There are several threads on the book, but none that seem to have stayed on topic. Likely this one won't either. That's Hatrack for ya!
I loved it. Like Grand, I read all the "Rainbow" books of fairy tales -- and every other fairy tale and mythology book I could get my hands on. And I always enjoy a new take on the old stories.
I believed in these characters, and enjoyed them. I wasn't sure I liked the ending at first, but having thought it over . . . it works. It does.
And unlike Tom, I think a marriage built on shared goals is more likely to succeed than one built on love. Not that they need be mutually exclusive, of course.
And I will never again be able to zip down Olympic, under that bridge and past that Ralphs, without a big grin! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"And unlike Tom, I think a marriage built on shared goals is more likely to succeed than one built on love."
Yes. Because the line "love, honor and cherish" actually means "sleep together to get intelligence on a mutual enemy."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*laugh* And if I cared about the specific words in your (general you: i.e., not mine) marriage ceremonies, that argument might carry some weight with me.
I think being in love is an absolutely lousy reason to get married. Of the various things that I think make very good reasons to get married, having a shared vision of the future, with shared goals, is very high up on the list. Maybe number one. If you're also in love, great! If not, working together toward that common goal will help bring you together. As it did in Magic Street . . .
Wasn't there someone who defined love not as looking into each others' eyes, but looking together toward the future?
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Depends on what you mean by "in love." If we're talking about the hormone-driven, chase-centered fascination with another person as a possible mate for breeding purposes (i.e., evolution in action), then on the male side, at least, evolution is then likely to make his eye rove to the next potential mate - which is the OPPOSITE of a good reason to marry.
But if by "in love" you mean determined to build something together - a family, a life, a single building block of a larger community, a mission ... whatever you call it - because this is the person that you TRUST and whose company you ENJOY and whose contributions to the world you ADMIRE, then that kind of "in love" is a sound basis for a marriage, provided you remain committed to the project through the times of inevitable boredom, frustration, disappointment, etc., that come to every relationship.
In other words, if you don't plan to stick with it despite inconvenience, lack of entertainment value, struggle, sacrifice, and even some serious unpleasantness from time to time, then what's the point of marriage? As with any contract, the reason you make the marriage is precisely because feelings change, but you are intending to keep this going through all the changes and make the thing work - together.
Which is why "we fell out of love" or "we grew apart" as reasons for divorce always sound to me like they're really saying "my word means nothing" or "it was just a whim after all."
As for the overpass over Olympic - I'm always irritated to find it unmarked. I want to see those words up there so badly! <grin>
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
I enjoyed the book tremendously! I now understand why I find the strangest things in the oddest places around my house.
What an amazing imagination you have Mr. Card!
Posted by Roseauthor (Member # 148) on :
rivka, and Tammy, I'm glad there are more people who think that's funny and applied it to their real life divine comedy like I did. Apparently, my husband did not think this scenerio was funny.. in fact, he was shocked that I still laugh over it!!!!
I know why the toothpaste is never where I put it. How my favorite dessert gets eaten-where that missing sock went, and especially this explains why I have tuperware with NO LIDS and lids that do not match my tuperware.
note to self: *write apologies to each of my children*
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Isn't how somebody looks part (though by no means all) of what makes you "enjoy" their company?
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
We are at least partly creatures that exist only to promote the replication of DNA. But I've discovered over the years that people's looks change with time. Nobody is married for very long to somebody who looks like they did at the start of the marriage. So there'd better be a commitment that transcends physical attraction and physical desire; one that lets people live together and work together no matter what hard times come and no matter how many children happen to be living in the house, etc.
Meanwhile, I dread going back to Baldwin Hills to see what they've done to what once was a meadow with a tall drainpipe in the middle. Has anyone gone there yet to look at it?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I haven't had a chance. Maybe the kids and I will take a little jaunt on Sunday. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
To here, neh?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think being in love is an absolutely lousy reason to get married.
I think I fell in love with my wife the moment that she told me that she believed this. Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I think what makes this book great, along with books like Enchantment and the Alvin series, is the perfect mix of familiar and weird. I'm now getting more and more convinced that this is what makes people love certain approaches to literature.
People who are familiar with SoCal love the fact that this takes place in a real location they're familiar with. People who know black culture love the fact that it's about them. I'm a sucker for it too - I adore Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance because it takes place at my Alma Mater.
