[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]

Man, the 'stages of life' thing-- you seem to always know just what to say to both deflate me and inspire me on a tangent :D I totally know what you mean, and this relates to the thing about the 'self-consuming process' of self-discovery you talk about later. It's all about seeing life as a consecutive series of processes, one building upon the other, and of course I'm much more interested in some processes than others. They're all equally -valid-, of course, but for me as a -reader- (and writer), I definitely prioritize.

So while people may obviously 'move on' with their lives, I just move on -to- the next fic :))

I love the phrase 'radically mysterious'; that like, sums up everything I like about existence. Some part of me is always clutching on tightly to the ideal of eternal wonderment/childhood, that stage of exploration going on and on and on. Like, uh, the Eternal Star Trek of the Soul. Ahahahaha, oh maaaaan, I amuse myself :D I definitely do think that 'exploring a stable identity' is an important phase-- I mean, dude, it's adulthood, more or less! But... the more predictable and stable things get within, the more any conflict has to arise from without, I guess (until you hit midlife crisis), and I'm simply not as interested in external conflicts that aren't mirrored by internal conflicts. It makes things seem... less important or meaningful, I dunno. I don't mean that everything interesting really happens when you're still growing up (though actually I'm tempted to think that), but I think that once you've grown/matured, you merely face the task of refinement/completion/upkeep, which... well... bores me, personally speaking. There, I said it. :>

Though you're definitely right that different things work for different characters; I only get vaguely upset when one of the characters is still 'on the cusp', still ignorant and yearning and needy, while the other sort of goes 'oh well, I've arrived, and this nice companion is right there waiting for me, making me comfy as a clam'. I really start to resent the whole 'comfy as a clam' pairing and fiercely identify with the disenfranchised lonely one even if he's (as in this case) a sociopathic rapist rationalist boy (ie, nothing like me).

I really love characters-- maybe like Odysseus, but definitely like James Kirk-- who never really grow up or reach the stage where they want to stop adventuring. Especially if they have a lifelong companion who's devoted, rational and practical (while also being someone who knows when to step aside), I'm just on cloud nine. It's my ideal partnership; I never tire of reading about it :>

I think you're brilliant-- and right!-- about boys being more -interested- in masks/social roles; that's been my experience. I, on the other hand, am even more interested in the 'messy and unreliable personality' than most girls I know by far, though it'd be odd to think of myself as some ultrafeminine freak, ahah, since I'm so nonfeminine in many ways, but. Yes. It boggles my mind, actually, how stylized behavior could be 'more real', but I suppose the mystery is why I'm drawn to these people in the first place :> I want to crack them open and see what messy weirdness makes them tick!! :D :D :D!! *sadistic cackle* Erm.

So yeah, someone else is going to have to do the sawing, I'm off over here playing with your toys :D

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

Well, you know, I'm horrified by the idea of "deflating" anyone! I mean, I tend to think by contraries -- when something makes too much sense to me, and seems to fit all the data in too pat and orderly a way, I try to imagine exactly the opposite, or exactly the strongest refutation I can, and then see what happens.

So at a personal level, I'm not exactly pining and yearning to grow up so I can become middle-aged -- I mean, I still miss being ten. I think the idea of life becoming routinized and losing its emotional intensity is kind of terrifying to me, and so it's an idea that I sort of pick away at. But even Jung says that the first half of life should be about expansion but somewhere in the mid-point you should stop, and deliberately, willfully start contracting, or you won't have time to assimilate it all. Which is a prospect that really sort of chills me.

But really, isn't part of what makes your "disenfranchised and lonely" boy so "ignorant and yearning and needy" in the first place, precisely the fact that he thinks Captain Kirk, et al., have discovered something important that is still hidden from him? And haven't they actually done so, really? And your boy is really pissed off about that, and wonders if he'll ever figure it out. I mean to use your Star Trek example I see Captain Kirk as sort of a balance between the two extremes, where on the one hand you have Captain Holden Caulfield crying "phonies!" as he goes down pathetically in a blast of phaser fire, and on the other hand Capt. Wilford Brimley, boldly going twice a day, thanks to the regularity-enhancing effects of Arcturan triticale, now with more fiber! So, yeah, somewhere in between is probably the ideal. :)

It boggles my mind, actually, how stylized behavior could be 'more real'

Hee! Now you make me feel priveliged for being a boy! Because yeah, I do feel the pull of this perspective, and I wonder if it really is a gender thing or not. The basic idea is that all the emotional stuff underneath the surface is a dead loss anyway, because it's so incoherent and not really individual at all -- what's truly individuating is what you do to whip the surface into some kind of shape based on a model or a "mask or role." Which leads us off into all kinds of gender-obscuring directions, about aestheticism or idealistic philosopy or what-the-hell-ever. But I am not feeling sufficiently serious or cerebral tonight to run with that. :)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, that's why it was important to add 'and put me on a tangent'-- 'cause when -I- agree (as I tend to with you), I also need to stop, take a deep breath, and argue the contrary :D :D :D But first there's that 'sigh' and deflation, but it's pleasant 'cause it's usually born out of complete agreement :D Even when I disagree it's because I'm somehow forced into a more 'realistic' or pragmatic mindset than I'm naturally comfortable with, ahahah. But yeah, I'm pretty terrified by the idea of the loss of emotional intensity as well (I'm 27 and it still hasn't happened... still the same... *knock on wood* And this fear actually began when I was like, 9, and first heard that people 'change' when they turn 16... I thought that was way sinister, lemme tell ya.)

