[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

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

Erm! For the record, CowLip never said Brian wasn't in love with Justin - in fact they said he was. It was something to the effect of, Brian is in love with Justin, but... etc etc that you already know.

And I am totally in favor of a writer dictating the future beyond what's written, which is probably not surprising, coming from me, and I totally reject subjectivity on every level I possibly can. But then, I've really really really never liked deconstruction.

Sooo yeah, we're really coming from opposite ends of the spectrum on this subject, but I will say I think there's a difference between dictating fact and dictating emotional response. Going to HP for a second, I think it's totally within JKR's rights to say that, for example, Fred and George are good-hearted and mean no real harm/are just having fun. It isn't, however, within her rights to say therefore the reader must think of them as good people - she can say what THEY are thinking, but that doesn't reflect back on what the READER thinks of them/what they're thinking.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Haha I don't know if we're necessarily coming from opposite ends so much as I was really pissed to see it outright stated that one is 'supposed' to or should understand somehow that of course Toreth is only pretending to care for Warrick. I mean, okay, this is how he acts and this is his thought processes as they are shown in the fic and this is how -Warrick- feels... but somehow the important thing is that he's just acting that way to 'keep' Warrick because that was the true intent???? ARG. NO. -.-;

It also seems like what's 'emotional reaction' and what's 'fact' can sometimes get muddled when we're talking about a character's emotions, especially if the character's emotions are ambiguous or non-standard-- I guess that's what I meant.

Hehe generally I just want to keep subjectivity -separate- from objectivity-- it's like, they're useful for different things? Or something. They shouldn't really interfere. Anyway, that's why I said the circumstances aren't the same-- obv. CowLip didn't say that, but they said stuff like it wasn't 'true love' or what have you-- some stuff that edges into ambiguous audience-response things. I mean, I'd rather there was no comment/guidance on things of emotional nature at all, one way or the other. ^^;

Also, with 'The Administration', it's different to HP or QaF on a major level-- it really IS (an 'original slash') love story already, y'know, and it's about these two people & their relationship and their world, full stop. So the whole question of how you're suppose to perceive/interpret that relationship & what it means in the future/in general for them-- that CANNOT be dictated by authorial intent. That roominess and ambiguity is the very heart of the romance-- to pin it down into objectivity and a diagnosis for Toreth (ie, he's a sociopath 'incapable of love') would and does go a long way towards destroying the balance that makes the story work.

So while I don't embrace subjectivity in general-- neither can I embrace objectivity in all cases, especially in art, especially in the emotional aspects of it. How can you even -be- objective about this sort of thing, is my point. How can you look at a flower or a feeling, etc, and pin it down to a certain singular definition? Sure, you can approach a definition, but... it'll be like a lossy file format. The more you say 'this is what it is, period', the more you'll get further away from the emotional truth behind it, or something.

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

I can't really comment on that, just because I haven't read the series and all, but I will say that I would totally embrace an author telling me that very thing.Tooootally.

I have to admit I totally don't at all see how that's edging into ambiguous audience response things, which may be because I don't really believe in ambiguous audience response things. Whiiiich is why i said opposite ends.

I'm not going to comment on the Administration thing, though. ...yea. I'm really tired. O_O

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

See... it's like... I think my problem in this case is that I think it becomes a lesser story if you nail it down like that-- less interesting, certainly. Besides that, I don't think on a certain level it -matters- whether this is what's supposed to be happening, because what -is- happening on a surface level is still in some ways more important? Like, I don't even know if that level of meta should be able to overwrite what's really going on in the story. I mean, if you want to write that story, write that story. But she didn't. So there's actually a conflict between what she says & what's there. Eh. -.-;

I'm not sure what you mean by 'not believing'! Um. All it means is that people interpret the exact same situation differently-- in terms of emotions, people's experiences/cultural references/beliefs tend to color their understanding of 'what does it mean when...' for instance, a straight man hugs another straight man, like with the S/R example in PoA. It didn't read slashy to me, but I accept it could to others. If JKR came out tomorrow to say she totally in no way meant that, it might matter to someone who thought she really did, but not to me, 'cause all I'm saying is it's okay to respond to it that way as long as you don't say 'that's what's in the text'.

