![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatToday, on a random tv show which I'm not telling you the name of so don't ask, a character delivered this amazingly apropos monologue:
"My grandmother had a saying, Comparison is the killer of joy. And if you think about it- she was right. The minute you put yourself or what you have up against someone else, you'll feel inadequate or your ego gets so blown out of proportion - especially when you compare yourself to other people's relationships because there's always going to be another couple out there who is better off or worse off than you are and it's a false impression because no on really knows what works and doesn't work in that relationship except for the people who are in it."
(In the tv show the character's girlfriend was comparing their relationship to her parents epic romance and trying to live up to it, and he was telling her that it was impossible. Let that romance be theirs, this is ours. But I liked the quote because it is that rare speech that works beautifully out of context...and is universal. And well, it was what I need to hear. The problem with life is I'm reading or listening to other people's stories...and it hard not to compare them to my own. When by doing so, I'm doing both of us an egregious injustice. )
Speaking of relationships (and this may seem hypocritical in relation to the above, hopefully not - since it is really in regards to how relationships, specifically romantic ones are conveyed in a fictional setting) ...watching the Vampire Diaries has made me astutely aware of the fact that I've grown weary of the "love at first sight/endless love" trope, which while often confused with "Star-crossed" lovers, is not necessarily that. It appears in a lot of young adult romance novels - starting with Judy Blume's Forever (which I couldn't make it through) and ending with Stephanie Meyer's Twilight series. Or made quite popular in 1980s with the Brook Shields clunker - "Endless Love" and the 1990s Leo DiCaprio overhyped hit "Titantic". I liked it well enough in my 20s, now I find myself rolling my eyes. It just doesn't work for me anymore. I can see through the charade. I couldn't at 28. I can now. Odd how experience changes our outlook. Now, I look at a romance and I think, if you don't know the girl's friends, her family (particularly if she is close to them and lives with or near them), her hopes, her dreams, her fears, her mistakes and can't talk to her about things other than love ...then how is this love? Also if you are putting each other on pedestals, this love you have, is not going to last. Everyone argues. A little banter is good for the soul. I've seen healthy romantic relationships done well on tv - examples include Grey's Anatomy, The Good Wife, Brothers & Sisters, The West Wing, Parenthood, and As Time Goes By, not to mention Farscape. But for some reason or other, with the possible exception of Being Human, teen vampire shows can't handle it without either making my eyes roll at the syrupy dialogue or my inability to buy that these two people can love anyone. Is it the actors? Or just how it is written? I know Stefan and Elena talk about how to solve their dilemma (Caroline's a vamp) or (he's a vamp) but outside of that? Shrugs. Or maybe just the fact that the moment someone says the line "I have to know her" or "I saw you and I wanted to protect your heart, and hold it in my hands" or "when I kiss you, I want to die" or "I will 'always' love you..." I throw up in my mouth a little. (I almost didn't watch Vampire Diaries, because I had to get past Elena and Stefan, last night I realized - when their lives where once again potentially in danger (we should be so lucky), that I'd actually enjoy the show more if they weren't on it. I actually used to fast-forward through all their scenes.
There's a reason for this attitude, I suspect. I've witnessed true and lasting love. My parents and my brother and his high-school sweetheart, likewise I've witnessed relationships that have burned up, burned out, and dissolved in pain and tears. My parents on their wedding anniversary aren't interested in parties or celebrations, they celebrate it calmly, together, alone, and ask each other if they want to keep going. A sort of renewal of their commitment to share their life together. Their courtship consisted of political and intellectual debates at a bar, they always meant to get to the movie, but lost track of time debating the issues of the time. They were friends first, lovers second.
That's the problem with the Endless Love trope - the endless lovers are never friends. They are lovers first...and friends ....maybe if they are lucky. They see no one but each other. And they put each other up on this high pedestal. They are the best, the most heroic, the paragones of virtue. It's so idealized. It is romantic love - the type of love in sonnets and the poems of Shelley, Keats, Yeats, and Byron...
The love that lasts - from what I've witnessed is the love that is built on trust, friendship, and the ability to share who you are with another person, faults intact. Trust is the key word.
Endless lovers never seem to trust one another, or they do, but really shouldn't.
