A (Rather Long) Afterthought
Jul. 12th, 2012 04:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
astra_auroraLet's talk about romantic tension.
I've noticed this attitude in a lot of fictional works: relationships make everything perfect, and we all know that it's just not true. Whether it's a clash over something major or an argument when someone had a bad day and needs to rage, people are going to argue. And that's where things get a little weird, both in and out of fiction, because a lot of people seem to have some weird expectations about romance. I don't mean just sex, for the record, but let's start with that:
Nobody is ever entitled to sex. Ever. I don't give a fuck if they've been happily married for twenty years or started dating five days ago. I don't care whether he's the nicest person on the planet or she's the meanest bitch to ever live.
Nobody. Is. Entitled. To. Sex.
The thing is, some people don't seem to realise that. My best friend and I had a chat yesterday where I told her about my earlier post. We talked about two of the stereotypical romances- 'bad boys' and 'nice guys'. My friend pointed out that while bad boys can be gits, so can nice guys- she's heard more than a few whine something along the lines of 'I'm not like the other guys! I care about girls! I'm a nice guy, so why can't I find a girlfriend?" (In most cases, read: why can't I get laid?) Whether it's companionship or sex, you're not entitled to it. Be a nice person. Don't be nice for the purposes of sex and relationships. Nobody is entitled to sex no matter how nice they are.
(I was going to say something about prostitution until I realised that it's a field I'm not qualified to talk about, so... yeah.)
And then we get to the argument part. After spending years reading![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
fanficrants, I've found that fans can be utterly horrifying in their opinions and stances. Consider, for example, this rant about members of the Degrassi fandom who (in the case of a canon relationship where Claire broke up with Eli despite Eli being depressed and unwell) blamed Claire for breaking up with him and insisted that she shouldn't have done it and that she should apologise and be friends with him, despite her being unhappy in the relationship and Eli was being an abusive and suffocating boyfriend.
Rule two, people: Nobody is obligated to remain in a relationship if they're not happy. I know that in cases where X is Y's main source of support that it probably won't end well for anyone if X leaves Y, but if X chooses to leave, then it's their choice and should be respected. (Unless they left just to fuck Y over, in which case they're probably an arsehole.) Relationships should be a partnership by equals where everyone involved does their best to be a good partner, a phrase which here means 'loving and devoted and not actively trying to fuck anyone over'. If X chooses to stay to help Y, that's their choice. But nobody is obligated to stay if it'll screw them over.
And another thing: Remember that we don't know everything about... well, anyone. When it comes to works, we only know what they show us. Just because character A is shown to be sweet and polite, it doesn't mean that she can't be an A-grade bitch when she wants to be. When it comes to real people, we don't know them. We don't know what the relationship was like, or why they broke up, or what they did.
And remember the arc words of House: Everybody lies.
Fans... irritate me. A lot. I ship people too, I don't turn my nose up at other shippers. What I don't do is imagine that I know everything about the people involved.
For all I know, X has a phobia of bananas (don't laugh, I knew someone who had it) and will never date Y because bananas are his favourite fruit. For all I know, X thinks men are all time wasters. For all I know, Y is actually on the run from his angry, banana-fearing boyfriends who just discovered his love of them and thus is only asking X out for cover.
(Yes, I do realise how silly that last paragraph sounded.)
I know I'm getting away from the point, but consider the theory commonly known as Death of the Author. The theory states that an author's concepts and ideas of their own work holds no more depth than anyone else's interpretations, immortalised by a conversation between Isaac Asimov and a teacher lecturing students on Asimov's stories: "Just because you wrote it, what makes you think that you have the slightest idea what it's about?"
OT: This theory is, to me, one of the most insulting things I've ever read. If anyone ever tried to apply that theory to my works (should they ever get A, written, or B, published), I'd be furious. I created the worlds. I made the characters. I wrote the plot. I know more about them than you ever will, so don't fucking tell me I don't know what it's about.
The thing is, we don't know everything about the characters. Their creators do. Hell, the creators make the canon. We don't know what the characters would do in response to an action. All we can do is guess. And it's the same in real life. We don't know everything about a person. We only know what we're told. So don't imagine that you know everything about a pairing or breakup or date or whatever.
Back to the main subject.
Rule three: Nobody is obligated to apologise for the sake of it. Let's say hypothetical soap characters Peach and Plum had a fight because Peach thought Plum was flirting with an attractive woman. Plum doesn't see anything wrong with a little flirting, given that he had no intention to go any further, but Peach thinks he shouldn't be flirting with anyone at all. After all, they've been dating for a few years and have a strong relationship that Peach intends to hang on to.
