posted
My point is that if it is still about forbidden love and hits the same plot points (meeting, yearning, obstacles, meeting despire obstacles, tragedy), then it is still the same archetypal story. It's been changed, but not "completely" changed. It has not suddenly become Hero's Quest or Coming of Age or Othello.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I wasn't here for page 2, but I think that being so rude and dismissive of kat was a bit uncalled for, kayla.
You should go back and read page 2 then. kat is being incredibly dismissive of Karl. And now she seems to be insisting that some people aren't allowed to comment on her posts. Talk about dismissive and uncalled for.
quote: I think all of us here have probably done some study of mythic archetype, and there are universal story themes that resonate, that's why they get repeated so often.
Absolutely. And I wouldn't have any problem with agreeing with the fact that, if painted with a broad brush, this was a forbidden love story, if I were discussing it with you.
Which is exactly where the problem is. While some people can say, "sure, I'll grant that in broad terms, this is a forbidden love story, if you'll grant that there is huge difference between the societal taboo on homosexuality and that is the very difference makes it unlike any other 'forbidden love story' ever made."
kat refuses to acknowledge that there is a lot more to this movie than broad strokes. It's nothing new for her, but that is the problem.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla, bored again? You and Squicky, I swear.
Okay, this:
quote:I'll grant that in broad terms, this is a forbidden love story, if you'll grant that there is huge difference between the societal taboo on homosexuality and that is the very difference makes it unlike any other 'forbidden love story' ever made."
This is the opinion I do NOT hold. I think it is different, but not VERY different.
That, apparently, is the opinion that I am not allowed to have if I am to remain either intelligent or honest. Too bad - I'm both and I still don't agree with it. I don't think that this kind of forbidden love is so completely different than its intensity or tragedy cannot be matched by any other.
If that is a misrepresentation of your view, then what is your view? Everything I have read from you seems to support that, and I don't agree with you.Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if I understand what's being debated her. That forbidden love is forbidden love or that the story would change if the characters were not two men.
Is it, at its heart, the same story as a white person loving a black slave? Or a Christian loving a Jew a way back when? In a sense, yes. There were times when such a union would go completely against the social fabric and just having such feelings would be considered wrong, as homosexuality does to many today.
But, that being the case, no this story would not be the same if you changed the gender of one of the characters. For the very simple reason that the audience is as important as the author when telling a story. I don't think one can discount the times in which it was written and for who it was written so easily.
Edit: Man, I left this reply open back a page or two when we were more concerned with the story than who may or may not be a bad person. Yeesh.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, we stalk you. We can't help it. If you ever left Hatrack, what would we talk about?
I'm thinking we should start calling you the Artful Dodger, though. I've never seen anyone dodge an argument like you do. That was a brilliant change of topic.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but what you've been saying is roughly the equivilent of "You could tell Ender's Game without it it being in space and it would be the same story." or "Ender's Game and The Illiad are the same story."
Broadly true, but false for almost any level of specifics.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You'd cry for days, and you know it. It's so hard to be fascinating. I guess I don't mind your stalking so much - it's flattering in a sick and twisted way.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, it isn't false. I'm not misrepresenting squat. I'm just apparently looking at it from one step farther out, and I pick out different things to be the story's sine qua non.
Neither of things are disrespectful or dishonest. They are my opinions about how literature can be read.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, No one is saying what you said is false or inherently disrespectful.
The whole point of contention here is that you were not at all accurately responding to what Karl was saying and you were doing so in a disrespectufl and somewhat nasty manner. The disrespectful part was not you saying "They are the same archetype.", but you saying "You are wrong Karl. They are the same archetype." when that had nothing to do with what Karl was saying.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, while I can't really disagree with what you're saying, I have to ask (with fear of dog piling. But what's one more? Especially when you're as pretty as I am.) do you read stories that broadly? I mean, why read at all if all you're looking for are themes?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shall we list the percieved sins on either side? I was doing nothing of the sort deliberately, if it happened then it was misscommunication, and I'm sad that you think I was. With all your study of me, I wonder how you got me so wrong.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:do you read stories that broadly? I mean, why read at all if all you're looking for are themes?
