The Right Attitude To Rain
Dec. 1st, 2006 06:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mrdreamjeansOver Thanksgiving weekend, I completed a modest little novel by Alexander McCall Smith titled “The Right Attitude to Rain". (The author also writes a series set in Botswanna that I enjoy.) The protagonist is an attractive 40ish year old woman in Edinburgh, Scotland who edits an academic journal, “The Review of Applied Ethics”. For Isabel, most situations, relationships, interactions between people should be sifted through a prism of practical ethics, moral implications or consequences, philosophical meanings. It’s just how her mind works.
During the course of the book, Isabel falls in love with a much younger man, a 28 year old classical musician. Complicating matters is that this young man used to be her niece’s boyfriend. The other primary relationship in the novel is between a wealthy man in his 50s, disfigured by Bell’s Palsy and a young woman in her 20s. Both are visiting Scotland from Dallas just after becoming engaged to be married.
Thus the book’s primary theme is May / December romances. What’s appropriate? Can such romances be successful? What does either party gain from the romance? Is it anyone else’s business? Are such differences to be judged? Fodder for speculation and gossip?
I found three statements in the book that particularly struck me (or is that struck me particularly:) and wrote them down to remember. Since, I have time on my hands, this is what I was pondering last weekend. If you’re interested, do you agree or disagree with the following statements (and yes, I know there is no context:)
On taking a friendship to the carnal ...
“Why spoil a friendship for the sake of the carnal? And the carnal inevitably spoiled friendships. It took friendships to another land - away from their innocence, to a place from which they could not return to simple friendship.”
On the topic of eye contact ...
“She was sensitive to such encounters, because in her mind they were not entirely casual. By looking into the eyes of another, one established a form of connection that had moral implications. To look at another thus acknowledged one’s shared humanity with him, and that meant one owed him something, no matter how small that thing might be."
On Love ...
"... he had decided that she might grow to love him because love can come if you believe in it and behave as if it exists. That was the case, too, with free will; with perhaps faith of any sort; and love was a sort of faith, was it not?
During the course of the book, Isabel falls in love with a much younger man, a 28 year old classical musician. Complicating matters is that this young man used to be her niece’s boyfriend. The other primary relationship in the novel is between a wealthy man in his 50s, disfigured by Bell’s Palsy and a young woman in her 20s. Both are visiting Scotland from Dallas just after becoming engaged to be married.
Thus the book’s primary theme is May / December romances. What’s appropriate? Can such romances be successful? What does either party gain from the romance? Is it anyone else’s business? Are such differences to be judged? Fodder for speculation and gossip?
I found three statements in the book that particularly struck me (or is that struck me particularly:) and wrote them down to remember. Since, I have time on my hands, this is what I was pondering last weekend. If you’re interested, do you agree or disagree with the following statements (and yes, I know there is no context:)
On taking a friendship to the carnal ...
“Why spoil a friendship for the sake of the carnal? And the carnal inevitably spoiled friendships. It took friendships to another land - away from their innocence, to a place from which they could not return to simple friendship.”
On the topic of eye contact ...
“She was sensitive to such encounters, because in her mind they were not entirely casual. By looking into the eyes of another, one established a form of connection that had moral implications. To look at another thus acknowledged one’s shared humanity with him, and that meant one owed him something, no matter how small that thing might be."
On Love ...
"... he had decided that she might grow to love him because love can come if you believe in it and behave as if it exists. That was the case, too, with free will; with perhaps faith of any sort; and love was a sort of faith, was it not?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-12-02 04:47 am (UTC)“Why spoil a friendship for the sake of the carnal? Life has taught me that this is a valid question to ask, whenever a friendship looks like it may be turning into something more intimate. Yes, I agree with this one.
Eye Contact... I definitely can say YES to this point. Because, to put it quite simply, it has happened to me recently...with a guy who is so much younger than I, that I blush at the crazy idea that anything could happen between us...
