Their love

[Letti]

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]

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.

[Mark]

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.

[Rjeso]

I voted for true.

Spoiler:

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]

maybe you wonder who was the monster that said "Hot but light" ...

[Letti]

maybe you wonder who was the monster that said "Hot but light" ...

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

[Matt]

I bet it was you Ka hater.

[Jean]

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]

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.

[Matt]

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

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.

[Rjeso]

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 Anyway, I can't wait to hear why you think it wasn't as deep as the rest of us do.

[Letti]

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

[Wuducynn]

I voted for a deep, hard, hot, sweaty, nasty, faithful one...*fans self*

[B Rag]

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]

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]

I. too, said hot but light and Hannah pretty much summed up why.

[MonteGss]

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]

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.

[Ruki]

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.

[TerribleT]

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.

[Jean]

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]

(I thought she was an angel, and she belches after a glass of beer)

Alas! Jean and I are not to be



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

[TerribleT]

[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)

[Brice]

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 , 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.

[Odetta]

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.