The Rant about a Good Thing
Nov. 3rd, 2012 11:00 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynUsually, when I want to focus narrowly on one aspect of a book, it's something that annoyed me. This is a rare case where I actually want to rant about something I liked in a novel.
As I've mentioned before, I hate the "love triangle" trope. I have always hated it; even when I was a little kid and had no idea that polyamory was even A Thing, I often wished that the love triangle would resolve by the lovers sharing.
But my dislike for love triangles goes well beyond my bias in favor of polyamory, and Libriomancer -- by portraying a love triangle I liked -- made me realize that.
What I hate most about love triangles is not just the insistence to choose one, or even the unexamined nature of the necessity of that choice (do you know how rare it is for a book with a love triangle to even acknowledge that not every long term relationship ever has been between just two people?) It's the way the focus of the relationship is on possession. If you have two men pursuing the same woman, odds are the men will spend the story competing with one another and trying to pull the woman away from the other. Often they will be consumed by blinding jealousy. All three people will be trying to make the decision that's best for them, personally. The idea of figuring out and doing what's best for the person they supposedly love is elided entirely. Controlling or suppressing jealousy? Also a non-starter. It is an unquestioned assumption that if X loves Y than (a) X is supposed to be jealous of anyone else who is interested in Y -- not behaving in a jealous and possessive manner would be unnatural and wrong! and (b) X is not allowed to consider that X might not be the best possible match for Y. It's not even "Of course I'm best for her!" The question does not arise. There is no need for an answer.
One of the reasons that Jane Austen's love triangles bother me less than most is that the characters don't act like spoiled children being denied a treat. Take Emma, for instance. Mr. Knightly has been a friend of Emma's father and a friend to her pretty much her entire life. At some point, Mr. Knightly fell in love with her, which he doesn't really recognize until he sees her involved with Frank Churchhill. Knightly's response to this? He makes a few grumbling comments about Churchhill's character not being all one might hope for. When Knightly can no longer bear to see Emma and Churchhill together, he leaves the vicinity to stay with his brother for a while and try to get over her. What he doesn't do? Labor to convince Emma that she should drop Churchhill and marry him instead. For her part, Emma realizes long before the climax that her flirtation with Churchhill is not serious on her side or Churchhill's. This is pretty typical of an Austen love triangle -- one half of the triangle will not be a serious relationship, although it looks like one from the outside. Moreover, none of the involved parties will be overcome by rabid jealousy. They don't indulge their passion in raving, possessive fits, even if they'd like to. So that helps.
Libriomancer does this one better. A little background: the book opens with the narrator, Isaac Vainio, being attacked by vampires and then rescued by Lena, a dryad with impressive wood-based powers. Lena had been the bodyguard and Dr. Nidhi Shah, the psychiatrist for the global conceal-magic conspiracy, and therefore the same psychiatrist who evaluated Isaac in a few sessions. It's soon apparent that Isaac is attracted to Lena, and that Lena feels the same (although neither is doing the romance novel "I can't think about anything but my overwhelming lust" thing, which is a relief.) Lena came to Isaac because Lena needs help. Nidhi was attacked by vampires and is now missing; Lena and Isaac both strongly suspect Nidhi has either been turned or killed.
A little later, Lena reveals that her situation is more complex and bizarre than this. Lena's race is actually from a book, specifically a trashy Gor-like novel where the dryads existed to be the perfect lover: not only will they love whoever they belong to, but their personalities are shaped by the desires of their love. Lena's nature compels her to have a lover. She had been Nidhi's. With Nidhi gone, Lena knows that she's going to, inevitably, bond to someone else, so she read through Nidhi's psych profile on Isaac (and presumably some other patients) and decided to ask Isaac to be that person.
This was something of a "REALLY?" moment for me, because it's such a Piers Anthony plot device and I did not expect Jim Hines, of all people, to be using it. This is not the blog of someone I expect to see giving female characters a backstory of "sex toy". It was so out of character that I went straight past 'wow this is offensive' to 'he must have something really interesting in mind to justify this.'
In fairness to the narrator, Isaac's initial reaction is more or less 'wow that sucks' followed by 'I have no idea how I am supposed to act on this information'. The characters also have the main plot of 'let's find out why vampires are trying to kill us all' to distract them, too. After a while, Isaac decides that Lena is what she is and there's nothing he or she can do about it, so he may as well accept it. Rejecting her just because her nature compelled her to find a replacement and she doesn't have much choice in the matter doesn't actually help her and it isn't what he wants ... so ... um ... okay then? I should note -- in fairness to both characters -- that Lena comes across as a person with her own ideas and opinions, and not as a sex toy. One gets the impression that even if she has been shaped by what her lovers want, none of them wanted her to be a compliant blow-up doll. Anyway, they are still in the middle of the whole 'trying to find out what's going on and not get killed by vampires' main plot, so they don't do much more than discuss Isaac's answer over breakfast. However, they are both, briefly, very happy about coming to an understanding.
This happiness is brief because Nidhi is, of course, alive and in terrible danger and they need to save her.
And this is where I get to see a love triangle I actually liked.
It's as much for the things the characters don't do as for the things they do. Isaac never tries to convince Lena to leave Nidhi. Nidhi never yells at Lena for looking for a replacement. Isaac does his best to save Nidhi and does not at any point consider 'well, hey, if Nidhi happens to get killed, great! I get Lena!'. Isaac even accepts that Lena will be willing to sacrifice Isaac if that's what she needs to do to save Nidhi, which is not a happy thought for anyone. In short, I got the distinct impression that Isaac genuinely cares about Lena and wants to do what's best for her; Lena demonstrates in various ways that she feels the same way. (The book shows very little of Nidhi, but one gets much the same idea about her.) It's not that Isaac isn't jealous -- he is -- but he doesn't let that become his dominant emotion.
As the book neared its conclusion, I realized that I was OK with any of the possible outcomes. I was not going to be disappointed if they saved Nidhi and Lena went back to her. Nor if Lena ended up with Isaac, either because they were unable to save Nidhi or for some other reason. Nor if, by some miracle, Lena actually persuaded Nidhi and Isaac to try sharing her. The important thing was not the resolution, but that the characters were doing the best they could for each other. All of the possible resolutions had drawbacks (even polyamory! No, really, I do not actually believe that poly is always the answer. Just because I think it should be a choice doesn't mean I think it must be the choice). But the key part was that the various parties were behaving with integrity and compassion.
For which, thank you, Mr. Hines.
As I've mentioned before, I hate the "love triangle" trope. I have always hated it; even when I was a little kid and had no idea that polyamory was even A Thing, I often wished that the love triangle would resolve by the lovers sharing.
But my dislike for love triangles goes well beyond my bias in favor of polyamory, and Libriomancer -- by portraying a love triangle I liked -- made me realize that.
What I hate most about love triangles is not just the insistence to choose one, or even the unexamined nature of the necessity of that choice (do you know how rare it is for a book with a love triangle to even acknowledge that not every long term relationship ever has been between just two people?) It's the way the focus of the relationship is on possession. If you have two men pursuing the same woman, odds are the men will spend the story competing with one another and trying to pull the woman away from the other. Often they will be consumed by blinding jealousy. All three people will be trying to make the decision that's best for them, personally. The idea of figuring out and doing what's best for the person they supposedly love is elided entirely. Controlling or suppressing jealousy? Also a non-starter. It is an unquestioned assumption that if X loves Y than (a) X is supposed to be jealous of anyone else who is interested in Y -- not behaving in a jealous and possessive manner would be unnatural and wrong! and (b) X is not allowed to consider that X might not be the best possible match for Y. It's not even "Of course I'm best for her!" The question does not arise. There is no need for an answer.