But it's just weird enough to make you set down the book and giggle. "Heh. Dude. That helicopter is really a giant slug dragon." It's like magical realism - real life gone wacky.
And that touches our deepest humor bones, I think. We laugh at jokes because they put a twist on an expected response and shock us. We love these books because they're so dang convincing that we almost think it's the real world and then they twist on us and we end up somewhere weird. Straightforward traditional SciFi, which relies solely on the unknown environment, can never achieve this. Straightforward traditional fiction, which never takes us out of our comfortable, familiar universe, will never attract the dreamers and the crazy nutcases among us in the way that fantasy does.
So now, all I have to do is figure out how this, the real-but-magic genre, can be historically significant. You must admit that Magic Street will lose a lot of its effect when we forget about 21st century California and when American culture becomes obsolete. How do we create a literature that's as endearing as this, and yet make it relevant across cultural and social categories?
When you figure it out, let me know. Meanwhile, I'm busy re-writing Pride and Prejudice again.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I had a smile today as I drove down Avenue of the Stars . . . I needed that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But if by "in love" you mean determined to build something together - a family, a life, a single building block of a larger community, a mission ... whatever you call it - because this is the person that you TRUST and whose company you ENJOY and whose contributions to the world you ADMIRE, then that kind of "in love" is a sound basis for a marriage, provided you remain committed to the project through the times of inevitable boredom, frustration, disappointment, etc., that come to every relationship.
And yet this is profoundly NOT the relationship that Mack had with Yo-Yo; we've established by this point that Mack does not particularly admire or trust her, and definitely doesn't love her. He finds her familiar and compelling, but his attraction to her -- in this incarnation -- basically stops there. And she even points that out and mocks his insistence on marriage precisely because they don't have that sort of relationship.
So in your book we have someone marrying someone he doesn't love and doesn't want to spend his life with just to get a temporary advantage over an enemy that could just as easily be gained by engaging in a few minutes of sex. (And let's not even point out that to obtain their sham marriage, they wind up going to the one pseudo-preacher in the world who's possessed by the enemy, thus theoretically blowing any possibility of strategic surprise.)
I submit that this is exactly the wrong sort of message to send about the importance of marriage, as it implies that marriage -- the sacred bond to which you've just devoted a gushing paragraph -- is actually considerably less important than sex.
Posted by Roseauthor (Member # 148) on :
Tom, did you consider that Yoyo remained loyal to her relationship with Oberon, to the extent of trying to save him from himself. Mack didn't know what and who he was.
Sometimes, we forget who we are in a relationship, we forget our loyality, honor, or integrity. If we're lucky, we marry a person who will keep knowing, believing and fighting at all cost to restore you to your proper realm.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, did you consider that Yoyo remained loyal to her relationship with Oberon, to the extent of trying to save him from himself.
Sure did. I'm sure Yo-Yo loved him dearly; her end of it makes perfect sense.
Mack's behavior in that scene, though, is incomprehensible and alien. He's a teenage boy from SoCal who insists on marrying a woman he doesn't particularly like all that much so that he can sleep with her once, thus helping to kill her actual husband. And he's so aware that this is a meaningless exercise that he seeks out an unlicensed minister to do the ceremony, because he doesn't want a real marriage. Does that really seem perfectly normal to the rest of you?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yeah, the behavior seemed unlikely and out of character. Alien is a good word. Though Mack never really did seem *human* to me either.
Posted by Roseauthor (Member # 148) on :
That's the point! He wasn't really human.
Unless you define human as the physical body rather than the soul/energy/spirit/mind (whichever word one chooses to use)
I agree, that it's a bit illogical to some degree. It's like a split of two worlds or two seperate minds.. humm.. maybe that's what it was.. hey.. I'm still justifying that scene, work with me!!! Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
But I am someone who believes that true commitment in marriage can make up for a lot that might be lacking elsewhere. It is one of the reasons I married Porter. His will to commit to love me was far more powerful than any "in love" feelings we had towards each other. I was deeply moved by that.
I figured that Mack, in all his alien non-humanness, was the sort of person who would commit whole heartedly to this so-called "sham marriage" even if it was only being done for the purpose of having sex. (Which, BTW, I think is a lame construct in story telling--the whole "we *have* to have sex, even if we don't like each other", thing. Even in Magic Street, it seemed awfully contrived to me. It seems so... Pierce Anthony.) I mean, really. Mack was the *embodiment* of altruism.