What I loved about the John Crichton/Aeryn Sun relationship was it focused on trust, they earned each other's trust. What I despised about the Buffy/Angel relationship - was they did not trust one another at all, trust never existed or if it did it was an illusion built on a bed of lies, just as the Stefan/Elena relationship appears to be built upon. The man makes all the decisions for the woman, because he does not trust her enough to do the right thing, to protect herself, or even to know what she wants. And feels on some level that the mere fact she loves him is reason enough not to trust her judgment. She likewise...does not trust him, instead she goes with her heart, her hormones, blind faith in his professed love for her. He would never hurt me. In Grey's Anatomy, which I watched immediately after Vampire Diaries - there are a bunch of characters dealing with severe post traumatic stress. One of the characters, my favorite female character on tv right now - Cristina, played by the brilliant Sandra Oh, got married to Owen, their relationship has been built up slowly. She helped him through his PTD from Iraq, and had to learn to trust him, as he did her. And she did it without losing herself. She tells him at one point, you have to let me be me, I can't give up who I am for you. I already did that once and I got lost - she did with her prior boyfriend, Burke, who was written out in the second season of the series. Burke was a perfectionist and a brilliant heart surgeon, Cristina changed herself to be what he wanted, she did not trust him and he never trusted her enough...and it ended in heartbreak. The depiction of these relationships is real, and while romanticized at times, continues to emphasize the traits that support workable relationships. We see the characters learn to trust each other...and with trust comes love.
Vampire Diaries tries hard to do the same thing, but it's not working for me. Yes, we have Stefan's addiction and Elena helping him - but there's so much he has not told her and she doesn't really help him past it, so much as Damon did. Damon knows Stefan better. And sadly, Elena knows Damon better than she knows Stefan. Her family certainly does. Same deal with Buffy. Buffy knows Spike better than she ever knew or would ever know Angel. The fact she had to ask Faith what it is like inside Angel's head. She wanted to read his thoughts. She doesn't understand or know much about him. And Angel likewise knows little about Buffy. Spike seems to know her friends better, as Spike knows Angel better. Spike knows about Dawn and about Connor. He knows about Darla, and he knows about Riley and Parker and Wood. Spike trusts Buffy's judgement, Angel does not. Spike doesn't trust Angel's but then considering how many times Angel's destroyed the world or sent it to hell, that's probably just good common sense.
So it bugs me a little when a series pushes a romance where trust is not present. And the lovers never quite question it or each other, well they might a little, but not quite enough. Granted
a lot of people fall into this trap in real life, so it is realistic. And it is a fantasy.
I've read enough romance novels in my lifetime to know that. But in some cases...it just doesn't work for me, at least not any more. Perhaps I question too much...blind faith doesn't quite work for me.
That said last nights Vampire Diaries did do two things that I found intriguing: 1) emphasized Stefan's love for Katherine at first sight, without knowing her - which Katherine aptly compares to Elena and states..."you went after her to fall in love with me all over again" (considering the flashback is Stefan stating he fell in love with Katherine the moment he saw her, that he'd never seen an "Angel" like her before" and how Katherine states how he doesn't even know her or what she is. When he finds out, he rejects her and she has to compell him. Damon on the other hand, she only had to compell to get him to not want her, not the other way around. Damon loved her for what and who she was...he never idealized her. No wonder Elena and Katherine fall in love with Stefan - they fall in love with the ideal, the mirror of themselves in his eyes. It's very hard not to love someone who tells you constantly how beautiful and wonderful you are, how amazing you are, how perfect and kind. But my question is - is that love? Or is that well narcissism? (interesting commentary on our society. As an aside there was a bit on the new flick The Social Network in the paper this morning - where the reviewer quipped that the film does not answer the question - "why do we feel compelled to tell people about our private and personal lives and equally compelled to read other's personal and private information.") 2) That those with the werewolf curse only become werewolves after they kill a human being. Very similar to how the vampire curse is triggered in this series - you have to take the life of a human being. In short you have to become a killer before you become a full vampire or werewolf. Nice metaphor. And the Azetecs punished the creatures by making werewolves unable to control it - instead the moon does or makes them change, and making vampires unable to walk in sunlight. Katherine through witchcraft - finds a way around both curses, a dayring and a moonstone. Another nice metaphor. Man controls nature not nature controlling man, or woman as the case may be.
[**Regarding the above - because I can already hear some of you arguing with me about what I just wrote. So... please keep in mind that I'm well aware this is my opinion, I'm hardly an authority on this topic, and that mileage varies greatly. Also be mindful of my blood-pressure if you choose to disagree. Sort of tired of fighting. Do that all week, because work in an adversarial environment. So, am unlikely to fight online. Pooped or tired as it were.]
