57020 réponses à ce sujet

[Arquen]

ElleMullineux wrote...



by jakface/enerjak

I about died laughing at this. I mean, it is probably because i am like deliriously tired right now and don't know wny I'm not in bed.. but serioulsy.. this is freakin hilarious.

Ninja editing for top.. and because I laughed at this...


by thesweetesttart on DA

Modifié par Arquen, 05 juillet 2011 - 04:06 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Anders inability to see injustice beyond the cause of mages is the most worrying thing about JAnders. I think I may find Fenders so intriguing partially because it solves my problem...

When I'm standing behind Anders with the knife... me, and not Lir, Garret, Crow or Esk, but me, in that red light, before I filter it through their perceptions... the question I ask is this: is what's sitting there on that block going to make the world better by remaining in it? Is it interesting or unique or salvageable in some way?  Or is it a simple function by now, a cause dressed up like man and spirit, a whole that is less than either of its parts were, individually?

The line that scares me more than anything else is when Anders agrees with turning Fenris over to Danarius. No. NO. Justice would not, could not do that. And neither, I believe, would Awakening Anders... without, as someone once suggested, immediately saying "Wait, you're serious? I thought we were just messing with him!"

I've been listening to the Awakenings banters a lot lately, during a lot of the Justice/Anders/who initiated the merger/what is an abomination threads. They're the quickest and easiest access we have to general character studies. I actually find Justice's banters with Velanna to be the most interesting, even moreso than Nate and Anders. While the boys show how the decision came about, and the transition in Anders' character, Velanna's banters with Justice are pure, beautiful Justice. What's more, they're Justice interacting with someone who has shown blanket hatred for another group, leading her to unjust actions, but Justice still shows compassion and understanding and says that the best atonement is an attempt to educate. I can't even excerpt them properly, because it's the back and forth that defines it.

Seeing Anders and Fenris together in a way that makes sense to me eases my greatest worry, which is that Anders is correct when he says there is nothing inside him but the cause of mages. It helps me believe that something of who Justice truly was remains which is, at this point, more important to me that something of Anders truly remaining. Anders' ability to love and desire to heal are evidence enough that the best parts of him live, at least for most of the story. But I see too few of Justice's virtues, and that worries me. More than I realized, before I began to think about this.

Anders' relationship with Hawke seems to be something he does to preserve a part of himself, to distinguish the human part from the part that is Justice. It's also something he says that Justice does not approve of. I feel like part of reaching out to Fenris would be like Justice reaching out to Velanna, only even more gently... Fenris has not directly done anything that would be considered unjust, he is not murdering innocent mages, he just hates. I can just picture Fenris eventually getting that tired sound in his voice that Velanna does at the end of her banters with Justice, where he's actually contemplating, for a moment, something that sounds ridiculous and anathema to him but which is, in the cold light of the Fade, ultimately reasonable and just.

As for the chemistry between them, their party banters are infuriating... they get so close to actually having a productive discussion and then back off. It's MADDENING. To me watching two people almost have a rational conversation is a lot like watching two people almost kiss. Just ****ing do it already! JUST HAVE A REASONABLE CONVERSATION.  If only, at the end of just one of those banters Anders would say "well, I obviously object to blood magic, so if what you're saying is true... no, I wouldn't be happier in Tevinter." I actually am more concerned about the reasonable conversations than the actual romance, in this pairing, I think. The pairing at least implies that at some point they go that extra half-step. I guess I get the same thing from the banters that gone-batty mentions at some point... that Anders sounds like he just wants Fenris to accept him. The acceptance is the porn for me, I guess... the pretty glowy magic sex is just icing. That said, I've only actually read maybe five or six Fenders fics, most of which are one-shots, compared to the dozens of Anders/Hawke fics I've read, many of which are multi-chapter epics.

Anders is a weird character in a lot of ways, once we get into the realm of fic. I've seen so many different interpretations of him that are inherently contradictory and yet don't explicitly run counter to a personality that could be reasonably inferred from a bunch of his behavior.