So while I hated the "we have to have sex" construct, the "sham marriage" didn't bother me near so much.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Mack was the *embodiment* of altruism.
Which is kind of my point. There's nothing altruistic about marrying someone so you can sleep with them; it's supremely egotistical, and completely out of character (given my understanding of the character).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:There's nothing altruistic about marrying someone so you can sleep with them; it's supremely egotistical
This is not true if he doesn't want to sleep with her and is only doing it in order to help others.
Which was precisely the contrived case.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: This is not true if he doesn't want to sleep with her and is only doing it in order to help others.
Except: A) He clearly DOES want to sleep with her; he's clearly sexually attracted, despite the absence of love. He doesn't want to sleep with someone to whom he's not married, however.
B) The issue of altruism is not whether he should sleep with her to help others, but whether a marriage to her is necessary in order to help others. Clearly, it is not -- and implying that it is cheapens marriage a great deal.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Being sexually attracted != wanting to have sex with them
IIRC, Mack says something to the effect of "Yes, I want to, but I don't want to."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Being sexually attracted != wanting to have sex with them
Bah. He said it himself -- he wanted to, but valued something else more. In the same way, I usually want to eat chocolate, and yet manage to occasionally refrain.
In this case, Mack apparently felt that being trapped in a loveless marriage was less horrible than having sex without marriage.
Which is ridiculous.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Not to all of us.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, just to be clear on this: you would rather marry a random stranger than have sex with them without marriage, assuming those were the only two options?
Man. That really devalues marriage, don't you think?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Not marrying for love != being trapped in a loveless marriage != marrying a random stranger
I can't say in general terms that one is better than the other, and I didn't.
What I said was that the idea that an undesirable marriage might be better than extramarital sex is not a rediculous one to everybody.
And no, I don't think that devalues marriage.
[ July 26, 2005, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You don't think it devalues marriage? You mean you're comfortable thinking of marriage as no more important than a single episode of sex?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Tom, more than once in this thread you have twisted or extrapolated what I said into something I would have never said, and then pretended that I claimed to believe that. I don't see what good that does anybody unless you are debating for points.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay, perhaps I'm confused. If you do not think that marrying someone you do not care for in order to have sex with that person so that they can more effectively kill their actual husband devalues marriage, could you explain why?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think it's easier to point out that I never said that I think that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I think being in love is an absolutely lousy reason to get married.
I think I fell in love with my wife the moment that she told me that she believed this.
quote:Originally posted by beverly:
But I am someone who believes that true commitment in marriage can make up for a lot that might be lacking elsewhere. It is one of the reasons I married Porter. His will to commit to love me was far more powerful than any "in love" feelings we had towards each other. I was deeply moved by that.
Have I mentioned lately how great I think you guys are? Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Rivka, the feeling is mutual.
Tom, my point in saying that Mack is the embodiment of altruism is that even in a marriage that is only happening to allow his sex with YoYo to be married sex, he would take that marriage seriously and be the perfect husband. I think there is a beauty of integrity to that.
Think back to Randland (I know I ask the unpleasant of you in this) when he "accidentally" (smirk) slept with Aviendha. His immediate reaction was to pledge marriage to her. He didn't love her, he didn't even like her. But he'd slept with her. And in his mind, that meant marriage, commitment, giving all that a husband could give. You *make* it work, even when the love isn't there.
That sort of thing is so rare to be found in our culture these days. Makes me sad. Love has to be something that "happens" to you. Like people are victims of it or something. And when it releases you and the magic is gone, people feel cheated. I believe the best kind of love is the kind you make.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
See, though, that's the problem I have: the assumption that sex is so vitally important that it requires that marriage be attempted, rather than the other way around. It implies that sex is in fact more important than a good marriage. What I can't understand -- and clearly this distinction matters to Porter -- is how marrying someone literally just to sleep with them does not imply that sex is somehow considerably more "sacred" than marriage.
Posted by Uncle Rico (Member # 8406) on :
Tom -- yet again, that was inferred by you, not implied by me.
I'm not saying that I agree with it in all extremes, I do think that there is a nobility to the idea that the commitment/conviction to never have extramarital sex is more import than the (often selfish) desire to have a marriage based on romance (which, IMO, is a marriage destined to fail unless it metamorphosizes into something more).