On the third point, C.S Lewis, the Christian apologist of Chronicles of Narnia fame, would definitely agree with idea that one will eventually experience feelings of love if one believes in it and acts out as if it exists. I, on the other hand, am not so sure, of this myself. Oh me, of little faith, right? LOL
So I guess it's Yes,...Yes,....Maybe.
Hugs!
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 02:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-02 06:02 am (UTC)Here's my take:
Why spoil a friendship for the sake of the carnal?
I'd ask the question differently: why be afraid of having a relationship grow in different ways? Yes, if your sole purpose is to have a single orgasm, then that probably won't help the friendship. But, I think that if you would treat a friend as an object in one way, then it's probably likely that you'll treat them as an object in other ways as well. Sex can be a way to get closer to someone. Taking a relationship to a deeper level is always fraught with peril, whether it's because of sex or because of trusting someone or whatever.
On the topic of eye contact ...
By looking into the eyes of another, one established a form of connection that had moral implications.
I believe that contrapositive is true -- if you want to avoid connections, one generally avoids eye contact. I hadn't thought of it the way that is phrased, but I do like it.
love can come if you believe in it and behave as if it exists.
I'm not sure if I believe this. I think that fondness and other similar emotions can come, but I'm not sure if love can. Of course, it's incredibly hard to define what "love" is. I guess my personal feeling is that love can't come that way, but that if you behave as if love does exist, then you give a hidden love a chance to show itself. Maybe that's just being pedantic, but it seems different to me.
love was a sort of faith, was it not?
Yes, I believe that love is a sort of faith, but I think it's more a faith in yourself -- your ability to love -- than faith in something external.
East vs West
Date: 2006-12-03 03:42 am (UTC). on Friendship and the *physical or sexual expression* of it: How refreshing to hear such a candidly sober perspective on this point, if only because we live in a puritan country that continues to confuse the issues. You said it all so well that I dare not add a thing, except to say that it seems ironic, to say the least, that friendship and the sexual expression of it should be so feared when linked together in a society where people keep saying they want their lovers to be their "best friends"? I would have thought the concept natural if not necessary. But it does shed light on how Americans look at life, love and sex in spite of what they say they understand.
. However on Love, when you say:
1. "I think fondness and other similar emotions can come, but I'm not sure if love can". I must offer the following: It may well be shocking to many westerners to realize that LOVE is never *instant* but an accumulation of experiences and the deepening of feelings born from those experiences which can only happen over TIME, without exception. Does one love the people who pooped one out but did not bring one up, or does one love the people who actually bring one up? Can one love a pet immediately after bringing it home or is one completely infatuated with it, thus considers it love? Do lovers need history to confirm proof of love or simply passion to justify their commitment? If the latter is true, it would surely help explain why relationships are so tempestuous yet so fragile, if not fleeting, in the West?
2. "Of course, it is incredibly hard to define what "love" is" - Not if you don't confuse Love with Passion, or Love based on Passion. I think because in the West Love is instinctively based on the physical expression and the intensity of that expression *more so than compassion and intimacy first and foremost* which necessarily require time and understanding, as the seemingly impractical virtues of the East would insist upon, westerners generally don't believe Love *can come* (i.e, "she might grow to love him") Because in the West, it is a norm to assess that if a certain "chemistry" isn't there - implying Passion - Love will never happen. But as the song goes, "You can't hurry love", I feel the absolute opposite :-)
3. "Love was a sort of faith, was it not?" - I think the author understands this point well also. My take: Naturally. That much is clear when one considers God, each other, or humanity. But that Love sometimes requires proof yet is simultaneously a matter of faith is what makes it magical. Mystical.
Re: East vs West
Date: 2006-12-03 04:17 am (UTC)As I think about this, I don't realize why I believe this, or why it is apparently important to me to believe this. Perhaps I want to reserve the right to distance myself from some people and relieve myself of any duty to do things that might change the (non)relationship.
