[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

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

Really? I wanna meet those people, 'cause the only people I know who don't think Toreth loves is me and DWM, and I agree that we're totally romantic and idealize love in every possible way, and I wanna meet more people like that. Where can I find them?

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think the differences in approach here are pretty fascinating when I'm not overly invested :> I mean, I too would definitely say that I 'idealize love in every possible way' & I'm -very- definitely a romantic; I just... I don't want to 'transform' the text by romanticizing it (I rant against that sort of thing just above), but at the same time, I just don't see romanticism as being... all about the platonic selfless yearning ala courtly love and Greek ideals.

Romanticism itself has evolved, I guess-- there's the Greek period, the Middle Ages, Victorianism and the modern ideal-- all of which are quite different but they do reflect each other as well. I guess 'selfish love' is something of a late-Victorian-to-modern (20th century) trope, but it's definitely a part of the romantic tradition.

Anyway, it depends on how one idealizes love. Whether more in terms of transformative effects (ie, it's uplifting/spiritually enlightening/it changes you for the better/leads you towards selflessness)-- which are also somewhat present in The Administration, but in a skewed way-- or its passionate, ephemeral nature (ala Romeo & Juliet, the fleeting moment of intense longing, things that lead you towards a sort of fiery immolation, etc). Both of these are 'love', the Destroyer and the Redeemer. Er, sorry, got carried away again... ^^;

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

It seemed to me that was Manna's position, too? I remember seeing her make comments to the effect that it wasn't love, just need, and it's hard for me to see a difference. worldserpent also had a recent post about it and there was someone in comments saying similar things. Maybe I just imagined there were more people because it annoyed me, but I do think there were more than just you two.

I agree that we're totally romantic and idealize love in every possible way

Haha, okay, that has totally made me like 100% less annoyed with the argument (well, maybe not 100%, cause you're not the only person arguing that, but still). Because I'm totally willing to say that yes, Toreth doesn't love them in anywhere near any sort of unselfish, perfect love sort of way. He is totally 100% selfishly motivated, IMO. Cause I don't mind disagreeing over what constitutes love, but I do mind people thinking I think Toreth is some sort of woobie. XD

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I really wonder, now, if I'm like the only person who can both idealize love & idealize its painfulness/selfishness/imperfection all at the same time ^^;;; Or at least apparently it's really rare (you would think not, from all the psycho assholes in tons of popular love-stories, but... maybe no one wants to admit to it??? I dunno) :>

Who in the world loves anyone in a 'perfect love' sort of way in any halfway decent piece of fiction, is what I want to know. Idealism isn't the same thing as complete Platonic delusion at the expense of all plausibility, is it? I love stories where two characters are self-sacrificing and completely dedicated to each other too, but still, almost anything can be seen as ultimately selfish (like, say you only get your sense of self-worth by denying yourself what you want & giving all to the beloved). Love depends on the lover, all that, and since no one is perfect, you cannot have 'perfect' love. Which is actually a good thing, seeing as people are interesting to the extent that they aren't infallible and godlike... Ahhh, I'm deteriorating into pure subjectivity again, but still-- I too was relieved at the sudden realization that these arguments could be seen as stemming from idealizing love, which I totally do myself... a lot. It's just that it seems ridiculous to hold even normal characters to the bar of some supposed perfection...

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

I don't think anyone in this day an age really looks for that type of shit, do they? I mean, obviously they look for love and don't care how they find it, but I doubt most people care about reading "Perfect Love," because it's dishonest and it makes people puke. I do think I'm romantic, in my own way, but perfection is a cheap contrivance and it makes me limp, which is a sure indicator that it's Bad, Bad Thing.

And the arguments COULD be stemming from people who idealize love, but --for some reason-- people who seem to idealize love, tend to think that Toreth loves, just from the fact that they can't understand how he could act the way he does in the absence of it. It's too prevalent in their psyche as the end all, be all, and so they don't want to think of a Love Affair, or a Fuckmance, without it.

Maybe it's also about selfishness, in a way. As readers we want to read the story how we would like it, how we enjoy it. You like to think that Toreth learns to love Warrick, despite himself, despite his disabilities, and that's the Feel Good Fic of the Year. It makes you happy, so that's what you draw from it. I wanna read something else, because that one I've read a few times, and I wanna kid myself that I've found something unique, and so I draw other things from it, regardless of my Love Ideology or whatever.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Waaait, weren't you saying you're an idealist/'totally romantic' and -therefore- didn't think that Toreth loved?? And now you seem to be saying that the people who idealize love are the ones who thinks he -does- contrary to all reason? *facepalm* heh

I can definitely understand how he does what he does without 'love'; I'm not naive or anything and neither am I that much of a sap. I did read (and really like!) the story, and it's not for the sappy of heart, y'know. It's possible to, well, not need to see Toreth&Warrick from the 'outside' and therefore need to dispel the ambiguity with a label. I don't want to add, in other words, but -neither- do I want to take away.