No matter how stupid the fans think the fight is, nobody should apologise for the sake of it. If either is really sorry, then sure, apologise. But as the saying goes, 'an insincere apology is a second insult'. Pretending to apologise so the fight will go away just makes things worse. And fans demanding that Peach apologise to Plum, say, should find that it only makes things worse. If this hypothetical series actually involved reality, which soaps generally don't.
Rule four: Being in love with someone entitles you to sweet jack shit. Let's take hypothetical characters Chives and Parsley. Chives falls for Parsley, a classmate he hasn't yet spoken to. Parsley has absolutely no interest in Chives. They live their own lives, Chives continually pining over Parsley and Parsley ignoring him.
Let's be clear: Parsley is in no way obligated to talk to Chives, or ask him out, or be his friend. Parsley does not have to be nice to Chives. Parsley does not have to do anything. Being in love does not get you the best seats. While love does tend to be a 'whoever gets there first wins' thing, being in love does not count as getting there first. This is not the Regency period, where a promise of marriage carried as much weight as an actual marriage. And if Parsley finds out that Chives is in love with her, she is not obligated to fall in love with him.
Why ramble on for so long? Mainly because I don't like the way romances are portrayed in fiction. Often, they seem irregular, unrealistic, contrived. I know we only see what the creator shows us, but I just don't buy a couple getting married and being in love forever when the work has only shown us the two of them being friends without an ounce of sexual attraction.
Consider this: When writing a romance, imagine that the characters involved are real people, and think over everything in your head. Maybe write it down and ask a friend to read it so they might spot holes you didn't see. And then run the romance through the colander of their characterisation and see what you end up with. If A is indecisive, why did she instantly decide to date B without at least considering it for a few minutes first, as you showed her doing earlier? If B is prone to fits of anger, why didn't he get mad when his girlfriend arrives home bruised after fighting off a coworker? Stuff like that.
I think I'm too cynical. Whenever I read anything where a character enthuses about how good their home life is or how great their partner is, I instantly think that they're either lying or in for a bad time. I just don't believe in perfect romances. I do believe in imperfect romances, which is part of why I adore the Falco books so much. Falco and his wife have an imperfect relationship. They argue. They fight. They make up. And it's realistic. But it's a rarity in fiction. Too often, things just don't make sense.
I just don't think I know any more.
I've noticed this attitude in a lot of fictional works: relationships make everything perfect, and we all know that it's just not true. Whether it's a clash over something major or an argument when someone had a bad day and needs to rage, people are going to argue. And that's where things get a little weird, both in and out of fiction, because a lot of people seem to have some weird expectations about romance. I don't mean just sex, for the record, but let's start with that:
Nobody is ever entitled to sex. Ever. I don't give a fuck if they've been happily married for twenty years or started dating five days ago. I don't care whether he's the nicest person on the planet or she's the meanest bitch to ever live.
Nobody. Is. Entitled. To. Sex.
The thing is, some people don't seem to realise that. My best friend and I had a chat yesterday where I told her about my earlier post. We talked about two of the stereotypical romances- 'bad boys' and 'nice guys'. My friend pointed out that while bad boys can be gits, so can nice guys- she's heard more than a few whine something along the lines of 'I'm not like the other guys! I care about girls! I'm a nice guy, so why can't I find a girlfriend?" (In most cases, read: why can't I get laid?) Whether it's companionship or sex, you're not entitled to it. Be a nice person. Don't be nice for the purposes of sex and relationships. Nobody is entitled to sex no matter how nice they are.
(I was going to say something about prostitution until I realised that it's a field I'm not qualified to talk about, so... yeah.)
And then we get to the argument part. After spending years reading
fanficrants, I've found that fans can be utterly horrifying in their opinions and stances. Consider, for example, this rant about members of the Degrassi fandom who (in the case of a canon relationship where Claire broke up with Eli despite Eli being depressed and unwell) blamed Claire for breaking up with him and insisted that she shouldn't have done it and that she should apologise and be friends with him, despite her being unhappy in the relationship and Eli was being an abusive and suffocating boyfriend.Rule two, people: Nobody is obligated to remain in a relationship if they're not happy. I know that in cases where X is Y's main source of support that it probably won't end well for anyone if X leaves Y, but if X chooses to leave, then it's their choice and should be respected. (Unless they left just to fuck Y over, in which case they're probably an arsehole.) Relationships should be a partnership by equals where everyone involved does their best to be a good partner, a phrase which here means 'loving and devoted and not actively trying to fuck anyone over'. If X chooses to stay to help Y, that's their choice. But nobody is obligated to stay if it'll screw them over.