Re: East vs West
Date: 2006-12-03 04:29 pm (UTC)"I believe that there are some people whom I couldn't love, regardless of time and effort" - Fair enough (although the buddhist in me is helping me find more love and forgiveness for others instead of refusal of the 2 as I grow older. For me, it is my choice, even if it is so difficult to love some people in some instances that I fail)
"... Perhaps I want to reserve the right to distance myself from some people and relieve myself of any duty to do things that might change the (non)relationship" - Perhaps? :0) And sometimes, surely for good reasons!
Thank you for the conversation always stimulating :0)
Re: East vs West
Date: 2006-12-06 02:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 02:15 am (UTC)You just nailed a merry-go-round :0)
Date: 2006-12-06 07:24 am (UTC)The problem is, at least in this country, the word "relationship" culturally implies emotional, which is where I think people are confused and get screwed up. Because a lot people mean to say they want sex first and foremost - not an emotional bond first and foremost - when they say they want a "relationship". So, they either don't realize it or don't know how to articulate it as such.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-02 06:30 am (UTC)Ya'know, the older I get, the less I think I know. One keeps bumping into exceptions to (you pick the) rule. Anyway, my responses:
...Friendship to carnal -
From my own experience, I can't exactly tell. Generally friendships have not taken that turn ... yet, when one gets to a certain age, I've discovered that all bets are off (maybe).
...Eye contact - yes, definitely. That's how some of us deal with the world.... though if the eyes mean to say romance, some of us like me, can be a bit shy.
... Love - possibly yes. Love, however defined and whatever the circumstance (and not necessarily romantic) seems related to faith...even if that faith is cockeyed. In the end we go on feelings, not always easily explained. I think that remaining open to possibilities is a good path to follow.
Thanks for sharing your particular 'life of the mind' - it's a gift. HUGS!
hmm...
Date: 2006-12-03 02:00 am (UTC)Re: hmm...
Date: 2006-12-06 06:14 am (UTC)Wishing you well - Hugs!
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 02:25 am (UTC)As to McCall Smith ... His series of books, The Number 1 Ladies Detective Agency series set in Botswana is delightful ... more simple and gentle ... than his novels set in Scotland. Philosophy is used differently ... more a direct part of the plot than revelation. I have all of the detective series and the first two with Isabel Delahousie in Edinburgh. I can send them to you to read if you like.
Big Hugs!
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 05:17 am (UTC)Thanks, and Hugs back to ya'!
no subject
Date: 2006-12-02 06:23 pm (UTC)I must agree on this one, having recently crossed this line myself. I would have absolutely opposed it a decade ago. But over the years, I've come to accept that some can have friendships with an occassional carnal romp, if the friendship is further enchanced and that there's a mutual responsibility on keeping boundaries, especially for those of us already in committed, yet open relationships.
On the topic of eye contact ... in her mind they were not entirely casual. By looking into the eyes of another, one established a form of connection that had moral implications."
I agree on this too. I'm very much into eye contact when I meet people, or when I simply pass people on the street. In my opinion, we all have a responsibility (a "stewardship" if you will) to each other, and I think in general, some societies/neighborhoods lack this understanding (maybe it's just metropolitan areas?). What's wrong with a simple nod "hello" when you pass on the street and make eye contact? Of course, if the eye contact is more sexual in nature, then the moral implication is at an entirely different level, indeed!
...love can come if you believe in it and behave as if it exists... love was a sort of faith, was it not?"
I think my answer is yes to this one too. Can someone love someone or something (eg, pets) and not have some kind of faith that it'll be mutual? Even if love is not mutual, some rely on faith's tenents of "loving one's neighbor," anyway, seeking or wishing the best for someone. Kinda goes back to the stewardship idea above.
Thanks for this post Neil.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 02:29 am (UTC)HUGS!
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 05:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 02:26 am (UTC)