PDA

View Full Version : Their love



Letti
05-22-2007, 12:00 PM
We have talked about it before but I would be interested in all of your opinions and feelings.
In your eyes was Susan and Roland's love deep and true or was it a light and hot love between two young people who hardly knew each other?

The way I see and feel it it was a true love with deep and faithful feelings.

Matt
05-22-2007, 12:07 PM
I think it was true. Its amazing how Ka brings people together and if The Good Man hadn't started his campaign, Pat would not have been killed, the books would have been right and Roland would have never came there.

(because I am certain that Steven and the rest knew something was up there)

I also believe that true love is established in a moment--between two people who are destined to meet.

Rjeso
05-22-2007, 12:12 PM
I voted for true.

If it was a fling, I doubt Roland would have been as scarred as he was by her death. She would have eventually faded to just another face that happened to die because she has associated with him, you know? As it is, though, he still feels her absence.

Jean
05-22-2007, 12:27 PM
maybe you wonder who was the monster that said "Hot but light" ...

Matt
05-22-2007, 12:28 PM
I bet it was you Ka hater. :lol:

Letti
05-22-2007, 12:32 PM
maybe you wonder who was the monster that said "Hot but light" ...

Jean, you are one of the reasons I have started this thread. :D

Jean
05-22-2007, 12:33 PM
I may consider changing my name for some Japanese hieroglyph meaning "The One Who Is Always Outnumbered". Seriously, though, I have some good reasons, and I'll give them tomorrow when I have a clearer head.

Letti
05-22-2007, 12:34 PM
I may consider changing my name for some Japanese hieroglyph meaning "The One Who Is Always Outnumbered". Seriously, though, I have some good reasons, and I'll give them tomorrow when I have a clearer head.

We cannot wait to read it.

Rjeso
05-22-2007, 12:34 PM
Jean, you always have such amazing arguments. Sometimes I'm almost swayed to your side of thinking by them, too, and I'm a stubborn person :P Anyway, I can't wait to hear why you think it wasn't as deep as the rest of us do.

Letti
05-22-2007, 12:35 PM
Jean, you always have such amazing arguments. Sometimes I'm almost swayed to your side of thinking byt htem, too, and I'm a stubborn person :P

:couple:

Matt
05-22-2007, 12:37 PM
I may consider changing my name for some Japanese hieroglyph meaning "The One Who Is Always Outnumbered". Seriously, though, I have some good reasons, and I'll give them tomorrow when I have a clearer head.

I was totally joking :lol:

However, I can't wait to read your thoughts on the subject.

I can identify with the always being out numbered though, I seriously expected to be the only one on the site that believed in fate.

Wuducynn
05-22-2007, 12:52 PM
I voted for a deep, hard, hot, sweaty, nasty, faithful one...*fans self*

B Rag
05-22-2007, 01:19 PM
I voted "Hot but Light" as well. I think that, given time, it might have grown to be a really deep love, but so far it was not.

Hannah
05-22-2007, 01:31 PM
I said hot but light.

First loves can leave a deep scar on anyone, especially when that love is taken away the way it was in WaG.

Bethany
05-22-2007, 01:47 PM
I. too, said hot but light and Hannah pretty much summed up why.

MonteGss
05-22-2007, 09:32 PM
Hot but light. If events had been different and Roland hadn't had his vision in the Rainbow about the DT, perhaps it could have grown into a deep faithful love. As soon as Roland saw the DT, Susan became secondary.

Jean
05-22-2007, 11:30 PM
I voted "Hot but Light" as well. I think that, given time, it might have grown to be a really deep love, but so far it was not.


I said hot but light.

First loves can leave a deep scar on anyone, especially when that love is taken away the way it was in WaG.


Hot but light. If events had been different and Roland hadn't had his vision in the Rainbow about the DT, perhaps it could have grown into a deep faithful love. As soon as Roland saw the DT, Susan became secondary.

that's exactly what I was going to say.

Their feeling may or may not have blossomed into love; the only proof of true love is time. It's all very well to fight shoulder to shoulder in the battlefield, but when the war is over, the real test of love is whether or not you're annoyed by where your second half puts his/her socks. Extremal situations breed crushes, infatuations, raging passions, whatever; true love is a phenomenon of every-day life.

Susan-Roland was not a love story, although there was passion involved. It was a story of two kids, whose feeling was prematurely cut down by fate.

There comes a time in any young life when a young person feels s/he must fall in love. (someone - probably La Rochefoucauld, on whom these dubious witticisms are usually blamed - said that if there was no love stories, people wouldn't fall in love so often. Questionable, of course, but there may be a grain of truth here.) This feeling doesn't even depend on its object. Good girls fall in love with total assholes, and young poets with thoughtless bitches. It's the desire to love that creates the object of first love. Like Pushkin said of Tatiana in Evgeniy Onegin: Her time has come, she fell in love.

And, alas, Susan's willingness to die for Roland doesn't make her love any truer, either. It is easy for the young to die, that’s one of the sad paradoxes of life and the secret of youth. I also hope (or rather, I am afraid) the experience of mankind has already shown that readiness to die for a cause doesn't make the cause just.

Darkthoughts
05-24-2007, 01:33 PM
I agree with that rather fantastic post Jean, but thats only because I've been with my husband for 11 years and have the benefit of hindsight.

I'd say that to Susan and Roland at the time it was true love. Its a paradox of sorts in that we're judging true love from two different viewpoints - one being how you define the term when you are actually in that moment and the other being on reflection.

Matt
05-24-2007, 02:05 PM
I said that they were because I truly believe the "love" can be established in a second between the right people.

I fell in love with my wife after one meeting and we have been together 10 years. :lol:

Weather they would have fulfilled the commitment is a different story but weather or not what they felt was true love? I think it was.

Ruki
05-24-2007, 07:34 PM
Susan-Roland was not a love story, although there was passion involved. It was a story of two kids, whose feeling was prematurely cut down by fate.

yep.

roland said it himself, they were fools of ka.

OchrisO
05-24-2007, 10:15 PM
I think it was true and deep, but doomed, both of those reasons fueled by Ka.

Just because something is short lived doesn't mean it wasn't true.

I once met a girl who I was swept up in much like Roland was with Susan. It too was short lived, but was(is?)still the most intense and true love I have ever experienced in my life, or most likely ever will again.

However, I don't think King is really all that good at love, or at least wasn't when he wrote WaG.

Daghain
05-25-2007, 07:57 AM
I think, when you're young especially, first love is the most intense and immediate love you ever feel. So at that age, and at that time, I believe for them it was true love.

Chassit
05-25-2007, 08:10 AM
I think that their love was true. But I also believe that anyone involved in ka-tet will experience true love, it's part of the deal. I look at the heroes in It as a perfect example...

maerlyns_rainbow
05-25-2007, 10:19 AM
Perfect post, Jean, I couldn't have said it any better myself! :thumbsup:


I said that they were because I truly believe the "love" can be established in a second between the right people.

I fell in love with my wife after one meeting and we have been together 10 years. :lol:

Weather they would have fulfilled the commitment is a different story but weather or not what they felt was true love? I think it was.

This is the reason that I believe in ka and true love/soul mates. I fell in love with Austin the moment I met him, and we have been together for over 5 years, lived together 1 and a half of them. But while I knew he was perfect for me and we should live our lives together, I also didn't have a deep and strong connection to him. That was something that took a lot of time and togetherness to bring about.

A real, strong, deep love takes time. No one with a love like this would leave behind their other half for anything, in my opinion of course. Without this person in your life, you are just not complete. And I also believe that finding this person, out of all the billions of people you could potentially bump into on the planet, is something that just isn't possible without some sort of ka pushing you along.

kithereal
05-31-2007, 09:09 AM
......untested by the true test of love which is time....when intense HOT love ebbs...and real love remains..

The tragic end to one lover left a powerful mark on the one that remained...it is hard to let go of a love that does not follow its natural course.

I think KIng Is amazing at Love.( he does protest but he is amazing)
The love of Boy for his Da
The love of a man a woman
A boy and his dog
The love of fellow man
A father's love
A Mother's Love
one of my favorite quotes in DT series is one of Love....from the The Tower.
KIT

Matt
05-31-2007, 10:28 AM
Perfect post, Jean, I couldn't have said it any better myself! :thumbsup:


I said that they were because I truly believe the "love" can be established in a second between the right people.

I fell in love with my wife after one meeting and we have been together 10 years. :lol:

Weather they would have fulfilled the commitment is a different story but weather or not what they felt was true love? I think it was.

This is the reason that I believe in ka and true love/soul mates. I fell in love with Austin the moment I met him, and we have been together for over 5 years, lived together 1 and a half of them. But while I knew he was perfect for me and we should live our lives together, I also didn't have a deep and strong connection to him. That was something that took a lot of time and togetherness to bring about.

A real, strong, deep love takes time. No one with a love like this would leave behind their other half for anything, in my opinion of course. Without this person in your life, you are just not complete. And I also believe that finding this person, out of all the billions of people you could potentially bump into on the planet, is something that just isn't possible without some sort of ka pushing you along.

I totally agree with this. We have a weird thing that our souls were joined before, ripped apart to be put into us and then spent all this time searching. When they see each other again after all that time, its there no matter what.


when intense HOT love ebbs...and real love remains..

This is also something I have never understood because our intense hot has lasted for 10 years and is only getting better as they go on. It never ebbed. :lol:

Letti
06-02-2007, 09:06 AM
I think, when you're young especially, first love is the most intense and immediate love you ever feel. So at that age, and at that time, I believe for them it was true love.

I am quite young and I feel I was in love twice in my life. My first love was a nightmare and my second... I have been loving that man for almost 6 years happily.
For me love is love. (Brice often says it.) They are different. We don't feel the same way. Sometimes they love can rock worlds and tear universes apart and sometimes it's just a hot flame. Sometimes it's real sometimes we make it real because we would like to be in love so much. We are hungry for it.

But I believe it doesn't depend on age.

Odetta
10-31-2007, 07:01 AM
Hot but light. If events had been different and Roland hadn't had his vision in the Rainbow about the DT, perhaps it could have grown into a deep faithful love. As soon as Roland saw the DT, Susan became secondary.

I agree 100% Monte!
Roland's quest was his one true love.

Storyslinger
10-31-2007, 07:02 AM
I'll third that, at least til he met the new ka-tet

Matt
10-31-2007, 11:05 AM
I'm still with Letti. I think that true love can burn just as brightly for a short time as it can for a long time.

I fell for my Dora in the 5 minutes after we first met, forever and always so I'm not sure if the time is a qualifier for depth of love

Odetta
10-31-2007, 11:06 AM
I'm still with Letti. I think that true love can burn just as brightly for a short time as it can for a long time.

I fell for my Dora in the 5 minutes after we first met, forever and always so I'm not sure if the time is a qualifier for depth of love

I think it can, too... I just don't think it did for Susan and Roland. She would always be second fiddle to the Tower

Matt
10-31-2007, 11:27 AM
And I can agree with that too, it is the basis of his horrible obsession. But remember, he didn't know all that much about the tower when they met so at first, it was just him and her.

Odetta
11-01-2007, 06:27 AM
that is true

Storyslinger
11-01-2007, 06:31 AM
I'm woth the whole love disscusion, that the feeling is there throughout time not matter what, just, like O said, not ment to stay with them

Sinistar
11-27-2007, 11:52 AM
It was probably hot but light and the physical attraction was the main aspect in the relationship. Roland only thought this to be true love later on after he loses Susan and reminisces on what once was. It always seems better when you look back on something rather than live through it.

Odetta
11-27-2007, 12:07 PM
good point, sinistar

Matt
11-27-2007, 01:20 PM
I'm still saying it was real and not only that, would have saved Roland from his damnation as love often does. :rock:

TerribleT
11-27-2007, 01:25 PM
the real test of love is whether or not you're annoyed by where your second half puts his/her socks. Extremal situations breed crushes, infatuations, raging passions, whatever; true love is a phenomenon of every-day life.

I think that kinda depends on what your definition of true love is. If it's putting up with someone's bad habits, I'm not really sure I would call that true love.

Matt
11-27-2007, 01:27 PM
I think he just meant that most true love is quite common--the markers I mean.

Its not about the words "I LOVE YOU" written in the sky, its about every day things that make it strong.

But I don't think he and I agree on this issue so there you go. :lol:

For me, their love was as real as it gets.

TerribleT
11-27-2007, 01:28 PM
when intense HOT love ebbs...and real love remains..

This is also something I have never understood because our intense hot has lasted for 10 years and is only getting better as they go on. It never ebbed. :lol:

AMEN BRUTHA...PREACH IT!!!!!