Generally, yeah. I still read them because I love it - I like reading them for themes. I like figuring out why a story resonates. I like discovering the same story told a thousand different ways. I like categorizing my books not by author or time period or cover color by by the deeper story that I think they are telling. I read most books and watch most movies that way, and I like it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:if it happened then it was misscommunication,
It happened over and over. Karl told you over and over. As did others. You ignore them all. At what point and time does it become disrespectful if not downright dishonest?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That, apparently, is the opinion that I am not allowed to have if I am to remain either intelligent or honest. Too bad - I'm both and I still don't agree with it. I don't think that this kind of forbidden love is so completely different than its intensity or tragedy cannot be matched by any other.
The first sentence tells me you haven't cared to understand anything I've written even as I've tried to express to you why you frustrate me. The last sentence is again a misrepresentation of my view. I have taken pains to tell you that I don't think it is more anything than any other story, just that it is different in such a way that changing the genders changes the story. It changes who the people are, why they have the conflict they do, why they make the tragic choices they do, and why it ends the way it does. That is all that I am asserting. The rest of the thread is me correcting all your mis-representation and trying to explain to you why it is silly to be offended for non-existent reasons (like me not letting you have a legitimate disagreement with me) and why you frustrate me. This probably should have been in private email and probably should have been done a long time ago since this style of yours crops up frequently. But the examples are here and it seems appropriate that my reasoning be here along with them. You can learn from it or not. I will probably get along with you here on Hatrack because of or in spite of the way you handle this thread, so I guess it's irrelevant really. What I'm learning, though, is one key to that might very well be ignoring you when you get this way. It has worked in the past. I'm sure it will work in the future.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Karl, I've explained many times why I have the opinion I do, and I refuse to dismiss you for yours the way you have dismissed me for mine. This is your problem.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm...maybe the problem is that we both wished to define the discussion? I wanted to discuss archetypes, and Karl wanted to discuss specifics. I don't think the specifics matter in discussing the essential characteristics of the story, and I think that's where it all blew up.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem with equating this with a regular old star-crossed love story is that in any traditional love story, regardless of the obstacles you can always say, "Except for x, we could be together."
quote:Is it, at its heart, the same story as a white person loving a black slave? Or a Christian loving a Jew a way back when?
To use BtL's examples, the slave and free person could say, "If it weren't for our skin color, we could be together." Or the Christian and the Jew could say, "If it weren't for our religions we could be together."
It's external pressures keeping them apart when otherwise it'd be perfectly normal for them to be together. If Romeo and Juliet were Jones and Smith instead of Montague and Capulet there'd be no tragedy; it would be a short and boring story.
I can't see that that is the case for this story.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Karl, I've explained many times why I have the opinion I do, and I refuse to dismiss you for yours the way you have dismissed me for mine. This is your problem.
I acknowledge I have a problem because of this thread, though I suspect it is a different problem from the one you think I have.
By saying it's my problem, though, you're implying that it's not a problem for you. If you're really comfortable with that estimation, then that makes my own problem a bit easier to deal with because what I thought was an amicable relationship really isn't all that important, at least not in both directions. I'm sorry you feel that way.
I'm offline for the next couple of hours, (for whatever that information is worth.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I think you can say that about this story as well.
Except for Ennis's inability to reconcile himself, they could be together, either in Denver or on a ranch.
Karl, I don't want to fight and I like you very much. The only part that made me mad were the implications about my character.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
And I think that the dogpiling on kat is uncalled for.
You guys know I'm not a champion in a white horse who is going to defend kat no matter what (how's that for a mythic archetype reference?) we disagree probably more often than we agree.
I just think that her points have validity and everyone has been too busy jumping down her throat to see it.
Not that she hasn't made some rude posts too, I think there is some of it on both sides, but I think that people are so busy being mean that they are missing what she's saying.
I totally agree with her in regards to the fact that this is an archetypal forbidden love story.
I see people saying "No it's different, these characters are GAY!" Well, honestly, isn't it better if it isn't any different? I mean, don't most gays like KarlEd who are in committed loving relationships want their relationships to be seen as the equivalent of heterosexual love relationships? Why would you want there to be a difference? Why should Brokeback Mountain fail or succeed as a movie based on the orientation of its characters, shouldn't it fail or succeed based on how well it portrays the story itself and the essence of forbidden love? I would think it's more of a victory for those that want gay relationships to be taken seriously if people walk out of the theater thinking "Wow, what a beautiful love story, I really related to those characters and their situation, that could have happened to me if my husband or wife were of a different religion, or a were married when I met them, etc." than if they walked out saying "That was a cool gay cowboy movie."
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the problem was you didn't listen to what Karl said nor paid any attention when he said "No, that's not what I said." or when other people said "No, that's not what Karl said at all." The dismissiviness you showed him was in no way limited to the archetypal thing (The "This is still economics." example springs to mind.) The problem was you were wrong. The problem now is that you are trying to get out of saying you were wrong.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aw, Squicky and Kayla. *pat pat* So worried about me. It's sweet. Oh, if only I had been a proper girl and had prevaricated by putting "I think" in front of that sentence! Then Squicky wouldn't be upset that I was being all uppity.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's only different because of the society we live in, JT (and don't get me wrong, it's an important difference). But it's not impossible to imagine a society where the gender really wouldn't matter, in which case it goes back to being about 'x'.
Their being gay is fantastically important as far as the story's reception goes in the society in which it was written, it is utterly unimportant when compared to the archetypes that follow a similar thought.
So then, what really defines a story? Its writing or its reception?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I think the problem with equating this with a regular old star-crossed love story is that in any traditional love story, regardless of the obstacles you can always say, "Except for x, we could be together." ... I can't see that that is the case for this story.
Why not, "Except for our genders, we could be together?" Is gender more essential or central somehow than race, religion, or family?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is no way either male role could be replaced with a female role and have the story even remotely be the same story.
Legends of the Fall [/QB]
first, my apologies if I post a lot in a row, I'm working my way through this thread slowly and there's just something I wanted to say before I continue.
I haven't seen that movie, but I have seen Brokeback. Have you? I could be wrong, but I think that comment was relating to Brokeback. There is no possible way that that movie could be made into a guy/girl movie. There are so many more things that, at times, have to be dealt with in an LGBT relationship than a straight relationship that you CANNOT compare the two.
Posts: 153 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
James, you are way late to the party. There's lots of places in the thread where that has been addressed.
I am interested in what everyone thinks the sine qua non of a gay forbidden love story is that makes it fundamentally different from other forbidden love stories.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, It's different in a similar way to a story about black people is different from a story about white people or a story set in China is different from one set in Spain or how a story about women is different from a story about men.
There are fundamental differences between people and groups and these fundamental differences carry over into stories told about these groups of people. I've no doubt that there are important parts of Brokeback Mountain that wouldn't make any sense if it were translated into a heterosexual story.
Many of the aspects of a homosexual relationship are the same as those of a heterosexual one, but there are some necessary differences. You can't really responsibly say that they are the same thing. For whatever reason, they're just not.
It might be nice to say that they are in all important ways the same (and yes it works good for the people who support homosexual relationships) but it's neither accurate nor respectful to real gay relationships, that do actually have differences.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aw, Squicky, look how cute kat is being. I just feel like patting her on her head and saying "good girl" even though she's being terribly naughty. It's just that impish look in her eye, I guess. After all, it's not her fault she can't comprehend that what she's doing is naughty.
quote:It might be nice to say that they are in all important ways the same (and yes it works good for the people who support homosexual relationships) but it's neither accurate nor respectful to real gay relationships, that do actually have differences.
This is where I have a problem - with you saying it's disrespectful to real gay relationships by saying the story is essentially the same as a forbidden love story about a hetero couple. I don't see that. This is what our fundamental disagreement hinges on - why is it disrespectful? I know he said he'd be offline for a while, but I'd really like KarlEd to answer that.
quote:There are so many more things that, at times, have to be dealt with in an LGBT relationship than a straight relationship that you CANNOT compare the two.
Again, James, why can't you compare them?
Gay couples have to overcome obstacles to be together. Society, in general, disapproves. Family may disapprove. They may have to make extreme sacrifices to be together.