And another thing: Remember that we don't know everything about... well, anyone. When it comes to works, we only know what they show us. Just because character A is shown to be sweet and polite, it doesn't mean that she can't be an A-grade bitch when she wants to be. When it comes to real people, we don't know them. We don't know what the relationship was like, or why they broke up, or what they did.
And remember the arc words of House: Everybody lies.
Fans... irritate me. A lot. I ship people too, I don't turn my nose up at other shippers. What I don't do is imagine that I know everything about the people involved.
For all I know, X has a phobia of bananas (don't laugh, I knew someone who had it) and will never date Y because bananas are his favourite fruit. For all I know, X thinks men are all time wasters. For all I know, Y is actually on the run from his angry, banana-fearing boyfriends who just discovered his love of them and thus is only asking X out for cover.
(Yes, I do realise how silly that last paragraph sounded.)
I know I'm getting away from the point, but consider the theory commonly known as Death of the Author. The theory states that an author's concepts and ideas of their own work holds no more depth than anyone else's interpretations, immortalised by a conversation between Isaac Asimov and a teacher lecturing students on Asimov's stories: "Just because you wrote it, what makes you think that you have the slightest idea what it's about?"
OT: This theory is, to me, one of the most insulting things I've ever read. If anyone ever tried to apply that theory to my works (should they ever get A, written, or B, published), I'd be furious. I created the worlds. I made the characters. I wrote the plot. I know more about them than you ever will, so don't fucking tell me I don't know what it's about.
The thing is, we don't know everything about the characters. Their creators do. Hell, the creators make the canon. We don't know what the characters would do in response to an action. All we can do is guess. And it's the same in real life. We don't know everything about a person. We only know what we're told. So don't imagine that you know everything about a pairing or breakup or date or whatever.
Back to the main subject.
Rule three: Nobody is obligated to apologise for the sake of it. Let's say hypothetical soap characters Peach and Plum had a fight because Peach thought Plum was flirting with an attractive woman. Plum doesn't see anything wrong with a little flirting, given that he had no intention to go any further, but Peach thinks he shouldn't be flirting with anyone at all. After all, they've been dating for a few years and have a strong relationship that Peach intends to hang on to.
No matter how stupid the fans think the fight is, nobody should apologise for the sake of it. If either is really sorry, then sure, apologise. But as the saying goes, 'an insincere apology is a second insult'. Pretending to apologise so the fight will go away just makes things worse. And fans demanding that Peach apologise to Plum, say, should find that it only makes things worse. If this hypothetical series actually involved reality, which soaps generally don't.
Rule four: Being in love with someone entitles you to sweet jack shit. Let's take hypothetical characters Chives and Parsley. Chives falls for Parsley, a classmate he hasn't yet spoken to. Parsley has absolutely no interest in Chives. They live their own lives, Chives continually pining over Parsley and Parsley ignoring him.
Let's be clear: Parsley is in no way obligated to talk to Chives, or ask him out, or be his friend. Parsley does not have to be nice to Chives. Parsley does not have to do anything. Being in love does not get you the best seats. While love does tend to be a 'whoever gets there first wins' thing, being in love does not count as getting there first. This is not the Regency period, where a promise of marriage carried as much weight as an actual marriage. And if Parsley finds out that Chives is in love with her, she is not obligated to fall in love with him.
Why ramble on for so long? Mainly because I don't like the way romances are portrayed in fiction. Often, they seem irregular, unrealistic, contrived. I know we only see what the creator shows us, but I just don't buy a couple getting married and being in love forever when the work has only shown us the two of them being friends without an ounce of sexual attraction.
Consider this: When writing a romance, imagine that the characters involved are real people, and think over everything in your head. Maybe write it down and ask a friend to read it so they might spot holes you didn't see. And then run the romance through the colander of their characterisation and see what you end up with. If A is indecisive, why did she instantly decide to date B without at least considering it for a few minutes first, as you showed her doing earlier? If B is prone to fits of anger, why didn't he get mad when his girlfriend arrives home bruised after fighting off a coworker? Stuff like that.
I think I'm too cynical. Whenever I read anything where a character enthuses about how good their home life is or how great their partner is, I instantly think that they're either lying or in for a bad time. I just don't believe in perfect romances. I do believe in imperfect romances, which is part of why I adore the Falco books so much. Falco and his wife have an imperfect relationship. They argue. They fight. They make up. And it's realistic. But it's a rarity in fiction. Too often, things just don't make sense.
I just don't think I know any more.