It's just a basic thing of 'this is what this means to me'. I think in stories, the objective level isn't necessarily the most reach in meaning, y'know? I mean, I may accept certain things about the story, accept authorial intent, but at a certain point, if you enough things that narrow down a story's meaning, it's like... 'so what?' It becomes flattened... less of a living story and more of a dry factual narrative like a recitation of a crime incident or something. Like, hopefully it's not either/or and there's some middle ground here, of course :>

[frayach-nicuill.livejournal.com]

Everything you say here is why I really try to avoid reading a writer's discussion of her own work. I also try to avoid (for the most part) engaging writers in conversations about their work. And I also avoid discussing mine. It's almost never a satisfying conversation, I find, and sometimes it's even rather traumatizing. Nothing honks me off like having a sublime obsessive overpowering reaction to a piece of writing and then stumbling across the author totally dismissing or dissing something that had seemed vitally important to me. Or when the author tries to explain why character Y did what he did, and I think to myself: huh?! are we even talking about the same character here? And even though it's stupid, I always find myself conceding to the writer's interpretation of her own work, even though I fuck well know that that's not what she wrote. It's silly, because I've been writing long enough to know just how ridiculously (and wonderously) tenuous my "control" over my readers is. I really don't want to control them beyond what I've already done. Until they invent a mind-meld system (or a Pensieve) through which people can directly experience my thoughts as I experience them (whatever that means), then I'm just going to have to make due with the gloriously inaccurate mode of communication called writing. (I've often thought that music and the visual arts are a much much more direct and "accurate" means of communicating, but since I suck at them both, they're not options.)

So a plea to all writers everywhere. Just shut up already and write. LOL

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Haha, yes, it's definitely about the sublime! And trauma, yes :> It's awful to have this intense emotional bonding experience and then find out you were like, 'overreacting' or something. Arg. Though I like talking about their writing with my friends and stuff, generally their fics-- or those particular fics-- aren't the ones I'm really into. I -have- become friends with writers of my favorite fics in fandom, and they -have- talked to me about them, but generally not in a deconstructive way. It seems satisfying to probe past the edges of the story if the telling is also in the 'mode' (ie, more of the story, not more analysis).

It's like, I want to know more, but I don't want to know stuff that'll interfere with the vibe. It's like, maybe I sort of wanna see 'the little man behind the curtain' if I really care about a piece of fiction-- inspirations, outtakes, thought processes-- but at the same time I want that mystique. It's an odd balance, really :>

[frayach-nicuill.livejournal.com]

It's true. It really is all about the balance. And if given the opportunity I always fuck it up. LOL. I tend to fall in love with a fic and then think I'm in love with the writer, too. But meeting the writer behind your favorite fic isn't always a good idea. Disillusionment central. That said, my best friend is a writer who I fangirled shamelessly for months. In many ways, she's very very different from her fics and that took me awhile to get used to. But she was also the only writer that I've had consistently illuminating and inspiring conversations with about her work. She very much appreciates the collaborative relationship between a writer and her reader, and she's less interested in closing down possibilities than being curious about th possibilities you've discovered through her writing, which she may not have considered or even imagined. But she's a rare bird - in more ways than one :)

I just recently had an intense emotional bonding with a fic and fireboomed the writer with my lurve. But I have to remember that balance thing you mentioned. After all, my experience in reading it may be just that - my experience. And even though you think you can/should be able to share that experience with the writer, that's not always the case.

And then when it comes to my own fic, I really like to send them off into the world like adult children. I want them to stand on their own, independent of (and hopefully transcending) my flaws. In many ways they are so much better than me, than I'll ever be, because they capture the lovingly crafted essence of something deeply felt. Me. Well, I'm just me. With my job and my bills and sweaty gym clothes hanging off doorknobs. I wouldn't want anyone conflating my beautiful little fic-children with such mundanity. And I guess I don't want to associate my favorite fics by other writers with their mundanities (and sometime noxious opinions), either. If any of that makes sense. LOL.

[frayach-nicuill.livejournal.com]

Love your new LJ lay-out, btw. Gorgeous!

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, I fall in love (...platonically, most of the time) with my favorite writers too, though not always-- sometimes I'll really like a fic but not feel 'kinship' with the writing because it's not personal the way some writing feels. Sometimes I feel a bond to the writer after reading a number of their works and seeing the thread/voice running through them. I sort of feel like I get to know them more after I read a wide range of their works. Once I do, I'm less surprised at whatever their personality is, generally.