Matt
11-27-2007, 01:31 PM
She's some kind of woman, that's for sure. :lol:

Letti
11-27-2007, 10:16 PM
It was probably hot but light and the physical attraction was the main aspect in the relationship. Roland only thought this to be true love later on after he loses Susan and reminisces on what once was. It always seems better when you look back on something rather than live through it.

Not always.
Sometimes things seem to be much worse when you look back at them and you have no idea how you could tolerate the other one. But then comes the answer... because you loved him/her and that's what painted everything acceptable.

Jean
11-28-2007, 12:52 AM
the real test of love is whether or not you're annoyed by where your second half puts his/her socks. Extremal situations breed crushes, infatuations, raging passions, whatever; true love is a phenomenon of every-day life.

I think that kinda depends on what your definition of true love is. If it's putting up with someone's bad habits, I'm not really sure I would call that true love.
I meant - and I believe I made it more or less clear in other posts, too (at least I tried) that true love is love that lasts no matter what, and this "what" isn't evil dragons or malicious witches or other romantic stuff. If you want it in other words, time is the only test of true love (as opposed to other similar phenomena, such as infatuation or passion). If the feeling was never subjected to the test of time, there's no telling whather it wasn't just a passing phantom created by the longing to love and be loved, so characteristic for certain age. Socks, armpits, tuneless whistling, will all be revealed as you live with the person you, allegedly, love... it's then that your love either grows stronger, or disappears, leaving only this frustration of your romantic anticipations (I thought she was an angel, and she belches after a glass of beer)

Darkthoughts
11-28-2007, 03:57 AM
(I thought she was an angel, and she belches after a glass of beer)

Alas! Jean and I are not to be :cry:

:lol:

Actually, even though I disagreed with you previously - I totally agree with what you just wrote.

Letti
11-28-2007, 06:01 AM
And can love change, Jean? I mean you still love that person after many years too but not the same way. What do you think about that?

Jean
11-28-2007, 06:03 AM
Depends on what you mean by "the same way". I am sure we love differently every day, because people change, and feelings change.

Letti
11-28-2007, 06:05 AM
Anyway... I don't think that time is the only test of true love. I mean... if a husband beats his wife for 30 years BUT he doesn't leave her he doesn't have a lover because he loves her but it's a bit hard for him to express his feelings, is that true love?
If a man loves a woman for 7 beautiful years but he changes so does his love - because that's how our world works - and after 7 nice days they break up because they are not similar enough to belong to each other anymore, that's not true love?

I might be just stupid to understand your point or we just simply disagree as usual.

Jean
11-28-2007, 06:11 AM
the first example doesn't work because the situation is different. If I say that gold can be recognized because your teeth can make imprint on it (that's how gold coins used to be roughly tested), it wouldn't mean I said that chocolate or chewing gum was gold.

The second example is ok. They may have had beautiful romance for 7 years, but love for me is, you know, "'til death do us part".

Letti
11-28-2007, 06:52 AM
Okay.
We think damn different. :)

Jean
11-28-2007, 06:58 AM
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_sara01.gif

LadyHitchhiker
11-28-2007, 07:02 AM
Here's a good question:

If he hadn't met Susan, would he still have been as obsessed with getting to the tower or do you think this is a vengeance quest, to make meaning out of Susan's death?

Jean
11-28-2007, 07:04 AM
Here's a good question:

If he hadn't met Susan, would he still have been as obsessed with getting to the tower or do you think this is a vengeance quest, to make meaning out of Susan's death?
I am sure he would have been exactly as obsessed. I am also sure he would have found someone else to sacrifice on that way.

Storyslinger
11-28-2007, 08:31 AM
Now, seeing as we are talking about their love not happening, what would of happen had he not gone to Mejis at all?

LadyHitchhiker
11-28-2007, 08:39 AM
He wouldn't have seen the "crystal ball" and he wouldn't have ended up looping again?

Storyslinger
11-28-2007, 08:41 AM
I don't have the slightest idea, I was wondering what everyone else thought. But, that sounds very possible

LadyHitchhiker
11-28-2007, 08:47 AM
Maybe that's the thing... in the next loop he's not supposed to go to Mejis?

Just an idea.

TerribleT
11-28-2007, 08:49 AM
[QUOTE=Jean;68593I] [time is the only test of true love (QUOTE]


Then by your definition we can never really know whether Roland and Susan's love for each other is true or not, because it never had the opportunity to to take the test of time. So the only barometer that we have, as you defined it is that Roland still carries a torch for Susan LONG after their time together, in spite of his quest for the tower, and the other trials he's endured. It was obvious to me that Roland loved Alain, Cuthbert, and Jamie long after they had been killed, but that love for his "brothers" is not questioned. Call me a romantic, but I don't believe that time is a test of anything. I think people often stay together for a long time more out of habit, than a true desire to be together. I think often they are too lazy, or scared to move on and they stay together and put the stamp of "true love" on it to excuse their own laziness or fear.

(bear in mind that this is coming from someone who's longest relationship lasted 5 years, who has the social skills of a pissed off gorilla, so I'm probably full of shit)

Storyslinger
11-28-2007, 08:52 AM
Going off of Jeans quote, that would mean that their love did stand the test of time, at least for Roland, who thought about and missed her his whole life.

Jean
11-28-2007, 08:56 AM
TerribleT: see my example about gold and chocolate: if I maintain that only time can prove that a relationship is love, it doesn't follow that any time-tested relationship is love. I think in Roland/Susan case we have no barometer at all, and his remembering her only shows us how capable of remorse he was. Love for brothers, or friendship, is for me an entirely different matter, that should be discussed separately.


(bear in mind that this is coming from someone who's longest relationship lasted 5 years, who has the social skills of a pissed off gorilla, so I'm probably full of shit)

(bear in mind that this is coming from someone who is always obsessively nitpicking on logic and trying to define and redefine all notions within or without reach, and disagreeing with everyone around... From bear to gorilla! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif)

EDITED: Storyslinger, I just saw your post; as you could see I disagree... again...

Storyslinger
11-28-2007, 08:59 AM
I see your point, and I do agree, I'm just playing the opposite card.

I personally didn't like Susan, and thought she just played Roland, so there was never any love

LadyHitchhiker
11-28-2007, 08:59 AM
Well... I'm a romantic, and I'd like to believe as Letti that their love was pure and wonderful and all of that, and it would stand the test of time, and perhaps I should reread it, and I'm going to start to ramble but I didn't feel the deep connection between Roland and Susan that a lot of other people did. I wanted to, I guess I just never got attached to Susan because I knew she was going to die and I guess I was mad that SK took a big step back for half a book to explain their love, when I wanted to know what was going on with the ka-tet. But that's just me. Reading them again and again and again - as is my way - I will find new meaning every time.

But as for love lasting forever, if it is with the right one, it can. There are some people that I will love forever, in different ways and not just because it is a habit. Maybe I'm just helplessly in love, but my heart still pounds in my chest when my husband calls me on the phone, and when he walks in the door...

TerribleT
11-28-2007, 09:00 AM
Jean, I'm ok with that, but your assertion was that time was the ONLY true measure of a relationship. If that's your assertion, then logic dictates that the abusive relationships, and the friendships all fit within your assertion. They've stood the ONLY true test. So, using your measure, we can't judge their relationship at all. We can only say that it was untested, given the criteria set forth.

Jean
11-28-2007, 09:00 AM
I see your point, and I do agree, I'm just playing the opposite card.

I personally didn't like Susan, and thought she just played Roland, so there was never any love
wow! no, I never went as far as to doubt her sincerity. Anything to confirm that?

TerribleT
11-28-2007, 09:03 AM
Maybe I'm just helplessly in love, but my heart still pounds in my chest when my husband calls me on the phone, and when he walks in the door...


This is EXACTLY the assertion that I'm trying to make, which others earlier in this thread had discounted as not true love. I think the heart pounding excimtement when you see or talk to your love IS true love, whether it's for a week, a month, or a lifetime.

Storyslinger
11-28-2007, 09:04 AM
I see your point, and I do agree, I'm just playing the opposite card.

I personally didn't like Susan, and thought she just played Roland, so there was never any love
wow! no, I never went as far as to doubt her sincerity. Anything to confirm that?

Not really, I just never trusted her. I only felt sorry for his feeling of the loss, not for her. I think that maybe my beliefs are a little more personal related, but there was the part where she wondered if she would have fallen for Cuthbert had she met him first

Brice
11-28-2007, 09:05 AM
the real test of love is whether or not you're annoyed by where your second half puts his/her socks. Extremal situations breed crushes, infatuations, raging passions, whatever; true love is a phenomenon of every-day life.

I think that kinda depends on what your definition of true love is. If it's putting up with someone's bad habits, I'm not really sure I would call that true love.
I meant - and I believe I made it more or less clear in other posts, too (at least I tried) that true love is love that lasts no matter what, and this "what" isn't evil dragons or malicious witches or other romantic stuff. If you want it in other words, time is the only test of true love (as opposed to other similar phenomena, such as infatuation or passion). If the feeling was never subjected to the test of time, there's no telling whather it wasn't just a passing phantom created by the longing to love and be loved, so characteristic for certain age. Socks, armpits, tuneless whistling, will all be revealed as you live with the person you, allegedly, love... it's then that your love either grows stronger, or disappears, leaving only this frustration of your romantic anticipations (I thought she was an angel, and she belches after a glass of beer)

Isn't love just love? To my thinking it is at least. There is no "true love", there is only love, and it is everything. People have, and will continue to find lots of rationaliztions for ending a romance or whatever (i.e. Your angel belching after a glass of beer :lol: , a violent or abusive relationship, betrayal, etcetera) , but from what I've seen and experienced the love is always still there. Otherwise there would be no pain or hurt in these situations. No the love is as real and true as it ever was. I don't think there is a "test of time" or a test at all. Love isn't something which is proven ever. It can't be. It just is or it isn't. In short ...I think any/every love is true, so I must say that I think Roland's and Susan's was at least from the perspective of the characters and so it is equal to your love or mine or any other. As for whether it would have lasted if Susan hadn't become fuel for a fire... *shrug* It's a story. I don't see how you can say. There are too many possible directions a relationship can take. It ended short.

Jean
11-28-2007, 09:06 AM
Jean, I'm ok with that, but your assertion was that time was the ONLY true measure of a relationship. If that's your assertion, then logic dictates that the abusive relationships, and the friendships all fit within your assertion. They've stood the ONLY true test.

(sorry to quote myself, but it was a good example and I am not as bright as to think of a new one) If I said that gold can be recognized because your teeth can make imprint on it (that's how gold coins used to be roughly tested), it wouldn't mean I said that chocolate or chewing gum was gold.

The only test doesn't mean the complete definition.


So, using your measure, we can't judge their relationship at all. We can only say that it was untested, given the criteria set forth.

Yes, - if it being untested was all we could judge by, we could say we couldn't say anything about it. (I have my personal reasons to doubt their love, mostly because both the female protagonist and the whole story were so annoyingly cliched.)

Brice: I think you and Nikolett see eye-to-eye on this subject. I see your point very well; I think the intrinsic difference between our points of view is more epistemological than essential; it mostly depends on whether you've chosen to find differences or essential similarities in phenomena. Both approaches, I believe, are indispensable if we want to discover the truth, or at least to come as close to it as it is humanly possible.

LadyHitchhiker
11-28-2007, 09:14 AM
I agree Jean. She wasn't a very deep character. That's probably why I had a hard time with liking her.

Darkthoughts
11-28-2007, 12:29 PM
I personally didn't like Susan, and thought she just played Roland, so there was never any love

When I first ever read WaG it was instantly my favourite book (it no longer is, it lost some of it's sparkle over too many rereads) and I found nothing insincere in Roland, Susan or their relationship.

I don't think she played Roland, I think she genuinely adored him, perhaps even more so because she was a prisoner in her own life and he represented the unknown and adventure - things she equated to freedom.

Storyslinger
11-28-2007, 12:32 PM
I went back and explained my original post, so, here it is.


Not really, I just never trusted her. I only felt sorry for his feeling of the loss, not for her. I think that maybe my beliefs are a little more personal related, but there was the part where she wondered if she would have fallen for Cuthbert had she met him first

Darkthoughts
11-28-2007, 12:37 PM
I didn't take that as anything to read too much into, more the sort of inner monologue we all have where it's ok to think things that would probably be taken the wrong way if we said them out loud.

Storyslinger
11-28-2007, 12:41 PM
Yes, you say true, my main reason is just personal stuff at the time of reading it. I'm sure she wasn't written as a deciteful character, and she did stand true at the time of her death.

