~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Baby doll, the only cure for this twisted mind is to entertain it, and you were born with the remedy. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ multifandom blog. hella lot of fanart from a hella lot of shit here, homestuck, snk, free, etc. lotta regular art too man i lovin' on art. and...textposts...damn them
In her preface to LOLITA, Mary Gaitskill reflects on a review by Vanity Fair’s Gregor von Rezzori in which he calls the novel: “The only convincing love story of the century” (via getyourassbeat)
While I think that Vanity Fair review sounds terrifying and gross, I’m honestly pretty sick of the concept of love as an exclusively positive force. It’s a really cavalier use of the No True Scotsman fallacy to look at an occasion where love has lead to something awful taking place (like, in this case, years of sexual abuse of a little girl) and go “then that’s not love”. It’s as pointless as taking the opposite tactic and going “anger is always destructive and violent”, then pointing to someone who harnessed their anger as a tool for positive social change and going “then that wasn’t really anger.”
And then there’s the ‘always mutual’ part. Even if you leave real-life examples aside, literature is full of people whose love is that much more noble for being unrequited. Is Sidney Carton in A Tale of Two Cities less in love with Lucie Manette for deciding to let himself be guillotined in her husband’s place so they’ll be happy? Sorry, I suppose that sacrifice was meaningless in this responder’s eyes, because it wasn’t mutual, and was at least somewhat the product of obsession with Lucie. The difference between the obsessive love of Sidney Carton and the obsession of Humbert Humbert is that Carton’s leads him sacrifice himself in the name of Lucie’s happiness rather than destroying her life to “have” her as happens to Dolores Haze, but they are both obsessively in love.
And for that matter, what about cases where an abuser acts out of obsessive love, and the victim loves them back? Is this excusable in this writer’s mind just because the love is mutual?
Love is not an inherently good, healthy emotion. It can be felt and expressed in good, healthy ways, but attributing pure positivity to an emotion is meaningless. “Good” emotions like happiness and love can be acted upon extraordinarily cruelly. Love makes some people do wonderful, life-affirming things, but it also makes other people do horrible things. That doesn’t make it any less love, because love itself is a feeling, devoid of inherent morality. Love is only as good or bad as the person experiencing it. Lolita is the story of an obsessive, abusive man in love. Is it any surprise that his love is an intensely negative power within the story?
Imagine if when Carlos first arrived in Night Vale, he was given a badge that said ‘Carlos The Scientist’, and brushed it off, not minding they didn’t use his real surname. Then, after a few years of going out with Cecil he is handed a new badge which reads ‘Carlos Palmer-Scientist’ and this time it makes him happier than he can say.
oh no my heart
After three months, Shrek had returned to Midorijima.
"Sonic," Shrek breathed, his suit tight across his manly chest. "I’m sorry I had to go back to my swamp for three months without telling you. I hope you didn’t think our relationship was… ogre."
"No, it’s just… you’re too slow!" Sonic shouted cheerfully as he threw himself over the counter of Heibon into Shrek’s arms, and they shared passionate embrace.