[why psychopaths can love & other fictions]

[reenka]

Obviously I don't know when to give up & go to sleep, 'cause I skimmed yet -more- essays/arguments in mannazone ('The Administration' comm) & I don't want to go into specifics, but it made me think about authorial intent in a slightly different way.
    The thing is, really, that it's a double-edged sword, isn't it? What I mean is, it is both necessary to understanding (illuminating?) some basic plot-points or developments when utilized in key/minimum amounts and completely poisonous when used to explain away a reader's genuine reactions to what actually did happen. Like, you can use a known case of 'intent' to debunk what I'd call a 'transformative theory'-- one that takes canon and makes it a metaphor for something else, some external symbology. A good example of this is the things Harry/Hermione shippers found in book 3 to support canon H/Hr: those things were just contrary to the point of the given scenes, and you can call upon authorial intent as support of this argument. However, you can only use it to disprove actual conclusions from specific incidents: you can't disprove subtext or ambiguous cues (whether used for H/Hr, Sirius/Remus or even Harry/Draco subtext).

In other words, you can't say 'seeing' Sirius/Remus isn't a valid emotional response to canon cues; you -can- say it's not actually canon. Does that make sense?

Somehow this seems even more important when the author is actually there to argue with you; when they get involved and interact with fandom.
    
There's a limit there-- you can say what you intended (as the writer), but you can't dictate beyond what the writing itself shows. If, in fact, the writing didn't follow your precise outlined ideas (the meta!story in the writer's head), then it may be bad writing, or it may be the nature of writing itself, but it's not like the meta!story therefore overwrites the actual story experienced by a given reader.

A big part of this is simply a game of definitions; when it comes to talking about a character's emotions especially, we're walking on extremely shaky ground. One person's 'love' isn't another person's 'love'; what the writer may see as 'unacceptable' and 'indicative of moral failure' (or a diagnosable psychiatric disorder), the reader may see as 'tragic' and indicative of a wounded heart that needs healing. Also, what's 'obviously just a sexual thing' for the writer -and- a reader must necessarily be overridden if it's not for the characters as they perceive themselves. Is the reader wrong & the writer right? Vice versa?
    The answer has to be "neither", of course: regarding their own emotions, the character is right (and sometimes, if it's ambiguous and/or the character's confused, there is simply no answer). You cannot dictate meta-questions of a story's reality-- the sort of stuff that in actual reality, people would argue about because it's subjective. (Ie, 'did he really love her?'-- what possible consensus could there be in any situation like this? He did if he thinks he did, period; he did if he acts like he did also, to a large extent, yes, but then this is in the realm of 'reader's perception of subtext'.)

I'm especially impatient with any attempt by the author to project into a future they hadn't actually written; I won't accept 'he feels like X' or 'X is likely to happen' if this hasn't been shown yet. This is simply ridiculous-- the writer doesn't own every possible permutation of the future for the characters in their universe! I'm sure this is actually why some writers hate fanfic, because they think if they stop people from writing it, they'll actually stop them from thinking it. Uh-uh, no go. People perceive half-formed futures as soon as they have their idiosyncratic reactions to a given character's actions/emotions/etc; in terms of unstated consequences, a given reader will believe what makes sense to them based on life experience-- and this is a necessary part of reading, of bonding with fiction. It is that bit of self-projection that draws one into the world & the characters, that tugs them ever so slightly out of the author's head and into the reader's!

My issue, really, is that I'm perfectly happy with ambiguity. I love it that I can't really -know- that Brian's in love with Justin in QaF (though I think he is, in his own way) or whether Toreth 'more than just needs' Warrick (though I think he does, in his own way). Both of these are self-centered bastards with long-suffering caring boyfriends, and I admit there may be -some- wish-fulfillment in my wanting to look at the bright side as a reader-- but in both cases the romance becomes flat and utterly boring if you categorically answer 'no' (as the writers have in both instances, though the circumstances aren't the same).