Anyway, it definitely takes a less 'logical' and more open & intuitive writer to have a productive in-depth communication about their work. I really hate it when the writer tries to make me into a beta if I'm not one-- like, forces me to analyze/think logically about the story's issues. I'd much rather sort of... share? They could share too. It really depends on the person :> Some people are less with the sharing and more with the 'telling it like it is', which may become a problem if you're talking about emotions especially. -.-

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

heheh, thankees :D :D

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

It's totally difficult to comment because, oooobviously I haven't read it, so I mean, I can really only comment on the generalities. But I guess it's just that I like having things nailed down. To me, that makes things *more* interesting, because then I know it's *right*, and I'm more interested in accuracy than personal/subjective experiences, even mine. I mean, I am pretty hardcore that way, as you know.

(And, honestly, when people say things like "there's a conflict between what s/he wrote and what s/he said, and if s/he wanted to write that story s/he should have, but s/he didn't" I tend to get a little jasbdkjabdkad because s/he probably did, you just aren't experiencing it as s/he intended, which is completely different than s/he not writing what s/he meant to write.)

What I mean about 'not believing' - I was totally half-asleep when I wrote that, so like 'not believing' is not the right term but I just mean that while everyone does interpret things differently, I don't see that as a great thing. I mean, I wouldn't want to preserve it. To me it's an unfortunate flaw resulting from the differences in person-to-person perspective and experiences.

And the thing is, if I did embrace subjectivity, I could never enjoy discussing any work ever again, ever. Because as soon as I take the position that everyone's views are 'correct', discussion becomes pointless as I can't actually learn anything from it - all I can do is state my opinion and listen as they state theirs. I don't need to BE right (actually, I kind of like being wrong because if someone can prove I'm wrong, that means I just learned something new) but I need to have the possibility of being right or wrong. I need a standard to seek, otherwise I don't get anything out of it.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Oh man-- of course I too like a standard (a truth, etc) to seek; that's why I said 'middle ground' and 'separate spheres' and all that. I was trying to focus explicitly on emotions and 'objective' readings of subjective experiences by the characters. I mean, I just have a hard time seeing emotions as having a solid outside 'truth' value; even when you have a character who's built to be incapable of traditional 'love' (a sociopath), any simulacrum within that is still valid for that character, for his partner, given the effect that it has, etc. In a way, projecting even an author's definition of 'real love' is just extraneous, and it's because there can -be- no outside standard in this instance the same way there can be in others.

Hehe it is illuminating to realize that difference-- liking things nailed down totally makes sense for you, of course. Most Js are like that... which I forget especially in terms of how loosely I phrase things (not that I keep an audience in mind anyway). Like, when I said that about not writing what's in their mind, I was speaking from experience-- lots of people misunderstand me, and it's not just their funky little brains at work, y'know. I write very... umm, impressionistically sometimes. Sometimes not (depends on mood). But when I'm in my imagist/imperssionistic mode, people totally only see what I put there if they're already on my wavelength. Otherwise they just say it's weird but pretty ^^;;;

Anyway, speaking of this particular case, she's not like that-- Manna's writing is v. logical in terms of progression and clear in style. It's perhaps because she's so 'transparent' as a writer and has such multi-layered ambiguous characters that it's almost like reality where there is no One True Answer to someone's heart & what they feel and so on. I mean, psychology is a science, but it's not a hard science, especially not in fiction. I mean, fiction in general is fuzzy in terms of logic/objectivity at the best of times, but talking specifically about ambiguous characters and their mostly-denied-and-repressed emotions... I don't think you could honestly have any 'straight' answer.

