VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Monday, April 20, 0:16:36Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1234[5]678 ]


[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:28:21 10/18/07 Thu
Author: pamelalass
Subject: I like your musings here, teddie. However we define John's feelings about Jamie, I don't think they are "true love," and I love your simple yet brilliant observation that it can't be, because it's one-sided. There are so many wonderful insights from everyone, and I also especially like the idea that Jamie's inaccessibility to John has in fact furthered the unfortunate and unrequited desire, and allowed it to take on a life of its own. And yes, there's no practical way to imagine John and some other Jamie-esque man having a domestic life like John & Isobel will, in the world these characters inhabit. >>>>
In reply to: teddie 's message, "Wow and wow. There is so much great stuff here, I'm not sure where to start! Pamelalass, I do believe that John must remain alone mostly because of historical circumstances. What might he do, afterall, given his social position--the need for discretion seems to make it almost impossible for John. Were he a more bohemian type, things could be different for him, perhaps.>>>>>>" on 14:41:24 10/18/07 Thu

But I still keep thinking this is fiction after all, so why have a brilliant, magnetic character who happens to be homosexual, and then "curse" him with unhappy love affairs, a dead first love, and an impossible love-from-afar for a heterosexual man who ends up being one of his dearest friends (and who has women swooning for him wherever he goes, both within the text and outside it, where we sit as readers!)? It stands to reason that at least a few homosexual men must have had romantic, fulfilling, committed relationships throughout history, even with the need for secrecy and the fear of discovery. And in most great fiction with an element of romance, the lovers have to face adversarial conditions and conflict to drive the plot and stir the reader's emotions, right?

Perhaps the answer to my question is as simple as the notion of a "tragic" hero, forever unlucky in love. Or that John's story has not yet been fully told, and more patience is required (I'm hoping it's this!)!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Replies:





[ Contact Forum Admin ]




Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.