What I'm trying to say is, 'Authorial Intent' is useful for understanding, but it cannot-- should not-- attempt to penetrate a reader's heart. In theory, I can accept 'this isn't love'-- objectively, things remain ambiguous. In terms of my own reaction, though, there is no ambiguity-- the bells ring, the numbers add up, my alarms go off-- bingo! I can shout it from the rooftops! I embrace subjectivity, since as a reader, it's become my story and in a very real sense these are my characters 'cause they also live in my head, so. This doesn't mean 'in my head', Draco Malfoy 'really' turns into this svelte angel who wears leather pants (or someone who's about to whisper sweet nothings anytime soon)-- y'know, because he's just... not like that. However, yes, my Draco Malfoy can be obsessed and in denial; my Toreth can be also. Yes. Oh yes. I can make this work with canon, okay.

So bite it. HE'S IN LOVE. :P

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

in both cases the romance becomes flat and utterly boring if you categorically answer 'no' (as the writers have in both instances, though the circumstances aren't the same).

Exactly! I mean, why would I even bother to read all that stuff if it's 'just about the cock' as someone said at the Mannazone? For flat-out porn it's not explicit enough and I wouldn't be interested in that anyway. If we take the question "does or doesn't Toreth love Warrick totally out of the equation, because Manna states "he doesn't", there's nothing left what would interest me.

Lonicera

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I thought the guy had a point in that one shouldn't -ignore- The Cock since it's certainly an... um, serious bonding element & explains a lot in terms why/how things work between them :> However, it doesn't explain anything by itself, as the be-all-and-end-all 'cause those characters are thankfully not that simplistic. I think it's more useful to see sex as a tool, sex as a means of communication, 'sex as... [fill-in-the-blank]' 'cause that actually addresses the nature of the relationship. I mean, they addressed that together when Warrick said that about 3 years (or whatever) being a long time to enjoy fucking someone or something.

...but then over-simplification is one of the main ways people have of using overblown rhetoric meant to make an impression rather than seriously analyse...

[(Anonymous)]

I thought the guy had a point in that one shouldn't -ignore- The Cock since it's certainly an... um, serious bonding element & explains a lot in terms why/how things work between them :>

Of course you should not ignore The Cock, but it's different to say The Cock is not the *only* thing that's going on between them than The Cock is totally unimportant. Of course it's not.

However, it doesn't explain anything by itself, as the be-all-and-end-all 'cause those characters are thankfully not that simplistic. I think it's more useful to see sex as a tool, sex as a means of communication, 'sex as... [fill-in-the-blank]' 'cause that actually addresses the nature of the relationship. I mean, they addressed that together when Warrick said that about 3 years (or whatever) being a long time to enjoy fucking someone or something.

Exactly what I meant and wanted to say.

Lonicera

...but then over-simplification is one of the main ways people have of using overblown rhetoric meant to make an impression rather than seriously analyse...

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

...but then over-simplification is one of the main ways people have of using overblown rhetoric meant to make an impression rather than seriously analyse...

You mean, like that:

So bite it. HE'S IN LOVE. :P

?
:P

Also, can I link to your essay? Not now, necessarily, but in the future? Don't worry, I won't do evil shit with it. I'm totally polite, remember? lol

By the by, you guys are totally unappreciative of my T'NC.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

It wasn't overblown rhetoric because I wasn't trying to convince anyone or make a statement beyond 'nyah!' (Or perhaps that I was sick of trying to be objective? heh But it's important to me that I don't seem to be proselytizing... that would really suck 'cause it would be a misunderstanding 'cause I didn't communicate carefully enough... again.) It's really kind of sad that this post got all this attention ^^;;;;; I should lock whenever I'm not Really Serious, I guess, but then I'd lock 99% of everything I say, so.

You can link it, though.
..."T'NC"?

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

Well, that's very true, my Cock argument went way, way, past "nyah." ;D

Well, I found it through metafandom. When I saw the psychopaths love & other fictions I thought, "Yeah, it's not just me," and then it was just one more "But you just don't get that their love is DIFFERENT!?!" Blah.

Oh, "Tongue 'n cheek."

Somebody tries to dress up Toreth as Mr. Rochester and Warrick as Jane and I do my "Señor Cock," impression.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I hope you don't mean "But you just don't get that their love is DIFFERENT!?!" is what I said :((
That would be sad :)) I should just stop arguing/talking about fictional relationships, seriously; H/D or Toreth/Warrick, it just never leads to any good-- people either get it (and think I'm a freak) or don't get it (and think I'm a freak). What I mean is, I hate sounding like a tinhat, but it just keeps happening 'cause I get too impassioned (and therefore lame) about things, I guess -.- Sorry, sorry. I wasn't actually saying it's omg-different, because I wasn't about to accept the implied 'normal' definition as the given, but this gets into all sorts of stupid issues/accusations of a semantic nature which I've had enough of for months....