One of the reasons that Jane Austen's love triangles bother me less than most is that the characters don't act like spoiled children being denied a treat. Take Emma, for instance. Mr. Knightly has been a friend of Emma's father and a friend to her pretty much her entire life. At some point, Mr. Knightly fell in love with her, which he doesn't really recognize until he sees her involved with Frank Churchhill. Knightly's response to this? He makes a few grumbling comments about Churchhill's character not being all one might hope for. When Knightly can no longer bear to see Emma and Churchhill together, he leaves the vicinity to stay with his brother for a while and try to get over her. What he doesn't do? Labor to convince Emma that she should drop Churchhill and marry him instead. For her part, Emma realizes long before the climax that her flirtation with Churchhill is not serious on her side or Churchhill's. This is pretty typical of an Austen love triangle -- one half of the triangle will not be a serious relationship, although it looks like one from the outside. Moreover, none of the involved parties will be overcome by rabid jealousy. They don't indulge their passion in raving, possessive fits, even if they'd like to. So that helps.
Libriomancer does this one better. A little background: the book opens with the narrator, Isaac Vainio, being attacked by vampires and then rescued by Lena, a dryad with impressive wood-based powers. Lena had been the bodyguard and Dr. Nidhi Shah, the psychiatrist for the global conceal-magic conspiracy, and therefore the same psychiatrist who evaluated Isaac in a few sessions. It's soon apparent that Isaac is attracted to Lena, and that Lena feels the same (although neither is doing the romance novel "I can't think about anything but my overwhelming lust" thing, which is a relief.) Lena came to Isaac because Lena needs help. Nidhi was attacked by vampires and is now missing; Lena and Isaac both strongly suspect Nidhi has either been turned or killed.
A little later, Lena reveals that her situation is more complex and bizarre than this. Lena's race is actually from a book, specifically a trashy Gor-like novel where the dryads existed to be the perfect lover: not only will they love whoever they belong to, but their personalities are shaped by the desires of their love. Lena's nature compels her to have a lover. She had been Nidhi's. With Nidhi gone, Lena knows that she's going to, inevitably, bond to someone else, so she read through Nidhi's psych profile on Isaac (and presumably some other patients) and decided to ask Isaac to be that person.
This was something of a "REALLY?" moment for me, because it's such a Piers Anthony plot device and I did not expect Jim Hines, of all people, to be using it. This is not the blog of someone I expect to see giving female characters a backstory of "sex toy". It was so out of character that I went straight past 'wow this is offensive' to 'he must have something really interesting in mind to justify this.'
In fairness to the narrator, Isaac's initial reaction is more or less 'wow that sucks' followed by 'I have no idea how I am supposed to act on this information'. The characters also have the main plot of 'let's find out why vampires are trying to kill us all' to distract them, too. After a while, Isaac decides that Lena is what she is and there's nothing he or she can do about it, so he may as well accept it. Rejecting her just because her nature compelled her to find a replacement and she doesn't have much choice in the matter doesn't actually help her and it isn't what he wants ... so ... um ... okay then? I should note -- in fairness to both characters -- that Lena comes across as a person with her own ideas and opinions, and not as a sex toy. One gets the impression that even if she has been shaped by what her lovers want, none of them wanted her to be a compliant blow-up doll. Anyway, they are still in the middle of the whole 'trying to find out what's going on and not get killed by vampires' main plot, so they don't do much more than discuss Isaac's answer over breakfast. However, they are both, briefly, very happy about coming to an understanding.
This happiness is brief because Nidhi is, of course, alive and in terrible danger and they need to save her.
And this is where I get to see a love triangle I actually liked.
It's as much for the things the characters don't do as for the things they do. Isaac never tries to convince Lena to leave Nidhi. Nidhi never yells at Lena for looking for a replacement. Isaac does his best to save Nidhi and does not at any point consider 'well, hey, if Nidhi happens to get killed, great! I get Lena!'. Isaac even accepts that Lena will be willing to sacrifice Isaac if that's what she needs to do to save Nidhi, which is not a happy thought for anyone. In short, I got the distinct impression that Isaac genuinely cares about Lena and wants to do what's best for her; Lena demonstrates in various ways that she feels the same way. (The book shows very little of Nidhi, but one gets much the same idea about her.) It's not that Isaac isn't jealous -- he is -- but he doesn't let that become his dominant emotion.