MPH
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I do think that there is a nobility to the idea that the commitment/conviction to never have extramarital sex is more import than the (often selfish) desire to have a marriage based on romance
Ah. But do you agree that, in this specific case, the marriage we see depicted in the book cheapens marriage? Because that's actually what I'm discussing, not any other hypothetical.
Posted by Uncle Rico (Member # 8406) on :
quote:Ah. But do you agree that, in this specific case, the marriage we see depicted in the book cheapens marriage?
I'm not sure I agree, but I don't disagree either. I can really see your point, but the fact that Mack was already married to Yolanda in some mysitical fashion makes the thing too alien for me to really connect to reality and make a judgment.
quote:Because that's actually what I'm discussing, not any other hypothetical.
For much of this conversation, I have not been discussing any specific hypothetical. I have been discussing general ideas like "[somebody] felt that being trapped in a loveless marriage was less horrible than having sex without marriage. Which is ridiculous."
This is probably why we have been talking past each other so much.
MPH
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Except that I still stand by that statement: being trapped in a loveless marriage is considerably worse than having sex with someone once, and arguing otherwise is ridiculous. Now, you can argue about whether or not a given marriage is "loveless," or whether or not someone is "trapped," but I don't see how you can sensibly make any other argument without simultaneously arguing that sex is more important -- and more important to take seriously -- than marriage.
Posted by Uncle Rico (Member # 8406) on :
That problem is that we disagree on how important it is to not have a "loveless marriage".
Since I don't believe that love is the foundation of marriage, a marriage that it not infused with that at the moment is seen by me as unfortunate, not a tragedy.
In my experience, most usages of the word "loveless marriage" seem to mean "a marriage not full of romance", so we might be talking past each other when it comes to definitions as well.
MPH
Posted by Uncle Rico (Member # 8406) on :
Also, you are talking about having sex with somebody once as a small thing, while I view the commitment/conviction to never have extramarital sex as a very big and important thing.
In the absence of such a commitment/conviction, having sex once with somebody might not be that big a deal. But in the presence of it, it is.
MPH
[ July 27, 2005, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Uncle Rico ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
See, I think not loving the person to whom you're married is considerably "bigger" of a thing than sleeping with somebody once. But that's because I think there's an implied "don't marry anyone you don't love" which is considerably more important than any "don't sleep with anyone to whom you aren't married." Maybe my standards for marriage are higher.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Or your standards for having sex are lower.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
You know, there are plenty of cultures that get along just fine without marrying for love. I don't think marrying for love is a higher standard, just a different standard.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
You see, I don't view a marriage where both people are committed to making it work a "loveless" marriage. I think that love is something you do as well as something you feel. Even if the two people aren't "in love" at the moment, if they are committed to loving each other, the "in love" will come.
This is all about making marriage to be more important than sex. It's one thing to commit to someone when you are deeply infatuated with them as well as loving them. It is another thing to be willing to love someone you aren't "in love" with, trusting that the "in love" will come with time. I think the latter has nobility and beauty to it that the first doesn't.
It's like how Christ taught that the commandment to love your enemy is greater than loving your friends. He said that loving your friends is easy. But loving your enemy takes something special, noble, and higher than "natural" humanity.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think the latter has nobility and beauty to it that the first doesn't.
Ah. That may be the problem. I don't think it's noble or beautiful at all; I find it repulsive, wrong-headed, and absolutely disgusting, and it's almost incomprehensible to me that anyone would attempt to build a life with someone else on those terms and call it "marriage."
I have to get along with my family and coworkers. I have to learn to love my enemies. But I don't marry someone unless I love 'em first. Applying any other standard makes marriage -- from my perspective, at least -- no more meaningful than consultant work.
There's no virtue in learning to love your wife; I see no value in marrying your enemies in order to learn to appreciate them. There is, however, great virtue in not marrying someone you don't love.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:There's no virtue in learning to love your wife.
When you first married your wife, did you love her as much as you ever would? Or has your love for her increased since then?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would submit that there should be a minimum standard. If that weren't the case, surely we'd all be better off marrying random people we found vaguely interesting; anyone single at 30 should be forced to marry some other random single person, and told "hey, learn to love him."