I naturally understand non-canon pairings, because the first romance I ever liked in any media ever was a non-canon pairing (Lina + Zelgadis from Slayers). I so rarely identify with canon romances in media at all, really. Bioware RPGs are the rare exception, because... well... there is no canon romance beyond PC + Whatever LI you fancy, which makes romances like Garrus and Anders possible. (Also, DCU, why do you seem to have settled on Talia as Batman's canonical romance? Seriously? Catwoman and Wonder Woman are so much better that I can't stand it! I hate you so much!)

I'm trying to think how to phrase this next bit. Let's just say I've enjoyed some Anders/Hawke that I feel is crackfic, where the characters deviate significantly from how they're portrayed in game. Likewise, I've read some Fenders where the characters have been altered so slightly from how they are in game that it doesn't feel jarring at all. Of course, there is far far more well-written Anders/Hawke, and it's far more difficult to write Fenders in a way that doesn't sound massively out-of-character to me, but the few fics that I've stumbled onto via recommendations do not deviate as much from established characters as some of the Anders/Hawke fic I've enjoyed, so I figure all's fair in love and fanfic.

I'm not trying to sell anyone a bill of Fenders, just to explain my feelings about it. I definitely don't... ship it, not like I shipped Lina and Zel or Batman and Catwoman.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 05 juillet 2011 - 03:49 .

[SurelyForth]

Normally I'd agree with you, River5, but the fact that Anders/Fenris, in seven years of moving in the same circles and sharing the same friends, are neither closer nor less terrible to each other is pretty much...yeah. There has to be some level of want on the part of one or more of the parties and even as Fenris evolves, his attitude towards Anders remains firmly at "hypocritical abomination."

Anders sorta devolves, too, which would make him even less attractive to Fenris (seriously, why am I coming at this from Fenris' perspective?). He becomes even more unstable, singleminded and dangerous while Fenris is starting to enjoy his life and the very simple pleasures of being with people he can relax around. Fenris isn't looking for a project, or a cause, because he has enough of his own anger and he wants to get rid of it, not take on more via someone like Anders.

@CGG

See, I think Justice becomes singleminded when he merges with Anders. He goes from All The Injustices to Injustices Against Mages. I mean...that's part of the problem. And it's why he'd be ok with Fenris being taken back by Danarius, because it's not an injustice that he cares about.

And Anders isn't exactly a saint in Awakening. I don't think that he killed the templars, but he was certainly glad to see them die (and he was there when they died, and did nothing to save them). If he dislikes someone enough...yeah, I can see him being glad that they get their comeuppance and it being in character.

Modifié par SurelyForth, 05 juillet 2011 - 03:59 .

[River5]

Sialater wrote...

River5 wrote...

To quote one of my favourite characters, Spike (from BTVS):

"You're not friends. You'll never be friends. You'll be in
love till it kills you both. You'll fight, and you'll shag,
and you'll hate each other until it makes you quiver, but
you'll never be friends. Love isn't brains, children, it's
blood -- blood screaming inside you to work its will. I may
be love's ****, but at least I'm man enough to admit it."

I just find it funny that we are discussing Fenders, or any other pairing (canon or non canon) using pure logic.  Lol!  When, most of the time, what love does is DEFY any logic, and completely go against what our head would be trying to tell us.  Forget the laws of physics, psychology, philosophy...  Forget about making sense and sticking or not to your own beliefs.  When love takes hold, all the rules fly out the windows!

For example, when Spike was first introduced to BTVS...  If someone would have tried to tell me that he would fall in love with Buffy by the end of season 7 back then, I could have found at least 100 reasons why that wouldn't make any sense, and would be almost insulting to the characters themselves.

And yet, over the course of the years, both characters changed, evolved, to the point where them being attracted to each other made sense...  Sort of!  Lol!  At first, in a very, VERY sick way.