Darkthoughts
11-28-2007, 12:44 PM
:couple:

Storyslinger
11-28-2007, 12:45 PM
:D

Letti
11-28-2007, 11:38 PM
I personally didn't like Susan, and thought she just played Roland, so there was never any love

Oh my... http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p237/Lettike/smiley/SmileyTHUD.gif

Guys, sometimes you can shock me.
I do respect your opinion Brian but PLEASE reread this book. ;)

Letti
11-28-2007, 11:42 PM
Here's a good question:

If he hadn't met Susan, would he still have been as obsessed with getting to the tower or do you think this is a vengeance quest, to make meaning out of Susan's death?

I am not a ka person but I say the Tower would have found its way to Roland. Roland is that type of guy who needs to be hooked on something big. Something he can chase in his whole life.

Letti
11-28-2007, 11:44 PM
I am sure we won't agree and however I agree with Brice that love is love I still think that one's love is hotter and deeper and the other's can be light or just not as deep as the other one's.

Roland.
Susan.

Who was more crazy about the other one?

Jean
11-29-2007, 01:59 AM
oh, I finally see, that's where we disagree! In my universe, love is an absolute notion, without degrees. As soon as degrees are introduced, I feel it necessary to look for another word.

Darkthoughts
11-29-2007, 03:47 AM
I thought they were both equally involved in each other.

To be honest, when I came into this thread I thought it was going to be about Susan and Roland vs Rosalita and Roland. I thought Rosa and Roland's love was a more mature and relaxed relationship, whereas I think had Susan and Roland stayed together, their relationship would've been quite turbulent due to their personalities.

Letti
11-29-2007, 04:43 AM
Lisa, that would be a great thread. I mean Roland ans Rosalita's love.


oh, I finally see, that's where we disagree! In my universe, love is an absolute notion, without degrees. As soon as degrees are introduced, I feel it necessary to look for another word.
Jean,
we disagree everywhere. :lol:


So,
I used to be in love with a guy who told me he loved me. I was absolutely crazy about him. I think I have talked about it before I wouldn't like to get into details but when I say I was crazy about him I mean it word by word (poor little Letti).
I don't say he didn't love me he did and he told me it quite often but in fact his band his dog and... everything was more important than me. He didn't give a damn about me. I was like... a favourite toy or something.
Jean, I would like to see your point. Do you say that we loved each other the same way OR his love was not love but something else and we shouldn't use the word "love" at all in this case?

Jean
11-29-2007, 04:48 AM
maybe your words "I was crazy about him" and "I was like a favorite toy" describe the attitudes of both sides very well... I am only trying to be specific, and avoid generic words whenever possible.

Letti
11-29-2007, 04:57 AM
I see your point very well Jean but I don't think we have the right to say that oh yes my love is love but yours is something else. Because love is this and this and look what you feel...
I think love has many many faces.

Jean
11-29-2007, 05:00 AM
I don't see how any word of your last post disagrees with anything I ever said.

Letti
11-29-2007, 05:03 AM
*gets confused* I might be just tired.... *unsure*

Jean
11-29-2007, 05:05 AM
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

Letti
11-29-2007, 05:09 AM
*smiles widely*
One day Jean it will turn out that we are like twins, Jean... ;)


Let's see what others think. *sits down and waits*

Brice
11-29-2007, 05:29 AM
oh, I finally see, that's where we disagree! In my universe, love is an absolute notion, without degrees. As soon as degrees are introduced, I feel it necessary to look for another word.

And yet, it is not where we disagree. I believe in love as an absolute also... as you said there are no degrees. I just think it manifests in innumerable ways. None greater. None less. Just love. :)

Letti
11-29-2007, 05:31 AM
:wub:

Brice
11-29-2007, 05:34 AM
:huglove:

Storyslinger
11-29-2007, 06:22 AM
I've said it before in other threads, so here it is. I feel Rolands love was deeper, fore he carried her memory for the rest of his days. But, Susan was the one who needed Roland more. She had been through, and was currently in, hard times, and she needed someone to hold her to sanoty.

Storyslinger
11-29-2007, 06:43 AM
That seems to be a perfect description of him. Needs something big to chase....., I like it.

Letti
11-29-2007, 09:20 AM
I've said it before in other threads, so here it is.

You have given me the thread idea. :couple:

Storyslinger
11-29-2007, 09:39 AM
I see, :lol:

:huglove:

Darkthoughts
11-29-2007, 10:40 AM
I've said it before in other threads, so here it is. I feel Rolands love was deeper, fore he carried her memory for the rest of his days.
Well, to be obtuse, I don't think thats a very good basis for comparison Story - susan loved Roland 'til the end of her days too...unfortunately her days were markedly numbered ;)

Storyslinger
11-29-2007, 10:42 AM
Yes, that may be a bit on the strong side. I just felt, that Roland actually cared for her more, and she, like I said, just needed someone to hold her together. Then agian, they say you first love is the truest

*shrugs shoulders*

LadyHitchhiker
12-01-2007, 05:40 PM
So his addiction was deeper than Eddie's... hmmm.. I like that.

Matt
12-02-2007, 08:55 AM
I think if Eddie had a baboon, Roland had a Rhino. :lol:

Sinistar
12-02-2007, 11:30 AM
So if Susan didn't have those internal issues, then Roland would've been less appealing to her? Maybe less of a forbidden fruit, per se? I'm sooooo confused!!!!:onfire:

alinda
12-02-2007, 01:30 PM
Love is Love ......ahhhh amore!:rose:

Darkthoughts
12-02-2007, 01:36 PM
Story - what I actually meant was, if you're judging how deep Roland's love for her was by his lasting memory of that love - then it's an unfair comparison because we can't measure Susan's love by time (because she died.)

Sinistar - I don't think Roland was forbidden fruit, more he just represented the things she craved in life.

Jean
12-02-2007, 02:08 PM
Story - what I actually meant was, if you're judging how deep Roland's love for her was by his lasting memory of that love - then it's an unfair comparison because we can't measure Susan's love by time (because she died.)
Absolutely. Moreover, I would beg to differ between love and guilty conscience.

Darkthoughts
12-02-2007, 02:46 PM
Yes, I thought to myself - how long would Roland's love (and his consequent memory of it) had lasted had it not been cut so tragically short?

It's interesting that he saw Susan in the pink grapefruit, because it made the analogy to me of viewing your first love through rose tinted glasses.

BlakeMP
12-02-2007, 02:52 PM
I think it's most tragic if the love is equal -- if either loevd more than the other, the tragedy is lessened.

She-Oy
12-02-2007, 02:59 PM
I don't like this notion of "one can love someone more than the other". It really not fair. Each individual person carries their own capacity for feelings whether good or bad.

We each love in our own way.

It akin to two people stubbing their toes. Person A may cry because it hurts, but person B while feeling pain, doesn't show it...it's not fair to say who's toe hurt worse.

Spencer
12-03-2007, 05:50 AM
I say Susan's, because Roland always had other pressing concerns, and was distracted by them his whole life.

sai delgado
12-03-2007, 07:25 AM
I'm also of the opinion that susan loved roland more. She put herself in a lot of danger for him-such as meeting him in secret and helping him, cuthbert and alain on various occasions, and she also died head held high for him. Her last words were Roland I love thee, she had no last regrets of anything that happened between them. Roland, however, did kind of leave her while he went off to the canyon and hoped she would be ok-i dont know, i just get the feeling he would have chosen the tower over her.

sai delgado
12-03-2007, 07:32 AM
i voted for a deep faithful love. but then i read some of the posts and now i'm not so sure...

LadyHitchhiker
12-03-2007, 07:45 AM
Matt, that may be my favorite dark tower junkie quote ever!

Jean
12-03-2007, 07:47 AM
i voted for a deep faithful love. but then i read some of the posts and now i'm not so sure...
:: evil ::
::suave::
::whispers::
just say a word and I will edit your vote...

Matt
12-03-2007, 08:04 AM
:rofl:

Letti
12-03-2007, 08:19 AM
i voted for a deep faithful love. but then i read some of the posts and now i'm not so sure...
:: evil ::
::suave::
::whispers::
just say a word and I will edit your vote...

:rolleyes:


I am with you, girl. Gogogo. :)

Brice
12-03-2007, 09:19 AM
...and again...love is just love. *shakes his head at the silly peoples*

Letti
12-03-2007, 09:23 AM
Anyway for me it's a bit hard to write about love because we have more words for it in Hungarian... what about in Russian? I am interested in it a lot.
For example I know that in French there are even more than in Hungarian.

So.. it's natural if our thoughts are different if we have other more or less words for them in your mind.

Brice
12-03-2007, 09:26 AM
Anyway for me it's a bit hard to write about love because we have more words for it in Hungarian... what about in Russian? I am interested in it a lot.
For example I know that in French there are even more than in Hungarian.

So.. it's natural if our thoughts are different if we have other more or less words for them in your mind.

...and all of them equal love. Am I right? :D

Letti
12-03-2007, 09:30 AM
Anyway for me it's a bit hard to write about love because we have more words for it in Hungarian... what about in Russian? I am interested in it a lot.
For example I know that in French there are even more than in Hungarian.

So.. it's natural if our thoughts are different if we have other more or less words for them in your mind.

...and all of them equal love. Am I right? :D

Hmmm... they are very different so it's hard to say that they are equal. Yes... of course they are but it's like saying oxygen and water are equal. They both are inredibly important for lie but they are way too different to say that oh yes they are equal.
However yes, they are.

Brice
12-03-2007, 09:32 AM
Anyway for me it's a bit hard to write about love because we have more words for it in Hungarian... what about in Russian? I am interested in it a lot.
For example I know that in French there are even more than in Hungarian.

So.. it's natural if our thoughts are different if we have other more or less words for them in your mind.

...and all of them equal love. Am I right? :D

Hmmm... they are very different so it's hard to say that they are equal. Yes... of course they are but it's like saying oxygen and water are equal. They both are inredibly important for lie but they are way too different to say that oh yes they are equal.
However yes, they are.

So...they are not...but they are? :rofl:


*love love love
love is ALL you need*

Letti
12-03-2007, 09:35 AM
Anyway for me it's a bit hard to write about love because we have more words for it in Hungarian... what about in Russian? I am interested in it a lot.
For example I know that in French there are even more than in Hungarian.

So.. it's natural if our thoughts are different if we have other more or less words for them in your mind.

...and all of them equal love. Am I right? :D

Hmmm... they are very different so it's hard to say that they are equal. Yes... of course they are but it's like saying oxygen and water are equal. They both are inredibly important for lie but they are way too different to say that oh yes they are equal.
However yes, they are.

So...they are not...but they are? :rofl:

Exactly. *nods widely*



:lol:

Brice
12-03-2007, 09:39 AM
Anyway for me it's a bit hard to write about love because we have more words for it in Hungarian... what about in Russian? I am interested in it a lot.
For example I know that in French there are even more than in Hungarian.

So.. it's natural if our thoughts are different if we have other more or less words for them in your mind.

...and all of them equal love. Am I right? :D

Hmmm... they are very different so it's hard to say that they are equal. Yes... of course they are but it's like saying oxygen and water are equal. They both are inredibly important for lie but they are way too different to say that oh yes they are equal.
However yes, they are.

So...they are not...but they are? :rofl:

Exactly. *nods widely*



:lol:

Actually, it is very wise indeed.

LadyHitchhiker
12-03-2007, 03:45 PM
Love is just love? Now THAT is silly.

As the ever-so-wise Beatles said:

"All you need is love.. /
Love is all you need."

sai delgado
12-05-2007, 04:00 AM
im thinking that roland and susan did not have a deep and faithful love, i think they had the basis for what would have been but they did not have the time to make it that way because death parted them. It was youthful passion but there was love there because of what susan and roland did for each other. susan went to the stake for him and roland put everything in danger by being with her. However i do not think now, after reading other peoples posts, that it could have been deep and faithful because they were not given the time to truly show this. I say it would have been a adeep and faithful love if they had been able to stay together longer.

ManOfWesternesse
12-05-2007, 05:41 AM
Anyway for me it's a bit hard to write about love because we have more words for it in Hungarian... what about in Russian? I am interested in it a lot.
For example I know that in French there are even more than in Hungarian.

So.. it's natural if our thoughts are different if we have other more or less words for them in your mind.

In Irish, there's only really the one word - grá - but then we're a reticent bunch here anyway! :lol:

every other 'love' reference in the language is kind of... crafted.. from other words.
eg. from the dictionary:- 'to make love' = luí le chéile - which literally means "to lie together" etc...etc...


Anyway - my vote = Yes, it was a real & deep & faithful love.

Matt
12-05-2007, 01:37 PM
I totally agree--sometimes things just are.

