more hardcore bastard than the twins, too, really.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-11 01:06 pm (UTC)It's much more interesting to pair a hardcore bastard with a bastard in denial who likes to act the good guy.
*nodnodnod* AM COMPLETELY NON-BIASED, TOO.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-11 01:17 pm (UTC)I mean James was a decent guy who had a bullying jock phase, IMO: lots of people have those. Remus, on the other hand, is still giving the middle finger to authority, choosing himself over others, and calmly moving to kill Peter in front of three kids twenty years later.
I think the difference between James and Sirius and Remus is laid out, for example, in the Shack incident. Sirius thinks nothing of almost getting Snape killed, and still doesn't regret it even in POA. Remus also doesn't appear to think much of it, and tells Snape to stop holding a grudge like a big baby. James, on the other hand, reached an ethical limit even at the time, and wasn't having it.
IMO, by 37, James would have been a laid back Quidditch Dad even if he hadn't met Lily.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-11 02:05 pm (UTC)eheeheeeeeeee!! That is so adorable, I can't take it! :D Awwww, Jaaaames. He's like... even with all his flaws, you could tell he was still written to be the Bridget Jones model of a Perfect Husband ahahahah. He just -has- to be heterosexual 'cause it's like... man, he'd be so sad if he never got to be Family Dad of the Year :))! Omg, I imagine his & Sirius' relationship if they both lived to their 30s, and it's a funny, funny thing. Poor Sirius. But I think continued exposure to Harry could've smoothed some rough edges 'cause he totally has that dad-obsession thing going on also, though in a different more madly protective way. He'd be the guy who took 3 year-old Harry to amusement parks and dared him to go on the scary rides and clapped his back when he threw up. AWWWWWWW.
I guess it's just that Sirius & Remus have different methods, whereas James & Sirius seem of much the same mold with different intensities and slight variations in the ingredient mixes. Like, when contrasted to Sirius, Remus becomes steadier/more reasonable by comparison or something. It's like, neither of them should be left to themselves-- checks & balances, etc :>
no subject
Date: 2004-11-11 02:11 pm (UTC)and dude, that is the cutest could have been vision I have ever heard. *loffs*!
I guess it's just that Sirius & Remus have different methods, whereas James & Sirius seem of much the same mold with different intensities and slight variations in the ingredient mixes.
Oh yeah, I'm with you there. ;) I think without Sirius, Remus would withdraw into a shell like a little hermit crab, and without Remus, Sirius would, um... go to extremes. Which, I expect, is the reason the Marauders needed Remus to begin with: they had to balance out their flagrant bastardishness, but without having a goody two shoes around. So Remus is bad too, just in different ways.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-11 01:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-11 01:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-11 01:25 pm (UTC)