I'm genuinely curious as to why the LDS are chiming in so much with the "you don't have to love your spouse" bit. Is there something in the religion that teaches you to just marry the first semi-attractive person who comes along, and then hope that commitment to each other will fill in for love? What about people -- as in Mack's case -- that you actively distrust? Is there even more virtue in going the extra mile and committing for life to someone you actually dislike?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Who said anything about forcing? I think that a powerful motivator in making this kind of marriage work is not being forced into it, the will coming from within you. I also did not intend to imply that marrying your enemy is a good idea. Only that putting forth the effort to love is more noble than love that comes easy to you.
Nor do I think that everyone should purposely marry someone they aren't infatuated with. Most people need that, or feel they need that (the effect being very similar.) Most people would not do well in this situation, especially since so many people (apparently) give up on their marriages when they "fall out of love" or "fall in love" with someone else.
There should be something that draws you together. While infatuation is not necessary for marriage to work (though it is pleasant) having common goals and values and compatability are far more important.
Remember the courtship of Ender's parents? I love that story. In fact, it is one of my favorite "romances" of all time. It is a perfect example of what I am talking about here. They were talking marriage before they knew each other well enough to love. But there was chemistry, not just attraction, but chemistry in their personalities.
I think that Mack already had that with YoYo. He was *not* marrying his enemy. In fact, in this case he was marrying the wife he didn't remember being married to.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I'm genuinely curious as to why the LDS are chiming in so much with the "you don't have to love your spouse" bit.
Actually, I think far too many LDS *don't* believe this in the least. It seems to me that so many come to the following conclusion: If I am going to have to be abstinant and then pledge everything to someone FOR EVER, they better well be my perfect dream-boat! I see young LDS passing over wonderful individuals time after time because it just isn't magical enough for them.
I think the way Porter and I view this is far in the minority.
Posted by Uncle Rico (Member # 8406) on :
Yet again, Tom, you are taking what people are actually saying, distorting it, and then smugly disagreeing with it.
MPH
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm afraid I still don't quite get it, Bev. What kind of bizarre human being marries someone they're unsure about, resolving to love them later? Common goals are all very well, but I think we're better off having moved away from arranged marriages, political marriages, and marriages of economic convenience; by the same token, I don't think it's remotely logical to marry someone because you would both like to save the environment.
I think you're perhaps using a definition of "love" that's closer to my definition of "infatuation;" certainly, the way I'm using the word "love" doesn't seem to match up with the way you're using it.
Posted by Uncle Rico (Member # 8406) on :
The word "love" has so many different meanings that it is essentially meaningless.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That may be the root of this misunderstanding. Although I still can't think -- no matter my definition of "love" -- of Mack's decision as anything but boneheaded and disgraceful.
Posted by Uncle Rico (Member # 8406) on :
quote:I think we're better off having moved away from arranged marriages
I think we would be better off with arranged marriages where both sides are committed to learning to love and serve each other than with marriages "for love" where they stay with each until they decide they don't want to anymore*.
*I do not think that this describes all modern "for love" marriages. But it sadly describes a lot of modern marriages.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Is that what is known as a straw-man? I can never remember.
Edit: This is a response to Porter's last post on the previous page.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think we would be better off with arranged marriages where both sides are committed to learning to love and search each other than marriages "for love" where they stay with each until they decide they don't want to anymore.
Ah. See, our definitions of "love" are different, then.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Although I still can't think -- no matter my definition of "love" -- of Mack's decision as anything but boneheaded and disgraceful.
I can't speak for the author's intent, but we've seen other instances in the story of Oberon's instinct coming through (like his reaction to sex with her, very atypical for a "normal" mortal, I would think.) Perhaps the desire to marry has something to do with that?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Personally, I'm not a fan of the arranged marriage idea. I'd prefer to choose my spouse. But I think marrying solely for love is just as boneheaded and disgraceful—if not more so—than marrying for any other reason.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:What kind of bizarre human being marries someone they're unsure about, resolving to love them later?
Unsure in what sense? Does loving someone make you sure of them?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yeah, Jon Boy, that's pretty much how I feel.
I remember how my dad would "pick out" guys for me. Not that he wanted to arrange a marriage for me, it was all in fun. But if he had, I would have no guarantee that that guy would be committed to love me. With Porter, I knew that he chose me, that he was committed to me. I knew the nature of that committment was self-sacrificing rather than self serving. Even though I wasn't sure about him, the strength of his committment to me was a major part of my decision.
I have been far more deeply "infatuated" with individuals than I've ever been with Porter. But considering our 7 years of marriage, I've never had the depth of relationship with anyone that I have with him. And I think the latter is worth far, far more.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What kind of bizarre human being marries someone they're unsure about, resolving to love them later?
