?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
Thinking out loud - The Phantom Librarian
Spewing out too many words since November 2003
fernwithy
fernwithy
Thinking out loud
It's really nice to come home to unexpected presents (not that presents are ever "expected"; that didn't come out quite right, but I can't think how else to put it, as it's a week and a half until my birthday). I don't normally like graphic novels, but sjepstein sent me a lovely Spiderman one dealing with 9/11--one of the few that I've really been wanting to read, actually, as I'd heard of it--and it's just great. So, many thanks. And huge recs of the story, "Revelations," by B5's J. Michael Straczynski.


A kid came in today with a request, and said that he was willing to get all his friends to write letters as well, to show that there was a a base of support. He was incredibly polite and well-spoken. I could have hugged him. I love seeing people realize that they actually can make requests and have an effect on policy. For that reason, I'm going to make an effort to get some video games in our collection. It may not be an earth-shaking issue, but it's one I can actually act on. Having the classics is great and lovely (and on a totally different budget), but giving a solid example of being able to petition a government agency and make a difference in the way it's run... priceless, as the MasterCard ads say.

And why shouldn't we have video games? They have to engage more parts of the brain than, say, a Lurlene McDaniel angst-fest. Video games aren't a disconnect from intellectual pursuits. They really do make the brain work. (And no, I'm not just saying that in support of democracy. I can think of many worse things to stock than video games.)

Eek. I've just broken the book-lovers' code and admitted that there are some books I'd gladly trade in for video games. And, frankly, chat rooms. But that's because I dislike bad books in a rather extreme way.



I'm currently reading T.H. White's The Once and Future King, another classic that I somehow missed growing up. I don't like it as well as I'd hoped I would--maybe too-high expectations--but it's a good read, and I like some of the philosophical observations White makes about war.

I'm currently in the third section, "The Ill-Made Knight," which I find sort of dissatisfying, simply because I vastly prefer Arthur to Lancelot as both a character and a person (though White's Lancelot is more interesting than some others I've seen), and this section is almost exclusively Lance's. I'd also like to know Jenny a bit better, but White seems disinclined to really get into her mind. I like his scenario; I just don't feel like I know her well enough. I prefer Elaine.

I love Arthur best, though. Always have, always will. Isn't it roughly time for him to make an appearance again? Why don't we have any Great Men or Great Women around when we need them? Everybody seems so small now, even people who used to be big. Can't legends just be left a-damned-lone?

Feh.



In reading this particular storyline, I keep getting stuck with my personality type, which wants to take Guinever and Lancelot and shake them. I'm an INTJ, with the description, "Perhaps the most fundamental problem, however, is that INTJs really want people to make sense. :-)" (profile), and this whole business of passion versus a perfectly good marriage in which two people are perfectly fond of one another goes over my emotional head. I'd give anything for an Arthur. Why would she risk him over Lancelot? Hell, why bother looking, once that mess is settled? As for Lance--dude, she's married. Hands and mind off, kthnxbye.



There's a cover story in Newsweek this week about how women are supposed to be more likely to be unfaithful now than we used to be. I expect it's more that we're likely to be open about it, but either way, it's not a good development for women, particularly those of us in the fat-and-plain category. Pretty women--have a heart. Please pick one, and when you've got him, leave some for the rest of us.

Then again, I'd prefer not to be anyone's second choice.

Oh, who am I kidding? I have no intention of changing for anyone, or making myself up for anyone. If, by the age of 34, no one has found the way I am particularly irresistable, chances are, no one will. I'm still not going to change myself. If there's no one out there for me, then there's no one out there for me. My children won't get themselves born (and my house probably won't get itself either built or bought), but that's life.

Eek, that was a bit personal, but I'm tipsy enough to leave it be.

Still, come on pretty married women... play fair! And guys, come on. Give it up--when they're off the field of play, they're damned well off it.

:grumbles, hates Guenivere violently for a few minutes, gets over it:



I get to formally teach a class for the first time starting Monday. I'm very, very nervous about this, even though I'll be going over writing issues that I've gone over a hundred times on line--Monday=characterization, Tuesday=setting, Wednesday=plot, Thursday=putting it together. I think I'll like it, but I'm pretty keyed up. Lesson plans... yikes!

