A fairy tale-like story is told in the novel [u]Still Life With Woodpecker[/u] that involves a young princess and a frog. The young princess has this golden ball that she always plays with, until one day she drops the ball in a stream and is unable to retrieve it. While she cries over her loss, a frog hops over to her and tells her that he can get the ball for her, if she promises to let him be a part of her life. She hastily agrees and the frog brings her ball back to her. The young princess runs off with her golden ball, forgetting the frog entirely. Then, the frog finds his way into her house and the King is made aware of the promise his young daughter had made and tells her that she must keep her promise. The girl is disgusted by the frog, and eventually she ends up throwing him against a wall. When he splatters against the wall, the frog turns into a handsome prince. And you know how the story goes, they live happily ever after.
While many fairy tale analysts have supplied us with plenty of symbolic explanations for stories such as this, there is one notable contrast between the traditional analyses and that evoked by Tom Robbins. Not to give too much of my favorite novel away, [u]Still Life[/u] examines the significance of the golden ball. The ball is very prominent in the beginning of the story, but no mention is made of it after the girl and the frog become acquainted. Though I admittedly missed the link until having it pointed out to me, the ball is symbolic of giving something up for love. It could be said, then, that we must all ultimately give up something- and not just anything, but something significant, something important to us- in order to gain true love. What we must sacrifice for love is security.
One of the things most important to us is our sense of security, and it is something we generally guard very carefully. When it comes to love, there can be no real security. Though we always try and make love seem as though it will last, that there is security in a relationship, the nature of love denies the possibility of absolute security. You cannot force love, you cannot make love a definite- there is always the possibility of love disappearing or changing course. It is in this way that marriage is implausible.
Marriage attempts to force security in love, going against the very nature of love. Not only does this make the motives of marrying questionable, it also has the potentiality of wreaking havoc on a pure relationship based on true love. Given that love is present in a relationship when a couple chooses to enter into marriage (or any other form of illogical commitment), the implementation of false promises and unsubstantiated oaths taints the essence of the relationship. Making a promise to be in love for any given time, much less forever, is dishonest and illogical- there is no way of predicting how love will change over time. Love, no matter how powerfully entrenched in a relationship, is not a constant, and attempting to make it so is contrary to its nature. Marriage not only taints the experience of a relationship by attempting to force love, but denies the sanctity of love.
It is important, however, to distinguish between various meanings and purposes of marriage. Marriage as a legal contract, marriage as a status symbol, marriage to appease religious doctrine, and marriage for the sake of achiveing the "family unit" is different from marriage as a culminating step of a relationship. Not all couples marry for reasons related to love, but when marriage is viewed as part of the natural progression of a relationship is when love becomes part of the picture. My view is that love is (or should be) the highest value in a relationship. Thus, it is with that view of love that I evaluate marriage. And it is in this light that I deem marriage an undesirable distraction from the pursuit of true, real love, at best; and a means of undermining and perhaps ruining love, at worst. Others are certainly free to view marriage in their own terms, but for anyone who truly wants love, and not some watered down version in which security is feigned, marriage is out of the question.
Good analysis. I agree with you- giving up security is necessary for freedom and reality- which enables the good things in life. Of course, I'm no expert on this subject, but it seems like you're right.
Hmmmm. It seems like you have gone down this path before. Personally, I don't feel marriage is right for everyone, and I also feel as though the old paradigm of "till death do us part, amen" is fairly unrealistic in modern society. Further, I also believe that love and marriage are not only NOT synonymous but that they are, in many, many ways, entirely different components of human life. However, I don't believe that having one makes the other impossible.
Good to see you back in the blogosphere.
j
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 02.28.05 (2:09 pm)
Last week, my daughter told me she'd rather have a frog than a prince anyway.
It makes me wonder about pet ownership, though. When you get a cat or dog, how do you know how it will end up behaving years from now? Are you going to keep a cat for 10 years and then get rid of it for another cat that might be cuter or more playful, or would most people keep that pet for the rest of its life and see it through to the end?
It used to be a given that when you get married, you see things through to the end. If you really know a person well enough to marry and can accept that person as he or she is, there should not be big surprises down the road. Some times might be better than others, but if you can accept that your daughter is still your daughter even if she does some things that you might not like, and that your mother is your mother, even if she gets old and can't even remember where her toes are, then you can accept a wife in a committed relationship who might not end up being quite the same as she was when you got married.
It's about family. My wife and kids and parents and grandparents are all part of my family. I'm not going to single one out to disown just because the relationship started off voluntarily instead of as a mere genetic link.
People who get married with the notion that they can just get divorced later should not be getting married in the first place. They haven't found the right person if they cannot accept that a marriage creates a family.
posted by: Wren (reply)
post date: 03.06.05 (9:28 pm)
I am still blogging, but through Xanga...and not as often as I did when I was here.
I hope you are doing well.
My new forum location is here.
If you are up for some debate, feel free to stop by...and you do not have to register to post in the debates. :)
http://s3.invisionfree.com/Hearts_Afire/
Reply to: Wren
Wren! How are you? I just visited your forum and left a couple posts. Thanks for letting me know about it. :)
posted by: Wren (reply)
post date: 03.07.05 (8:26 pm)
Hi!
I am doing well...just lost a dear friend of mine a few days ago who was also like a mother to me, but other than that I am keeping well.
It's great to be able to read your posts again at my forum, thanks so much! :)
Reply to: Wren
I'm really sorry to hear about your friend, I know that's difficult. Take care!
posted by: Al Sharpton (reply)
post date: 12.06.05 (7:10 am)
I love you and I want to marry you.
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 04.05.06 (2:15 pm)
Just wanted to let you know I moved my blog!
http://redtigress.blogsot.com
Hope to see you there!
"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins
