Bwahaha! I'm going to run home and write that in my copy of Ivanhoe.
Which is my way of saying I agree. It's the difference between watching a relationship build between two people in the way it can build, and using what is sort of a version of the fanfic "magical bond" idea--they just were "in love" at first sight so we know they're meant to be together. "In love" isn't really defined except by being this true concept that's as real as being diabetic or dyslexic or from New Jersey. It's a given that's supposed to inform everything about the relationship rather than the love describing the specific relationship you're reading about.
"In love" isn't really defined except by being this true concept that's as real as being diabetic or dyslexic or from New Jersey.
Yes! Yes! Oh, this is a perfect definition.
"Love" is such an abstract concept that it can be safely used as a deus-ex-machina to propel any story - like, I feel, was done in "Blackpool". Irrational or illogical actions can thus be explained away: "Oh, they were in love." But I think that precisely because "love" is an abstract concept, a good author should not use the abstract itself but demonstrate the individual and distinguishing characteristics of that particular romance. In other words: show how the characters are in love, not tell that they are
( ... )
You're not a crank. Or, if you are, you have company because I totally agree. I don't believe in love in first sights and eternal love and stories that use these tropes annoy me to no end... except Persuasion, which is teh awesome and does not count. 'You pierce my soul... so I may occasionally be a little sappy.
Oh, I do love "Persuasion"! It's funny, because I honestly do think that pining over someone you barely know for eight years is a bit... weird. But That Letter gives me goose bumps. "Pierce my soul", indeed. I also like Anne a lot, even though she's too enduring and passive for my taste. (But then again, she's so rational even in her love sickness and suffering, and so life-weary and jaded. Ah, Anne...) - Obviously, when it comes to "Persuasion", I am a big sop, too. I blame Austen's superior skills.
Do you know the play "Es war die Lerche" by Ephraim Kishon? It's about Romeo and Julia who didn't die, but got married. Their marriage develops pretty much along the lines of your Ivanhoe theory...
I've never read it. I used to read Kishon's short stories a lot, but, strangely, none of his plays. - You know, I'm very much in favour of the fading-out after the happy ending, but I want some realistic struggles before that.
I basically agree with you - especially about Austen - even though I'm for sale when it comes to love at first sight or the whole destined to be-thing. Not because I'm a fan of the deus ex machina solution, but because obsession is interesting. Still, it does, as you say, have to be shown, not said. It's not fun if you're just told that Hero and Heroine loves each other after seeing each other once at the market and therefore wars are fought and empires crushed just so they can meet again and maybe have a burger at McD. I think that's why I hated Harry/Ginny for such a long time. There was nothing but an older boy and the besotted girl. Now that Ginny has begun to become a real person who can interact with Harry as such, I'm willing to give it a shot
( ... )
Strangely, I don't care much for obsession. Maybe because I don't understand it? *is frightfully level-headed* But whatever kind of love you settle for as an author, I think the crucial aim should always be to not describe it, but to evoke it. Whether it is love at first sight (which can work), eternal love or obsessive love.
And God yes, equality! I realise that I attach a bit too much emphasis to equality, but I need both partners to be able to communicate on the same level to find a romance believable. - This is a reason why I can't read Harry/Snape (even though I do like the enemies-dynamics as such): Harry is/used to be Snape's student, and therefore, they will never be equal in my eyes. And no amount of rational argumentation will ever convince me that they are :-P
So, despite all that pretending of being reasonable, I've got very strong gut reactions against certain constellations: teacher/student doesn't work for me, and cross-gen doesn't work for me.
I couldn't have a relationship if you paid me to ;)Maybe this is why! It
( ... )
Strangely, I don't care much for obsession. Maybe because I don't understand it? *is frightfully level-headed*
Ditto. That's why I find it so fascinating and have no problem believing that others might be ruled completely by it. After all, I never got the whole being in love thing in the first place and I know that alone can make people behave oddly ;)
teacher/student doesn't work for me, and cross-gen doesn't work for me. Unrelated, when I first came to fandom, I thought cross-gen was short for cross-gender. It was very confusing for a while
( ... )
Seeing as the prince and the princess never met each other before he comes to the rescue, he is not in the position of knowing whether she's worth rescuing or not. He travels all the way only because of half the kingdom. And when you think of it: that's pretty realistic. Royal marriages used to be arranged, after all. So the fairy tales are more true than one should think. The "love at first sight" thing is pasted on as an afterthought.
