Tuesday 28 November 2000

Pic of the day: Romance! Passion! The Sims!

Romance vs marriage

Today I finished reading Edgar Rice Burroughs Chessmen of Mars. I was not disappointed: The novel was up to his high standards. His basic plot may be practically the same in every book, but the twisting subplots alternate in an unpredictable way, and these kept the suspense up at almost all times. Also his bubbling imagination and his obvious love for the English language has me riveted.

My one dismay on reading this book was the fact that the main character was the daughter of John Carter and still had not inherited half his superior strength, the way her brother had. (Come to think of it, her brother actually had more than half - could this be linked to the Y chromosome somehow?) It would have been interesting with a really strong heroine, but of course that would have ruined the standard plot, in which the male wins the heart of the female through strength, courage and unflagging loyalty.

Also today, I pondered an e-mail from "e-pal", who said: "We do not always marry our SO" (Significant Other). We don't? I thought. And suddenly something clicked into place.

***

Through most of recorded history, people married; but rarely for love. Or rather, not for love of their spouse. Rather they married for love of their family or clan. For marriage was not a personal matter, but a strong link between two families. We may think of these people as preoccupied with the past; but the truth is that they were keenly interested in the future, and this was their descendants. They would not want their heritage tainted by bloodlines of which they did not approve, nor would they wish to condemn their offspring to poverty.

Such grave matters could not be left to the youthful fancies of the boy or girl. And people did marry early: When your life expectancy is somewhere around 40 years, you better get going!

This is not to say that the bride and groom had no say in the matter at all. Often they were consulted and their wish carried much weight; but within limits. And from cultures where this still is common, we know that young people usually accepted and often appreciated the work of the family elders to arrange the best possible marriage for them. Not to mention that it saves years of dating insanity.

Yet, the concept of romantic "true love" was not entirely unknown. Legends of inseparable lovers reach us across the millenia. Who can forget Orpheus descending to the netherworld in an attempt to plea for the return of his beloved? True, this was a mythical character - or at least this particular story was - but it still shows that people knew how strong love could be. The Bible also have some stories, not least the whole Song of Solomon, also known as Song of Songs, dedicated to the romantic (and somewhat erotic) love of a betrothed couple. It certainly shows how strong feelings could be inspired between man and woman.

***

With the coming of the printing press (with movable type, from Gutenberg) the European market was soon saturated with bibles. Shortly thereafter, the attention turned to novels, and of a particular kind: Chivalry novels. In this genre, which grew enormously popular, heroic knights would perform great and courageous deeds at great risks to themselves. And typically their inspiration was a woman of exceedingly noble qualities, whom they loved and who also loved them. But they could not get each other, for the woman was typically married to someone else. All they could do was gaze longingly at each other.

Obviously something has changed in the early 1900s, when Burroughs writes his classics. (If you thought his books were just for kids, as I originally did, you have been sorely deceived.) Here is chivalry, and lots of it, and heroic deeds aplenty. But something has changed: The hero and heroine eventually get each other in the end, albeit after a book or two of seemingly insurmountable obstacles, one after another. And they live happily ever after (though their children have to repeat the pattern, it seems).

That was then, and this is now. Now, romance is dead. Or rather debased, nay defiled: It has become just another euphemism for the mating of the bodies, with some flowers and candlelight thrown in at best. Passions is bought as pills from the drugstore. Who is the man that scorns temptation, because his heart is owned in full by one only? Where is the woman who is proud of chastity? To whom can you say "till death does us part" and not be laughed at in your face?

It may be that this had to happen. The clan lost its hold on us, and later society itself loosened up. We were free to do as we wanted, and the pursuit of happiness became our only goal. And so men and women both thought that they could find true love, that it was in fact a human right and constitutionally granted that each and every man or woman should be happy with the partner of their choice. But how long lasts the glamour in the morning light when your Dream Prince/ss lies farting in your bed?

Perhaps it is with romance the way it is with religion, to most people: That it must be set apart, separated from the profane everyday life. (Not that I personally view religion this way, but then again I am a mystic. I am hardly representative.) Like a child chasing the rainbow or a dog chasing its tail, it may be that also in romance the pursuit of happiness is the only true happiness. Though a few people make me wonder ...