Millions of people that have lived in cultures where arranged marriages were the norm.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Millions of people that have lived in cultures where arranged marriages were the norm.
I submit that arranged marriage is to modern marriage what slavery is to contract work. In other words, there are superficial similarities, but the contract is actually completely different.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Millions of people still live in cultures where arranged marriages are the norm. Many in this country.
I know quite a few such people. And I disagree with your assessment of their marriages.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: And I disagree with your assessment of their marriages.
You are of course free to do that. My position, on the other hand, is that arranged marriage cheapens marriage far, far more than same-sex marriage ever could.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Well, then it's a good thing that nobody mentioned same-sex marriage.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I mention it because some of the people on this thread who said they see no problem with arranged marriage have in fact argued against same-sex marriage, a position that strongly suggests that we hold very different opinions of the value of marriage.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Sorry, I was feeling a bit snarky.
I see where you're coming from, and I agree with you on that point: we disagree because we have different notions about what makes marriage valuable. It seems that your most important criterion is the quality of the love involved, whereas for me, that's just one factor and not the most important one. To me it's about growing and building something together, and love is merely a part of that that makes it work.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I don't know many people who have had arranged marraiges. I'm going to trust Rivka's assesment of the situation a little more than my own.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: To me it's about growing and building something together, and love is merely a part of that that makes it work.
*nod* Whereas I believe I can grow and build things with anyone, but only marry a single person.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Whereas I don't believe you can grow and build the same kinds of things with anyone.
Posted by R. Ann Dryden (Member # 8186) on :
I am a living breathing product of a marriage arranged by God. I know several other couples who had similar things happen. I was not sexually attracted to my husband at all, though I felt compatible to him in many other areas. So I prayed and felt that God wanted me to marry him. I said, okay, but you have to make him physically attractive to me or I can't do it. And if this isn't You telling me to marry him, then change his heart so he no longer is attracted to me. The next time I saw my future husband he looked kinda cute, and kept getting more and more attractive to me each time I saw him. I took this as confirmation, and married him.
A couple of people I know were complete strangers, and both felt God tell them to marry the other person. They did and have been happy for twenty-five years.
I also believe that any man and woman can be happy in marriage, no matter what clashes or differences they have, if each one makes a commitment each day to honor and love the other one (something that is much easier to do if you have an active relationship with God). Love is an action, not an emotion. It is a choice that you make. I know that my husband and I will remain married to each other until one of us dies, because both of us choose daily to commit to each other. Divorce is not an option.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:*nod* Whereas I believe I can grow and build things with anyone, but only marry a single person.
The difference in feelings on this may not be unrelated to different feelings about sex. If you are someone who believes sex is only to be shared between those married, then marriage will *always* be extremely unique in that aspect. Because of sex, I share an intimacy with my husband that sets our relationship apart from any other.
Out of curiosity, what else would set it apart? I can have friends and family that I love a great deal. But no matter how much I love them, I will never have sex with them. The sexual relationship of any two married people, even in an arranged marriage, makes that relationship unique from all others those people have.
While I am not a raving fan of arranged marriage, (I greatly prefer to select my own spouse, thank you very much) I think that it is as good as the intentions that go into it. For instance, who is doing the arranging? What are their motivations? Let's say it is a parent. Are they doing it for economic gain, either for them or for their child? That may not make for the happiest relationship for the husband and wife.
Are they motivated out of a desire to see their child and betrothed be happy? That is a lot more likely to succeed. Also, what are the intentions of the two being arranged? Are they determined to do their best and truly commit to each other? Or are the resentful of the arrangement and secretly withholding their hearts, reserving a hope to connect to someone else sometime in the future?
I figure people who are raised in a culture where arranged marriages are commonplace, the two to be married are far more likely to embrace it, even be joyful about it. With that attitude, they are far more likely to have a wonderful marriage.
I do find the idea of someone being forced to marry unwillingly repugnant. I'm sure that sort of thing has happened far too often in our history. I have nothing good to say about those situations.