Same thing often happens in real life.  You see your friend being getting involved with a man that seems 100% wrong for her, or sometimes even worse, the relationship seems downright abusive to you.  And yet, she keeps going back to the guy like he was some kind of drug.

Sometimes, a romantic pairing can be so "wrong", it almost seems pathological.

But you can probably never really predict on what level two characters are going to connect.

The problem with comparing Spuffy to Fenders is that over the course of the exact same time-frame, Fenris and Anders DO NOT even remotely come to any sort of truce and do not even respect each other.

Spike's and Buffy's respect began in Season 2.  Then she felt sorry for him with the chip in his head.

There's no such evolution with Fenris and Anders.

That you see within the game.    They could always be hiding, or pretending...  Not everything that goes on between characters is happening in the open (even if the game usually likes to throw hints).

When you read the book "Interview with The Vampire", and then "The Vampire Lestat", you basically find yourself with the same story being told through two different P.O.V., and realize that Louis was missing many important key pieces to his tale (basically, he made assumptions about Lestat's personality and motivations based on his own observations...  That turned out to be wrong for the most part).

So, we assume that Anders wouldn't pursue any other relationship besides Hawke, but perhaps this is simply what Anders wants Hawke to believe.

I didn't mean that Anders and Fenris were like Buffy and Spike, per say.

Just that a relationship between them, as illogical and crazy as it may seem; doesn't even NEED to be either logical or even sane for it to occur!

Perhaps lyrium is Justice's catnip (he said that Lyrium sings to him in Awakening), and thus Anders' attraction to Fenris would be spirit induced!  Lol!  I'm just kidding around, but you get the drift...

But yes, as soon as you move away from canon, you are taking liberties with the characters that may please, or displease the fans.

Those that enjoy your vision or interpretation of them will follow, the others will just look elsewhere.

[River5]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

River5 wrote...
Love isn't brains, children, it's
blood -- blood screaming inside you to work its will. I may
be love's ****, but at least I'm man enough to admit it."[/i]

*rolls eyes*

I have a completely different conception of love.

Oh!  My own personal conception of love is very different too.  "Romantic love" follows no logic whatsoever, and it's not a type of relationship that I am interested in real life with my significant other.

"True love", as far as I'm concerned, is a very logical process where one makes the voluntary decision to commit to a relationship that he or she CAN live without.

It involves two healthy, autonomous beings that are perfectly able to be happy on their own, but choose to be involved with each other because they are feeling even happier while sharing their lives with the other person, having similiar projects, dreams, and values (or, complementary ones...  Dreams that, though different, don't exclude the other person's projects as well, etc.).

It is the feeling of being free and independant in a relationship while being together.  It goes beyond simple physical and psychological attraction.

But "romantic love" follows no rules, and can be very destructive and unhealthy for those that fall pray to it.

"Love", a.k.a. the initial attraction one feels for another is senseless.  What makes it work eventually is what your brain does with it.

Modifié par River5, 05 juillet 2011 - 04:05 .

[SurelyForth]

River5 wrote...
That you see within the game.    They could always be hiding, or pretending...  Not everything that goes on between characters is happening in the open (even if the game usually likes to throw hints).

So, we assume that Anders wouldn't pursue any other relationship besides Hawke, but perhaps this is simply what Anders wants Hawke to believe.

Except the game does give us proof that Anders, at least, isn't pretending. The approval for turning Fenris over to Danarius isn't a verbal cue, or something that is deliberately misleading. It is an honest measurement of what he feels and he honestly approves of Hawke sending Fenris back to be a slave, despite knowing full well what Fenris has went through to remain free. To me, there is no other way to interpret that.

And why would Anders want a Hawke who romances other people to believe that he's in love with her/him? He basically insults the person Hawke cares about most in an effort to posit himself as a viable alternative, so it's not like he's trying to win brownie points or anything.

Modifié par SurelyForth, 05 juillet 2011 - 04:09 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

River5 wrote...
Oh!  My own personal conception of love is very different too.  "Romantic love" follows no logic whatsoever, and it's not a type of relationship that I am interested in real life with my significant other.

