Random Quote about Random Ship in Random Journal

[dlgood]

I came across this line - a sentiment I've seen many times relating to many different characters in many different relationships, and on many different shows. And it always gets me thinking:

"Character X" accepted "Character Y" for exactly who they was, warts and all. And it made "Y" feel less guilty/wrong/bad about having this very very very dark and twisted side.

And invariably, I'm always left with a question. Why is this such a Good Thing? Shouldn't we feel guilty for having a dark/twisted/evil side?

I recognize that dark/twisted/evil frequently equals "TEH HOT" and "TEH DRAMA", but isn't this the sort of thing we should be working on? Aren't these the traits and aspects that a person is supposed to be trying to improve? Isn't this part and parcel of healthy relationships?

I'm not talking about denying or hiding from the darkness within - I'm talking about working to overcome the darkness within. Granted, one shouldn't be unnecessarily dwelling upon and wallowing in one's inner darkness. But if the lessening of that condition isn't accompanied by sincere attempts at growth beyond the darkness, is it really all that good for those involved?

And frequently, I think, this is why these relationships end up falling apart. Character Y is drawn to Character X, who appreciates the darkness within. Character "Y" ends the relationship because Character "X" cannot actually (and often doesn't care to) help "Y" overcome that darkness. Fans of X/Y gnash teeth at the demise of the relationship, frequently blaming "Y" for being judgemental/snobby/mean (sometimes justifably, sometimes not) in leaving the wonderful "X" behind.

Comments

[cleapet.livejournal.com]

Because....someone may be working to overcome their dark side but in the meantime having someone accept them for who they are can remind the person that they are more than just a conflicted mess. It gives them hope that they aren't so irredeemable as to being an exercise in futility to try and overcome it. (Bad sentence, sorry.) People can get strength from other people.

But are we talking about people or vampires?

Crap, sorry about comment spam.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

It gives them hope

Very true. Which is why I have no particular complaint about these relationships as short term elements. The larger argument is about the long-term unsustainability of such relationships in the absence of that "overcoming" part. Granted, if the chief virtue of the relationship is the acceptance of darkness, and that goes away...

But are we talking about people or vampires?

In general. Many characters in many stories. It's a pattern i've seen quite often.

[cleapet.livejournal.com]

I agree that it's inevitable that the majority of those relationships will end shortly after the redemption or whatever, but I've always thought of it from the other end: when the person is redeemed he/she will find they no longer be attracted to their partner as they have essentially 'grown out' of them. IOW, the initial attraction was based on a need and once that need is gone, see ya.

Caveat: Certain vampires with souls may react differently; other certain vampires with souls may not.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I've always thought of it from the other end: when the person is redeemed he/she will find they no longer be attracted to their partner as they have essentially 'grown out' of them.

That's a real issue. If the relationship is based upon a Negative element rather than a Positive one, it's not going to be sustainable. And trying to maintain it based up cementing the original "darkness" doesn't help because the "darkness" is something that makes Character "Y" profoundly unhappy. Presuming one values the happiness of characters "X" and "Y" more than having a relationship, there comes a point where sustaining the relationship is not a Good Thing.

[cleapet.livejournal.com]

That's a real issue.

Yup. Originally my comment contained two paragraphs of my seriously jaded perspective on real-life relationships. It was too much caring and sharing.

Bringing this back to the more sensible discussion at hand, I have no idea about Character "X" and Character "Y" are, but if an author has to deal with a supernatural circumstance I think it might color things a little differently. For instance, for a B/A fic, I can see Angel always perceiving a need for Buffy, even if he were made human. Buffy...I dunno, I think maybe the best thing would be to kill her off. That would sustain the idea of their relationship. But okay, Buffy is still a slayer, and has a thing for the supernatural guys, so I think there's a good possibility for manipulating a long-term relationship there. B/S OTOH, no; Spike is way too adaptable and has already grown out of his need for Buffy, IMO. I see a post-NFA fling lasting 2 months, tops. Of course, Spike and Angel are dead anyway, so it wouldn't happen. [/deadpan face]

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

In Jossverse and elsewhere, though, there's a Jungian aspect to all of this--when X accepts Y, X is really accepting X's own inner potential for darkness. Which is no doubt what you're objecting to, but in some ways we're never whole without our dark side. The clearest version of this is Buffy and Faith from S4 through S7. Buffy had to work through a lot to accept Faith, but without her could not have achieved the S7 victory.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

As mentioned, it can deal with any number of relationships. The initial quote was actually in reference to Lilah and Wesley.

I'm not so certain Buffy and Angel initially fit the paradigm, as I don't think Buffy or Angel were together specifically disliked themselves. It's not hard to argue that each had various aspects that they disliked about themselves, but it wasn't why either of them hooked up.

Rather, I perceived them holding onto the relationship more a case of romantic illusion in the face of rather daunting realities...

[cleapet.livejournal.com]

Lilah & Wes? Well now, that's different. Tru Luv 4 Eva!

Just kidding.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

In Jossverse and elsewhere, though, there's a Jungian aspect to all of this--when X accepts Y, X is really accepting X's own inner potential for darkness. Which is no doubt what you're objecting to

Actually, it wasn't what I was talking about at all. It's not about X accepting X's dark side. It's about "X" (who is alread "dark") accepting Y's dark side -- to the point that this is touted as a virtue of the continuing relationship. When in fact, it is no virtue if "X" prioritizes "Y" remaining dark as a means to prolong the relationship

Indeed, we aren't whole without our inner darkness - it is a part of who we are. But it is something we are supposed to accept as a means of overcoming it - not so that we might dwell upon it.

Buffy accepts Faith - but my fundamental point the "Faith" that Buffy does accept - and that the Faith of S7 is very different than the Faith of S3.

