[...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]

I think everyone needs redemption when you define it as 'transcendence of previous self-defeating mechanisms through love'.

If by "everyone" you mean "everyone but Ariel!" :D

I SO JUST WOKE UP I HAVE MORE TO SAY BUT NO ENERGY WITH WHICH TO TYPE IT.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hahah, trust you to poke holes in my pompous sweeping generalizations :D :D :D But yes, uh... *looks shifty* LOOK OVER THERE, IT'S... it's... the totally platonic and cerebral specimen of humanity who'll keep you interested whether you like it or not? Ahh...ah... even my romanticism has limits... :>

...some people are solitary, like Methos is pretty solitary(!), more than like, Brian for instance, but like. I think if you get into a rut & get too trapped by your pov (which may happen in the future if it's not happening now), love is the sort of thing to open your horizons if you let it. It's more effective than some... other things. *coughs*

ALSO, IT'S OKAY, IT'S NOT LIKE THIS IS COHERENT/WORTH REPLY SERIOUSLY TO :))

[wobblygoblin.livejournal.com]

I don't see why one can't fall under the category of "happy ender" and "in it for the character." But most of all, I dislike the blanket term "happy ending" because it implies puppies and rainbows and a conclusion, and any good romance for me should be realistic, which means happiness and stability but also people annoying each other and fighting and knowing that everything will not always be fine but it will work.

(Because that is the example I had growing up, so I approach this from the increasingly smaller viewpoint of one with a family chock full of sickeningly-sweet courtships, ridiculously long-lived marriages, and death-do-us-part endings. I might be biased. ;p)

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

Well what it is, is that:

1. I don't think there's anything wrong with being extremely solitary, or uninterested in romantic love or whatever it is that people want to cure a character of (it depends on the character, really, but there is this assumption that if a character is solitary they must be lonely, for example, which isn't necessarily the case). Which isn't to say that NO character with these traits could use a shake-up - if the character IS lonely, then sure it's good to break them out of it (although I'm not inherently more interested in watching them transcend that than I am in watching them be crushed under it. Just depends on what makes the more interesting story) BUT EVEN THEN...

2. I don't think romantic love is any more likely or necessary to do that than anything else would be. Which I guess is where I deviate from fandom and, indeed, from a great many people outside fandom, too - I'm not inherently more interested in watching someone fall in love to escape their loneliness than I am in watching them get a dog or make a friend or change jobs or whatever whereas I think society at large and fandom in particular tends to emphasize the idea that a romantic/sexual relationship is what the doctor ordered to cure whatever problems there many be. And I used loneliness as an example but it was only an example - Brian was never lonely, but he was arguably self-sabotaging/self-destructive, for example. Although I don't think he was supposed to be (THAT'S MORE COWLIP STUFF THAT I DIDN'T GET TO CAUSE I WAS TOO BUSY RAMBLING ABOUT MICHAEL O_o but apparently CowLip genuinely admired and supported Brian's lifestyle, which is why sending him back into it at the end was, to them, a good thing and not a regression).

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Ahh, I hope I didn't somehow imply solitary = lonely, 'cause I've often been (currently am) solitary but not lonely :> It's mostly a sort of self-involved solipcism I'd want to cure, but you're right that there are other ways-- creativity is a big one, extensive travel, certain kinds of study, usually of new fields or just an adventure. Platonic bonding can also do the trick, but a lot of the rules are the same there as for romantic relationships (except without sex)-- actually, the story I referenced was a friendship. Soooo, basically, since I was talking about -fanfic-, I was sort of jumping to the 'love' 'cause there's so little alternative it's not worth mentioning ^^;; I meant 'this is what I like in shippy fics' rather than 'this is what's worthwhile for human beings', anyway. Tongue-in-cheek aside... uh, I hope that wasn't totally lost in my propensity to just enjoy saying things like 'transcendence' :>

Also. Ummm... yes. Brian has friends-- close friends-- he has things that make him step back from a total spiral of self-gratification-- not only Michael but a whole circle of friends. So romantic love is both dangerous to his equilibrium and yet not... necessary to break through his shields. With Methos... he has very few friends. And by 'very few', I mean he only seems v. close to Duncan MacLeod, even if he's 'friendly' with other people on Highlander, like Joe or Amanda. Friendship isn't quite enough, not intense enough, to break his shell and make him reaccess himself-- I mean, obviously I didn't mean everyone needs transcendence all the time, but I think most people reach a point when the shell around them becomes a burden they can't lift alone, 'cause they may not even realize it's there or be able to judge it honestly. And a romantic relationship isn't superior so much as it's like the heavy artillery-- it's the most dangerous/intense type of bond 'cause it can encompass other bonds and contain them within it-- other love could work better sometimes or creativity or simple affection could work too, but if you need heavy lifting psychological power-- there's not much that tops love. If anything. Not necessarily -healing- or -recommended-, even, but... it allows a person to step away from themselves and fully focus on another. Even if one's a solitary person & self-sufficient, this is a very illuminating sort of experience to have at least once, I think.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hee, yeah-- that's what I was thinking. I'm definitely both, and also definitely dislike puppies... well, not puppies (actually, I love -the- puppies, but) you know what I mean :> The sad thing here is that it's true most people in shippy fandom would do -anything- just to force a story to be kisses and puppies and all, especially a teenage-driven fandom like HP. I actually read a comment today that said H/S was 'transgressive' in a way H/D wasn't, like H/D was the potrait of a staid, obvious, fluffy relationship that happens in reality all the time o_0 AHAHAHHfllfaksjlakfjs that actually cracks me up.