As the book neared its conclusion, I realized that I was OK with any of the possible outcomes. I was not going to be disappointed if they saved Nidhi and Lena went back to her. Nor if Lena ended up with Isaac, either because they were unable to save Nidhi or for some other reason. Nor if, by some miracle, Lena actually persuaded Nidhi and Isaac to try sharing her. The important thing was not the resolution, but that the characters were doing the best they could for each other. All of the possible resolutions had drawbacks (even polyamory! No, really, I do not actually believe that poly is always the answer. Just because I think it should be a choice doesn't mean I think it must be the choice). But the key part was that the various parties were behaving with integrity and compassion.
For which, thank you, Mr. Hines.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-11-03 05:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-03 07:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-05 02:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-04 02:03 am (UTC)It strikes me that there are some creepy aspects to this even beyond the obvious. Like, let's say you have this supernaturally perfect lover whose personality is molded to suit your subconscious desires. And then, after a few years, something happens to her. Would you still be able to relate normally to an ordinary human woman, or would you be so accustomed to perfection that normality would grate? How much would having someone who would always and automatically accommodate you change who you are? Huh.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-04 06:12 am (UTC)Quite aside from, 'what if you subconsciously wanted to be annoyed?' I suspect a significant percentage of the population would be completely unable to form a relationship with someone like Lena, because of ingrained defensiveness and avoidance making her into an enemy instead of a lover.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-05 09:37 am (UTC)And of course there is Fangs of Ka'ath...
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2012-11-05 02:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-05 02:57 pm (UTC)-TG
no subject
Date: 2012-11-05 05:18 pm (UTC)But I sympathize on the basics regarding the love triangle thing. There have been stories that bothered me where we have Appointed Male Hero, Appointed Female Love Interest, and then Interesting New Guy comes along and Appointed Female Love Interest takes a liking to him. Optionally, Interesting New Guy might actually be more interesting than Appointed Male Hero, and I may find myself thinking, hey, come to think of it, Interesting New Guy might just be better for Appointed Female Love Interest. Maybe the writer has let things get out of hand, or this wasn't the writer's intention, or whatever, and then we end up with a sloppy shift -- Interesting New Guy has to die tragically (but not before, with his dying breath, giving Appointed Male Hero his blessing to take care of Appointed Female Love Interest, so he doesn't have to feel *guilty* about it or anything), or -- out of the blue he's revealed to have a sudden (and heretofore uncharacteristic) personality shift (he's abusive! evil! an ALIEN!), etc. And, like, bummer, here I was getting all these vibes of the "preordained" pairing, and thought it would be rather gutsy for the writer to let go of that.
Maybe it'd be nice if Mr. Hero can have a bit of irrational jealousy for a bit, but then ... he snaps out of it. Maybe he comes to a realization on his own when he sees how She and New Guy are so happy together, or maybe a trusted friend slaps some sense into him (literally or verbally). And then, after he comes to his senses, he isn't "rewarded" by the universe dropping a plot-rock on New Guy's head. (I HATE it when that happens. Like, what was the POINT, then? Just to make us feel better about Hero and not hate him so much for being so jealous of rival suitors?)
Heh. For one of my many abandoned story projects (I feel silly even pretending that they exist in any meaningful form -- VAPORWARE!) there's a hint of a "love triangle" ... but, ha! Our hero DOES NOT GET THE GIRL. He doesn't get a consolation prize, either! That wasn't the point, anyway. Sometimes when a guy is too busy saving the world and constantly putting his life at risk (and, inadvertently, everyone around him to a certain extent as well, once the bad guys realize they could get to him that way), maybe he's just NOT the best choice for a stable relationship. Maybe that's just how it goes. I'd hate to think that would be a deal-breaker.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-05 05:18 pm (UTC)That's the feeling I get sometimes with ham-handed romances in stories. The author has already figured out who will be with whom, and all the events leading to that outcome feel like this grossly backwards-engineered device to drag them, kicking and screaming, to their preordained romantic fate. This is particularly odious when the writer seems bent on driving home just how INCOMPATIBLE the hero and heroine are for each other (They hate each other! They constantly squabble! Oh, then you KNOW they'll end up together, it's so cliche.) to such extremes that someone has to undergo a *ridiculous* transformation (or the readers have to have very short memories -- a lot easier, it seems, if this is part of a serially-released story spanning years, rather than happening in the course of a single novel) in order to make it fit. =P