On a side note: I reject the idea of "Shakespearian Love". The "love" portrayed in Shakespear plays may be a lot of things, but love ain't one of them. The people in the plays act as though they have no control over the feeling, that they are at the mercy of Cupid's arrow. I find this behavior repulsive and degrading. It is very animalistic, and in my opinion, ought to be considered sub-human.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ann D, I have a lot of respect for the relationship you and your husband share. It is based on the commitment you made rather than a passion that drove you to that commitment. The beauty of such a relationship is that you are more likely to fall deeper and deeper in love as time goes on rather than looking back longingly on how "perfect" your relationship was when you were courting, and you can't seem to recapture the magic.
When a relationship is driven by commitment rather than a feeling, the foundation is more sure. Feelings come and go, but commitment remains. True commitment is not a grudging thing, it is given wilingly. It's not that feelings are bad, only that commitment is far more imporant. It is all about which of the two is in control.
I too feel sometimes that Porter and I had a relationship "arranged by God" rather than either of us, though we were completely willing participants. Being willing participants makes all the difference, IMO.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I am a living breathing product of a marriage arranged by God.
Please forgive me when I say that I am skeptical of this, not least because I lack your faith in God. I mention this only because I otherwise do agree with you. I believe the human mind is a powerful thing, and that love is at around 50% commitment and 40% frame of mind -- and, consequently, believe as you do that it's possible for anyone to eventually train themselves to feel warmly towards anyone else, provided they're willing to put in the time.
Posted by DF2506 (Member # 6847) on :
Recently finished reading Magic Street and while I liked it, it wasn't one of my favorites. In places, the darkness and the crude humor were just not to my tastes.
I did love the ending though. That might be one of my favorite endings. It was happy (for the most part) and well excuted. Very memorable.
Overall, a good novel. The Shakespeare fantasy stuff was a great twist. Fairyland was excellent too.
May have to read this again someday.
DF2506 " Next up as far as OSC, Enchantment."
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I loved the book. Just finished it.
Then I made the mistake of reading some of this thread, where Tom basically destroys the pleasure I had in reading this book.
He just can't help but try to be logical all the time, even when the story is dealing with fantasy and with emotions, desires, drives and wants deeper than anyone in reality ever feels. So don't go screwing it all up by trying to make it logical or real.
FG
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
All my emotions are logical, thank you very much. And the thing about fantasy -- at least good fantasy -- is this: it's not about unrealistic emotions. It's about unrealistic things. If it's an emotion that no one in reality would ever feel, you shouldn't be having a teenager feel it in your book.
Posted by Celebrindal (Member # 8466) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: All my emotions are logical, thank you very much.
Then they aren't emotions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sure they are. Why would you assume emotion and logic aren't compatible?
Posted by aiua (Member # 7825) on :
They are, they just aren't the same thing. Emotion first, then logic to try and explain why what happened did.
Posted by CRash (Member # 7754) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: All my emotions are logical, thank you very much.
For some reason I've begun thinking Tom is related to Bean of the Ender books. A logical reasoning for everything that happens.
Not that that's a bad thing. I think it's rather interesting. I enjoy your debates, Tom.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
I don't think Tom means that he sits around after something happens to him and thinks of a reasonable emotional response to produce (though of course I could be wrong *grin*). I think it's more along the lines of "there is a reasonable chain of causation leading from an event to my emotional response to it".
If he believes a particular action is a Bad Thing To Do, he'll logically have an emotional response of aversion or disdain. I don't see how logic or emotion are incompatible; they seem like two sides of the same coin to me. The logic provides the reason for the emotional response.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
I disagree with you, Tom, that insisting on marrying someone you don't love just so you can have sex makes sex more important than marriage. I think in analogies a lot of the time, so I'm going to try to use one here to explain why.
Let's imagine Nancy decides that nutrition is important to her, even though she really has a sweet tooth. She decides that to maintain her nutrition, she will only eat sweet things (desserts) after dinner. That way, she will always be at least mostly full of nutritious food before she eats sweets, preventing her from filling up on chocolate and ice cream and never getting any "real" food. (Go with me here; I know you don't see it this way, but go with me here.)
This isn't to say Nancy doesn't like dinner. She absolutely loves Mexican food, for one, and she has a soft spot for Curry too. But sometimes she has to have spaghetti-o's or fish sticks (which she detests) because that's all that's in her kitchen to fix for dinner. But she sticks with her commitment because she believes that what she has chosen to do is right.
Let's imagine for a minute that one day she finds a magical candy bar that has a note on it. She knows that if she eats this candy bar, all the suffering in the world will end. It is immensely important that she eat this candy bar. But because Nancy has committed to always eat dinner first, she puts some quick fish sticks in the oven and eats them before unwrapping the candy bar.
Now, this situation is very silly, and I admit that. But there are three ways it can be interpreted:
1. Nancy values eating dinner before eating dessert so much that she will always do so, even if dinner is unpleasant. To her, dinner is more important than any dessert could ever be.
2. Eating dessert is so important to Nancy that she will do even unpleasant things to get to that part of the meal. Therefore, dessert is more important to her than dinner.
3. Nancy puts immense importance on both dinner and dessert, but before either, she values her committment to her health.
I think you are saying that anyone who insists on eating dinner before dessert comes from conclusion 2, when I think most of us are at 1 or 3. Your problem in understanding that is that you don't understand why we would always insist on something so silly as always eating dinner first when sometimes (as you see it) there are obvious reasons to abandon that rule.
In the case of Mack Street, his insistence on marriage didn't work for me. As a Mormon, I have a very strong reason to stay committed to no extramarital sex. He didn't. It was just his opinion that sex should be saved for marriage. He didn't have a why. Thus, when a situation came up that seemed like a good reason to bend the rules a little, he maybe should have. I don't know.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:In the case of Mack Street, his insistence on marriage didn't work for me. As a Mormon, I have a very strong reason to stay committed to no extramarital sex. He didn't. It was just his opinion that sex should be saved for marriage. He didn't have a why. Thus, when a situation came up that seemed like a good reason to bend the rules a little, he maybe should have. I don't know.
This is exactly how I felt about it! *I* would probably insist on being married, but that's because I have very strong beliefs on the subject. Of course, I can't see this situation or anything remotely like it coming up in real life.
What if Mack was married to another woman already? What then? I really do hate books/movies/storytelling where sex *has* to happen for some desperate reason.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Here's the problem I have with your analogy, Brinestone: marriage is not just "dinner." It's something that, to most religious people, happens once. To Mormons in particular, it is often considered literally the whole point of mortal existence.
If Nancy has fish sticks today so she can eat this world-saving candy bar later, that's one thing; she can always eat her favorite food at the next meal.
But in this scenario, Mack is metaphorically resigning himself to eat fish sticks for the rest of his life, at every meal because eating dessert first would violate a principle he made to protect his own health. And this analogy is perfect for this example, because fish sticks at every meal, especially without any kind of vegetable side dish, would in fact be remarkably unhealthy. In other words, Mack has sentenced himself for life to an unhappy, unhealthy marriage because he doesn't want to have sex first, something which in the long run is likely to be far less healthy than just getting the sex over with and, metaphorically, taking the time to make a decent dinner a bit later in the evening.
Except of course that he really hasn't. OSC makes clear that while Mack takes this whole marriage thing "seriously," he isn't taking it seriously enough to have family or friends over, involve the state in anything formal, or even use an ordained minister. Mack is, in other words, paying lip service to the idea that you should marry before having sex by engaging in a half-assed, unrecognized ceremony that only loosely "binds" him to a wife he does not love -- and who spends the "ceremony" making fun of him for even bothering.
The impression I get from this is that it's okay to make a mockery of marriage as long as one does not make a mockery of sex. The sex is treated in this instance as something far more sacramental.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
But you're ignoring that fact that he(Mack) knows, as much as he doesn't want to admit it, that he IS her husband already, in that Oberon lives kinda through him.
That is how I reconciled it -- he really is already married to her -- it is like he is fighting with himself. That part of him which is controlled by Oberon knows her already and claims her and is stronger than the "Mack" part at this point.
FG
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yeah, got to take the "already married" part into account. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
But then you don't get to argue that Mormons aren't taking marriage seriously enough.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Oh, I agree with you about Mack Street, Tom. His insistence was silly and juvenile, I think.
But like a lot of people have said, just because you're not enjoying the marriage now doesn't mean it can't be better later. I think it's pretty common for there to be extreme highs and lows in every marriage.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I didn't read the book yet, but I had to comment: Tom Wrote
quote: sex is somehow considerably more "sacred" than marriage
What is wrong with this idea?
Sex and marriage are different but equally important just as men and women are different but equally important.
P.S. Tom, you live in a different reality from what most of the people you argue with live in . In your reality, you should love your spouse more than anything else. In our reality, we should love God more than anything. So we are going to espouse ideas that seem pagan and barbaric to one another.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)