What I've Been Reading (it's not Buffy)
OK, looks like I did basically two things in February, fic-reading-wise. I archive binged Laura Shapiro's Good Omens smut ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and finished the Eden!verse by ImprobableDreams900 (Good Omens book fandom). I want to point out "The Redemption of Eden" as the most redemption-filled story I've ever seen. *You* get a redemption arc, and *you* get a redemption arc! Everyone gets one! The bad guys who say people stay evil forever? Redemption arcs for them! It was deeply satisfying.
In other news, and for reasons, I read The Four Loves by C. S. Lewis. I like his style, and there were many interesting thoughts which more than made up for the brief period-typical homophobia and my personal disinterest in what the author probably thought was the most important topic (the relationship between humans and God). I particularly enjoyed his ideas on friendship.
"Friendship is-in a sense not at
all derogatory to it-the least natural of loves; the least instinctive, organic, biological, gregarious and necessary.... The species, biologically considered, has no need of it.... Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art [and Lewis argues that groups of friends are what advances philosophy and art and such], like the universe itself (for God did not need to create). It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things which give value to survival."
:')
"In each of my friends there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out. By myself I am not large enough to call the whole man into activity; I want other lights than my own to show all his facets.... Hence true Friendship is the least jealous of loves."
I wonder if that's similar to how polyamory works too.
"pleasure in co-operation, in talking shop, in the mutual respect and understanding..."
(and then I was like, tag your porn, Clive)
"In this kind of love, as Emerson said, 'Do you love me?' means, 'Do you see the same truth?'-Or at least, “Do you care about the same truth?” The man who agrees with us that some question, little regarded by others, is of great importance, can be our Friend. He need not agree with us about the answer.... The very condition of having Friends is that we should want something else besides Friends. Where the truthful answer to the question 'Do you see the same truth?' would be “I see nothing and I don’t care about the truth; I only want a Friend”, no Friendship can arise-though Affection of course may. There would be nothing for the Friendship to be about; and Friendship must be about something, even if it were only an enthusiasm for dominoes or white mice. Those... who are going nowhere can have no fellow-travellers."
(What do you guys think, is he on to something? Do close friends necessarily bond over a specific thing? In my experience, it's usually a set of things and it can include stuff that's harder to pin down, like values.)
"That is the kingliness of Friendship. We meet like sovereign princes of independent states, abroad, on neutral ground, freed from our contexts. This love (essentially) ignores not only our physical bodies but that whole embodiment which consists of our family, job, past and connections. At home, besides being Peter or Jane, we also bear a general character; husband or wife, brother or sister, chief, colleague or subordinate. Not among our Friends. It is an affair of disentangled, or stripped, minds. Eros will have naked bodies; Friendship naked personalities."
So relevant to online friendships in particular.
"Lovers are always talking to one another about their love; Friends hardly ever about their Friendship. Lovers are normally face to face, absorbed in each other; Friends, side by side, absorbed in some common interest.... [BUT] Beyond that contrast I do not want the image pressed. The common quest or vision which unites Friends does not absorb them in such a way that they remain ignorant or oblivious of one another. On the contrary it is the very medium in which their mutual love and knowledge exist.... ...our reliance, our respect and our admiration blossom into an Appreciative Love of a singularly robust and well-informed kind. If, at the outset, we had attended more to him and less to the thing our Friendship is “about”, we should not have come to know or love him so well. You will not find the warrior, the poet, the philosopher or the Christian by staring in his eyes as if he were your mistress: better fight beside him, read with him, argue with him, pray with him."
I love this, but it's written as though each person has 1 (one) defining passion, one truth they care about, one path they're walking. You'll find different parts of people by doing different things together with them; but fair, some of those parts may be more important to the person in question.
And then, related to the Lewis book, I was immensely relieved to read a WordPress blog post The Five Factor Model of Relationships by queenieofaces. Because here's a way (only one of the possible ways, I'm sure, but a good one) to think about relationships without having to sort them into boxes first. (Where has this been my whole life?...)
This entry was originally posted at https://thenewbuzwuzz.dreamwidth.org/174523.html.
In other news, and for reasons, I read The Four Loves by C. S. Lewis. I like his style, and there were many interesting thoughts which more than made up for the brief period-typical homophobia and my personal disinterest in what the author probably thought was the most important topic (the relationship between humans and God). I particularly enjoyed his ideas on friendship.
"Friendship is-in a sense not at
all derogatory to it-the least natural of loves; the least instinctive, organic, biological, gregarious and necessary.... The species, biologically considered, has no need of it.... Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art [and Lewis argues that groups of friends are what advances philosophy and art and such], like the universe itself (for God did not need to create). It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things which give value to survival."
:')
"In each of my friends there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out. By myself I am not large enough to call the whole man into activity; I want other lights than my own to show all his facets.... Hence true Friendship is the least jealous of loves."
I wonder if that's similar to how polyamory works too.
"pleasure in co-operation, in talking shop, in the mutual respect and understanding..."
(and then I was like, tag your porn, Clive)
"In this kind of love, as Emerson said, 'Do you love me?' means, 'Do you see the same truth?'-Or at least, “Do you care about the same truth?” The man who agrees with us that some question, little regarded by others, is of great importance, can be our Friend. He need not agree with us about the answer.... The very condition of having Friends is that we should want something else besides Friends. Where the truthful answer to the question 'Do you see the same truth?' would be “I see nothing and I don’t care about the truth; I only want a Friend”, no Friendship can arise-though Affection of course may. There would be nothing for the Friendship to be about; and Friendship must be about something, even if it were only an enthusiasm for dominoes or white mice. Those... who are going nowhere can have no fellow-travellers."
(What do you guys think, is he on to something? Do close friends necessarily bond over a specific thing? In my experience, it's usually a set of things and it can include stuff that's harder to pin down, like values.)
"That is the kingliness of Friendship. We meet like sovereign princes of independent states, abroad, on neutral ground, freed from our contexts. This love (essentially) ignores not only our physical bodies but that whole embodiment which consists of our family, job, past and connections. At home, besides being Peter or Jane, we also bear a general character; husband or wife, brother or sister, chief, colleague or subordinate. Not among our Friends. It is an affair of disentangled, or stripped, minds. Eros will have naked bodies; Friendship naked personalities."
So relevant to online friendships in particular.
"Lovers are always talking to one another about their love; Friends hardly ever about their Friendship. Lovers are normally face to face, absorbed in each other; Friends, side by side, absorbed in some common interest.... [BUT] Beyond that contrast I do not want the image pressed. The common quest or vision which unites Friends does not absorb them in such a way that they remain ignorant or oblivious of one another. On the contrary it is the very medium in which their mutual love and knowledge exist.... ...our reliance, our respect and our admiration blossom into an Appreciative Love of a singularly robust and well-informed kind. If, at the outset, we had attended more to him and less to the thing our Friendship is “about”, we should not have come to know or love him so well. You will not find the warrior, the poet, the philosopher or the Christian by staring in his eyes as if he were your mistress: better fight beside him, read with him, argue with him, pray with him."
I love this, but it's written as though each person has 1 (one) defining passion, one truth they care about, one path they're walking. You'll find different parts of people by doing different things together with them; but fair, some of those parts may be more important to the person in question.
And then, related to the Lewis book, I was immensely relieved to read a WordPress blog post The Five Factor Model of Relationships by queenieofaces. Because here's a way (only one of the possible ways, I'm sure, but a good one) to think about relationships without having to sort them into boxes first. (Where has this been my whole life?...)
This entry was originally posted at https://thenewbuzwuzz.dreamwidth.org/174523.html.