This is one of them imo

Dud-a-chum?
01-15-2008, 12:12 AM
I think Roland just feels guilty for not taking Susan with him when he should have. That act alone makes me feel that Susan loved Roland truly, and maybe Roland, confused by being forced to mature much sooner than he should have, only THOUGHT he loved her. I mean, that's just the way I look at it.

Btw, I happen to be of the belief that there is no such thing as "the one", and that you can love the next person in your llife just as much as the last, so if that is true, then Roland did indeed love Susan, but how long would he have continued to love her had he taken her with him to start with?

To add to that, I also think that Sai King most likely feels the same way about it, because . . .

One of the lessons Gan teaches him at the end involves his leaving Susan to pretty much die.

I may just be reading it wrong, though.

bergy81
02-06-2008, 12:15 AM
ka is ka. i guess

Storyslinger
02-06-2008, 08:23 AM
Even though my original vote went to the light and hot love, I have changed my opinion that it was a deep and faithful relationship, which I was sadden by its end.

Mondlicht
08-16-2008, 04:45 PM
True and deep and also hot. A mixture, that made this love a special one. A love, that made me cry and made me stop reading because I knew about the end before I reached this part of the story. I didn´t want it to end.
I neither wanted Susan to die nor Roland to loose his first (and maybe only REAL) love because of some jealous old women. I could start to cry even now because this love story in W&G made me to feel different about love and the real important things in life... (it doesn´t matter if I sound like a child or someone who is a little bit crazy)

Letti
08-16-2008, 10:40 PM
You don't sound childish and we love crazy people. :rose:

Pere Callahan
09-11-2008, 01:36 PM
The words "misguided lust that almost became love but couldn't be because he betrayed her" comes to mind for Roland. The time in the series when I hated Roland the most was when he decided to leave susan behind. Did he not understand that susan had killed deputy dave and that the witch hated her? That her Aunt was out to get her? I think that this is Roland's most cold blooded moment in the series, because he had to have known that susan would come to a bad end and once again made a terrible, selfish decision and this is yet another reason i believe the tower will reject his prideful ass every time he approaches it.

And yet i love roland all the same:beat:

stone, rose, unfound door
09-18-2008, 01:27 PM
Hot but light. If events had been different and Roland hadn't had his vision in the Rainbow about the DT, perhaps it could have grown into a deep faithful love. As soon as Roland saw the DT, Susan became secondary.

The vision in the grapefruit was his lifelong love in the end. :(
Their love, like most first loves, was deep and passionate, but they didn't know much about each other and never got to do so. Anyway, it couldn't have grown much stronger since Roland was already hooked by the Tower. I wish Susan would have met Bert more and more. I bet she'd have been happy that way.

Darkthoughts
12-29-2008, 05:52 AM
There were two threads discussing Roland and Susan's relationship, which I have merged. One discussed whether their relationship was serious or a fling (i've left that poll too) and one discussed if you thought one of the couple loved the other more. Both threads though ended up talking about all aspects of their relationship, so I thought it made more sense to have a mega thread to discuss it in its entirety.

Whitey Appleseed
01-04-2009, 06:30 PM
Yeah, they loved each other. One more than the other? I dunno. I'd say about the same. There was a point where Susan is with them, the three amigos, and she realizes that it could have been Cuthbert. But it turned out to be Roland. They didn't have the kind of love a couple realizes after years together--they didn't have years--but Susan obviously had an effect on Roland, and had she lived, we'd have a different kind of erotic western, something along the lines of Wuthering Heights...Somerset Maugham, or something.

Whitey Appleseed
01-05-2009, 09:07 PM
I changed my mind. Susan loved Roland more. Forgot the part where he is given a choice, the tower, or Susan. He chooses the tower. Before that, though, when Roland, Cuthbert, and Alain are caught, Roland is sure that Jonas is going to shoot, and at the moment of death, "Susan was absent from his mind". Susan, otoh, when Maria wakes her after the murders or Rimer and Thorin, death, and possibly for her, as well, the first thing she wonders about is, "Say they haven't been killed!" meaning Roland and the boys.

I've got a question: Is Roland and Susan doin' it different than Jonas and Coral doin' it?
Do they have a kind of love? They even made plans to be together, get out of Dodge, or Mejis, in this case.

AcidBumbler
06-17-2009, 11:14 AM
I'd say deep and faithful.
True, Roland did place Susan as second to the Tower... but did he not also let Jake die for the Tower? That doesn't have to mean he didn't love him deeply. Or her for that matter.

The Tower is like a strong, deadly drug, after all. And even the strongest love can be threatened by that kind of thing, in a sense.
Besides, look at Roland's reaction to Susan's death? Plus, he's not loved anyone since (or at least not as far as I've gotten in the series! Haha) so it can't have been purely sexual, really.

AcidBumbler
06-17-2009, 11:17 AM
I've got a question: Is Roland and Susan doin' it different than Jonas and Coral doin' it?
Do they have a kind of love? They even made plans to be together, get out of Dodge, or Mejis, in this case.


I don't think it was the same, personally... I just couldn't really see any deep attachment between them. True, it did seem that there was a kind of love in there, but I'm sceptical of whether Jonas is even capable of loving, if I'm honest... I'd definitely say it's different.
Plus I can't imagine them risking themselves for each other like Roland and Susan did.

pathoftheturtle
06-19-2009, 07:04 AM
...I don't think we have the right to say that oh yes my love is love but yours is something else. Because love is this and this and look what you feel...My heart and my soul.
The best years of my life.
Blood and sweat and tears.
I think that I have earned the right to have my own opinion.

"Ask any fool that she ever knew--
they'll say, 'Keep away from Runaround Sue!' "
--Dion


I don't like this notion of "one can love someone more than the other". It really not fair. Each individual person carries their own capacity for feelings whether good or bad.

We each love in our own way.

It akin to two people stubbing their toes. Person A may cry because it hurts, but person B while feeling pain, doesn't show it...it's not fair to say who's toe hurt worse.It would be fair to simply say who made the most noise, though. I guess that it's just a matter of how you define "love."
In my book, love is action, or an attitude, not an emotion. Jesus said to "Love your enemies." Was he telling us to make ourselves have a feeling? I doubt it; we can't control our feelings, only our behavior. Love means caring about the feelings of someone else.

It's true that there are many forms of love and many ways to love, but I also think that people sometimes say that they do some thing out of love which they really do for some other reason.


...I'm sceptical of whether Jonas is even capable of loving, if I'm honest... Me, too. To start to do so, I think that he'd have to change as a person.

Letti
06-21-2009, 09:44 AM
...I don't think we have the right to say that oh yes my love is love but yours is something else. Because love is this and this and look what you feel...My heart and my soul.
The best years of my life.
Blood and sweat and tears.
I think that I have earned the right to have my own opinion.

Oh of course we all have the right to say anything. About everything. This is the world of rights. Sorry, I chose wrong words.
Moreover I respect your opinion and in fact I can understand it and you might be much closer to the truth than me.
But whatever we say love can't be judged by us. By humans.
I guess I have chosen wrong words again. Certainly anything can be judged by anybody but still love is love. We the fact that it has been judged doesn't make it any different. Love cannot be defined by words... maybe just by acts. Never by words.

pathoftheturtle
06-21-2009, 01:04 PM
That's okay, Letti. I don't always choose the best words, either. :couple:
You're right, I think; all that any mortal can do is to keep trying to get closer to the real truth, and to keep trying to do what is best. :)

AIMB
06-25-2009, 10:17 PM
Everyone knows that your first love is the deepest most real feeling one. The one where you haven't been wronged yet. You have the highest hopes and nothing has happened to you yet to make you think any differently. Do those of you who say it wasn't real not remember what it was like to be a teenager? Love is love is love is love.

megaknight
06-26-2009, 12:32 AM
here is what i believe.

im not saying that i understand love, as i have never at any period of time experienced it. but what i am thinking is that there is no such thing as love, but only the instinct to reproduce. i believe that throughout the years people have made love as a way to block out the thoughts that it is completely meaningless, besides reproduction and continuation of the human race. I believe that although we do have free will, we do not love, we only think we do. I know that this is something horrible to think about, but as I do not have any experience in love, i have come to believe this. I think that many people have believed in this, but have always been blinded by beauty, and lust.

AIMB
06-26-2009, 09:29 AM
here is what i believe.

im not saying that i understand love, as i have never at any period of time experienced it. but what i am thinking is that there is no such thing as love, but only the instinct to reproduce. i believe that throughout the years people have made love as a way to block out the thoughts that it is completely meaningless, besides reproduction and continuation of the human race. I believe that although we do have free will, we do not love, we only think we do. I know that this is something horrible to think about, but as I do not have any experience in love, i have come to believe this. I think that many people have believed in this, but have always been blinded by beauty, and lust.

You mean you haven't experience romantic love right?
I mean if you are capable of loving your family and friends then I think you are capable of loving a partner. Lust and Instinct may be the match that start the fire but your love is the oxygen that keeps it going. Or else why don't we just have sex with everyone attractive we come across? I think that what your saying is part of it, but the human mind is something a little more beautiful than that, something that maybe we won't ever be able to explain or understand.

Letti
06-26-2009, 11:01 AM
Everyone knows that your first love is the deepest most real feeling one. The one where you haven't been wronged yet. You have the highest hopes and nothing has happened to you yet to make you think any differently. Do those of you who say it wasn't real not remember what it was like to be a teenager? Love is love is love is love.

In this case I am the exeption becausemy first love was like hell.

flaggwalkstheline
06-26-2009, 11:57 AM
Everyone knows that your first love is the deepest most real feeling one. The one where you haven't been wronged yet. You have the highest hopes and nothing has happened to you yet to make you think any differently. Do those of you who say it wasn't real not remember what it was like to be a teenager? Love is love is love is love.

In this case I am the exeption becausemy first love was like hell.

I think that the first reciprocated love is the deepest

in my case all my feelings for anyone have always been unreciprocated but I keep trying because statistically theres gotta be some small chance I might find some glimmer of reciprocated emotion

so
reciprocated, mutual love= good (or so I've heard)

unrequitted, one way love= miserableness

Brice
06-27-2009, 04:50 AM
Everyone knows that your first love is the deepest most real feeling one. The one where you haven't been wronged yet. You have the highest hopes and nothing has happened to you yet to make you think any differently. Do those of you who say it wasn't real not remember what it was like to be a teenager? Love is love is love is love.


:) I say the same. Love is just love.

pathoftheturtle
06-27-2009, 09:47 AM
But "romantic love" doesn't just mean any mating couple; it is an entire social construct based upon the outlook of the ancient Romans. If we're talking about effortless harmony through the sympathetic magic irrationally predicted to come to those who keep the courtship practices left over from the middle ages, then I agree with megaknight: that does not exist.

However, I don't think that that means that we have to hand in our souls to Charles Darwin.

Here is what I believe:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
-- 1 Corinthians 13:4-7

to flaggwalkstheline:

Well, there's a rose in the fisted glove,
And the eagle flies with the dove,
And if you can't be with the one you love, honey,
Love the one you're with.

Brice
06-27-2009, 10:46 AM
But "romantic love" doesn't just mean any mating couple; it is an entire social construct based upon the outlook of the ancient Romans. If we're talking about effortless harmony through the sympathetic magic irrationally predicted to come to those who keep the courtship practices left over from the middle ages, then I agree with megaknight: that does not exist.

However, I don't think that that means that we have to hand in our souls to Charles Darwin.

Here is what I believe:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
-- 1 Corinthians 13:4-7

to flaggwalkstheline:

Well, there's a rose in the fisted glove,
And the eagle flies with the dove,
And if you can't be with the one you love, honey,
Love the one you're with.


And I believe love has no limits. To say what love is or isn't is to put limits on it. It is entirely subjective. You can say how you feel, but not how another feels. I also don't think in terms of different types of love such as "romantic love". I just see the same emotion manifesting in different ways.

pathoftheturtle
06-27-2009, 11:24 AM
"Entirely subjective" is an oxymoron, and "no limits" is a double negative.

Anyway, I grant that it can be confusing. Language is very subjective. It is true that I can't say how you feel or how you should feel, and the English word "love" often is indeed used to describe an emotion, something close to a strong form of the word "like."
:orely:Maybe I just need to pick another word for the opposite side, such as "heart."
Like the Wizard told the Tin Man, "Remember, a heart is not measured by how much you love, but by how much you are loved by others."

Brice
06-27-2009, 11:20 PM
"Entirely subjective" is an oxymoron, and "no limits" is a double negative.

I concede both could falsely be percieved to be true.


