[...idiots in love: the legend continues.]

[reenka]

Honestly, I feel so uninteractive-- whereas once I may have commented on a stranger's journal, now I just wanna make my own post and not wade in. Eh. I'm thinking about regan_v's recent post on adultery & different kinds of shippers-- ones who're in it for the happy ending & ones who're in it for characterization (and those tend to be the ones who incorporate recent canon rather than writing AUs):
    But what punches my buttons isn’t a happy ending: it’s full-throated, note-perfect, three-dimensional characterization. And the interaction between two such well-realized characters.
    Yeah, and see, I'm thinking about this 'cause even though I should be doing schoolwork I can't stop nibbling at my novella, which... sometimes it feels like the happy ending on it is tacked on, and I wonder if I should be more hardcore and leave them alone. But really, it depends on what you consider 'happy' or an 'ending', 'cause most of the time I'm both more bittersweet & more open-ended. The only thing I consider mood-killer-type 'unhappy' is when the characters don't get to pass that major threshold of requited desire (given that I don't even -read- 'tragedies' where people die or cheat 'cause that's way too much melodrama for me most of the time). Betrayal of trust is interesting, but only when it's not a gimmick; only when it fits.


I was thinking about this reading Kat Allison's Highlander fic, The Parting Glass, which is a fascinating-- and deeply frustrating!-- example of a fic that's almost-but-not-really-shippy & unhappy but not in a melodramatic way. I mean, it's not really 'just pre-slash' because there's a very high emotion level between the guys, but they never crack.
    Methos refuses to be vulnerable, to 'give in' even a little without it being unrequited, and that-- that's what makes me grit my teeth and whine. It -is- all about character exploration, and generally I love that-- but at the same time, it's not enough to explore without dramatic movement. It's just-- it's not enough to move only a tiny bit while portraying the intensity of desire for more.

Maybe what I really hate is fics where there's a death of hope-- like, the character simply runs into a dead end and stays there like it's nice and cozy, waiting to die. That passivity of 'oh, okay, I guess I'm DOOMED, then'-- that really pisses me off in a hero-type like Harry or Duncan, especially.
    See, what I really want is a sort of 'redemption' in every love-story, and to fuck with 'happy endings'-- that's the reason I used to say I was a redemptionista so easily. I think everyone needs redemption when you define it as 'transcendence of previous self-defeating mechanisms through love'.

...Okay, what this is really about is that I'm currently pissed at Methos. GAH. WHY DO I ALWAYS LOVE THE STUBBORN ONES :( Y'know, it's so IC for him to shoot himself in the nose to spite his face & be all 'but this is about survival of my face'. OH METHOS. YOU MORON. I can't let it go, really-- it's so evil, 'cause I totally fall for it even though I say I read for 'redemption'. Oh, I -wish-. The stories I really obsess over are the ones that are just right and then not enough; not tragedies but idiocies. I think it should be a new genre :P It could have lots of boys in it (obviously), lots of self-defeating, too-smart-for-their-own-good, beautiful needy stupid boys. Ahhh, and 5,000 years later, you just KNOW the idiocy only gets worse.

See, I think that's totally true. Emotional idiots are interesting (and frustrating, annoying and also EVIL) much more than happy people or sad people or angry people. Emotional idiots can have happy ending, but not for a long while, until you feel like your heart will bleed itself to death before they wake up and smell the burning potroast their own bullshit. Ahhh. Obviously, Snape is also an emotional idiot, and this sort of thing does lend itself to adultery, but I think -if- he ever got into a human relationship (miracle of miracles!) trust would be too important and difficult to give for him to betray it or stand it to be betrayed by his lover. Y'know. It takes an idiot to cheat, yes, but also an idiot who hadn't been alone most of his life, man.
~~

Also: it's amazing-- yet unsurprising-- how reading these H/D author interviews, I realize I totally live in some sort of H/D twilight zone or something. For real.
    (I was actually wanting to do a post about why it's not that misogynistic/crazy to think personality does impact sexual dynamics simply 'cause personality impacts ALL behavior-- and seriously, people, whether or not he's a top, Draco tops Harry when PIGS FLY and/or they trust each other, but isn't that the same thing??-- but at this point it's the Harry myths that bother me way more than the Draco myths, 'cause really, Draco doesn't need -me- to proclaim what a bottom boy he is, he does that quite well on his own. And no, not because it's a Slytherin form of control, unless you're going to start calling all cats Slytherin... which seems unfair. Plus, I'm -really- bloody tired of fics where he even comes close to controlling Harry in any way-- 'cause, y'know, newsflash, he'd need to control himself for this to happen.
    So yes, Draco wants-- needs?-- to be petted, which has got to be like a Declaration of Bottomosity if ever there was one. However, if I discuss this one more time I'm going to puke.)