All of those things could also be said about other forbidden loves.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps part of the difference is that some forbidden loves are forbidden because of circumstance and some, like this one, are impossible because of something essential about the people involved.
It would be great to live in a world where we would have to invent obstacles for this love story.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:some forbidden loves are forbidden because of circumstance and some, like this one, are impossible because of something essential about the people involved.
Hmm...I think there are other forbidden love stories where the conflict is because of something in the essential nature of the participants.
While I post this in fear of being taken as flip (and it isn't), there's Buffy and Angel - vampire slayer and vampire.
I also think that religion can be just as firm a barrier. There's The Scarlet Letter. That's a complex tale, but part of it is a forbidden love story, and in the society they lived in, there was no way for them to be together. That book even has the self-loathing that Ennis displays.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps part of the difference is that some forbidden loves are forbidden because of circumstance and some, like this one, are impossible because of something essential about the people involved.
What's essential, and what's circumstance? Is race essential or circumstance? What about religion? What about social class?
"If not for you being born a Nubian slave and me an Egyptian prince we could be together" - how is that different from "If not for us being born the same gender we could be together?"
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I'll get shot down big time for this, but I think religion is the weakest comparison.
No matter how hard people will claim it can be, you can change your religion. Race, gender, and family, though, you can't do anything about.
That's not to say that I don't think religion can be huge obstacle. But I think it's a boulder, not a mountain.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
El JT, why don't you qualify that by saying "Some people can change their religion."
Many people find the idea of converting their religion to be as abhorrent as having a sex-change operation. It's an individual thing.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not surprised that people think that. I don't agree, though.
I think religion can be so fundamental to someone that changing it would make them a different person entirely.
In The Scarlett Letter, the participants were in a society shaped by religion that would never approve of them being together. I think that's why that story still resonates. It's not surprising to me that many of the books we ask teenagers to read are about thwarted love.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a semi-related tangent, I've studied mythological archetypes in cross cultural settings, but I've never really looked at archetypals stories, which I'm know pretty motivated to do. I think it would be interesting to see if other cultures hold the same basic seven (or whatever) stories as we do.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many people find the idea of converting their religion to be as abhorrent as having a sex-change operation. It's an individual thing.
And I get that. But it is possible. That's my only point.
I know a sex change is possible, too, but they're not exactly the same. You can change religions just by deciding to do so (depending on which you choose to go to/from, of course).
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I understand what you are (both) saying. I think that social class, race, and even religion are less essential than gender. The prince and the slave would still be more themselves if that circumstance were magically altered than if they changed genders.
I also think that people can see the archtypal similarities is rather promising.
Edit: typed too slow. (Both) refers to katherina and Belle.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: James, you are way late to the party. There's lots of places in the thread where that has been addressed.
I am interested in what everyone thinks the sine qua non of a gay forbidden love story is that makes it fundamentally different from other forbidden love stories.
Well thanks for that. You know after reading this whole thing, I'm with squicky and kayla. And my drum isn't wearing out. It's barely broken in.
I don't think you answered my question. Have you seen this movie?
Posts: 153 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am interested in what everyone thinks the sine qua non of a gay forbidden love story is that makes it fundamentally different from other forbidden love stories.
What's bugging me is the fact that everyone keeps harping on it being a forbidden love story.
To me, from the reviews and what I've read here, this story is more like the (terribly pathetic) story in Titanic. Even though Rose married, had children and grandchildren, when she died, the person "waiting for her" on "the other side" was Jack. How sad is that? She waited all that time to be with Jack. Obviously, her marriage and children didn't mean that much to her. I found it bizarre that people thought it was romantic. I found it to be a terrible tragedy.
The "sine qua non" only tangentially touches on forbidden love. It more lies in the area of pragmatics and reality.
Belle, while it would be nice to live in that world, we're not there yet. Could you make a movie about Diary of Anne Frank without her being a Jew in WWII? I mean, sure, there are a ton of movies out there about kids that die, but is that really the main theme of the book? If you just changed Anne to a Presbyterian, would the story still work? Or if you moved the location to the US?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm sorry, I don't want to have the same discussion again. Maybe someone else wants to reenact it with you.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
only tangentially touches on forbidden love. It more lies in the area of pragmatics and reality.