I've never read "Belgarion", but I can well imagine the type of princess. It's sad, really.
Maybe you just need someone submissive, who obeys nicely but thinks he's your equal. Tricky...
I know! It's really a big mistake to present children with these stories of perfect love at first sight. It doesn't exactly prepare the girls for real life, does it? - As to "Love Actually", I find the audio commentary so charming that I forgive it all its faults. Because listening to the director (whose name I forgot) swoon over and Hugh Grant bitch about Colin Firth simply makes my day. And then there is also Bill Nighy, who is made of Teh Awesome.
Obviously, I love Jane Austen. As long as I don't think too much about Col. Brandon and Marianne ;-)
It's weird what messages children extract from stories, isn't it? I find the "pretty girls" and "small feet" connotation quite disturbing myself, when I think about it.
It seems to me that I didn't really grow up with the traditional Disney and Brothers Grimm fairy tales. I grew up with Hans Christian Andersen, and his mind was mightily twisted. But in a good way. I don't remember Cinderella having an impact on me in any way. "The Snow Queen" did.
Thanks a lot for the book tip! I've been meaning to read some meta on fairy tales for ages.
Comments 15
Which is my way of saying I agree. It's the difference between watching a relationship build between two people in the way it can build, and using what is sort of a version of the fanfic "magical bond" idea--they just were "in love" at first sight so we know they're meant to be together. "In love" isn't really defined except by being this true concept that's as real as being diabetic or dyslexic or from New Jersey. It's a given that's supposed to inform everything about the relationship rather than the love describing the specific relationship you're reading about.
Reply
Reply
Yes! Yes! Oh, this is a perfect definition.
"Love" is such an abstract concept that it can be safely used as a deus-ex-machina to propel any story - like, I feel, was done in "Blackpool". Irrational or illogical actions can thus be explained away: "Oh, they were in love." But I think that precisely because "love" is an abstract concept, a good author should not use the abstract itself but demonstrate the individual and distinguishing characteristics of that particular romance. In other words: show how the characters are in love, not tell that they are ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Do you know the play "Es war die Lerche" by Ephraim Kishon? It's about Romeo and Julia who didn't die, but got married. Their marriage develops pretty much along the lines of your Ivanhoe theory...
Reply
Reply
Reply
And God yes, equality! I realise that I attach a bit too much emphasis to equality, but I need both partners to be able to communicate on the same level to find a romance believable. - This is a reason why I can't read Harry/Snape (even though I do like the enemies-dynamics as such): Harry is/used to be Snape's student, and therefore, they will never be equal in my eyes. And no amount of rational argumentation will ever convince me that they are :-P
So, despite all that pretending of being reasonable, I've got very strong gut reactions against certain constellations: teacher/student doesn't work for me, and cross-gen doesn't work for me.
I couldn't have a relationship if you paid me to ;)Maybe this is why! It ( ... )
Reply
Ditto. That's why I find it so fascinating and have no problem believing that others might be ruled completely by it. After all, I never got the whole being in love thing in the first place and I know that alone can make people behave oddly ;)
teacher/student doesn't work for me, and cross-gen doesn't work for me. Unrelated, when I first came to fandom, I thought cross-gen was short for cross-gender. It was very confusing for a while ( ... )
Reply
I've never read "Belgarion", but I can well imagine the type of princess. It's sad, really.
Maybe you just need someone submissive, who obeys nicely but thinks he's your equal. Tricky...
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Obviously, I love Jane Austen. As long as I don't think too much about Col. Brandon and Marianne ;-)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
It's weird what messages children extract from stories, isn't it? I find the "pretty girls" and "small feet" connotation quite disturbing myself, when I think about it.
It seems to me that I didn't really grow up with the traditional Disney and Brothers Grimm fairy tales. I grew up with Hans Christian Andersen, and his mind was mightily twisted. But in a good way. I don't remember Cinderella having an impact on me in any way. "The Snow Queen" did.
Thanks a lot for the book tip! I've been meaning to read some meta on fairy tales for ages.
Reply
Leave a comment