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

No, I maybe misread you, but also wasn't clear. I see things like Buffy-Spike (and don't know the Wes-Lilah story that well) as being in some ways about the different parts of one person.

I'm not quite sure I agree that we accept the dark in order to overcome it. Sticking with the Buffy-Faith analogy, Faith had come some ways toward Buffy (accepting her light side, one might say) but Buffy had moved in the Faith direction. I think the darkness is not to be destroyed, but maybe channeled.

But again, remember I don't know the Wes-Lilah story very well. So probably shouldn't have commented.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Buffy had moved in the Faith direction. I think the darkness is not to be destroyed, but maybe channeled.

If the "darkness" is a fundamental part of who we are, we can't destroy it without destroying ourselves. But we can still overcome it. For example - an alcoholic feels the urge to take a drink. But the alcoholic overcomes that urge by becoming aware of that urge, accepting that they have the urge, but not giving in to that urge.

We struggle to do that with our own inner darkness every day. By S7,
Buffy may have gained a better acceptance of her darkness, but she hasn't become it. She's using her awareness to avoid falling fully prey to the darker aspects of her nature. That's the overcoming part.

But again, remember I don't know the Wes-Lilah story very well. So probably shouldn't have commented.

No! Your comment is perfectly valid, as the discussion was meant to be more general than specific.

[glumpish.livejournal.com]

Yup.

Heh.

I think the more-or-less sane reaction is "I accept this damage in you, I understand where it comes from, and now (this being the important part) we can try to heal it." Understanding doesn't mean "tolerating forever without complaint." And if the damage in X reflects the damage in Y, that may make the understanding & healing easier. Or it may mean that they just keep reinforcing the damage.

But I have this whole thing where I think unconditional love is highly overrated. Love should be conditional.

[londonkds.livejournal.com]

Ah right. That's what I think was confusing in your original post - it's a bit of a different situation if X is accepting Y's "darkness" out of love for them, or because they're pretty "dark" themselves.

Although, i always have a problem with the word "dark" itself - it tends to be used so interchangeably from "having some socially questionable tendencies but being able to control them" to being a less judgemental euphemism for "murderous bastard".

[vandalisimo.livejournal.com]

Not to get all preachy, but if you have any dealings at all with addicts and end up at AA, Nar Anon or Al Anon, one of the first things they stress with anyone who is there as a relative/friend of the addict is that love needs to be conditional. I'm not sure why there's such a negative spin on that idea. Accepting the flaws in someone you love doesn't mean that you agree to be a doormat for the rest of your life, nor does it mean that you aren't ready and willing to help them heal when they are ready to do so. I think the grand idea of unconditional love is totally creepy.

[valancy.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I'll never forget hearing, after I felt I'd really royally screwed things up, "Now you're a deeper, more complex person...you understand things more because you've been to the dark side."

My response was simply "Yeah, I understand I royally screwed things up."

Darkness does not necessarily equal depth, in life or in fiction. This is why I can't read nontragic Harry/Draco.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I do think it's useful to be more self-aware about one's flaws. But, I think that usefulness reaches a limit if we don't actually do anything about those flaws other than continuing to exhibit them.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I think the more-or-less sane reaction is "I accept this damage in you, I understand where it comes from, and now (this being the important part) we can try to heal it."

It would be the sane thing. But if your own damage is - "they're with me because of their own damage, so really, I guess they'd better not do too good of a job healing it because I want them for myself more than I actually care about their well-being" then there's a big ol' problem.

Love should be conditional.

As Dear Ol' Dad would say - I love you son, but you've got to grow the hell up. (or I will kick your ass...)

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

one of the first things they stress with anyone who is there as a relative/friend of the addict is that love needs to be conditional. I'm not sure why there's such a negative spin on that idea

Because, sometimes people are weenies and don't want to do the sort of hard work that sort of self-improvement that calls for? And given that my biggest flaw is probably my total lack of ambition/motivation/discipline, that can be pretty hard.

[valancy.livejournal.com]

It's the idea of positive evil that bugs me - I was mostly reacting to your one line, "Why is this such a Good Thing? Shouldn't we feel guilty for having a dark/twisted/evil side?", which it seems, now that I read the comments, most people took in a different direction. I loved Lilah/Wes and the darkness it explored; but I disliked late pre-soul Spike/Buffy (and post-soul, but for different reasons) for that reason. Self aware is good, but celebration of flaws, even in fanfic, tends to bug me - it's important how the author handles it v. how the character feels. You can write about darkness without condoning it per se. I like the acknowledgement of the fact that it IS darkness, I guess you could say.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I fine with how Lilah/Wesley is portrayed on screen. It's the argument I'm used to hearing - that he shouldn't have left her, and that she's perfect for him because she "accepts his darkness" and "makes him feel less guilty about his evil" - that bugs me. Lilah should feel guilty for the life she's lead. Wesley should be guilty for the twisted/evil/bad he's perpetrated.

But the thing is - Wesley can look at it and recognize that if he wants to be a "good" person and do good, he can't continue to have an affair with her as long as she remains unrepentant. There's the complaint that Wesley's just being Moralistic - when in fact - he's really being Moral. Lilah's lifestyle is sexy and appealing, but it's a horrible life to lead if you have a conscience. And living that way isn't really going to make us healthy or happy.

It could be argued, that Wesley should have tried harder to coax her toward the side of "good" too, and I wouldn't dispute that. But the responsibility for that is really on Lilah. At least, while she's unwilling to change who she is, she's willing enough to let Wes go and do what he needs to do. Unlike Spike, who is actively sabotaging Buffy's attempt to help herself. Neither speak to the long-term viability a partisan of either relationship would want to trumpet.