"My grandmother had a saying, Comparison is the killer of joy. And if you think about it- she was right. The minute you put yourself or what you have up against someone else, you'll feel inadequate or your ego gets so blown out of proportion - especially when you compare yourself to other people's relationships because there's always going to be another couple out there who is better off or worse off than you are and it's a false impression because no on really knows what works and doesn't work in that relationship except for the people who are in it."
(In the tv show the character's girlfriend was comparing their relationship to her parents epic romance and trying to live up to it, and he was telling her that it was impossible. Let that romance be theirs, this is ours. But I liked the quote because it is that rare speech that works beautifully out of context...and is universal. And well, it was what I need to hear. The problem with life is I'm reading or listening to other people's stories...and it hard not to compare them to my own. When by doing so, I'm doing both of us an egregious injustice. )
Speaking of relationships (and this may seem hypocritical in relation to the above, hopefully not - since it is really in regards to how relationships, specifically romantic ones are conveyed in a fictional setting) ...watching the Vampire Diaries has made me astutely aware of the fact that I've grown weary of the "love at first sight/endless love" trope, which while often confused with "Star-crossed" lovers, is not necessarily that. It appears in a lot of young adult romance novels - starting with Judy Blume's Forever (which I couldn't make it through) and ending with Stephanie Meyer's Twilight series. Or made quite popular in 1980s with the Brook Shields clunker - "Endless Love" and the 1990s Leo DiCaprio overhyped hit "Titantic". I liked it well enough in my 20s, now I find myself rolling my eyes. It just doesn't work for me anymore. I can see through the charade. I couldn't at 28. I can now. Odd how experience changes our outlook. Now, I look at a romance and I think, if you don't know the girl's friends, her family (particularly if she is close to them and lives with or near them), her hopes, her dreams, her fears, her mistakes and can't talk to her about things other than love ...then how is this love? Also if you are putting each other on pedestals, this love you have, is not going to last. Everyone argues. A little banter is good for the soul. I've seen healthy romantic relationships done well on tv - examples include Grey's Anatomy, The Good Wife, Brothers & Sisters, The West Wing, Parenthood, and As Time Goes By, not to mention Farscape. But for some reason or other, with the possible exception of Being Human, teen vampire shows can't handle it without either making my eyes roll at the syrupy dialogue or my inability to buy that these two people can love anyone. Is it the actors? Or just how it is written? I know Stefan and Elena talk about how to solve their dilemma (Caroline's a vamp) or (he's a vamp) but outside of that? Shrugs. Or maybe just the fact that the moment someone says the line "I have to know her" or "I saw you and I wanted to protect your heart, and hold it in my hands" or "when I kiss you, I want to die" or "I will 'always' love you..." I throw up in my mouth a little. (I almost didn't watch Vampire Diaries, because I had to get past Elena and Stefan, last night I realized - when their lives where once again potentially in danger (we should be so lucky), that I'd actually enjoy the show more if they weren't on it. I actually used to fast-forward through all their scenes.
There's a reason for this attitude, I suspect. I've witnessed true and lasting love. My parents and my brother and his high-school sweetheart, likewise I've witnessed relationships that have burned up, burned out, and dissolved in pain and tears. My parents on their wedding anniversary aren't interested in parties or celebrations, they celebrate it calmly, together, alone, and ask each other if they want to keep going. A sort of renewal of their commitment to share their life together. Their courtship consisted of political and intellectual debates at a bar, they always meant to get to the movie, but lost track of time debating the issues of the time. They were friends first, lovers second.
That's the problem with the Endless Love trope - the endless lovers are never friends. They are lovers first...and friends ....maybe if they are lucky. They see no one but each other. And they put each other up on this high pedestal. They are the best, the most heroic, the paragones of virtue. It's so idealized. It is romantic love - the type of love in sonnets and the poems of Shelley, Keats, Yeats, and Byron...
The love that lasts - from what I've witnessed is the love that is built on trust, friendship, and the ability to share who you are with another person, faults intact. Trust is the key word.
Endless lovers never seem to trust one another, or they do, but really shouldn't.