"True love", as far as I'm concerned, is a very logical process where one makes the voluntary decision to commit to a relationship that he or she CAN live without.

It involves two healthy, autonomous beings that are perfectly able to be happy on their own, but choose to be involved with each other because they are feeling even happier while sharing their lives with the other person, having similiar projects, dreams, and values (or, complementary ones...  Dreams that, though different, don't exclude the other person's projects as well, etc.).

It is the feeling of being free and independant in a relationship while being together.  It goes beyond simple physical and psychological attraction.

But "romantic love" follows no rules, and can be very destructive and unhealthy for those that fall pray to it.

"Love", a.k.a. the initial attraction one feels for another is senseless.  What makes it work eventually is what your brain does with it.

Precisely. Almost exactly what I used to say in the Alistair thread. Almost word for word.

Romantic love is way too overrated and I find it repulsive (as in very unattractive). As in if a person loves me that kind of love, I would not be attracted to her.

[YamiSnuffles]

I interrupt all this talk of love, hate, and Fenders for a finished commission:


For Beckaliz, it's Anders trying the best way he knows how to play with Dog.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

River5 wrote...
Oh!  My own personal conception of love is very different too.  "Romantic love" follows no logic whatsoever, and it's not a type of relationship that I am interested in real life with my significant other.

"True love", as far as I'm concerned, is a very logical process where one makes the voluntary decision to commit to a relationship that he or she CAN live without.

It involves two healthy, autonomous beings that are perfectly able to be happy on their own, but choose to be involved with each other because they are feeling even happier while sharing their lives with the other person, having similiar projects, dreams, and values (or, complementary ones...  Dreams that, though different, don't exclude the other person's projects as well, etc.).

It is the feeling of being free and independant in a relationship while being together.  It goes beyond simple physical and psychological attraction.

But "romantic love" follows no rules, and can be very destructive and unhealthy for those that fall pray to it.

"Love", a.k.a. the initial attraction one feels for another is senseless.  What makes it work eventually is what your brain does with it.

Precisely. Almost exactly what I used to say in the Alistair thread. Almost word for word.

Romantic love is way too overrated and I find it repulsive (as in very unattractive). As in if a person loves me that kind of love, I would not be attracted to her.

Can't it be both?

Then again, the only thing I know about love is that I have never been in it, and it cannot be accurately mapped from the outside. Because of that I'd take any variety of love on offer, provided it was reasonably likely not to permanently destroy me, just to be able to see the territory. I mean I have had friendship love, and I love my family of course, and I have a general sort of universal love of all mankind... you know, like you do. But those are different countries, and much simpler ones.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 05 juillet 2011 - 04:22 .

[ipgd]

I'm not really sure where this "love doesn't make sense" thing comes from. Having been in a relationship with someone I previously hated, it kinda, uh, comes down to not hating that person anymore It's not some magical new age bull****.

Anders and Fenris don't exactly have the same kind of relationship development Isabela and Aveline did; they hate each other more by the end of the game, if anything. Getting either of them to the point where they do not hate each other would be a feat I do not see happening, ever.

[Sialater]

SurelyForth wrote...

River5 wrote...
That you see within the game.    They could always be hiding, or pretending...  Not everything that goes on between characters is happening in the open (even if the game usually likes to throw hints).

So, we assume that Anders wouldn't pursue any other relationship besides Hawke, but perhaps this is simply what Anders wants Hawke to believe.

Except the game does give us proof that Anders, at least, isn't pretending. The approval for turning Fenris over to Danarius isn't a verbal cue, or something that is deliberately misleading. It is an honest measurement of what he feels and he honestly approves of Hawke sending Fenris back to be a slave, despite knowing full well what Fenris has went through to remain free. To me, there is no other way to interpret that.

And why would Anders want a Hawke who romances other people to believe that he's in love with her/him? He basically insults the person Hawke cares about most in an effort to posit himself as a viable alternative, so it's not like he's trying to win brownie points or anything.

This.  There's no in-game evidence for a romantic extrapolation.  Like CGG said, they always skirt the reasonable conversations and never actually have one.  

And I find that JAnders approving of Fenris being sent back to Danarius really jarring.  I've thought long and hard about it and I don't find it particuarly in character.  Not even for the amalgam of Vengeance.  It's far too petty for that.

[Jon Jern_]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

River5 wrote...
Oh!  My own personal conception of love is very different too.  "Romantic love" follows no logic whatsoever, and it's not a type of relationship that I am interested in real life with my significant other.

"True love", as far as I'm concerned, is a very logical process where one makes the voluntary decision to commit to a relationship that he or she CAN live without.

It involves two healthy, autonomous beings that are perfectly able to be happy on their own, but choose to be involved with each other because they are feeling even happier while sharing their lives with the other person, having similiar projects, dreams, and values (or, complementary ones...  Dreams that, though different, don't exclude the other person's projects as well, etc.).

It is the feeling of being free and independant in a relationship while being together.  It goes beyond simple physical and psychological attraction.

But "romantic love" follows no rules, and can be very destructive and unhealthy for those that fall pray to it.

"Love", a.k.a. the initial attraction one feels for another is senseless.  What makes it work eventually is what your brain does with it.

Precisely. Almost exactly what I used to say in the Alistair thread. Almost word for word.

Romantic love is way too overrated and I find it repulsive (as in very unattractive). As in if a person loves me that kind of love, I would not be attracted to her.

It's a shame because Rivarly romance changes about 10% of the romance. 

[River5]

SurelyForth wrote...

River5 wrote...
That you see within the game.    They could always be hiding, or pretending...  Not everything that goes on between characters is happening in the open (even if the game usually likes to throw hints).

So, we assume that Anders wouldn't pursue any other relationship besides Hawke, but perhaps this is simply what Anders wants Hawke to believe.

Except the game does give us proof that Anders, at least, isn't pretending. The approval for turning Fenris over to Danarius isn't a verbal cue, or something that is deliberately misleading. It is an honest measurement of what he feels and he honestly approves of Hawke sending Fenris back to be a slave, despite knowing full well what Fenris has went through to remain free. To me, there is no other way to interpret that.

And why would Anders want a Hawke who romances other people to believe that he's in love with her/him? He basically insults the person Hawke cares about most in an effort to posit himself as a viable alternative, so it's not like he's trying to win brownie points or anything.

And what if he reacts that way to deceive Hawke?

Anders, now having witnessed that Hawke values power over love / friendship, reacts that way in order to keep Hawke's approval (and better manipulate him for his cause)...

All the while planning to go rescue Fenris from Danarius later that evening.    Or, at least try.

This is purely my own thoughts (and  a fanfic that I would love to write...  Lol!), and yes, there's that whole rating system...

But does the rating system follow what the character would truly feels, or does it follow what the character would want Hawke to think?  Hehe...

Yes, I'm giving this way too much thought, and having way too much fun with the characters.

There's also the fact that a character's personality will keep changing depending on the way he interacts with Hawke.  Friendship: Anders believes he is doing the right thing, and that he and Justice are one.
Rivalry: Anders believes that he needs to die because Justice has become a demon that makes him do things against his will.

Anders will be a complete **** to Fenris in that scene only if Hawke chooses the option to give him back to Danarius.  If you don't that piece of dialogue will never have happened.

We can go "Yes!  But it would have if I did it instead!"...  But you didn't.  And thus, Anders didn't react that way either.  Is it canon because it could have happened given the option?  Maybe yes, maybe no.

Same thing with many of the things your other companions will say, or do.

Modifié par River5, 05 juillet 2011 - 04:26 .

[ipgd]

Sialater wrote...

Like CGG said, they always skirt the reasonable conversations and never actually have one. 

Hey, they do have one civil conversation. About killing themselves.

[Sialater]

ipgd wrote...

Sialater wrote...

Like CGG said, they always skirt the reasonable conversations and never actually have one. 

Hey, they do have one civil conversation. About killing themselves.

Well, they also only agree on two things:  Merrill and Zevran.  

[KnightofPhoenix]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Can't it be both?

Not sure how it can be both. Or how it would look like.

Some compromise to make a relationship work is not something I mind. But some go to great length, compromising things I'd consider well past the red line, to make a relationship work. I do not find that attractive. 

Of course it's sometimes tragic if kids are involved, hence the excessive compromising. But that's why one should be careful before making a commitment. 

[Heidenreich]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Can't it be both?

Not sure how it can be both. Or how it would look like.

Some compromise to make a relationship work is not something I mind. But some go to great length, compromising things I'd consider well past the red line, to make a relationship work. I do not find that attractive. 

Of course it's sometimes tragic if kids are involved, hence the excessive compromising. But that's why one should be careful before making a commitment. 

......

*again with the hoisting of KoP over her shoulder and carrying him off into the sunset*

<3


Do me a favor. Call my brother and explain this to him. Because at 32 years old he just does not GET IT. All that fun, tingly lusty love-at-first-groseinuendo-bologna is just that. It fades, it hurts, and its just not real.

Modifié par Heidenreich, 05 juillet 2011 - 04:40 .

[River5]

ipgd wrote...

I'm not really sure where this "love doesn't make sense" thing comes from. Having been in a relationship with someone I previously hated, it kinda, uh, comes down to not hating that person anymore It's not some magical new age bull****.

Anders and Fenris don't exactly have the same kind of relationship development Isabela and Aveline did; they hate each other more by the end of the game, if anything. Getting either of them to the point where they do not hate each other would be a feat I do not see happening, ever.

It's just that the initial attraction one feels for another, and the impulse to follow through on that specific attraction is not always logical.

It is "brain induced" (probably some form of chemical reaction provoked by the object that is perceived as desirable), yes, but does not follow pure logic in the initial stages.

"Infatuation" (what many will call "falling in love") doesn't need to follow logic for it to occur.  It can lead to a very healthy and stable relationship, yes, but it's not initially a fully well thought-out process.

It's perfectly okay that you don't see Fenris and Anders being romantically linked as ever happening.  And I'm not questioning people's judgement on the issue.

What I'm trying to say is that it would be possible for them to become infatuated with one another, and eventually develop feelings of love although they don't seem to logically have that much in common.  Whether it happens behind the scenes (them hating each other more could be seen as a sign of increasing passion), or after the game.

What provokes the initial "spark" can be very subjective and make no logical sense at all.

[SurelyForth]

River5 wrote...
And what if he reacts that way to deceive Hawke?

Anders, now having witnessed that Hawke values power over love / friendship, reacts that way in order to keep Hawke's approval (and better manipulate him for his cause)...

All the while planning to go rescue Fenris from Danarius later that evening.    Or, at least try.

This is purely my own thoughts (and  a fanfic that I would love to write...  Lol!), and yes, there's that whole rating system...

But does the rating system follow what the character would truly feels, or does it follow what the character would want Hawke to think?  Hehe...

Yes, I'm giving this way too much thought, and having way too much fun with the characters.

There's also the fact that a character's personality will keep changing depending on the way he interacts with Hawke.  Friendship: Anders believes he is doing the right thing, and that he and Justice are one.
Rivalry: Anders believes that he needs to die because Justice has become a demon that makes him do things against his will.

Anders will be a complete **** to Fenris in that scene only if Hawke chooses the option to give him back to Danarius.  If you don't that piece of dialogue will never have happened.

We can go "Yes!  But it would have if I did it instead!"...  But you didn't.  And thus, Anders didn't react that way either.  Is it canon because it could have happened given the option?  Maybe yes, maybe no.

Same thing with many of the things your other companions will say, or do.

