[hero/shadow = still #1 OTP. le sigh]

[reenka]

I've just finished 'Wolfskin' by Juliet Marillier, and while it's interesting and I like the main characters (one of which is the Plucky and Strong Yet Fragile and Feminine Heroine), I can't help it... the most intriguing part of the book is the bond between the straightforward, kind yet quick-to-anger warrior boy and the snarky, cunning, needy, lonely yet ruthless sociopathic boy whom he shared a blood-oath of friendship with during their childhood. Mmmm. The warrior-boy's denseness and simplicity and loyalty set against the other's insecurity and need to prove himself and sheer single-minded desire to get what he -wants-... oh, it's like music to my ears.... And yes, I admit, in its basest elements it's really proto!H/D to me.
    And much as I understand these two are 'straight' both by author intent and common sense in context of their times and history, I can't help it-- I can't help but feel -this- is the more striking love-story, no matter how honestly heterosexual the warrior boy may be. This is the archetypal relationship between Hero and Shadow, and to me, nothing could really equal it in meaning or intensity, since it represents the basic union of Light and Dark of everyone's nature.

It occurred to me that the reason I'm so very fascinated strikes to the very heart of the reason of why I slash, why close male friendship means so much to me-- and the emotional stuntedness and closed-in inability of the latter boy to communicate his real self sort of underlines the 'normal' situation. It's almost like-- almost like -all- boys are a little sociopathic compared to ourselves (the girls, I mean); it's like they're often this closed in and verbally eloquent about everything but what lies in their hearts, so scared and insecure and ruthless in their defensiveness.

It also reminded me of the exchange I recently had with fictualities about being able to see the surviving 'half' of a pairing happy after the 'end'-- in a situation like with Frodo and Sam, where Frodo had little left to give before he'd finally departed and Sam had his wife and children. In my natural inclination, I'd say 'settling' is bad, even if the person is unaware they're settling for something 'lesser' or not as intense and deeply vital. I'd rather a character be miserable with the one they can't bear to love or lose than content with the one who merely makes them uncomplicatedly happy. But then, I'm rather perverse. -.-

I was thinking (with some chagrin), of how friends normally tend to make you uncomplicatedly happy, especially female friends (in my experience). If a friend isn't monumentally messed up, your relationship isn't likely to be fraught or angsty in terms of betrayals and secrets and overall tragedy, though clearly misunderstandings and resentments are normal. Uh, this is all 'in my experience'. And so, perhaps this is only the life of a relatively tame, easy-going female like myself-- men are much more likely to hold things back, to be eaten up by ambition and divided loyalties and duties, to be rotted from the inside with feelings they simply -can't- express, to be-- emotional basketcases, basically. And of course... of course, that's why I love them.
    More to the point, that's why I love to slash them, leaving aside the hot boysex for a sec.

I can't really imagine a healthy relationship here, and can't guarantee this rift in the boy's soul can be mended with the love and faith another clueless boy can offer, but oh-- oh-- the very idea. The possibility. It is like the dream of somehow bridging the gulf between Self and Other; more desperate and dark than any mere love-story, but also more painfully close to the heart, perhaps.

Comments

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

In the end, I don't know how similar Sam and Frodo's situation is to Wolfskin, and it's not that I blame either set of characters for doing what came naturally and so forth. If I wish things were different, it's only because that's the sort of story I prefer to read or write, even if it may not be a better or deeper or more realistic story. In the case of Wolfskin, the love relationship had much time (in the text) devoted to it, but I still didn't feel it as deeply as the bond between those two boys, but that was me as much as the writing, I think. The het relationship had no real inner conflict, no sense of transcendence or achievement-- basically, the girl healed the boy when he was physically ill and had given up hope, and she showed him he could have a new life that wasn't that of a warrior. But even though the warrior boy was healed, I didn't think he *needed* healing quite as much as the other did, so I felt unsatisfied. In any case, at the end of this story it was also clear warrior-boy misses the sociopathic dark one, and that he's happy with and loves his girlfriend; basically, only the merest outline of the LoTR situation was probably reminiscent.

I don't think I believe of Sam's love for his wife as being 'lesser' at all, just different-- so it's a choice to be made, and as you said, of course mileage will vary. I also don't think it's really up to the reader to make that choice, but up to the character-- in that it's clear that Sam made the best choice for him, as did Frodo. He was happy, because he was always someone who wanted that sort of life, and then he got it; I imagine it was a just reward. It is only when the other person is unhappy that I feel bad, or when the happiness seems 'off' to me, like it's based on false premises. And all this is complicated by the fact that the sociopathic boy fits an archetype I'm obsessed with so I have my own 'plans' for his development, whereas Frodo is Frodo and Sam is Sam (probably the mark of deeper characterization, in other words) :>

It's true, also, that eloquence doesn't necessarily mean openness, but then, I don't think *eloquence* about what's deeply in one's heart is ever 'truth', because that sort of thing is always going to be awkward. It's just the difference between awkward and stumbling vs. practically non-existent (in certain kinds of uptight guys). I know that was a sweeping generalization though, which is why I hedged it with all those conditionals :> I do find it rather rare that a girl have that same pattern of complete incapacity for real emotional self-expression, though it could just show the limits of my experience. :>