Anyway, I grant that it can be confusing. Language is very subjective. It is true that I can't say how you feel or how you should feel, and the English word "love" often is indeed used to describe an emotion, something close to a strong form of the word "like."
:orely:Maybe I just need to pick another word for the opposite side, such as "heart."
Like the Wizard told the Tin Man, "Remember, a heart is not measured by how much you love, but by how much you are loved by others."

I trust our definitions are similar, but our interpretations of that information are entirely different. I do not merely view love as a strong form of like. Perhaps something is lost in my attempt to convey my thoughts.

obscurejude
06-28-2009, 12:27 AM
And I believe love has no limits. To say what love is or isn't is to put limits on it. It is entirely subjective. You can say how you feel, but not how another feels. I also don't think in terms of different types of love such as "romantic love". I just see the same emotion manifesting in different ways.

I don't know exactly how to respond to this but what you're espousing seems like a dangerous proposition. Its what I always find troubling about your positions, or lack thereof. You don't believe in anything yet you somehow find the need to vehemently bring that across and of course I'm recalling our "real life" interactions which everyone is not privy to. Mike makes some good points about western understandings, and even if you don't believe in different types of love, the Greeks and Romans, both penultimate in the making of the modern mind, certainly did and thus the burden of proof falls upon you in my opinion.

The concept of agape, that love is a declaration of commitment evidenced by sacrifice is an old one based on an embodied epistemological understanding. Your "proof" is only Brice's emotions which are just as frail as any other human being's. Its part of our innate ontological shortcomings. Love is about action, and the actions between lovers are unique, just as the actions between friends are. They serve different teleological purposes and appeal to different parts of our nature. For example, since sexual tension isn't a factor of platonic friendships, more emphasis is placed on the metaphysical/spiritual side of common ideology. Such an understanding will yield different actions, and actions (praxis) are the measure of any relationship.

Also, you're right, in a sense, about people not being able to express how others feel. But you can't do that for yourself either, at least in the completed sense that you seem to be pitching. Recalling Descartes, Immanuel Kant calls it the "problem of other minds." Descartes doubted his own existence and thus ultimately that process convinced him that he was in fact real, but that is where the guarantee ended. Language fails at every level in regards to accurately conveying perception. In the attempt to deontologically create an objective moral law, Kant realized that he could never completely understand another person's pain, desires, etc... One of the really unique aspects of sexual intercourse is the immediate gratification of knowing exactly what turns someone on, i.e. how your actions directly impact another human being. For the moment, two feel like one, but after climax, the void often returns. This line of thought that bears a lot of fruit in the later existentialist writers is contradictory to the first part of my post, but I believe the conversation is necessary in order to understand the modern mind. We all wrestle with these dichotomies even if we don't think of them in these terms. Many, like T.S. Eliot, return to the ancient Greco Roman principles because some kind of structure, even if it may ultimately be meaningless, is better than the chaos described in the Wastelands. I think there is a lot of DT tie in with this particular point, but I don't feel like going into it at the moment. I just don't think that Mike, or anyone, is foolish for attempting to categorically understand the complexity of human emotion and work from some type of principle that manifests itself in a way beyond subjective feelings contingent upon being caught up in some kind of fleeting ardor.

Ryan out.

Woofer
06-28-2009, 07:28 AM
Very well put, Ryan. All I can add to that is from Eliot's The Lovesong of J. Alfred Prufrock:


And would it have been worth it, after all,
Would it have been worth while,
After the sunsets and the dooryards and the sprinkled streets,
After the novels, after the teacups, after the skirts that trail along the floor--
And this, and so much more?--
It is impossible to say just what I mean!
But as if a magic lantern threw the nerves in patterns on a screen:
Would it have been worth while
If one, settling a pillow or throwing off a shawl,
And turning toward the window, should say:
"That is not it at all,
That is not what I meant, at all."

pathoftheturtle
06-28-2009, 09:38 AM
Whew! You know, Ryan; you and I have much in common. Brice means well, though. Thanks for the back-up, but I actually think that the great philosopher who said it best was Silent Bob:
You know, there's a million fine looking women in the world, dude. But they don't all bring you lasagna at work. Most of 'em just cheat on you.

obscurejude
06-28-2009, 09:49 AM
I know Brice means well. I don't know, my mind was kind of racing in the middle of the night and for some reason I was interested in continuing our on going debate. Me and Brice have been arguing about these things for awhile and lately some of it has been on my mind due to life's circumstances.

Edit: Great quote Woofer. You understand what I was saying, as always. :huglove:

Mike, I'm still thinking about Silent Bob.

Woofer
06-28-2009, 03:23 PM
I know Brice means well. I don't know, my mind was kind of racing in the middle of the night and for some reason I was interested in continuing our on going debate. Me and Brice have been arguing about these things for awhile and lately some of it has been on my mind due to life's circumstances.

Edit: Great quote Woofer. You understand what I was saying, as always. :huglove:

Mike, I'm still thinking about Silent Bob.

:couple:

And as horrible as it seems that we can't ever really connect, really know another mind, I'm not sure that we would be better off if we could. Do we really want to know what goes on in the dark niches of our lovers' minds? Friends? Enemies? Acquaintances?

Somehow I think we would be even less happy. Removing the uncertainty may seem for the best, but it would also unveil disagreement, disgust, perversion, doubt, whatever that are best left to be revealed (or not) at the discretion of the other.

Unfound One
06-28-2009, 10:04 PM
And I believe love has no limits. To say what love is or isn't is to put limits on it. It is entirely subjective. You can say how you feel, but not how another feels. I also don't think in terms of different types of love such as "romantic love". I just see the same emotion manifesting in different ways.

.....

Also, you're right, in a sense, about people not being able to express how others feel. But you can't do that for yourself either, at least in the completed sense that you seem to be pitching. Recalling Descartes, Immanuel Kant calls it the "problem of other minds." Descartes doubted his own existence and thus ultimately that process convinced him that he was in fact real, but that is where the guarantee ended. Language fails at every level in regards to accurately conveying perception.

I know I'm gearing this thread off topic, but this discussion on the inadequacy of language reminded me of this clip from Waking Life. If you haven't seen it, I think you should. :)
YouTube - Waking Life - Language
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMsk-lzppNg)

pathoftheturtle
06-30-2009, 06:00 AM
Great quote Woofer.Agreed; terrific contribution. :thumbsup:
I know Brice means well. I don't know, my mind was kind of racing in the middle of the night and for some reason I was interested in continuing our on going debate. Me and Brice have been arguing about these things for awhile and lately some of it has been on my mind due to life's circumstances.Of course, I don't want to pry into your personal life; it's only that you and Brice both sounded pretty defensive here. I agree with all you posted, Ryan, but you know the old saying: "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." I thought that the gentle moral from that open-minded comedy might be a better way of expressing my suggestions.
Mike, I'm still thinking about Silent Bob.What do you mean? :unsure: Kevin Smith is a Jersey Catholic. *shrug*

...I believe the conversation is necessary in order to understand the modern mind. We all wrestle with these dichotomies even if we don't think of them in these terms. Many, like T.S. Eliot, return to the ancient Greco Roman principles because some kind of structure, even if it may ultimately be meaningless, is better than the chaos described in the Wastelands. (sic)...Sure, that response is a bit of a cop out, but the point is that, yes, the conversation is necessary, in some form, for if we cannot at all tell what love is, then what is to prevent it from passing us by?
"I'm not a smart man, Jenny, but I know what love is."
--Forrest Gump
...To say what love is or isn't is to put limits on it. ...No, I still think that...

...the fact that it has been judged doesn't make it any different. ...Or, if you meant that one has to have imposed artificial limits in one's own mind before one would try to define it, then I don't think that that is necessarily true, either. Consider the word "hand." In true point of fact, what it refers to cannot be divided from the "arm" and the "body" without killing it. The word is just a convention... yet it is a useful convention. If you insist that no "part of the body" be called by any name other than "body," (and include the food eaten, air breathed, and books read) even the most enlightened, holistic health care would be impossible. I see no reason to not look at true love and how it works.

...To my thinking it is at least. There is no "true love", there is only love, and it is everything. ...Everything? Surely you don't mean that literally. You don't believe that there is such a thing as falsehood?
...from what I've seen and experienced the love is always still there. ...I have felt the things you described in that earlier post, but it's a far leap to conclude from that that everyone always feels that way.
I am pretty sure that there are sometimes people who just don't give a damn.

I know I'm gearing this thread off topic...Topic? There's a... huh? What's that? Wizard & Glass :doh: Good grief! :blush:

:lol: No, believe it or not, I'm getting to that. (Er... I hope.) :P

obscurejude
06-30-2009, 11:04 AM
Great quote Woofer.Agreed; terrific contribution. :thumbsup:
I know Brice means well. I don't know, my mind was kind of racing in the middle of the night and for some reason I was interested in continuing our on going debate. Me and Brice have been arguing about these things for awhile and lately some of it has been on my mind due to life's circumstances.Of course, I don't want to pry into your personal life; it's only that you and Brice both sounded pretty defensive here. I agree with all you posted, Ryan, but you know the old saying: "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." I thought that the gentle moral from that open-minded comedy might be a better way of expressing my suggestions.
Mike, I'm still thinking about Silent Bob.What do you mean? :unsure: Kevin Smith is a Jersey Catholic. *shrug*

...I believe the conversation is necessary in order to understand the modern mind. We all wrestle with these dichotomies even if we don't think of them in these terms. Many, like T.S. Eliot, return to the ancient Greco Roman principles because some kind of structure, even if it may ultimately be meaningless, is better than the chaos described in the Wastelands. (sic)...Sure, that response is a bit of a cop out, but the point is that, yes, the conversation is necessary, in some form, for if we cannot at all tell what love is, then what is to prevent it from passing us by?

That's why I explicitly said in the post that some of it was related to personal interaction with Brice. He's seen me tear up over Aristotle in person, and if my conviction/passion doesn't show through writing...well, I'm not sure what to do about that. I would think it obvious that I care a great deal about the subject, but I don't care enough about people's perception at the moment to edit my post(s). I deliberately tried not to sound condescending, but with Brice its an uphill battle trying to convey conviction about anything. I know him pretty well and if I thought he'd take offense to anything I'd written, then I wouldn't have written it. While the post was spontaneous in content, I spent quite awhile making sure it flowed well and made sense because the subject matter was so broad and encompassing. My point is that it was a careful post and not just philosophical masturbation or dribble at the expense of Brice or anyone.

And I was being defensive, at least to a degree. That's the way I am, though I try very hard not to be mean spirited. I think the old philosopher's view of the pursuit of virtue demands conviction and the tools to argue it convincingly. Sometimes that's a fine line and I'm open to your criticism, I just fail to see where I came across in any way that wasn't proper. If the post seemed pretentious or heavy on name dropping, it wasn't meant to. I often quote others in order to give my own posts objectivity and hopefully more weight. I have a very communal understanding of knowledge thanks to Ludwig Wittgenstein. I almost resist trying to have original thoughts. :lol:

I don't know what you mean by cop out. I don't think Eliot or any other early modernist was copping out of anything. God was dead, and their pursuit of something morally cogent in the wake of that remains one of the most inspiring things for me personally that I've ever come across. My reading of Eliot, D.H. Lawrence, Frost etc... is religious and spiritual. Feel free to expand if you'd like.

And to date, I hate Kevin Smith movies, so I really had no clue what you were trying to say. Went completely over my head... sorry.

obscurejude
06-30-2009, 11:31 AM
Edit: Great quote Woofer. You understand what I was saying, as always. :huglove:


:couple:

And as horrible as it seems that we can't ever really connect, really know another mind, I'm not sure that we would be better off if we could. Do we really want to know what goes on in the dark niches of our lovers' minds? Friends? Enemies? Acquaintances?

Somehow I think we would be even less happy. Removing the uncertainty may seem for the best, but it would also unveil disagreement, disgust, perversion, doubt, whatever that are best left to be revealed (or not) at the discretion of the other.

This is something that I think about often Woofer, and I'm still thinking of a way to articulate it my lady. I think its a premise that lends itself to extremes, and those are always fun to think about. As always, you make excellent observations. :)

pathoftheturtle
07-01-2009, 06:28 AM
...I'm open to your criticism, I just fail to see where I came across in any way that wasn't proper. ...Well, now, we're about to get neurotic. No criticism intended. No need for us to continue to apologize for having apologized. I think it's fine.


...I think the old philosopher's view of the pursuit of virtue demands conviction and the tools to argue it convincingly. ...I respect that, very much.
I also like the fact that there are many, very diverse people participating in this discussion. Do ya?


...I don't know what you mean by cop out. I don't think Eliot or any other early modernist was copping out of anything. God was dead, and their pursuit of something morally cogent in the wake of that remains one of the most inspiring things for me personally that I've ever come across. My reading of Eliot, D.H. Lawrence, Frost etc... is religious and spiritual. Feel free to expand if you'd like.

And to date, I hate Kevin Smith movies, so I really had no clue what you were trying to say. Went completely over my head... sorry.Pointing out only that the promiscuous lifestyle is unpleasant, using discomfort as the basis of your argument, rather than meaningful reasoning, that is kind of a cop out. Maybe that's why you don't like Silent Bob. But, to repeat my point, it still does state that there are better options than mere surrender to chaos.

flaggwalkstheline
07-01-2009, 11:13 AM
...I'm open to your criticism, I just fail to see where I came across in any way that wasn't proper. ...Well, now, we're about to get neurotic. No criticism intended. No need for us to continue to apologize for having apologized. I think it's fine.


...I think the old philosopher's view of the pursuit of virtue demands conviction and the tools to argue it convincingly. ...I respect that, very much.
I also like the fact that there are many, very diverse people participating in this discussion. Do ya?


...I don't know what you mean by cop out. I don't think Eliot or any other early modernist was copping out of anything. God was dead, and their pursuit of something morally cogent in the wake of that remains one of the most inspiring things for me personally that I've ever come across. My reading of Eliot, D.H. Lawrence, Frost etc... is religious and spiritual. Feel free to expand if you'd like.

And to date, I hate Kevin Smith movies, so I really had no clue what you were trying to say. Went completely over my head... sorry.Pointing out only that the promiscuous lifestyle is unpleasant, using discomfort as the basis of your argument, rather than meaningful reasoning, that is kind of a cop out. Maybe that's why you don't like Silent Bob. But, to repeat my point, it still does state that there are better options than mere surrender to chaos.

gonna go with nietsche on this one and say that "from chaos comes order", so the first step to enlightenment is surrendering to the fact that if the universe/existence makes any sense then it makes sense on a level of reality not graspable to the finite human mind, the only reason I dont say that the universe/existence makes no sense at all is because that would be stating an absolute truth and realizing that nothing is absolute and that all truths are arbitrary is part of surrendering to the chaos necessary prior to mentally existing on a higher level:idea:

obscurejude
07-01-2009, 04:37 PM
Pointing out only that the promiscuous lifestyle is unpleasant, using discomfort as the basis of your argument, rather than meaningful reasoning, that is kind of a cop out. Maybe that's why you don't like Silent Bob. But, to repeat my point, it still does state that there are better options than mere surrender to chaos.

I still don't understand what you are specifically referring to in regards to what I had written. Eliot, as well as many early modernist, returned to the classics to find a more stable morality in light of the fragmentation that had beset Christianity post Reformation/Enlightenment. The impetus behind the chronological contrast was not surrendering to chaos but attempting to rise above their budding existential/epistemological despair.

I can email you a paper that I wrote about Mathew Arnold's recovery of Aristotle in light of a late Victorian aesthetic that comes to fruition in Oscar Wilde's notion of "art for art's sake." The argument is drawn out, mirrors Eliot, and is directly opposed to to what you seem to be implying that I said. Again, I'm a bit confused.

obscurejude
07-01-2009, 04:42 PM
And Flagg, its hard to take you seriously when you can't even spell concepts and authors correctly. Why don't you slow down, use spell check, and let your grammar catch up to what you are trying to say. If you can't spell Nietzsche, then don't quote him.

If you want to participate in serious discussion, then take writing seriously. :) I don't mean this to be offensive, but aren't you in college?

flaggwalkstheline
07-01-2009, 06:19 PM
And Flagg, its hard to take you seriously when you can't even spell concepts and authors correctly. Why don't you slow down, use spell check, and let your grammar catch up to what you are trying to say. If you can't spell Nietzsche, then don't quote him.

If you want to participate in serious discussion, then take writing seriously. :) I don't mean this to be offensive, but aren't you in college?

I am in college and yes sometimes my spelling is off, that however should not create 2 many problems as when I'm on the internet i am not in school, when typing about something I care about much (as with that philosophy) my brain races ahead of my fingers
in the meantime, i'll quote whoever I want to, correct name spelling be damned:evil: its all part of surrendering one's self to chaos

obscurejude
07-01-2009, 07:34 PM
And Flagg, its hard to take you seriously when you can't even spell concepts and authors correctly. Why don't you slow down, use spell check, and let your grammar catch up to what you are trying to say. If you can't spell Nietzsche, then don't quote him.

If you want to participate in serious discussion, then take writing seriously. :) I don't mean this to be offensive, but aren't you in college?

I am in college and yes sometimes my spelling is off, that however should not create 2 many problems as when I'm on the internet i am not in school, when typing about something I care about much (as with that philosophy) my brain races ahead of my fingers
in the meantime, i'll quote whoever I want to, correct name spelling be damned:evil: its all part of surrendering one's self to chaos

This is one of the reasons I hate talking about things serious on this website more often than not. If you can't even take it serious enough to correct your own spelling mistakes, then what's the point? Just stick to lighter discussion. You're not surrendering to chaos, but to laziness. I'll go back to ignoring your misspelled philosophically masturbatory remarks like normal.

flaggwalkstheline
07-01-2009, 08:10 PM
And Flagg, its hard to take you seriously when you can't even spell concepts and authors correctly. Why don't you slow down, use spell check, and let your grammar catch up to what you are trying to say. If you can't spell Nietzsche, then don't quote him.

If you want to participate in serious discussion, then take writing seriously. :) I don't mean this to be offensive, but aren't you in college?

I am in college and yes sometimes my spelling is off, that however should not create 2 many problems as when I'm on the internet i am not in school, when typing about something I care about much (as with that philosophy) my brain races ahead of my fingers
in the meantime, i'll quote whoever I want to, correct name spelling be damned:evil: its all part of surrendering one's self to chaos

This is one of the reasons I hate talking about things serious on this website more often than not. If you can't even take it serious enough to correct your own spelling mistakes, then what's the point? Just stick to lighter discussion. You're not surrendering to chaos, but to laziness. I'll go back to ignoring your misspelled philosophically masturbatory remarks like normal.

its a typo and i didnt freakin notice it, honestly man get over it

as u can tell I dont really respect anything... but if Id did I've have a list of what i dont respect and you'd now be on it!
good day to you sir!
*throws bowler hat on the ground and stomps on it*

obscurejude
07-01-2009, 09:34 PM
as u can tell I dont really respect anything...

And that's exactly my point and the reason why you should just stick to casual discussions. I have noticed and obviously its gotten under my skin. I usually ignore you, but since you had to interject in the middle of a discussion I was actually enjoying, I felt compelled to respond. I can't believe that you claim to have an invested interest in philosophy, particularly Nietzsche. I sincerely don't believe he'd be flattered by your response to him or your gross misappropriation of whatever you think existentialism is.

Oh, and I don't mind being on your list- not at all. And it seems kind of inconsistent to be stomping on your hat like some pissed off kid at a birthday party when you don't care about anything or anyone in the universe.

Good day to you too. :thumbsup:

Jean
07-01-2009, 09:40 PM
Dear friends,

I have to remind you that all discussions here are open for everybody, so there can be no such thing as "interjecting in the middle". Also, nobody, whatever his level of education, can be considered the ultimate expert on anything, or should try to deprive others of the right to voice their opinion.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/thank_you.gif

obscurejude
07-01-2009, 09:44 PM
Why don't you just say my name Jean? Don't be a chickenshit about it. And thank you for misinterpreting everything I just wrote.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/thank_you.gif

Darkthoughts
07-01-2009, 11:17 PM
It's true that there are many forms of love and many ways to love, but I also think that people sometimes say that they do some thing out of love which they really do for some other reason.
True. Though to my mind, that's to do with the mentality of a person and a not a definition of love. It's one of those words that is overused and under appreciated. A bit like someone saying, "I have flu." every time they have a cold - if you have flu, you know about it and a common cold is no comparison. Just like real, knock your socks off love is no comparison to passing affection.


And I believe love has no limits. To say what love is or isn't is to put limits on it. It is entirely subjective. You can say how you feel, but not how another feels. I also don't think in terms of different types of love such as "romantic love". I just see the same emotion manifesting in different ways.
I see what you're saying, but you can't deny that there is a spectrum of love, rather than any fond emotion simply being love. To me, rather than a spectrum - which I visualise as a line, I think love is more like a sphere - with the core being the really powerful love that we are sometimes lucky enough to experience, and the other forms of love radiating out in layers - with the most external layers being things like "fondness" and "liking".

I also think that sexual attraction is something completely different from love. You could have sex with someone you found attractive purely for the asthetics and satisfaction of it, which needn't detract from the act itself. But having sex with someone you love brings a different quality to the act, that is satisfying on different levels leading to a greater sense of fulfillment - whether that is real or simply perceived. (Although, what is the reality of love vs. perception of it?) Whichever it is, my point is that, love can add to sex - but is is not a form of love in itself.

I also think it's important to separate obsession from love. Though generally, this can only be recognised in hindsight.


and even if you don't believe in different types of love, the Greeks and Romans, both penultimate in the making of the modern mind, certainly did and thus the burden of proof falls upon you in my opinion.
Yes I agree, that anyone making a statement should be able to back it up - although in the case of love, I don't think there is any greater proof one way or another, than personal experience.


Love is about action, and the actions between lovers are unique, just as the actions between friends are. They serve different teleological purposes and appeal to different parts of our nature. For example, since sexual tension isn't a factor of platonic friendships, more emphasis is placed on the metaphysical/spiritual side of common ideology. Such an understanding will yield different actions, and actions (praxis) are the measure of any relationship.
I know that, in the context of the original question this thread poses, that love in this instance means the love of two people in a sexual relationship, but I think that the base concept of love itself encompasses true love in all types of relationship - sexual, platonic, between friends, between family etc. I think the distinctions arise in the degrees of love. As, as I said above, I believe sexual attraction is it's own separate entity from love.


Also, you're right, in a sense, about people not being able to express how others feel. But you can't do that for yourself either, at least in the completed sense that you seem to be pitching. Recalling Descartes, Immanuel Kant calls it the "problem of other minds."
I agree here too, but I would say that even in the case of unrequited love - we still experience the feeling or state, of love very genuinely for ourselves, until the point where we begin to draw comparisons between our own actions and feelings and that of the other person involved. Then our perception shifts and we may deny to ourselves that we were ever "in love" - and while requited love is undoubtly richer, we still felt love in that initial instance.

I may have gone a bit off track there :orely:

pathoftheturtle
07-02-2009, 07:48 AM
Pointing out only that the promiscuous lifestyle is unpleasant, using discomfort as the basis of your argument, rather than meaningful reasoning, that is kind of a cop out. Maybe that's why you don't like Silent Bob. But, to repeat my point, it still does state that there are better options than mere surrender to chaos.

I still don't understand what you are specifically referring to in regards to what I had written. Eliot, as well as many early modernist, returned to the classics to find a more stable morality in light of the fragmentation that had beset Christianity post Reformation/Enlightenment. The impetus behind the chronological contrast was not surrendering to chaos but attempting to rise above their budding existential/epistemological despair.

I can email you a paper that I wrote about Mathew Arnold's recovery of Aristotle in light of a late Victorian aesthetic that comes to fruition in Oscar Wilde's notion of "art for art's sake." The argument is drawn out, mirrors Eliot, and is directly opposed to to what you seem to be implying that I said. Again, I'm a bit confused.You were talking about the conversation between classical philosophy and the later existentialists, and the insight which this offers on modern life. In the present, we have our own pressing moral fragmentation with the post-modernist trend. Please don't assume that putting forth my own arguments on the greater discussion of this thread implies that I am misinterpreting your intention in specific assertions.
BTW, I'd love to read your paper. :) My address is as_thecrow_flies@yahoo.com



gonna go with nietsche on this one and say that "from chaos comes order", so the first step to enlightenment is surrendering to the fact that if the universe/existence makes any sense then it makes sense on a level of reality not graspable to the finite human mind, the only reason I dont say that the universe/existence makes no sense at all is because that would be stating an absolute truth and realizing that nothing is absolute and that all truths are arbitrary is part of surrendering to the chaos necessary prior to mentally existing on a higher level:idea:
I don't often agree with Nietzsche, but I do agree with Socrates: "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
Just don't forget that the first step is not also the last. :)


Why don't you just say my name Jean? Don't be a chickenshit about it. And thank you for misinterpreting everything I just wrote.:|Ryan, Jean is no coward. He was just trying to be impartial.
Really -- peace.

Lisa: A bit off track, maybe, yes. I think that Ryan was totally right in what you quoted from him, and that your "distinctions in degree" is a mistake.
Still, that's a very interesting post, and I'd really like to hear what the others think about it.