Because approval isn't currency, or anything handed to Hawke. Approval is a measurement of how each character feels towards what Hawke does and says. It's how we, the players, know the stances of each of our companions without having to parse language, or tone, or run back to the homebase later. It's also a means by which to help the relationship between Hawke/companion grow in a reasonable way. It's literally not open to interpretation.

And I figure that it's safe to assume that if Anders can approve of Fenris being given back to Danarius, than he's always in a mindset to approve of Fenris being given back to Danarius. And the fact that it happens outside of the relationship he has with Hawke (so rivaled or friendly) means it is tied directly to how he feels about Fenris.
 
And I suppose if you never see it happen, then you can pretend like it doesn't, but it's still possible and, in my opinion, merely a distillation of what we're supposed to take away from their interactions throughout the game. Its inclusion isn't an accident.

Modifié par SurelyForth, 05 juillet 2011 - 04:45 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Heidenreich wrote...
......

*again with the hoisting of KoP over her shoulder and carrying him off into the sunset*

<3

Do me a favor. Call my brother and explain this to him. Because at 32 years old he just does not GET IT. All that fun, tingly lusty love-at-first-groseinuendo-bologna is just that. It fades, it hurts, and its just not real.

It's hard to convince people of things like that.

I had the same mindset since I was 16 or so.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 juillet 2011 - 04:45 .

[Sialater]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Heidenreich wrote...
......

*again with the hoisting of KoP over her shoulder and carrying him off into the sunset*

<3

Do me a favor. Call my brother and explain this to him. Because at 32 years old he just does not GET IT. All that fun, tingly lusty love-at-first-groseinuendo-bologna is just that. It fades, it hurts, and its just not real.

It's hard to convince people of things like that.

I had the same mindset since I was 16 or so.

I've been trying for decades to convince my sisters of this.  They don't listen.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Can't it be both?

Not sure how it can be both. Or how it would look like.

Some compromise to make a relationship work is not something I mind. But some go to great length, compromising things I'd consider well past the red line, to make a relationship work. I do not find that attractive. 

Of course it's sometimes tragic if kids are involved, hence the excessive compromising. But that's why one should be careful before making a commitment. 

I'm not sure because, as I've said, I've not seen the territory. From what I can surmise through my spyglass and the movement of ships along the coast, the country contains pretty varied terrain. Ok, I'm gonna ditch that metaphor, it's totally outlived its usefullness.

I've had relationships that amounted to "hey, we get on reasonably well and are attractive to each other. Let's spend time together for a while." I don't define those as love, though. Perhaps normal people would? And in the end we get bored, and they usually wander off looking for something more dangerous, and I'm left mourning not the loss of a specific person, but the loss of a particular form of companionship. Man I'm sure I must seem robotic here.

I've had relationships based on logic and they don't make the songs seem like they're true. Well, other than certain magnetic fields songs that are all about relationships that don't include actual love, but you get the idea. I feel that there has to be something to "love" beyond what I've seen. Otherwise... well... there isn't really much to write home about, is there?

I've also never been attracted to anyone dangerous to me or harmful to me. There were a few times when I told a story about what kind of man someone was and it turned out to be not true, just a clever fancy laid out upon a blank slate. In two of those cases, the man underneath was... not a great person, but not a terrible one either. And I learned. I learned to keep my dreams inside my head and not see hints of them outside.

Basically I'm saying don't be an idiot, but there's also gotta be some poetry there, otherwise people wouldn't devote like 90% of bloody media to the subject. My picture of love contains the poetry of infatuation and the logic of companionship.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 05 juillet 2011 - 04:55 .

[Addai]

River5 wrote...
Anders will be a complete **** to Fenris in that scene only if Hawke chooses the option to give him back to Danarius.  If you don't that piece of dialogue will never have happened.

No, I think it's safe to say that Anders is a complete **** in that scene whether you give Fenris to Danarius or not.  Saying "you're just jealous of her, you bloody hypocrite" is not exactly tender understanding when a guy has just found out that his only living relative sold him out to his former master for personal gain.