I feel a bit...: restless fairly dissociative

35 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
From: ireact Date: July 15th, 2004 10:26 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'll go out with you!

We can get married, that's fun! :-)
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: July 15th, 2004 10:32 pm (UTC) (Link)
Minor geographical thing, but thanks. ;)
arclevel From: arclevel Date: July 15th, 2004 10:30 pm (UTC) (Link)
I so agree with you on the whole Arthur/Lancelot/Guinevere trio. I don't know the Arthurian legends very well, but I think a big reason I don't get into them is because I know that Lancelot's this big romantic hero, and WHY??? They're cheating on Arthur! How is this a GOOD thing?? *ahem* anywho...

Do you have a similar problem with lots of other stories? It seems like in more than half the romances I read or especially watch, I'm frustrated because it becomes obvious that the "right" match is the very passionate, ignore all reason and be driven by your hormones couple. I'm also an NT (INTP)-- can you tell? :-)
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: July 15th, 2004 10:36 pm (UTC) (Link)
Ach, yes, absolutely. I'm driven crazy by the "break-up-because-it's-not-all-passionate" thing. Passion's good, I'm sure, but if you've got a nice thing going with a good person, why toss it? This is the main reason I kept wanting to smack Buffy--they'd come up with all kinds of reasonably decent relationships, and then trash them for no good reason. Even if I ended up liking the 'ship after it, I never quite forgave the erring parties. (In other words, Willow/Tara was okay, and I had a liking for Willow/Xander, but Willow/Oz... come on... Monkey Pants! Why would anyone throw out monkey pants? Of course, Oz also wasn't blameless in this, as he also cheated, but at least--as after Willow's first indiscretion--he still loved her and came back after trying to fix himself because he knew he was badly flawed.)
arclevel From: arclevel Date: July 15th, 2004 10:47 pm (UTC) (Link)
I really liked Oz, but I couldn't really fault Willow for not taking him back in NMR. Not because the passion was gone or because he had screwed up so unforgivably, but because he left with the implication that he wasn't coming back (at least, when he sent for his stuff). Willow believed that it was really the end of that, so she'd moved on, as she had a right to. It was unfortunate that it wasn't the message he'd intended to send, but it happened. I really didn't like S3 W/X due to the cheating thing, again, especially the fact that Xander seemed to have very little guilt about the whole thing, either during or after (but then, I don't like Xander, so that may be a skewed perspective).

However, I so incredibly can not believe that Angel is Buffy's One True Love and Their Love is Forever. They were bad for each other from the start. It got worse. And worse. She really does have unfortunate taste in men, doesn't she?

Yes, the ME folks definitely had Issues with the concept of happy couples.
melyanna From: melyanna Date: July 15th, 2004 11:21 pm (UTC) (Link)
I've not seen any of Buffy or Angel, but I did see (and obsess over) Whedon's Firefly. There was definitely evidence of Joss having happy-couple issues — there was a married couple which had some personality conflict problems but was otherwise devoted and passionate, but the other two pairings which you could logically draw from the show weren't really destined for happiness. Kaylee and Simon could never have worked out, as cute as they would have been together — she was too earthy, I think, too much into the physical aspects of life, and Simon was from an esoteric, wealthy class and had lived in a house that could have been designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, I swear. (I loved that house.) Simon was really only attracted to her because, as he put it, every other woman was closely related, married, or professional.

Then Mal and Inara had all kinds of angst because Inara's a prostitute. Kind of puts a damper on having a real relationship. :p

Er... didn't mean to spam Fern's LJ with Firefly. Just thought I'd concur with ME's apparently difficulty with happy couples.