...I am sorry about that. I think it's sort of like, I could sort of tell, but don't know you well enough to completely trust my instinct & then I just have a button about certain things ^^;;; Both Teh Cock and Teh Victorian Drama get a twitch from me :> Well, I like the former more than the latter, but it depends :>

Though I should add, my subject-line was T'NC :P heh

Oh, and I didn't think Manna was dictating (when confronted/challenged, she's pretty hands-off) so much as her stated purpose/stand was allowing other people the feeling of validated ICness or whatever & thus subtly invalidating alternate interpretations of what's basically ambiguous text. I don't think the writer -or- any reader should STFU. I mean, it's all about context, the type of discourse (ie, whether someone's trying to control it or not through rhetoric -or- Authorial Intent, whatever), etc.

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

No, you can argue all you want. Don't feel bad. -pets- It's good to argue, and yeah, that's basically what I got from your post, but there's no other way to put that so it's ok. If somebody doesn't believe Toreth is in love or loves Warrick, how else to say that's wrong except to point out that the person's vision of love may be too narrow, and that their love may not be Christlike, but it's good enough for you.

I thought I'd made it outrageous enough, but it's all about kidding on the square anyway, so...

Yeah, I kinda got the title was T'NC, but I was kinda desperate and romantic, as I can be, aw, and thought that maybe somebody else realized the whole series is a sociopathic seduction.

Yeah, but...I mean...if she talks or makes any opinions she'd be invalidating SOMEBODY, wouldn't she? Maybe you should tell her to stop invalidating people's opinions. Go on. I'll be right here. You can tell me all about it. ;D MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think you made me a little confused :P The 'psychopaths can love' thing was meant to be romantic (maybe even desperately romantic), mostly because I deny neither the messed-upness of people nor their emotions as being valid for themselves. I personally would validate it by saying 'to me, this is love', but I don't -need- to as long as it all stays ambiguous. On the one hand, I think the trope of 'psychopath in love' is a modern fiction, almost a kink-- but on the other hand I definitely think it's possible if you use the right definition, do it 'in context' & don't project various ideals onto the character as barriers to emotion. I... uh, dunno if that makes sense.

I think the modern (average female-who-falls-for-asshole-psychos-so-she-could-'change'-him) operating 'fiction' is that Love Changes You and he's Not Really Like That. I mean, love can change you, but your average psycho needs more help that your average lovestruck female could-- or should-- provide. However, I still think there's truth to the idea that 'psychopaths can love', just not that they love like everyone else. It's all in what you take it to mean; like that whole thing of 'if he LOVED me he wouldn't HURT me' doesn't apply to them. Like... okay, I think Brian (on QaF) loves Justin, obviously, but not how Justin wants to be loved. It's both a fiction and not. Anyway, I don't disagree with calling it a 'sociopathic seduction'-- it's alliterative, too :>

As a writer, you can definitely have opinions if you state them as opinions like, 'this is what I thought' & 'this was my intention'; basically, if you still defer to the reader on certain issues of interpretation and add your own 2 cents, it's fine. When people comment to me about my fics and say something I didn't expect/intend about the characterization, I'm like 'oh wow! I didn't mean to do that, huh. I meant such-and-such, because in my head this is how the character was thinking, but yeah, I can see where you got that'.

Anyway, I wasn't having an issue with Manna but rather with a broader pov/interpretation of the text which I thought wasn't definitive -based- on the text ^^; The Authorial Intent angle was more broad and Manna specifically was only incidentally involved ^^;;; heh

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

True, I too think that there are ways to translate, and this is what people mostly do, don't they? They try to translate from transvestite to, "I remember that one time when I wore this horrible shirt, and then everyone was dressed really nicely." It's all about taking what's in the fringes, what's out there, and bringing it back to you so you can sympathize with the character. I do that too sometimes, but many times I don't. With fictional characters, when I don't do that, when I don't "forgive" or become an apologist, when I don't rub out the margins, take the anti-hero's hand and sing some Kumbaya, people think, "Oh, well the fucker doesn't like him," or "Well, the fucker doesn't understand how They are just part of Us." I just don't need that. I don't need to connect myself to Toreth in order to value his unique POV about the world. I don't need to translate his affections into any known equivalent, because to me it's not about that. That's too easy, too comfortable for me. His love is different is so disgustingly common, because everybody's is. Everybody loves in a different way, because love is an emotion shaped by personality, situation, culture, etc.