Ahhhh, 'start contracting'. I'm going to run away and hide now, because that honestly sound like a mental/spiritual 'winter of the soul' (not to say death). I really hate winter too, though I do like snow :>

Btw, your vision of two-fold!Captain Kirk seriously cracks me up :D And now I'm like, OMG Spock is -the- original archetype as I experienced it (though my first was prolly Sherlock Holmes, but it wasn't emotionally flowered for me yet 'cause I was pre-adolescent I think). It is true that the lonely!boy thinks the happy!boy has 'discovered something important' (and indeed he has); and yes, yes, he is pissed! Wonderfully, gloriously pissed! PISSED AT THE SKIES! YEAY! (...er... it does make me a little too gleeful... I'm sorry, lonely!sociopathic!boys of the world...). I don't think he can ever turn -into- Capt Kirk himself, precisely, but he can 'warm himself by the fire' and mellow out and open up and unclench a bit, which allows his moon to shine healthily next to Captain Kirk's sun :> (To mix metaphors deliriously, yes.)

Heh, I think the core idea behind the messy/incoherent roiling mass of Id being identifiable as 'identity' (er...) is probably the one of 'soul', or some such semi-mystical thing. Logically speaking, I suppose you can't really name all those inchoate forces (love, lust, anger, fear) and contradictions 'yourself' without feeling more than a little insane, I suppose. Like, there's a reason people get 'overcome' by these emotions as if they're not -of- 'them'. The ego freaks out, needs to define boundaries, the Id smirks and gets out a pitchfork, and so on and so forth :>

However... without letting the Id's emotions *influence* and also shape the Ego (role/whatever), what you have is an empty role that's not really individuated either-- that's why integration is key! :D! Heh. I don't really want to destroy anyone's mask, not really, I realize we need it to be social creatures. I merely want there to be eye-holes, a mouth hole, maybe even a nose hole. And I want them to look in the mirror and be afraid sometimes, and lost, and awed, because that's being human too, I guess. And also the terror of Oneness (loss of individualization) is something to accept yet overcome sometimes, methinks. (Gah, I'm clearly NEVER too tired to bullshit even though I barely slept 3 and a half hours last night -.-)

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

So, first, a total YES to your last two paragraphs, and I don't feel so much deflated as that you have punched airholes in my mask, and I have to concede that breathing is a good thing! Since we're talking about life masks and not death masks. And I think that the balance there is just right -- you do have to adapt a mask that somehow fits the inner roiling mass. But I think this is maybe an unconscious, or a barely-conscious process of trial and error. What I think is un-boy-like, to an extent, is staring at the mass to see if you can figure out what it's like and how it works. It just isn't a place that feels like home, or a worthwhile place to spend too much time. And still, I can see how this would seem like "denial" to someone who took a different approach to it.

And yes, yes, yes, to your Id with a pitchfork, and your desperately overmatched Ego, and to the need to look in the mirror and be a little scared sometimes: "This is not my beautiful House!"

Yay for tangents! But I do want your sociopathic boy to be more than somebody's moon -- I want him to get better!

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hahah, 'doesn't feel like home'. This makes me and my roiling chaoticness feel like an invading alien (and isn't that how some men feel about women?? AHAHAHAHAHA). I in specific tend to want to see that part of people 'cause I'm a bit of a hedgewitch at heart, and read 'fortunes' in 'entrails', if you know what I mean-- gimme a mass of roiling chaos and I'll see ten zillion patterns in it any day. Whaaaat, y'mean everyone doesn't do that?? Ahahahah. *coughs* But yeah, I think I sort of get it, with the 'trial-and-error' thing. I mean, even if you look at the 'roiling entrails' (gotta love those yummy metaphors), you're not going to necessarily know the fastest way through, so it's still trial-and-error-- to me, there's nothing -but- trial-and-error to be had when it comes to the chaos of one's Id. So basically what it comes down to, I'm reeeeally way too comfy with either a) trial-and-error or b) process vs. end result-oriented thinking (that is, valuing process moreso than result, as a good INFP should! heh).

I think it's only gonna feel like 'denial' to me if the person *refuses* to have that mask lifted up, privately or with another person they trust. If they *always* hide, they're just like a lost little boy in the forest of their own mind, holding on to their mask under the big scary shadowy trees and shivering. So of course I feel sorry for them and want to whisper about how everything will be okay, just follow me, and want to slowly lift up the mask because it's become rotted and useless, and have them find another one, a better one, a *cleaner* one, without all those worms and dead leaves on it :D HEEEEE CAN YOU TELL I ENJOYED THAT?? :D

Um. I love random-yet-fitting 80s song quotes, btw >:D

But yes-- I think the whole idea that becoming sun-like would equal 'getting better' is what hounds the lonely!sociopathic!boy in the first place, and I think that's a fallacy, actually. They feel they have to be 'like them' and they *know* they can never be like them, so they get *really* bitter and they hide themselves deeper and darker in, and they get more and more lost & angry 'cause they hate not being like the sun, but. See, it's okay, I think-- some people are suns and some are moons, and that's just a balance, I think, it's natural. If they accepted their moonness and just let the sun love them, they would be happy, or at least close to it. I hope. So the story goes, and so on and so forth :>