What I loved about the John Crichton/Aeryn Sun relationship was it focused on trust, they earned each other's trust. What I despised about the Buffy/Angel relationship - was they did not trust one another at all, trust never existed or if it did it was an illusion built on a bed of lies, just as the Stefan/Elena relationship appears to be built upon. The man makes all the decisions for the woman, because he does not trust her enough to do the right thing, to protect herself, or even to know what she wants. And feels on some level that the mere fact she loves him is reason enough not to trust her judgment. She likewise...does not trust him, instead she goes with her heart, her hormones, blind faith in his professed love for her. He would never hurt me. In Grey's Anatomy, which I watched immediately after Vampire Diaries - there are a bunch of characters dealing with severe post traumatic stress. One of the characters, my favorite female character on tv right now - Cristina, played by the brilliant Sandra Oh, got married to Owen, their relationship has been built up slowly. She helped him through his PTD from Iraq, and had to learn to trust him, as he did her. And she did it without losing herself. She tells him at one point, you have to let me be me, I can't give up who I am for you. I already did that once and I got lost - she did with her prior boyfriend, Burke, who was written out in the second season of the series. Burke was a perfectionist and a brilliant heart surgeon, Cristina changed herself to be what he wanted, she did not trust him and he never trusted her enough...and it ended in heartbreak. The depiction of these relationships is real, and while romanticized at times, continues to emphasize the traits that support workable relationships. We see the characters learn to trust each other...and with trust comes love.
Vampire Diaries tries hard to do the same thing, but it's not working for me. Yes, we have Stefan's addiction and Elena helping him - but there's so much he has not told her and she doesn't really help him past it, so much as Damon did. Damon knows Stefan better. And sadly, Elena knows Damon better than she knows Stefan. Her family certainly does. Same deal with Buffy. Buffy knows Spike better than she ever knew or would ever know Angel. The fact she had to ask Faith what it is like inside Angel's head. She wanted to read his thoughts. She doesn't understand or know much about him. And Angel likewise knows little about Buffy. Spike seems to know her friends better, as Spike knows Angel better. Spike knows about Dawn and about Connor. He knows about Darla, and he knows about Riley and Parker and Wood. Spike trusts Buffy's judgement, Angel does not. Spike doesn't trust Angel's but then considering how many times Angel's destroyed the world or sent it to hell, that's probably just good common sense.
So it bugs me a little when a series pushes a romance where trust is not present. And the lovers never quite question it or each other, well they might a little, but not quite enough. Granted
a lot of people fall into this trap in real life, so it is realistic. And it is a fantasy.
I've read enough romance novels in my lifetime to know that. But in some cases...it just doesn't work for me, at least not any more. Perhaps I question too much...blind faith doesn't quite work for me.
That said last nights Vampire Diaries did do two things that I found intriguing: 1) emphasized Stefan's love for Katherine at first sight, without knowing her - which Katherine aptly compares to Elena and states..."you went after her to fall in love with me all over again" (considering the flashback is Stefan stating he fell in love with Katherine the moment he saw her, that he'd never seen an "Angel" like her before" and how Katherine states how he doesn't even know her or what she is. When he finds out, he rejects her and she has to compell him. Damon on the other hand, she only had to compell to get him to not want her, not the other way around. Damon loved her for what and who she was...he never idealized her. No wonder Elena and Katherine fall in love with Stefan - they fall in love with the ideal, the mirror of themselves in his eyes. It's very hard not to love someone who tells you constantly how beautiful and wonderful you are, how amazing you are, how perfect and kind. But my question is - is that love? Or is that well narcissism? (interesting commentary on our society. As an aside there was a bit on the new flick The Social Network in the paper this morning - where the reviewer quipped that the film does not answer the question - "why do we feel compelled to tell people about our private and personal lives and equally compelled to read other's personal and private information.") 2) That those with the werewolf curse only become werewolves after they kill a human being. Very similar to how the vampire curse is triggered in this series - you have to take the life of a human being. In short you have to become a killer before you become a full vampire or werewolf. Nice metaphor. And the Azetecs punished the creatures by making werewolves unable to control it - instead the moon does or makes them change, and making vampires unable to walk in sunlight. Katherine through witchcraft - finds a way around both curses, a dayring and a moonstone. Another nice metaphor. Man controls nature not nature controlling man, or woman as the case may be.