And as a general rule, I hate any story that glorifies infidelity. This is why I hate the Guinevere aspect of the Arthur legend. It wasn't part of the original story, and I think it's ridiculously silly. It doesn't really add anything to the story. *sigh*

Okay, so really, I just can't stand Guinevere. I hate modern versions of her even more, because there is no reason whatsoever to modify accounts and tales to make women proto-feminists. Sure, the earliest versions of the Arthur legend that included Guinevere have to be taken with a grain of salt, given the general attitude toward women in the past. But look at the Bible, even — Rahab saved her family by helping the Israelite spies escape Jericho, Abigail saved her household from David's wrath by defying her husband, Jael helped defeat a king with whom Israel was at war by driving a tent peg into Sisera's head. Just because a story is old doesn't mean it unfairly portrays women. So it's entirely likely that Guinevere wasn't Xena, as the latest movie version would suggest, but was actually the spoiled brat who has also been portrayed in various versions of the legend.

Mel, who is glad that Romeo and Juliet weren't brought up, because that rant would have taken hours.
arclevel From: arclevel Date: July 16th, 2004 06:46 am (UTC) (Link)
I've never seen Firefly, but that sounds right for ME. "Default" is really not a strong basis for a relationship. . . From the various cases of infidelity on Buffy, I'd say that it wasn't glorified, but it wasn't condemned as much as I thought it needed to be. I'm having a hard time thinking of other stories that glorigy infidelity, actually. I'm now curious about your Romeo/Juliet rant, but this probably isn't the place for it. :-)
anaid_rabbit From: anaid_rabbit Date: July 16th, 2004 05:52 am (UTC) (Link)
I agree. Willow/Oz was so sweet and it was right. It was one of those couples that had "right" spelled all over it. And, yes, he tried to change for her and it was so admirable and I loved them together.... Damn Seth Green and his movie career, whatever!
And then we have Spike/Buffy which is a all bout hormones couple and doing stupid things for the wrong reasons, given so much focus on the latter seasons. It didn`t became an all romantic pairing for me, it became downright annoying.
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: July 16th, 2004 12:04 pm (UTC) (Link)
I liked it a lot in season five and toward the end of season seven--when it became a redemptive relationship for both of them--but the season six shenanigans made me roll my eyes.
arclevel From: arclevel Date: July 16th, 2004 04:16 pm (UTC) (Link)
Exactly. Or even more so, the first 8 episodes of Season 6 (some of the best shows of the series) were wonderful for the S/B interaction, and then as soon as they actually started sleeping together, it went downhill astoundingly quickly (and the show followed). I think what bugs me most about that whole mess was that I honestly think that *could* have been a very healthy, if a little unusual, relationship -- they were actually more "compatible" than the vast majority of ships on ME shows, despite the whole Slayer/vampire thing. It made my logical yet romantic side very happy! But no. Instead we got another relationship where all sense of reason (or morality) went out the window once they were actually together. */Spuffy rant*
shellebelle93 From: shellebelle93 Date: July 16th, 2004 02:24 am (UTC) (Link)
Can't stomach Guinevere or Lancelot. I think he's a wimpy git (c'mon, Lance, grow some balls, willya?) and she's a big tease. I haven't seen "King Arthur" because I think Kiera Knightley's 'feminist perspective' Guinevere would piss me off even more than Canon!Guenevere. :-)

I believe Merlin didn't like her at all. Arthur shoulda listened to him.

Poor Arthur. *pats*
ladyelaine From: ladyelaine Date: July 16th, 2004 04:21 am (UTC) (Link)
All this Arthur and Guinevere talk, and I'm reading The Mists of Avalon. Heh. Think it's the only Arthurian version that has Arthur actually telling Guinevere to go sleep with Lancelot.

But yes, that thing about "passion." Romance makes you all squiggly, makes your stomach do somersaults and your head go blank. Thank God romance eventually fades, because then some common sense can come into a relationship, instead of mutual airheadedness! Frankly, I think that's a major part of the divorce rate these days--most marriages that end, do so in the first two to five years... right when the butterflies finally fade. Ohhhh, s/he doesn't make me swoon anymore, I must not love him/her. Gimme a break. The swoonies do not equal True Love(tm), nor does the stability that comes after the swoonies equal loss of love. True Love(tm) means staying the course, for better or for worse.

Um. Anyway. Hey, care to share some of those lesson points with us starving writers?
atropos87 From: atropos87 Date: July 16th, 2004 06:19 am (UTC) (Link)
The swoonies do not equal True Love(tm), nor does the stability that comes after the swoonies equal loss of love. True Love(tm) means staying the course, for better or for worse.


Absolutely. If only more of my friends would understand this they would spend much less time being broken hearted and much more time having happy and fulfilling lives.

I sense we are having a little INTJ convention here - maybe we should make a lapel badge ;)
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: July 16th, 2004 12:03 pm (UTC) (Link)
Like this one?
atropos87 From: atropos87 Date: July 16th, 2004 03:52 pm (UTC) (Link)
Heh. Exactly like that one.
rj_anderson From: rj_anderson Date: July 16th, 2004 04:27 am (UTC) (Link)
This is very amusing, because I was just thinking last night about posting a blog entry on the trials of being an INTJ.

Not surprisingly, I feel exactly as you do about the Arthurian "love triangle". Arthur is teh r0xx0rs, Gwen, what do you want with that useless pretty-boy? I don't care how he makes you feel: Arthur is perfectly decent to you, and if you and Lancelot both "love" him as you claim, you wouldn't be sneaking around with each other behind his back. Sheesh.

For that reason, one of the only retellings of the Arthurian legend I've been able to get into is Mary Stewart's, because she downplays the triangle and even keeps you guessing to an extent whether it's true or just rumour. Mind you, it may also help that the books are chiefly about Merlin, and that I like her Bedwyr/Lancelot better than I do her Arthur...
sannalim From: sannalim Date: July 16th, 2004 11:39 am (UTC) (Link)
For that reason, one of the only retellings of the Arthurian legend I've been able to get into is Mary Stewart's, because she downplays the triangle and even keeps you guessing to an extent whether it's true or just rumour. Mind you, it may also help that the books are chiefly about Merlin, and that I like her Bedwyr/Lancelot better than I do her Arthur...

Ditto that. The Mary Stewart version is hands-down my favourite version of the Arthur story, for exactly these reasons. It's the only version that I can stand after the coronation and Arthur's marriage to Guinevere, because it doesn't go downhill when Lancelot shows up. I suppose one could argue that this is what makes the story such a great tragedy, but it's a tragedy without redemption (and that's a sort of story I would rather not read too often, thank-you-very-much).

And about buying or building a house--go for it! If I'm still single by the time I get to be 30-35, I plan to look into buying my own residence.
alkari From: alkari Date: July 16th, 2004 06:45 am (UTC) (Link)
I compfort myself by thinking that the whole story is probably just that - a giant accretion of legends and medieval embellishments.

I refuse to go and see the movie - as if a woman was running round half naked like that as a "warrior" in a British summer. She'd have frozen her assets to death ...

Besides, since when did supposed Arthurian cavalry ride with stirrups? That important invention did not hit western Europe for at least another 400 years, if one is to assume that the Battle of Badon Hill was around 530-540AD. Sorry - feeling "historical" this evening, and very picky about the various anachronisms in movies!!

And cheer up Fernwithy - I am older than you and haven't found a man yet, so long ago decided to just get on with life and do what *I* want to do. At least, as one of my married friends tells me, I do not have to come home and somehow produce a meal for hubby and/or kids every night - I can just collapse on the couch with a large scotch if I want to!
mincot From: mincot Date: July 16th, 2004 06:52 am (UTC) (Link)
Ah, the troubles of we INTJs ... I feel the same way about both of them, having never yet been in the least tempted to let romantic passion get in the way of common sense. After all, in every marriage I've seen, the passion eventually becomes muted or disappears. What's left, in the best marriages, the ones I secretly envy, is a deep respect for and knowledge of the other person--a deep and abiding friendship.