Brice
07-02-2009, 08:02 AM
I'm not intentionally neglecting the conversation btw. I just find that a toothache/pain pills/ and lack of sleep aren't very condusive (sp?) to deep thoughts. :)

pathoftheturtle
07-02-2009, 08:24 AM
Well, get well soon. Very glad to hear that you're keeping this in mind. :D
>>Sending goodmind<< :)

Darkthoughts
07-02-2009, 01:26 PM
Lisa: A bit off track, maybe, yes. I think that Ryan was totally right in what you quoted from him, and that your "distinctions in degree" is a mistake.
Still, that's a very interesting post, and I'd really like to hear what the others think about it.
Reading it through again, I think I may have been more on track than I thought - in regards to letti's original discussion of whether their love was "true" or if one loved more than the other :D

In what way do you disagree? I personally thought that when you said
It's true that there are many forms of love and many ways to love and I said "degrees of love", we were saying the same thing.

pathoftheturtle
07-03-2009, 08:03 AM
It's true that there are many forms of love and many ways to love, but I also think that people sometimes say that they do some thing out of love which they really do for some other reason.
True. Though to my mind, that's to do with the mentality of a person and a not a definition of love. You're right, it is not to do with the definition of "love." It is to do with the definition of "true." Other motives mislabelled as love are, I believe, the only reason for the existence of the phrase "true love." It's not a matter of distinguishing true love from "lesser" love, but of distinguishing real love from false love. Trueness in love is not about loving more intensely, it is about loving more consistently.
...I think that the base concept of love itself encompasses true love in all types of relationship - sexual, platonic, between friends, between family etc. ...Absolutely, and I do not see any distinction whatsoever between love for a family member and love for a spouse.
Furthermore, I don't love my real friends any less than I love my brothers.
In short: When someone sleeps with his wife, that is love. When he does not sleep with his friend's wife, that is also love. Actions are the measure of any relationship, but distinctions in action are based on conscious choice, not on emotional quantity.

pathoftheturtle
07-08-2009, 08:48 AM
Once more, it was an interesting post, Darkthoughts. I know that there was more to it than what I've just quoted, and you have, in fact, made a number of good points on this thread. I just think that too much of the discussion has continually revolved around the question of whether it is even possible to speak intelligibly about love. For those who may wonder, though, I do indeed see the elephant in this room.
"Poets, priests, and politicians
Have words to thank for their positions;
Words that scream for your submission,
And no one's jamming their transmission...
And when their eloquence escapes you,
Their logic ties you up and rapes you!"
--The Police,
"De Do Do Do"These are, and always should be, personal decisions.
BRUCE: How do you make somebody love you without affecting free will?
GOD: :rolleyes: Welcome to My world, son. If you figure that one out, let Me know.
--Bruce Almighty Still, it seems a shame that we don't communicate more. What a tragedy it is that love is the area of life most shrouded in superstition and ignorance.
If we hope to understand Roland and Susan, here's another good question that might help -- Hart Thorin and his wife, Olive; did they love one another?

At heart, though, I think that this thread is really based on one short passage: Chapter 10, Section 10. Here are some key lines:
"...The Tower is our ka; mine especially. But it isn't hers, nor she mine. ...
When we finish with yonder men and she finishes with Mejis, her part in our ka-tet ends. ... I would choose Susan in an instant, if not for one thing: the Tower is crumbling, and if it falls, everything we know will be swept away. ...Let her live a good life and long with someone else -- she will, in time. As for me, I choose the Tower."
-- Roland:orely:

The words "misguided lust that almost became love but couldn't be because he betrayed her" comes to mind for Roland. The time in the series when I hated Roland the most was when he decided to leave susan behind. Did he not understand that susan had killed deputy dave and that the witch hated her? That her Aunt was out to get her? I think that this is Roland's most cold blooded moment in the series, because he had to have known that susan would come to a bad end and once again made a terrible, selfish decision and this is yet another reason i believe the tower will reject his prideful ass every time he approaches it.

And yet i love roland all the same:beat:I don't know if that's altogether fair. I don't think that Roland ever meant to just abandon her there.

lisaki
10-22-2009, 02:01 PM
Interesting conversation :)
Anyway back to the book.

It was true love and here's the reasons:

1. Roland thought it was, over the years. Do we all remember our teenage first love as something special? Some do. Some (including me) don't. When I had to leave that boy I thought I'd never forget him. My mother made me leave him, so it was sudden, forced and sooooo dramatic. I also felt extremely guilty and had him in my mind as a hero at that time. Now many years passed (not thousand but many) and I can't even remember his face. Real love happened to me much later. Roland, on the other hand, considers Susan as his one and real love. If he does so, he is right. Who are we to tell him that he's wrong?

2. I agree that true love is an everyday thing. But this is literature, and not real life. It's an example of pure young love with a dramatic ending. Common in literature. It was meant to be true love. Stephen King tried to write about young deep love. He didn't need a whole 800 pages book to write about a hot light relationship. If we don't buy the concept because we are realists that is our problem, not King's, not Roland's, not Susan's.

3. It was true love because I wanted it to be true love. It gave to me a much better reading experience. As a reader I decide how to "see" a subject which isn't already clear. In this case I think it was.

Letti
10-22-2009, 02:06 PM
Interesting conversation :)
Anyway back to the book.

It was true love and here's the reasons:

1. Roland thought it was, over the years. Do we all remember our teenage first love as something special? Some do. Some (including me) don't. When I had to leave that boy I thought I'd never forget him. My mother made me leave him, so it was sudden, forced and sooooo dramatic. I also felt extremely guilty and had him in my mind as a hero at that time. Now many years passed (not thousand but many) and I can't even remember his face. Real love happened to me much later. Roland, on the other hand, considers Susan as his one and real love. If he does so, he is right. Who are we to tell him that he's wrong?

2. I agree that true love is an everyday thing. But this is literature, and not real life. It's an example of pure young love with a dramatic ending. Common in literature. It was meant to be true love. Stephen King tried to write about young deep love. He didn't need a whole 800 pages book to write about a hot light relationship. If we don't buy the concept because we are realists that is our problem, not King's, not Roland's, not Susan's.

3. It was true love because I wanted it to be true love. It gave to me a much better reading experience. As a reader I decide how to "see" a subject which isn't already clear. In this case I think it was.

What an excellent post.
I love the way you think and write about things. It's a real pleasure to read your words. Not because I agree with most of them but because you have a really nice way to feel about things.

lisaki
10-22-2009, 02:20 PM
Thank you so much. :rose:

Jean
10-22-2009, 10:48 PM
3. It was true love because I wanted it to be true love. It gave to me a much better reading experience. As a reader I decide how to "see" a subject which isn't already clear. In this case I think it was.
This is good.
I realize now that once I, too, felt it to be true love - when I was retelling the story to my mother, and wanted her to feel W&G was in no way worse than the other books. I wanted her to live through that love as true and big and undying, and I told the story as if it was so, disregarding what I actually thought of it; and you're right, it was a much better experience... in fact, it was great...

Letti
10-22-2009, 11:12 PM
3. It was true love because I wanted it to be true love. It gave to me a much better reading experience. As a reader I decide how to "see" a subject which isn't already clear. In this case I think it was.
This is good.
I realize now that once I, too, felt it to be true love - when I was retelling the story to my mother, and wanted her to feel W&G was in no way worse than the other books. I wanted her to live through that love as true and big and undying, and I told the story as if it was so, disregarding what I actually thought of it; and you're right, it was a much better experience... in fact, it was great...

Was it successful? And did your mom feel it was true love?

Jean
10-22-2009, 11:21 PM
It was fantastic. I even thought I overdid it a little and W&G would become her favorite book... no, everything's all right: every book is her favorite, with some prevailing of Wolves.

Letti
10-22-2009, 11:22 PM
It was fantastic. I even thought I overdid it a little and W&G would become her favorite book... no, everything's all right: every book is her favorite, with some prevailing of Wolves.

How strange it's your favourite, too. ;)

Jean
10-22-2009, 11:36 PM
Isn't it? Wonders never cease. http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_wink-1.gif

Mark
10-23-2009, 09:16 AM
I think it was true. Its amazing how Ka brings people together and if The Good Man hadn't started his campaign, Pat would not have been killed, the books would have been right and Roland would have never came there.

(because I am certain that Steven and the rest knew something was up there)

I also believe that true love is established in a moment--between two people who are destined to meet.

I completely agree with this.

pathoftheturtle
10-24-2009, 10:38 AM
Interesting conversation :)
Anyway back to the book.

It was true love and here's the reasons:

1. Roland thought it was, over the years. Do we all remember our teenage first love as something special? Some do. Some (including me) don't. When I had to leave that boy I thought I'd never forget him. My mother made me leave him, so it was sudden, forced and sooooo dramatic. I also felt extremely guilty and had him in my mind as a hero at that time. Now many years passed (not thousand but many) and I can't even remember his face. Real love happened to me much later. Roland, on the other hand, considers Susan as his one and real love. If he does so, he is right. Who are we to tell him that he's wrong?

2. I agree that true love is an everyday thing. But this is literature, and not real life. It's an example of pure young love with a dramatic ending. Common in literature. It was meant to be true love. Stephen King tried to write about young deep love. He didn't need a whole 800 pages book to write about a hot light relationship. If we don't buy the concept because we are realists that is our problem, not King's, not Roland's, not Susan's.

3. It was true love because I wanted it to be true love. It gave to me a much better reading experience. As a reader I decide how to "see" a subject which isn't already clear. In this case I think it was.

What an excellent post.
I love the way you think and write about things. It's a real pleasure to read your words. Not because I agree with most of them but because you have a really nice way to feel about things.Two excellent posts in a row. :)

I don't actually agree, technically, with most of the beliefs you have in common, but it's a real pleasure to read the words, just the same. Composed passion. :orely:

Sickrose
11-20-2009, 10:23 AM
I think it was a deep and faithful love. I think the tragedy is that they didnt have chance to see if it would have lasted.

Delacroix
11-20-2009, 10:47 AM
***SPOILERS ON TOME 4***



Well, you can take the question backward: what if it wasn't true love? Then a lot of things would lose their strengh. Like when Roland goes through the glass for the first time and sees the Tower. He decides this would be his destiny, he chose the Tower inspite of Susan. If their love was just about playing "love me" in the bushes, this moment would be nearly casual: "Of course you choose the Tower dude, saving the world is something you do once whereas girl-riding is available in every town!". Yet this moment has to be terrible and powerfull. To make it possible, you have to think of true love between them.

The same when Susan dies, if Roland wasn't deeply in love with her he wouldn't be so destroyed on the way back to Gilead. And of course the souvenir of Susan he keeps during the whole first tome wouldn't be that imporant. And if Susan wasn't that important (which is false) Jake wouldn't be either...

The whole 4th tome, the so terrible moment when Susan is brought to the bonfire and all the rest would matter so much if their love wasn't true, deep and intense.

Susan Delgado
10-16-2010, 11:10 AM
it was the kind of love i'd wish for myself, nuff said. its the kind of love i dream about

Sam
10-16-2010, 12:05 PM
I think it was a true love, but it was not a deep love. More because it didn't have the time to deepen. Many loves are hot and true and at first they feel deep, but it isn't until much later, years later, that we understand how very shallow the pool really was in the beginning before we could finish each others thoughts, much less sentences. Roland was devastated by the loss of what could have been, not the loss of what was. This doesn't lessen the loss to the person who feels it, but there is a subtle difference between the two. The loss of what might have been is painful and devastating when it happens, and you do carry those feelings with you for a long time, but you have not lost yourself. You lost the hope of what could have been. And maybe it's because my feelings are biased, but I have experienced both the loss of what could have been and the loss of what was. In the loss of what was, you lose yourself as well. It is a devastation that surmounts all other feelings. Duty, honor, even the Tower are all lost to the devastation. The only thing that may remain is the love that was shared, and even that is not certain as it can be washed away in the horror.

Roland continued. It was not easy and he had to be helped along the way by his friends. That speaks for the love he had for Susan, but he retained himself the whole time. I say again that it was a true love, but not yet a deep one.

turtlex
10-18-2010, 04:17 AM
The poll asks : What was their love like?

Since I don't really like Susan, at all, I'd have to say that to me, their love was just very immature.... and that's not an option in the poll!! :lol:

pathoftheturtle
10-18-2010, 07:16 AM
The poll asks : What was their love like?

Since I don't really like Susan, at all, I'd have to say that to me, their love was just very immature.... and that's not an option in the poll!! :lol:DO you mean that you don't think that it was even hot?