[River5]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

River5 wrote...
Oh!  My own personal conception of love is very different too.  "Romantic love" follows no logic whatsoever, and it's not a type of relationship that I am interested in real life with my significant other.

"True love", as far as I'm concerned, is a very logical process where one makes the voluntary decision to commit to a relationship that he or she CAN live without.

It involves two healthy, autonomous beings that are perfectly able to be happy on their own, but choose to be involved with each other because they are feeling even happier while sharing their lives with the other person, having similiar projects, dreams, and values (or, complementary ones...  Dreams that, though different, don't exclude the other person's projects as well, etc.).

It is the feeling of being free and independant in a relationship while being together.  It goes beyond simple physical and psychological attraction.

But "romantic love" follows no rules, and can be very destructive and unhealthy for those that fall pray to it.

"Love", a.k.a. the initial attraction one feels for another is senseless.  What makes it work eventually is what your brain does with it.

Precisely. Almost exactly what I used to say in the Alistair thread. Almost word for word.

Romantic love is way too overrated and I find it repulsive (as in very unattractive). As in if a person loves me that kind of love, I would not be attracted to her.

Can't it be both?

Then again, the only thing I know about love is that I have never been in it, and it cannot be accurately mapped from the outside. Because of that I'd take any variety of love on offer, provided it was reasonably likely not to permanently destroy me, just to be able to see the territory. I mean I have had friendship love, and I love my family of course, and I have a general sort of universal love of all mankind... you know, like you do. But those are different countries, and much simpler ones.

Yes, and no.

You can fall in love (a.k.a. become infatuated) very fast and very strongly for someone...  But, once this happens, what will make it become a true loving, lasting relationship will be your ability to move past that initial "lovey-dovey" stage (while always seeking to keep a certain level of passion alive), and make efforts to build something together.

I've been with my partner for about 5 years.

In the beginning, "I love you" meant "I'm attracted to you and I really like spending time with you".

Later it was "I'm still attracted to you, I like spending time with you, and there's some projects that I'd love to discuss to see if we share the same life objectives, and can make this work".

Now, it's more "I'm still attracted to you, and I enjoy spending time with you so much that I am truly willing to commit to that relationship, and have great hopes that we'll be able to keep living our lives happily together for as long as possible.  We've been through so many things together, that I know that, when the chips are down, I can rely on you, and trust that you'll be there for me, and that I, in turn, will be there for you.  I appreciate that, although you don't always see things my way, you show that you respect my opinion, and are willing to consider it.  And that, whenever we fight, we never resort to name calling, or attacking the other personally.  You're my best friend, my lover, my teamate, and I would have it no other way".

So I've always "loved him".  But "I love you" can have so many different meanings!  And if we manage to still make it work a decade from now, I suppose that when I'll tell him "I love you" then, it will mean even more than it does today.

Am I still "infatuated" with him?  Sort of, but it's different.  It's no longer "I will explode right now if I can't have you!".  It runs deeper, and is closer to a form of deep friendship / comfortable companionship.  I'd survive without him, sure.  But it is my strong belief that my life is much brighter and happier for having him in it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Basically I'm saying don't be an idiot, but there's also gotta be some poetry there, otherwise people wouldn't devote like 90% of bloody media to the subject.

I think that's a social construct more than anything else. Or perhaps just natural. Not too dissimilar from animals howling louder than others to attract a mate (the comparision might be harsh and not 100% acurate, but it's worth pondering on).

Of course I am not saying that my version of love is:
"According to my calculations and logical estimates, I think we have a 90% probability of being able to form a healthy partnership for the long term. Will you agree to establish such a relationship with me?"

"My calculations seem to agree with yours and I see it as mutually beneficial for us to enter such an arrangement. I therefore concure."

Because that....would be weirdly boring.

There has to be passion in it. Firey passion at that (for me at least). But one managed by reason, as opposed to passion overriding reason. That's my taste at least.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 juillet 2011 - 05:04 .