[**Regarding the above - because I can already hear some of you arguing with me about what I just wrote. So... please keep in mind that I'm well aware this is my opinion, I'm hardly an authority on this topic, and that mileage varies greatly. Also be mindful of my blood-pressure if you choose to disagree. Sort of tired of fighting. Do that all week, because work in an adversarial environment. So, am unlikely to fight online. Pooped or tired as it were.]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-10-02 04:27 am (UTC)The lecturer's point was that the story of Titanic was (other than the boat sinking in spectacular way) the story of a change in Rose. At the beginning of the movie she wants adventure and freedom but she doesn't reach out and take it. Really, what's different from the beginning and the end except Rose? If she'd left her fiance and her mother at the beginning of the movie, she would have had nothing and it would have been a huge risk. And, at the end of the movie (given that she never actually used the necklace) that's what she actually did -- struck out on her own with nothing but finding adventure and freedom.
Jack, in the beginning of the movie, represents adventure (there by the turn of a card, travelling countries, striking out on his own). He's the personification of the adventure calling to her and the adventure that she won't reach out and take. To borrow from Campbell, the Titanic is the "special world" and Jack bears the elixer that she must take back to the real world.
With that in mind when I saw it TBS last Sunday, it struck me that the 90s girlish obsessions with Titanic were, in many ways, much better than the "Twilight"/When I kiss you I want to die thing. The whole thing was about her living (My heart will go on), and how she did in a metaphorical way take back the elixer (and the adventure) once she left the special world and returned to the real one. The pictures we have on Rose's side table are of a life lived. She became a dancer, a pilot, rode horses on Coney Island, she became an artist out west. She had children and a family. She lived her life and, given the pictures and given the era, she lived it courageously.
Having the script guy talk about the movie in terms of Rose on a hero journey actually made me appreciate it more. I was too old to be swept up by Jack (he looked a lot like a kid), but when looked at through the lens of Rose learning to strike out on her own to find a life of adventure, it worked for me pretty well.
And, yeah, I too hate the 'love at first sight' schtick. And, while I can certainly understand always 'loving' someone who has been lost, because that nostalgic love is there, sitting around eternally for a love that is not there is no way to live. Apologies to John Crichton because it's a magnificent scene, but more often than not, love beyond hope isn't all that romantic. It's usually quite tragic.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-02 02:07 pm (UTC)And, yeah, I too hate the 'love at first sight' schtick. And, while I can certainly understand always 'loving' someone who has been lost, because that nostalgic love is there, sitting around eternally for a love that is not there is no way to live. Apologies to John Crichton because it's a magnificent scene, but more often than not, love beyond hope isn't all that romantic. It's usually quite tragic.
Agreed. We are all going to die. While it would be nice if the lovers go together, that's unlikely. Usually one always outlives the other. To cling to that one true love...eternally, is tragic not hopeful. You become stuck. Rose's story in Titantic is actually a hopeful story, it's not a tragedy. She honors Jack, by living a rich and full life. And in Crichton/Aeryn - both realize that they have to be able to live without the other at some point.
That death and separation are part of the package, as it is for us all.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-02 04:44 am (UTC)In the tv show the character's girlfriend was comparing their relationship to her parents epic romance and trying to live up to it,
Was it Lulu?
no subject
Date: 2010-10-02 02:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-02 05:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-02 02:33 pm (UTC)("If I wanted to hear about Bella/Edward I'd go read the Twilight books" in response to the question of what people think of the Bangel relationship). I'm desperately trying not to highlight and quote you over there, because so much of what you say is what I would have written had I been wearing my big girl panties at the time.
Hee. If it makes you feel any better? I did the same thing in my own journal a year or so ago, but I wasn't nearly as diplomatic. I basically told a B/A shipper (who I fully knew despised the Twilight novels and soap operas in general) that they'd probably love the Twilight novels because it explores that relationship to a satisfying conclusion. (Not nice of me at all - but the poster pissed me off. The statement at the end of this post above is directed in part to that poster.)
Probably not a good idea to highlight and quote me over there. Something tells me that they won't react any more positively to what I said than what you did. (This comes from having this same argument with similar fans for close to ten years now. It basically comes down to this - there are the fans that still see Buffy and Angel as two great tragic heroes who had to sacrifice their great tragic love to try and save the world And well the fans who really really don't see that at all, and see Angel as a guy who is so full of himself he can't tell he is destroying the world and the best thing for everyone would be if he just staked himself. It's not all that different than political arguments - there's people who see George W. Bush and Rudy Guiliana as heroes, and those who see them as egomanical bastards. OR sports debates - people who think the Yankees are the most talented best baseball team ever and other's who see them as a team that is just about money, and the Sox are much better.)