Beyond the poll, anyway, what about this? --

***SPOILERS ON TOME 4***



Well, you can take the question backward: what if it wasn't true love? Then a lot of things would lose their strengh. Like when Roland goes through the glass for the first time and sees the Tower. He decides this would be his destiny, he chose the Tower inspite of Susan. If their love was just about playing "love me" in the bushes, this moment would be nearly casual: "Of course you choose the Tower dude, saving the world is something you do once whereas girl-riding is available in every town!". Yet this moment has to be terrible and powerfull. To make it possible, you have to think of true love between them.

The same when Susan dies, if Roland wasn't deeply in love with her he wouldn't be so destroyed on the way back to Gilead. And of course the souvenir of Susan he keeps during the whole first tome wouldn't be that imporant. And if Susan wasn't that important (which is false) Jake wouldn't be either...

The whole 4th tome, the so terrible moment when Susan is brought to the bonfire and all the rest would matter so much if their love wasn't true, deep and intense.Is Roland's whole problem merely that, after the fact, he can't take the blow to his ego that'd come in saying that he never really loved her?

turtlex
10-18-2010, 07:21 AM
The poll asks : What was their love like?

Since I don't really like Susan, at all, I'd have to say that to me, their love was just very immature.... and that's not an option in the poll!! :lol:

DO you mean that you don't think that it was even hot?
<clip>


Hot? Um, mostly I was wondering how he could stand to even be near her, she was so whiny and all "save me Roland" .... maybe he just kissed her to shut her up?!?

Loved her? I'm surprised he even liked her.

pathoftheturtle
10-18-2010, 11:38 AM
In that case, his problem might be that he has never liked himself, and God only knows if he should.

Susan Delgado
10-18-2010, 02:08 PM
The poll asks : What was their love like?

Since I don't really like Susan, at all, I'd have to say that to me, their love was just very immature.... and that's not an option in the poll!! :lol:

DO you mean that you don't think that it was even hot?
<clip>


Hot? Um, mostly I was wondering how he could stand to even be near her, she was so whiny and all "save me Roland" .... maybe he just kissed her to shut her up?!?

Loved her? I'm surprised he even liked her.

haha thats good. you're certainly not alone with that opinion

Letti
10-21-2010, 11:45 AM
Su... oh my... so damn great to see you. :longDTbuddyhug:

Well, I can see why so many of you don't like Susan but for my part I can understand why Roland has fallen for her. I know you think she was as deep as a puddle but I see some depth in her. :)

Jean
10-21-2010, 11:57 AM
I don't think Roland was after depth at his age and in his state of mind

Letti
10-21-2010, 12:04 PM
I don't think Roland was after depth at his age and in his state of mind

He might not have been after depth but it must have been in the hat. I mean I don't think their love would have been longer than 7 days if he hadn't found any value in her.

Susan Delgado
10-21-2010, 02:41 PM
Su... oh my... so damn great to see you. :longDTbuddyhug:

Well, I can see why so many of you don't like Susan but for my part I can understand why Roland has fallen for her. I know you think she was as deep as a puddle but I see some depth in her. :)

yaaay hello! i was wondering when you'd notice me here. was hard not to spill the beans.


no i think she was deep. deep and smart and funny and and sensitive and so gorgeous you couldnt even look at her. but as my da would say perfect is boring

Letti
10-21-2010, 09:36 PM
Su... oh my... so damn great to see you. :longDTbuddyhug:

Well, I can see why so many of you don't like Susan but for my part I can understand why Roland has fallen for her. I know you think she was as deep as a puddle but I see some depth in her. :)

1. yaaay hello! i was wondering when you'd notice me here. was hard not to spill the beans.


2. no i think she was deep. deep and smart and funny and and sensitive and so gorgeous you couldnt even look at her. but as my da would say perfect is boring

1. You are way too good at keeping secrets. I am still shocked and crazily happy to see you here. :panic:

2. I guess we will always disagree on this one. I don't see Susan perfect at all. But I must admit she didn't have many negative features (or they didn't come out in the story) so her character is one of the weakest in the series.

Jean
10-22-2010, 02:19 AM
I don't think Roland was after depth at his age and in his state of mind

He might not have been after depth but it must have been in the hat. I mean I don't think their love would have been longer than 7 days if he hadn't found any value in her. I didn't mean no value at all: I think that strength and integrity was more important for him than depth; maybe even not only at that period of his life.

pathoftheturtle
10-22-2010, 07:47 AM
I don't think Roland was after depth at his age and in his state of mind

He might not have been after depth but it must have been in the hat. I mean I don't think their love would have been longer than 7 days if he hadn't found any value in her. I didn't mean no value at all: I think that strength and integrity was more important for him than depth; maybe even not only at that period of his life.Excellent point. That's really deep.

Doe
10-31-2010, 05:25 AM
I don't think Roland was after depth at his age and in his state of mind

Ofcourse not, He was a teenager.

Even gunslingers dont want depth at that age from a female :P

RolandLover
06-16-2011, 09:47 AM
Hello, newbie here

I just finished the books a week or so ago. I'm late to this messageboard but I just wanted to post my opinion on Roland and Susan. I voted their love as hot but light. For me I didn't get anything that was so deep about their love. Love at first sight was what Roland did as like many other male characters in other "romance novels" have done. Susan fell in love with a boy who could take her out of Mejis so they came together. They both kept saying how they love thee but it was passionless to me. I noticed that their lovescenes were described mostly from Susan's pov. Also I think their love was missing some elements like laughter. They came together only to have sex. I guess *I* was expecting more a real deepness there. I'm brand new to the DT series so I was expecting R&S to be a little bit older and personally I do not find teen romances deep.

But since I love love love love Roland, so to him it was deep. I liked Roland little romance with Rosalita better. Hell I even liked him with Allie better than Susan because it was adult and cold but they weren't boring as I found R&S's romance to be. Just my two cents :)

Letti
06-16-2011, 11:57 AM
Welcome to the board. I hope you will like it here.
And why do you love Roland so much? I am totally interested in it so please let me know. : )

RolandLover
06-16-2011, 03:12 PM
Thank you! I already love it here! I fell in love with the character of Roland first because of how badass he was and is. I know at the heart of him like Roland has said, he's a romantic. I know he's made some terrible mistakes and became obsess with the DT but, as I traveled along with Roland on his quest for it, he's a very deep character. I don't know. I just haven't loved a character like this at all hee!

Jean
06-17-2011, 12:10 AM
Hello, newbie here

I just finished the books a week or so ago. I'm late to this messageboard but I just wanted to post my opinion on Roland and Susan. I voted their love as hot but light. For me I didn't get anything that was so deep about their love. Love at first sight was what Roland did as like many other male characters in other "romance novels" have done. Susan fell in love with a boy who could take her out of Mejis so they came together. They both kept saying how they love thee but it was passionless to me. I noticed that their lovescenes were described mostly from Susan's pov. Also I think their love was missing some elements like laughter. They came together only to have sex. I guess *I* was expecting more a real deepness there. I'm brand new to the DT series so I was expecting R&S to be a little bit older and personally I do not find teen romances deep.

But since I love love love love Roland, so to him it was deep. I liked Roland little romance with Rosalita better. Hell I even liked him with Allie better than Susan because it was adult and cold but they weren't boring as I found R&S's romance to be. Just my two cents :)bears concur

pathoftheturtle
06-17-2011, 04:30 AM
Wow, well it seems that I can sense it when someone revives an old thread even when I'm not online. Just remembered this one for no apparent reason yesterday. Welcome. :)

I don't think that Roland and Susan was particularly boring. Like, more boring than other love stories. Maybe not the best ever written, but good for its place in the saga. (Unless y'all think that the author intended to make it lack meaning.) Also, I think that it might be a misstep to overgeneralize the kind of feelings which teenagers have: what they are like actually varies a good deal, especially if they're of a different culture and in a society that's not set up like what we may be most familiar with.

RolandLover
06-17-2011, 06:46 AM
Wow, well it seems that I can sense it when someone revives an old thread even when I'm not online. Just remembered this one for no apparent reason yesterday. Welcome. :)

I don't think that Roland and Susan was particularly boring. Like, more boring than other love stories. Maybe not the best ever written, but good for its place in the saga. (Unless y'all think that the author intended to make it lack meaning.) Also, I think that it might be a misstep to overgeneralize the kind of feelings which teenagers have: what they are like actually varies a good deal, especially if they're of a different culture and in a society that's not set up like what we may be most familiar with.

Thank you! I do think that during R/S when that their situations weren't that of normal teens. Roland and his ka-tet were sent to Mejis to count as teens boys doing a job that men were doing. Susan's situation of basically being the Mayor's gilly a better than "whore" was definitely not a teen situation either. I just felt their love was passionless. Just because they said they love each other all the time and had sex didn't make me believe it was that deep.

Also Roland's love for Susan withered after he went todash in the Grapefruit. He was willing to let her move on with another man who would've raised his baby. He also said that Susan is not his ka or she not him. Something like that. Had Susan lived, I think knowing that Roland didn't want to marry her anymore would have hurt her deeply.

pathoftheturtle
06-17-2011, 07:32 AM
Well, if it would have hurt her deeply, that suggests that at least Susan really cared. I guess that maybe I just don't understand love relationships in quite the same way that many others regard the concept. Not sure that "passionless" is equivalent to "uncommitted." Your summary of the things which Roland said after coming out of the Grapefruit is accurate, but I don't know if it means that his love for her ever withered. You think that deep feelings for someone always make one stay with them no matter what other circumstances the world might present?


... Susan's situation of basically being the Mayor's gilly a better than "whore" was definitely not a teen situation either. ...Sadly, that is the situation for many girls that age in the real world. It's not Disney Channel, but it happens.

RolandLover
06-17-2011, 09:05 AM
Well, if it would have hurt her deeply, that suggests that at least Susan really cared. I guess that maybe I just don't understand love relationships in quite the same way that many others regard the concept. Not sure that "passionless" is equivalent to "uncommitted." Your summary of the things which Roland said after coming out of the Grapefruit is accurate, but I don't know if it means that his love for her ever withered. You think that deep feelings for someone always make one stay with them no matter what other circumstances the world might present?


... Susan's situation of basically being the Mayor's gilly a better than "whore" was definitely not a teen situation either. ...Sadly, that is the situation for many girls that age in the real world. It's not Disney Channel, but it happens.

No I do not think that at all but I think Susan believed that. She told Roland she put everything into him to take care of her. Once the glam got hold of him, he chose the Tower over her. To me it felt passionless their love. To me it felt like they were just saying the words and basically the outcome somewhat proved it. Roland decided to put the Tower above his love for Susan which led to her unfortunate death. That is what haunts him.

pathoftheturtle
06-17-2011, 09:56 AM
... basically the outcome somewhat proved it. ...Key words. I can agree when it's put it that way. But to me, Roland being willing to let her move on with another man does not conclusively prove that he stopped caring or no longer meant to take care of her in any way. I concur with the point that his decision haunts him since her death, but I'm not convinced that he was "just saying the words" all along. That sounds like dishonesty.

RolandLover
06-17-2011, 10:59 AM
Pathoftheturtle, no i don't believe Roland was dishonesty about his love for Susan.

GranChi
05-18-2013, 07:40 AM
I got that it was supposed to be a beautiful, true romance and all, but it didn't seem that way a lot of the time. There's a lot in the book about them going around meeting in different places and, well, doing it (when you think about it, they really screwed a lot for 14 and 16) but not that much about them developing a meaningful connection... I think a lot of their talk with each other seems pretty basic and simple, if you go back and look at it. But it meant something to Roland, obviously, and I think that's what matters most in his later life.

Ross
04-20-2015, 06:39 AM
I like this point. When I first saw the post I thought "True love for sure". Jean made a wonderful point and so did you. In the back of my mind though, I am still slightly pushed towards the True Love option for some of the same reasons. I have been with my wife for almost 16 years now. When we first met, it was True love at first sight. I realize that this feeling I had would have come to me regardless of who I as with (A teenage boy will fall in love with a beautiful girl 9 times out of 10 in my estimation). I think the difference between whether it is hot but light or deep and ever lasting has to depend on the beholder. Self actualization and the ability to understand yourself and what you feel is important at that specific time (regardless of whether it is true or not, it is still love). I don't think this can be answered to be honest. If Susan didnt die and they left the Mejis as they had planned and went back to Gilead and the story continued, we could have possibly been able to answer this question. Having the story of their love cut off so soon means that we will never know for sure. In Roland's mind it was true and everlasting and I don't think Mr King wanted us to see it any other way. Like with my wife (retrospect), there are times when I don't love her every minute of every day. But in the end, my love is everlasting and regardless of circumstance it can never be taken away. Not sure I like what I just wrote here.. I think I am still on the fence, but what the hell, hitting the post button anyways