I sort of am in between on the 'perspective differences' thing-- I'm all for communication, but at the same time I think people get pleasure from the multiplicity in art/music/fiction, from seeing their own reflections in it, which would be impossible given an ideal communication of intent. It's like, I think here I'm just getting into art theory, but I think that there's room for a paradox there-- both of the universality of human experience as expressed by great works of art & emotion and of the simultaneous idiosyncrasy of each response, the precise levels of individual meaning sort of coexisting with the larger patterns of meta or group meaning. Uhhh... if that.. .makes sense.... -.-

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

I don't entirely get the separate spheres thing, I think? I mean, I get that you're talking about objective readings of subjecive experiences by the characters but the main reason I haven't addressed that in some form is that I'm not sure what you MEAN. This is perhaps because I don't really think emotions are especially subjective - I mean going back to QAF for a second, there's a whole debate over whether Brian is happy at the end of the series or not, and CowLip says he is, and other fans insist that he isn't because he doesn't look happy to them and... while happiness is subject to some degree, happy vs. unhappy isn't especially subjective, so I can't really say I'd consider both valid - either he's happy or not. I mean people can disagree on the degree of happiness - is he morbidly depressed, is he numb, is he ecstatic, is he content? but I don't think you can say he's happy and I can say he's depressed and have them both be valid.

So like, the love thing, whoever it applies to - I'd say that one can have arguments about degrees of love but not necessarily the presence or absence thereof.

When you're talking about writing personality disorders, though, it gets kind of difficult just because they're difficult to write when you aren't one. Usually a bit more emotion creeps in than they would realistically have, just because the author has emotions and can't entirely relate to not having them. I've heard the Dexter novels have that problem.

The funny thing about all this is that I don't especially have a problem with other people having subjective readings of MY writing. I mean, I'm all about seeking accuracy for myself, but when I write fanfic, I'm just trying to replicate patterns accurately so ideally people who think X loves Y in Z way will still think so, whereas people who think X loves B in Z way instead will think that, too. Impossible ideal, but an ideal nonetheless.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Eh, it's like... I think I forget my original point when I ramble on sometimes ^^; I never meant to argue that in fact there -is- love if you define 'love' as a selfless emotion, 'concern for another moreso than oneself', etc. The thing is, really, this gets tangled up with my own reactions-- the relationship in question is heavy on need, obsessiveness and solid trust even if it's built on selfish needs on one character's part. To me, that selfishness isn't that important-- not that I'd call it Love with a capital L, but the relationship 'feels' like love, feels satisfying and intense and intimate. In a sense, I felt that way about B/J, too (though Toreth's a lot further down that slope, obviously, being diagnosable).

So that's where the definitional thing comes in-- like, what is love? Who decides they feel it? The character, author or reader? In real life, I've asked myself if what I'd felt was love many times, and my conclusions keep changing. I do know that for most people 'in the thick of it', love often means 'the closest thing to it' or 'my first experience' rather than some ideal-- and happiness gets muddied like this in terms of what we actually get to experience too (as opposed to 'pure' happiness which is v. fleeting).

I do think it's obvious enough to make rough judgments-- presence/absense-- I wasn't saying I wanted to embrace subjectivity 100%, just that I couldn't embrace objectivity 100%. To me, the very question posed by presence/absence is perhaps irrelevant in the complexity of human emotion. I think this is a problem with over-simplification magnified a bit-- since I'm so uber-sensitive to degrees of emotion, being rigidly categorical where I see fine gradations is just grating and false in the way yes/no binaries would be false to most people. I think objective thought can be subtle too, but most people use it to bludgeon and over-define-- they like to use it to narrow things down to X [a single variable or its negative, -X] instead of X-Y(2z)*x/0^2 or something like that, y'know? Some things are simple in emotion as well, but then there are things that just... aren't. It's perhaps not so much that it's inherently subjective as it's much more difficult to frame/understand fully using objective/rational terms (for most people I've seen, seeing as they keep maiming bits to make 'em fit). Rationalist types tend to want to narrow things down to a single variable when talking about emotions and that makes me twitch... severely..... So perhaps it's just that it requires a somewhat modified/more chaotic form of logic, like fuzzy math or something..... Anyway, far be it from me to want to have simplistic arguments about presence/absense :D

It's true that 'emotion creeps in'; that's partly what I meant about the story she wrote vs the story she meant to write! Still, it's not as if he's a textbook case... and even then, there are degrees of affliction, degrees of functioning of society (he's high-functioning). Besides, it's not so much that he doesn't have emotions as he doesn't so much understand those of others.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

It occurs to me that nine times out of ten people talk about love without realizing they're talking about empathy. They're saying "he's not capable of love" and really meaning "he's not capable of empathy", maybe because it's a lot easier to pinpoint empathy than love. Not that love couldn't be defined in a way that includes empathy as a requirement, but people never make that part of the discussion explicit. There's a lot of assumption that love in general is a selfless, positive feeling, which I'm not so sure, because one can be in love without acting in the best interest of the loved person because well, they're not healthy. It's not so much that I agree or disagree that psychopaths can love, but the discussion is framed in a way that doesn't take all factors into account.