Like, you can definitely have a Fuckmance (heh)... though for that it'd help if -both- people weren't in love (whereas Warrick definitely is, and Toreth is just not someone who feels things normally). I think even calling it that makes it into something (in the normal relationship range) that it isn't, not the way 'other' Fuckmances (like Yamane Ayano's Viewfinder yaoi series) works.

I think for me personally, it's complicated because my stand isn't really 'this is love' (ie, I see that as just my perception and am aware that's what it is); it's 'this is ambiguous & I see several threads and possible valid interpretations'. Saying 'Toreth is in love' seems so straightforward and obviously false; it's -definitely- not 'Feel Good Fic of the Year'. I like the story because it's got these layers of psychological complexity that make it ambiguous & because it's harsh and realistic, logical in progression while still being intensely emotional, not because it's the prototypical love-story somehow. I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not extremist, or someone who sees blue-green and calls it yellow because that's more comfortable. I'm not trying to project an ideal of love or fudge what's there to fit it; I honestly can, if I want, fudge my idea of love to fit the circumstances, but I wouldn't want to fudge (transform!! gar, I hate transformative interpretations) the actual beliefs/behaviors that go on in the story. If that makes sense. I'm not trying to dress it up or make it 'pretty'; that's why I initially said it's at least partially a question of definitions.

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

Oh, yeah, it was her position too, but she's the writer so according to most people here she doesn't count. We should just disregard her, the poor dear just wrote the thing, but she's not a reader. ;D

Yeah, I was kidding. I don't really think it's about perfection, because...well...I'm me. It gives me pleasure to do nice shit, sometimes, like it gives me pleasure to just get my own sometimes, and that's perfectly fine. Intentions, shmentions. It's all about what you do, not about why you imagine you're doing things, which could end up being bullshit anyway. I still think that I'm capable of love, and my version has absolutely nothing to do with sacrifice of any kind, though I know other people love through sacrifice.

It's not that I don't think he can love because he's selfish, but because he cannot see people as people. I say need, I say selfishness, and you immediately think, "Well, I've felt needy and selfish in love, and it was still love," but when I say Toreth needs, you shouldn't connect that to a person, that's the wrong trigger. When I say need, think, food, your TV, your sofa. An inanimate object to which you feel yourself to be incredibly connected to, fond of.

In the absence of society and friends, some people tend to feel very connected to their possessions, so much so that they obsess over them, die for them, because these inanimate objects have taken over a part of their identity. Their car becomes part of their sense of worth, of how they see themselves in the world, and if something happens to the car it can be emotionally devastating.

I hope this clears up some misconceptions on my POV. I have other reasons, but I already told Luna about it below, and I don't want to repeat myself too much.

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

Right, and I'm saying I still don't see a difference. Love is just a high degree of attachment. Toreth shows a very high level of attachment for both Sarah and Warrick that I find indistinguishable from love.

It's not like I have to have the people I read about be in love (most of the stuff I write isn't, and I wish there was more fic that didn't end with everything all romantic), and I'm not saying this because I need Toreth and Warrick to be sappy and romantic woobies in love. Frankly I think the series long since jumped the shark before it was over and am happy she stopped writing it rather than ruin it any further. But attachment is attachment, IMO, and saying "zomg he can't feel love" doesn't change that he is extremely attached to Sarah and Warrick.

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

Yeah, like my cousin is attached to his Playstation, and if it had a little cunt on the side of it, he'd be even more attached. ;D

So ok, Toreth is...attached. lol

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Y'know, I can totally accept this on a meta level-- this differentiation between 'need' which is okay 'cause it's human and 'need' which can't be part of love 'cause it's inanimate-- but I don't -see- that in the fic; it's meta. Maybe you do see it? I don't remember instances where it's like 'oh, he's treating him/thinking of him as an inanimate object again'. Maybe an -animate- object :> This is where the supposed 'acting' comes in where he tries to 'pass', right; but that's what I meant when I said it 'clicked' for me or 'felt' like love. Because while theoretically I can see the ambiguity and even weigh it towards the empty end, emotionally it works for me because either Toreth does a pretty good simulation or at some point the edges blur.