either way, it's not a good development for women, particularly those of us in the fat-and-plain category. Pretty women--have a heart. Please pick one, and when you've got him, leave some for the rest of us. Then again, I'd prefer not to be anyone's second choice. HEAR, HEAR. And let's turn that one around while we're at it: Guys, you may be hard-wired to look for "pretty," but pretty has been defined in many different cultural ways. Look beyond the pretty faces and think about the person you want to talk to for the rest of your life.
If there's no one out there for me, then there's no one out there for me. My children won't get themselves born (and my house probably won't get itself either built or bought), but that's life. I;m forty and I feel the same way. But I do dipute the house bit. You can indeed get your own house, and you can indeed build your own house. I occasionally volunteer with Habitat for Humanity for a selfish reason: learning skills. And I do, by the grace of however you name your higher power, have my own house. I had to make some trade-offs (and, in fact, I plan to move next year, if I can): I can't live in the nice area I want to live in, where you can walk to everything and there are all sorts of funky little restaurants, interesting people, etc. I could if I were married and we had two incomes. Instead I am stuck way out in suburban subdivision land, where my neighbors are ALL married and you have to drive miles just to pick up a quart of milk (one reason I want to move in far enough that I can at least find a bus line or less daily driving!). But I am building equity. The house is solidly built, and I can have my cats and a dog. (I also have to mow the lawn, but ...;) ) The point is that you can get yourself a house, without being married. It may not be the perfect house, but the security can be worth it. (My current location is SO far away from my friends here that the isolation is NOT worth it--but I'm also not going to buy in town where houses in bad repair start at $250,000. I'll trade off another suburban area--hopefully around the state university area, though!--for a little driving--but even that will cut my one-hour just so visit friends one-way drive in half ... Anyway, look at the market in your area. See what you want, and where you CAN buy. There are no-money-down programs (What I did), and it may well be possible for you to get your own house. Don't give up!

I get to formally teach a class for the first time starting Monday. I'm very, very nervous about this, even though I'll be going over writing issues that I've gone over a hundred times on line--Monday=characterization, Tuesday=setting, Wednesday=plot, Thursday=putting it together. I think I'll like it, but I'm pretty keyed up. Lesson plans... yikes! Good luck! Just remember that sometimes lesson plans fly out the window when faced with what a class needs right that minute. Also remember that you have more experience than they do. And I've been told by colleagues who have observed me teach that all the places where I thought my fumbling and pauses were obvious were not even noticeable .... have fun--you will do well.
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: July 16th, 2004 12:05 pm (UTC) (Link)
I can't live in the nice area I want to live in
Alas, I have no choice! If I'm to keep my job, I have to live in city limits, and all housing is priced way out of the single-income market, unless the single income happens to be a CEO of a major tech company.
mincot From: mincot Date: July 16th, 2004 12:25 pm (UTC) (Link)
That is utterly appalling. I am SO sorry. Something needs to be done to encourage multi-income housing. Are there any condos within range? Not as good a solution, I know ...
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: July 16th, 2004 12:48 pm (UTC) (Link)
It's a possibility. A studio condo might go around $139K in a bad neighborhood. Average one-bedrooms seem to be between $200K and $400K, judging by today's listing. Anything is above a librarian's salary with student loans to pay off. :sniff, gripe:

I'm sure that residency requirements have to be illegal somehow, but they keep passing muster in the courts.
mafdet From: mafdet Date: July 16th, 2004 12:53 pm (UTC) (Link)
Oooo! Here comes an NF to crash the NT party! It's funny how the different "types" all seem to coalesce somehow. And in comes the E/INFP (I'm borderline) waving my Idealist flag. :D

First of all, the whole idea that men are "hardwired" for this and women are "hardwired" for that is one of the most pernicious falsehoods of "evolutionary psychology." If you ask me, evo-psycho is as bad a philosophy as Death Eating. I don't believe that men are "hardwired" to only go after "pretty" women - it's just an excuse. If Flip Wilson did his comedy routine today, it would be entitled "Darwin Made Me Do It" instead of "The Devil Made Me Do It." Hee.

Plain women get married all the time. So do older women. In fact, an article in Psychology Today notes that these days, men look for women with good jobs and not just pretty faces. Oh, and older women are much more popular now. < vbg > In other words, now that women have jobs and money and more to offer than beauty and domestic skills, men adjust their requirements accordingly.

I'm forty and not married either - by choice. I just like my privacy. But I'm confident that if I really set my mind to getting married, if that's what I want, then I can do it. There is no "shortage of men" unless one sets really picky parameters. Women really do have more choices than they used to - interracial relationships are not off-limits, neither are younger men or men who make less money.

Besides. There are so many unhappy marriages out there that sometimes I just thank my stars that I'm single. I've known women who have suffered in abusive or incompatible marriages and really, it's better to be single than unhappily married.

As far as buying a house is concerned: Lots and lots of single women buy a house just like you did. I think the situation is different where fernwithy lives because it's a very expensive area of the country. I live in the San Francisco Bay area and I'm SOL if I want to buy because it is THE most expensive area of the country. (And I'm stuck here too for now - sigh - not because of a job but because my parents are getting older and I'm the only child, and I just won't leave them to shift for themselves.)

Anyhow, sorry about the rantage; any mention of evo-psycho makes me chew iron and excrete nails. I don't think the "Newsweek" article is based on hard facts, just anecdotes and sensation-mongering (one reason why I never renewed my "free subscription") and at any rate, I doubt that the men who are fooling around with these married women are doing it because they want a relationship. I like to give men more credit than the evo-psychos do and believe that they look for more than just beauty to settle down with...
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: July 16th, 2004 12:58 pm (UTC) (Link)
Okay, in all that rant, I just have to say that I love that "EvoPsychos" sounds like "evil psychos."
mafdet From: mafdet Date: July 16th, 2004 02:04 pm (UTC) (Link)
Heh. That's "accidentally on purpose." I just think it's a pernicious and even dangerous philosophy.

For the record, I think it is natural for both men and women to be attracted to the good-looking. It's not just men - I like looking at handsome guys. But the sociobiologist crowd maintains that it's "hard-wired," that only men are so "hard-wired" (and meantime women are "hard-wired" to be gold-diggers) and that there's nothing, but nothing, that men value so much as a purdy face. Which is really degrading to men when you think about it - they may as well say "all men are shallow and foolish."
arclevel From: arclevel Date: July 16th, 2004 04:28 pm (UTC) (Link)
I just think it's a pernicious and even dangerous philosophy.

Which, at least in the general sense, doesn't mean that it isn't true. In this instance, I don't agree with it, but I felt compelled to point it out. There is something to sociobiology, IMO, but the danger is when people look at it and say "this is how we should behave" rather than "this is one possible reason some people behave like this."
matril From: matril Date: July 16th, 2004 08:36 am (UTC) (Link)
Oh, I am so glad to see such a large number of people expressing dislike from the much touted Arthur/Gwen/Lance love triangle. I have never been able to really get into the Arthurian legend because so much of it revolves around this irritating adultery issue. I can't have much sympathy for people who act on sheer passion. Blech. Adultery doesn't happen by accident, or because two people have no choice but to do it. It's a conscious, stupid choice, and they were idiots to screw up the entire kingdom for their own petty selfishness.

And don't get me started on Romeo and Juliet. Argh....Sorry, I must be a serious ranting mood. ;)
persephone_kore From: persephone_kore Date: July 16th, 2004 09:00 am (UTC) (Link)
See, I don't care for that part, but I think my introductions were more Merlin and Arthur and Gawain-and-the-Green-Knight, so I don't really have as much of the impression that the love triangle Is All. (On the other hand, I can't say I'm exactly thrilled with Uther and Merlin's behavior either, and I do like the Mary Stewart telling.)
izhilzha From: izhilzha Date: July 16th, 2004 09:20 am (UTC) (Link)

Because everyone else has covered the rest of your post....

I love Arthur best, though. Always have, always will. Isn't it roughly time for him to make an appearance again? Why don't we have any Great Men or Great Women around when we need them? Everybody seems so small now, even people who used to be big. Can't legends just be left a-damned-lone?

Feh.


I completely agree with this. The worst side-effect of our current tendency to deconstruct everything is a loss of the belief that anything can be changed--that heroes may in fact exist.

This is why I was such a fan of Babylon 5. J.M.S. had no problem with presenting real, flawed characters that were nevertheless true basis for legend.

Maybe this is why fantasy books and films are making such a big comeback recently.
mafdet From: mafdet Date: July 16th, 2004 01:16 pm (UTC) (Link)
First of all: Good luck with the teaching on Monday. I'm sure you'll do fine. Just have a plan and notes ready, do some deep-breathing beforehand, and emulate Remus Lupin. It's natural to be nerve-racked before teaching (or anything) for the first time:

On Arthur: I'm going to see the movie tomorrow. My favorite retellings of the legend are Mary Stewart's, Persis Woolley's, and Rosalind Miles'. This is going to be horrible sacriliege, but I really didn't like MZB's version. First of all, her Guinevere was a horrible, horrible simpy wimp from the whiniest stygian pit, second of all her reconstruction of paganism is questionable (The Celts had solar goddesses! Brigid was a SUN goddess! Get that Margaret Murray/Gerald Gardiner stuff away from me!) and third, MZB so transparently has it in for Christianity that it's scary. Paganism is wonderful! Christianity is Wrong and Bad and Misogynist!

"Girl Power" Guinevere actually is historically plausible; there were warrior women in the British Isles. However, I'm pretty sure they didn't wear leather bikinis. Maybe LeatherBikini!Guinevere could have a romance with LeatherTrousers!Draco?

Newsweek: "Slate" magazine (I think) questioned the veracity of that article. I agree. It's more about a juicy headline than what's really going on in marriages today. And who says that all the women who are cheating are pretty? I don't think they are taking away from the men who really want to be married anyway; men who are looking for marriage sure as shootin' aren't going to be fooling around with married women.

As far as not being married: Sez the NF crashing the NT party, there are worse fates. You could be miserably married and that's a far worse fate than being single. Also, being "plain and fat" isn't a barrier. Lots and lots of plain, fat women are married and lots of beautiful women are single or unhappily married (and being beautiful doesn't stop one's husband from cheating, either - just look at Halle Berry).

I'm older than you :> and single. And I believe that if I put my mind to it, if being married is what I want, then I can do it. As I noted in my reply to mincot below, women have more choices now, so the pool of eligibles is wider. We are freer to be in interracial relationships, relationships where the man is younger, makes less money, et cetera.

I believe it's perfectly normal to be frustrated, but one should never, ever give up. Really, one's future is what one makes of it. (um...now who's sounding like the conservative? heh heh.)
scionofgrace From: scionofgrace Date: July 16th, 2004 02:15 pm (UTC) (Link)
I heard it said somewhere that the Arthurian love triangle dates back to when the French got ahold of the myth-cycle and started writing in their own stories.

When in doubt, blame it on the French! :-)
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: July 16th, 2004 07:39 pm (UTC) (Link)
Which the English promptly did--the French threw in a courtly love affair... then the English blamed it for the fall of civilization. :)
atropos87 From: atropos87 Date: July 17th, 2004 03:03 am (UTC) (Link)
That's just one out of a long list of things we blamed on the French - it's a national pastime ;)
From: (Anonymous) Date: July 16th, 2004 08:43 pm (UTC) (Link)

I've been lurking for a while...

Hi, this is Blithe (formerly Melissa Renee) from SQ.

As noted above I've been lurking here for a while, but I had to share my glee at seeing all the people who dislike the Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot triangle. My first real introduction to Arthurian legend came from reading (and watching the movie) Camelot in eighth grade English, before then I'd always had the idea that Lancelot was Gwen's boyfriend before she married Arthur, but I'd never really pursued the subject. Anyways, I hated Lancelot from the moment he entered the story, singing about his own perfections and applauded Jenny's line that "humility must not be the fashion in France."

I have spent the years since then trying to make people understand why I don't find the affair particularly romantic and why I think that having an affair with your husband's best friend or your best friend's wife is just wrong, and that they should have exercised some self control, or if they really thought they couldn't be in the same castle without having one, keep sending Lancelot out on quests so he's not around enough for it.

gryffin23 From: gryffin23 Date: July 17th, 2004 04:01 pm (UTC) (Link)

My two cents

It does my heart so much good to hear that many other people dislike the love affair of Guinevere and Lancelot and that other people believe that deep friendship is the key to a successful relationship. I've always believed that the more comfortable you feel around someone the better your relationship with them is.
35 comments or Leave a comment