Aaand just when I was like 'H/D = GNNNNHH :(', lillithium drew the cutest little comic~! Wheeeeee. Doesn't it just make you wanna tweak Draco's nose??

...or maybe that's just me ^^;;;

Comments

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

Being, in fact, the neighboring rationalist I pretty much do blame Hollywood, to be honest. Or more, I blame our specific culture, because what you're talking about may or may not be the case for most people, but it hasn't always been in the case, and I do think it's a cultural emphasis on romance that makes people so willing to ditch everything and change everything for a lover. Well, culture and, uhh, the mating instinct, yes.

Also, with Brian I actually think he did choose to pursue something he'd want even more instead. When I think of Brian's particular flavor of repression, I really think of it as more a problem where he is apparently incapable of outward expressions of emotion. Which isn't to say it's the only way he was repressed but that's really what I meant. It's really hard to discuss anything intelligently with music playing, btw.

And the marriage farce is interesting, because it's not just a question of him being willing to do stuff for his lover, it's... a whole thing with PTSD and being rejected by both of the people he loved most. I mean, it's not like Justin dumped him and he proposed the next episode because he couldn't live without him.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

You know, I really wonder about that. Like... how much is Brian fully aware of his choices and what the consequences are? I mean, there's a leap between 'not repressed' and actually 'self-aware', also. I assume if he was fully aware of the ramifications of his love-life vs. 'real priorities' he wouldn't go as far as he did with Justin but not Michael at all, though it's hard for me to be sure. I suppose it seemed to me like he surprised himself, but what am I really basing that on? Hell if I know :>

And! Of course it's the culture that sustains romanticism-- though the Middle Ages and say, ancient Greece & Victorian England had their own kind, didn't they-- because it's the culture that sustains any great philosophical or belief-system-type trend. I think, though, people were restrained before rather than being 'overly free' or pushed into recklessness now. People, on the whole, are reckless, sex-obsessed & emotionally rather volatile, so a certain degree of lover-fixation seems inevitable with any culture that doesn't impose a strict marriage/children edict. I think people vary more in their ability/opportunity to feel things deeply than the majority's sheer... attraction to the emotional range.

...Of course, all of this is merely my own baseless intuition and all that :>

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

Well, I can tell you what the writers said about it (that he was extremely self-actualized and mature, both of which imply a high level of self-awareness). I can't really say whether the show itself demonstrated that, though. Particularly because... I just looked up a thing on self-actualization as a refresher and one of the things it says is that a characteristic of self-actualized people is devotion to a cause outside oneself, and Brian was kind of self-oriented. You could say his devotion was to his code of ethics, that whole Ayn Randian thing the writers liked to bang on about a lot, but that's not really outside himself.

ANYWAY, I could totally talk for years about the Justin and Michael thing at this point but uhhh, I don't feel like it. :| I guess the nutshell version is that it's a question of one's personal priorities, and the fact that you can choose the non-ideal safe route over the ideal dangerous route and be happy that way because life is compromise anyway.

This may actually be the problem you have, because I know you have a thing about following passions rather than compromising on them? But that then brings us back to the standard cultural outlook on romance vs. friendship, and I'm not actually sure how we came to be dissecting Brian!brain here because ACTUALLY he's the worst character in the world to use as an example of this particular issue BECAUSE he's so different than the standard in that area.

I guess because I know fuck all about H/D or Highlander. :D

People, on the whole, are reckless, sex-obsessed & emotionally rather volatile, so a certain degree of lover-fixation seems inevitable with any culture that doesn't impose a strict marriage/children edict.

I guess I think there's a difference between being sex-obsessed and being romance-fixated. There is that theory out there that women are lover-fixated whereas men are sex-fixated (for evolutionary/propagation reasons), but uhh I haven't studied that indepth so Ima keep my mouth mostly shut on that.

So basically, while I agree that people are, generally, reckless/sex-obsessed/emotionally volatile, I'm not sure I agree that this would necessarily naturally lead to lover-fixation - I think that those three traits can combine into any number of leanings. Um, that said I have NO IDEA how we even got on this subject to be honest, or what exactly we're talking about anymore.