(And it's not so much that I don't want authors to make outside-canon statements about their characters, it's just that I'm not going to give their interview any more weight than I give to jaimexbrienne4evah's theory that she expoused on an internet board. If they want something to be canon, they should put it into their books/movies/etc.)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Ahhh, you're saying things I should really have said but didn't again!! :D This really makes me happy :D Sometimes I think I need someone to supplement everything I say ilke that, y'know?? :)) Anyway, uh... yeah! That was my problem, definitely-- that everyone uses the 'agape' love as if it's THE love and it's 'obvious' somehow that need+obsession+selfish possessiveness is NOT love (or simply 'selfish love'-- which by many definitions and in MANY romances with non-psychopaths is how romantic love is -portrayed-, y'know... geez).

Though I really didn't want to get into a definitional battle with anyone so that's why I didn't pinpoint my problem, I guess :> My problem is more the projecting, the non-pinpointing or whatever and the assuming, on both the writer's and the commenters' parts. I pretty much think Toreth is in love as much as he can be and don't see any need to constantly deconstruct him and compare him with healthy people and talk about all the things he's -not- doing and -not- being :/ But then I always hate talking about/focusing on that negative space and making it more important than what a character -is- and why things -work- with that.

Theoretically, I don't want to give it any more weight but it's kind of insiduous... the weight I mean -.-;;;

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

I pretty much think Toreth is in love as much as he can be and don't see any need to constantly deconstruct him and compare him with healthy people and talk about all the things he's -not- doing and -not- being

I agree. And I agree with the person above who said "There's a lot of assumption that love in general is a selfless, positive feeling, which I'm not so sure". It seems to me that the people who get into such a froth about how Toreth is completely incapable of love, etc. etc. have a completely different idea of love than I do (what seems like a very romantic, idealised version of love to me, which is odd, considering they're usually the same ones saying anyone who thinks Toreth can love is making him into a woobie). Love doesn't have to be healthy. I don't see any difference between Toreth's obsessive need for Warrick and love.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, there are definitely different kinds of love (as per the Greek definition)... but even then some people will argue that selflessness is an illusion and no one is truly altruistic. Certainly, one has to take into account what circumstances the altruism is in the context of-- a lot of things are compromised/defined by the roles people play. Like 'the nurse' or 'the mother' or 'the teacher' are very different roles than the ones Toreth plays naturally, intentionally, and the ones Warrick actually wants him to play, also. These things intermingle, too.

Furthermore, I don't know how altruistic -Warrick- ever was either, and I don't think anyone claims -he's- incapable of love. How apparently capable is Carnac, for that matter? None of them seem to want that ideal, so it's completely being imposed from the outside; sure, Warrick wishes Toreth didn't sleep around or what have you, but that's not really even part of the same question. The idea that you -can't- or wouldn't do things that hurt the other person if you love them is just ridiculous... especially if those things are part of one's overall personality. It's kind of like, 'if it's love, the other person would have changed'-- completely bogus.

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

I don't know how altruistic -Warrick- ever was either, and I don't think anyone claims -he's- incapable of love. How apparently capable is Carnac, for that matter? None of them seem to want that ideal, so it's completely being imposed from the outside

Yes, which brings up another thing that bugs me with the whole authorial intent thing, is that it seemed like reading the series, that the point, or a big point was showing that Toreth was not just what his psych profile said, yet then people arguing this insist on reducing him back to that. "It says he can't love, therefore this isn't love."

[(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

[(Anonymous)]

It also seems like what's 'emotional reaction' and what's 'fact' can sometimes get muddled when we're talking about a character's emotions, especially if the character's emotions are ambiguous or non-standard-- I guess that's what I meant.