What interests me, is the Cock, because the Cock is an extension of Toreth into the world, literally and figuratively. It's a blind thing, no windows to the soul on your dick, no existential crisis, but at the same time it gives pleasure to people on its way to giving pleasure to itself and that's kinda spiritual. Maybe it's because I really like sex, who doesn't, but sex for sex's sake can be really worthy. Like for some people looking at a beautiful painting. What does it give you? Does it have to have some meaning beyond? Not necessarily, but it can be a really fucken joyous thing.

Sex, love, conversation, they are all different expressions of that intercourse we have with other people, no? In our culture, we've decided that Love is the ultimate expression, and not fame, or honor, or whateverthefuck. So you have this dude for whom Love is not an option, and he has to work around that. I don't need any equivalent, because the equivalent is something known for me. He is in love, bite it, is way too dismissive, way too simple. The ambiguity, for me, as a non-sociopath, comes from the No-Love factor, because it is something that is difficult for me to grasp. Not necessarily to feel no love for your fucks, but to feel no love for anyone? I don't get it. The dysfunctional love shit? Blah, I could write tomes on that crap, but won't 'cause everybody else has.

And about the authorial intent, everybody has a different way to differ to the reader, and I don't see your way as superior to hers (do you link to critiques of your work that interpret things in a totally different light than you do?) but I can totally understand if you do.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hm. You make interesting points :D To the point where I'm feeling a bit chagrined about that compulsive empathizing thing I do, like maybe it's preventing me from really valuing characters for themselves & their differences... hm. But it's just how I relate to people, solipsistically and all. Though I don't think I've been trying to 'assimilate' Toreth or make him 'safe', just genuinely saying 'this was my reaction to the behavior I saw'. However, at no point would I try to invalidate others' reactions [if they don't invalidate mine, especially]. If I translate, it's not that I mean to (that is, I don't think it's a good thing, when stated like that); I think it happens automatically if it happens, because the reaction is just 'oh, this clicks'. I mean, in a way it's disenfranchising-- taking authenticity away from people, trying to appropriate their experiences. My liberal ickle heart trembles :> There's some kind of line there between 'universal difference' (yes) and just... 'universal', but who knows what it is. I confuse -myself-, clearly. -.-

I think it's really worthwhile and more fascinating, not being an apologist; I certainly try not to be (in fact, I think I sometimes try too hard not to be & start wallowing in characters' dark sides & asshole bits and writing them unsympathetically). Aaanyway, I wasn't making a serious claim with the 'it's love, stupid' bit (I believe I said that, right)... I mean, it amused me at the time, but I was a bit on the defensive, sorry about that ^^; I forgot what precise comment set me off, but it wasn't yours, anyway.

I won't claim I'm -only- interested in Teh Cock, but that too-- I think it's valid, in a general sense, as a mode of motivation/behavior/reward/whatever. I believe someone said Toreth uses sex as a mode of communication, and I really dig that, it works for me. A lot of people do in different ways.

I'd be willing to go with this entirely-- theoretically, I definitely find someone who's unable to love fascinating-- the only problem is that I didn't respond to this in him while I was reading; I was sucked into his world, his emotions. Maybe if I reread from 'the outside' I'd see what you were seeing, what the author intended more, etc-- but at the same time I don't need to 'cause I think this difference in perception is good & allows for interesting dialogue also. :>

I wasn't claiming my way was 'superior' (that is seriously way more aggressive an interpretation than I'd be comfortable with), I was just using it as an example. Many writers don't, in fact, defer to their readers; I know Manna does and I did say I had no issue with her specifically. Just that in the specific instance where the text is ambiguous (I think), any definite statement of Intent can unbalance things. Eh. I don't know what I'm saying anymore, honestly... -.-

[zillah975]

Huh. One of the great things, IMO (one of the many great things) about The Administration series is that there's so much room there for readers to have interesting discussions about so many things. But to me, the whole story becomes more interesting when I go with the idea that Toreth is in fact not capable of love as it seems to me that most people apparently understand it - that is, not capable of empathy, of selflessness, etc. Because then why does he do the things he does, and how - if at all - do the events affect him, and what difference does 'love' make, really, in the story, if any? And more interesting still, does love need to make a difference at all, or is it only our actions that matter? For me, that's a lot more interesting than any traditional romance.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, I think it's a fallacy to think that anyone who sees a 'romance' or love there would necessarily think it's 'traditional'. I mean, love isn't the same as 'traditional love' or, in fact, selfless love. Empathy isn't the same thing as love, also, and that's a major difference in definitions that people don't talk about and just assume, as malafede mentioned above.