But yes... I'm just like this for no good reason, 'cause I seriously don't know -one- happy long-term couple even if my grandparents never divorced & my mom wouldn't have either if not for my dad dying. People in my family stay married but... eh. However, in my head marriage has next to -nothing- to do with romance... though I don't go so far as to think it's where romance goes to die. More like... it's where people who want children and tax-returns and Proof Of Commitment (sign here! free and easy!) go to get all stamped & processed. I like weddings, though :D And people who stay together a long time, they're sort of cute. As long as they still have lots of sex :>

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

No, you didn't imply that really - that's actually why I mentioned that it was just an example. ;)

Soooo, basically, since I was talking about -fanfic-, I was sort of jumping to the 'love' 'cause there's so little alternative it's not worth mentioning ^^;;

AHAHAHA, no it's true, which... again, this is why I don't read fanfic. You know, it's not that I dislike romantic love, it's just that people as a generalization put so much emphasis on it as opposed to say, anything else ever, that I get tired of reading/watching it all the time, know what I mean? Because it's one story, and it's a good story but it's still not every story.

I CANNOT TALK HIGHLANDER, I KNOW NOTHING OF HIGHLANDER. Except that there are um, decapitations.

I think most people reach a point when the shell around them becomes a burden they can't lift alone, 'cause they may not even realize it's there or be able to judge it honestly.

Do you mean most people or most fictional people? Because I don't know that I agree as far as people - with fictional people that's usually true, if only because that's how most stories are structured which I guess is because a story about a guy who just sits around and doesn't do anything all the time.

Also, and here is another deviation I have, I totally disagree about the romantic love thing. I don't think it's the heavy artillery at all really - it may be the scariest because it's the most prone to self-destructing, but my experience is actually that in terms of relationships platonic bonds have helped me grow the most, and are certainly the strongest/most intense bonds I have ever had.

Which basically just means I think it depends on the person, maybe?

One of the things I've been thinking about as far as the Brian-not-pursuing-his-biggest-passion thing is that, actually, he DOES do that because his biggest passions are friendship and uhh, crazy clubbing/drugging/tricking, and that's exactly what he sticks to. And he does have things he wants to pursue and doesn't, ultimately, pursue, but so does everyone else 'cause you have to drop one thing to pick up another.

[wobblygoblin.livejournal.com]

Ahaha, I don't know many fluffy, staid relationships where one person has almost eviscerated the other. XD

Goodness me, in my head marriage is all about with romance! Everyone in my family (and I mean everyone!) has had a shmoopy love story. It's rather annoying, actually, because I feel like I have to live up to a standard. XD

For example, haha, my parents got together because my mom's friend was a dunce. She took my mom out to meet her boyfriend and his friend (my dad). My dad was immediately smitten and kept trying to chat my mom up, but she thought he was goofy and nerdy. (He is.) Then my mom's friend left with her boyfriend and my mom was stranded with "some weirdo." (My dad.) So he took her home and promised to call her. My mom was less than impressed. When he did call her the next day, she had completely forgotten his name.

Now, twenty-four years later, they go on a weekly dates, ride motorcycles together, and much to my ever-shuddering horror, have sex often enough that my dad went for a vasectomy to insure no more little Smiths and "a whole lot more fun." Eeew.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hahah that is so cute! Aww.
...Um, I think I just meant you could have the same thing & not be married (that is, you could have romance in marriage but marriage doesn't mean it has to have romance... uh, or something), except maybe married!romance has its own flavor. I think it's like, affection can last for a really long time & some people are really suited for each other, but that intense can't-concentrate-on-anything-but-them feeling doesn't last that long. Or people would get like, nothing done. Not that I'd mind, personally.....

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's why I read fanfic for my romance fix and original fic for everything else :D :D

It totally does depend on the person-- like, umm, this is hard to even explain in 'real life' terms because then people so specific and talk about their experiences directly and stuff. In some ways, everyone probably feels like 'the exception' to some rule or other in real life, and they probably are. Certainly, most people don't even experience the sort/degree of romantic love, so they couldn't report on whether it's the most powerful anyway, y'know? I definitely think platonic bonds can be & are just as strong/intense, just in a different way. More help with growing gradually, less help with dramatic trigger-type transformative bursts.

I think it's easier to talk about in fiction (and I -was- focusing on fiction, of course), because these things -happen- to people more in fiction. It's a bit like getting an exotic disease or something-- not a high probability thing. Not everyone even has intense/deep/meaningful relationships with their -kids-, so basically everything's dependent on the person & the circumstances. I suppose I should say -if- the person is emotionally vulnerable & driven -and- they meet That Special Person to drive them insane -and- something triggers a romantic bonding-- and this isn't what happens to most people who're just 'in a relationship' in real life, no matter how intense it seems-- I mean, if that sort of thing happens, it's pretty up there. But ask your neighboring rationalist or whoever, and they'll probably scoff and blame Hollywood :> Maybe that was just a long-winded way of saying 'yeah, probably the person', but at the same time, circumstances & the improbabilities involved have a lot to do with it too.

So yeah, Brian's biggest passions are probably the clubbing & his friends-- but then one separates the unconscious and conscious desires, and the stuff he sees as permissible and not. Like, it's not that he -wants- to pursue it and chooses something he'd want even more instead-- it's a question of repression. Most people who're not self-sacrificing do 'follow their passion' insofar as living according to their values to some extent (not as much as Brian, but still), but sometimes one can discover one can follow an unexpected path that's more fulfilling. Not saying this has to be true in Brian's case, but romantic love is more likely to affect this turn-about than friendship (meaning, a lot of people change for their lovers in a way they'd never do for their friends-- like, even to the extent of Brian doing that awful marriage farce in S5, apparently). No wonder, I mean, for most people, it's hardwired into the mammal brain to value mate+children above other things they may even care about more, because people do some crazy shit for their kids' sake also :>

[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.