It also tends to get muddled in the writer's heart and mind, I think. This is why you're right, imo, when you say that the writer cannot just state, 'this is going to happen in the future' as long as they haven't actually written it. Because everybody who ever tried to string a few sentences together to make a story knows of the phenomenon of 'the story taking over'. You may want to write this, but the 'story' (a.k.a. your own subconscious) wants it like *that*.

Also, I'm convinced that Manna cannot really write a psychopath - because she is not one. It's the same with JKR telling us that Hermione is some kind of genius. JKR may think so, but Hermione is not written like that because JKR isn't one herself (well, not in the scholarly sense ;-)).

Lonicera

P.S. Oh, btw, here via MF - hope that's okay?

[(Anonymous)]

I agree. And I agree with the person above who said "There's a lot of assumption that love in general is a selfless, positive feeling, which I'm not so sure". It seems to me that the people who get into such a froth about how Toreth is completely incapable of love, etc. etc. have a completely different idea of love than I do (what seems like a very romantic, idealised version of love to me, which is odd, considering they're usually the same ones saying anyone who thinks Toreth can love is making him into a woobie). Love doesn't have to be healthy. I don't see any difference between Toreth's obsessive need for Warrick and love.

WORD!!! to that.

Lonicera

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think it must be possible to write a totally alien/different type of person if one tries, but that's where research, betas and so on come in. I don't think realism was on the top of JKR's priority list when she was writing Hermione-- or rather, she seems to write by type and how she perceives people rather than seriously trying to represent reality. Manna's different, but even then I think Toreth can be seen as a 'romantic' flawed antihero-type character because even though he does unsavory/bad things, they never really cross the line to unsympathetic. I mean, people are free to dislike him, obviously, but in the twisted world/situation that he's in, he's not... straightforwardly evil or anything. Like, by the time Carnac was trying to destroy the I&I, it didn't seem like a really good idea somehow, haha, or at least I was sympathizing with his desire to preserve it & how far he went and so on.

There's definitely a space between intent and what gets written, and what most people talk about in their writing is intent-- it's like, I think the writer is possibly actually worst at seeing what's 'actually' there 'cause for them, intent is like a screen overlying everything. I know it takes -me- years or at least months of not seeing/thinking about a story I've written before I'm remotely objective about it & what I actually wrote vs what I tried to write. It's probably even more extreme when the writer's more hardline/logical rather than uber-fuzzy about their own ideas...

Oh, and hi :) It's perfectly fine to come here any way you like :>

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

oho Okay I thiiiink I have a better handle on what you mean now. I think that, for me, it's difficult to understand the concept of something "feeling" like love to begin with, because obviously I'm hardcore rational. I wouldn't say that I reduce things to X or Y, and then stop there though - more like I define whether X or Y is present, or some combination thereof, and then try and determine what flavor it is. And I guess I have some difficulty understanding how, if it "feels" like love behaviorally, but is not motivated by the emotion we call love, it would be a problem to call it "not love"? Because applying the word or removing the word doesn't change the actual events/behaviors/what IS there, it just more cleanly defines the emotional underpinnings of those behaviors/events (or lack thereof).

And I would say the author determines if the character feels it, but it's also up to the author to communicate that through the page. I mean, I am pretty authorial in leaning, as you well know, but at the same time if the author writes "George came into the office wearing a blue shirt" and later says "The story SAYS the shirt is blue, but the shirt? It's actually purple" then clearly they're full of it.

For me, it's more a question of going to them WITH the ambiguities - Brian loves Justin, but is it IN loveness or is it non-romantic generic caring? George is wearing a blue shirt, but is it baby blue or navy blue? And it's interesting because it's like the thing that I would say is definitely the area FOR authorial clarification is, in fact, the very thing you want them to leave to the reader.

And I admit I tend to be one of those rationals who define emotions in a simple way - I'm not sure how clear that is in my actual writing, but that's because I consider behavioral reactions complicated more than because I consider emotions themselves complicated. I mean I'm pretty opposite end here again, because you're talking about the infinite complexity of human emotion and I'm kind of like, what complexity? I dunno, maybe this is because I am all steeped in scientific method, which requires exactly what you're talking about (reduction of a concept to a firm and unambiguous construct, because if you can't define it, you can't study/test it. And come to that, Manna is a scientist, isn't she? Cause... that explains it.)

[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...