There are plenty of love-stories that are considered 'normal' that don't involve either empathy or selflessness-- in fact, most modern 'romantic love' stories involve selfish possessive/obsessive love. To me, the definition stretches to fit the circumstances-- so it is with the full awareness of all the things he does that I'd say anything, though I don't have much invested in for or against any labels, myself. I mean, of course 'love' makes a huge difference, but then when I say that I'm not defining love as empathy or selflessness but rather what Warrick and Toreth actually feel; what they feel, certainly, defines their relationship and therefore makes a difference. What they don't feel is really irrelevant to me.

[zillah975]

I may not be making myself clear. Let me try again: one thing that I find really interesting is to examine the question of whether "love" qua "love" - the emotions that we think of as "love" which the stories state in so many words that Toreth is incapable of feeling - actually matters, or whether it's only the actions we commit that matter. I don't think that "love" necessarily does matter, certainly not as much as actions, and one of the things I enjoy about The Administration series is that "love" is removed from the equation and yet Toreth's actions are still very often what most of us would consider loving actions.

I don't think that what they feel defines their relationship, I think that what they do defines their relationship. Plenty of people spout words of love and romance, and even do romantic things for their lover, may even feel love, but what they do is unloving in the extreme - they'll lie, cheat, manipulate, fuck around, regardless of what they feel. Well, if Toreth doesn't feel "love" but still behaves in a loving manner for reasons that we might frown on (or for reasons that some people say are love: jealousy, possessiveness, obsession, etc), that, to me, is really interesting and a cool part of the story.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Mm... well, I'm not sure there is a singular, definite and simple universal definition behind "the emotions we think of as love". Is this the version that involves altruism and wishing-for-the-best-for-the-other-person and so on? That's what Toreth's incapable of, right-- caring about other's feelings for their own sake, because of respect for other's existence. Or whatever. That's not really 'romantic love' as far as I'm concerned (or by many other examples in fiction, if you take that as 'definitions'). That's one of my major 'buts' here, and I fully agree -that- doesn't matter. To the point where I don't even mention it, think about it or in fact care about it. :> Well, that's just me, but I'm just saying what they do experience 'feels' like love to me, though not that kind.

I wouldn't call what he acts like 'loving' if you mean... umm, caring/concerned in a pure-happy-flowery-good-will sort of way. He protects and obsesses over and clearly wants to have not only absolute sexual mastery over Warrick's sexuality/body/pleasure, but also wants his love; he may be said to be stimulated by his non-sexual presence, though this gets into things he wouldn't admit to himself. This is sort of mish-mash of actions and feelings, where feelings influence and direct actions and actions shape and create feelings. I mean, who in the hell would 'frown on' jealousy/obsession/etc if they like/want to see romantic love? The whole idea's a bit ridiculous, but I suppose I accept it. However the conflict between romantic love and 'Agape' is no conflict at all, to me-- they're simply separate and different emotions that sometimes, v. rarely outside ideal, coexist.

This isn't about words-- I mean, when I talk about feeling I'm not talking about words but rather the inner landscape that pushes a character to action. I'd also say that saying 'romantic' words... isn't; most stories that rely on them tend to be flat/boring and ring false; I can't think of any good ones that even had many simple 'I love yous'.

So it's not about the difference between 'loving' words and unloving actions to me, because to me, 'get the hell out of here' could be 'loving words' in the right context; it's about the deeper level where there is no disparity between emotion and action, only the actual link that connects them. That's what I focus on, anyway. Not that there isn't a gap between what Toreth says and acts like, but that doesn't impact whether I think he feels what -works- as love for him. Maybe it's not love for whoever wrote that psychiatric manual, but then I don't think that matters, I guess.