"There are the lover and the beloved, but these two come from different countries. Often the beloved is only a stimulus for all the stored-up love which has lain quiet within the lover for a long time hitherto... Almost everyone wants to be the lover. And the curt truth is that, in a deep secret way, the state of being loved is intolerable to many." (25-26)
I enjoyed the fact that McCullers is convinced that romantic relationships are split between the lover and the beloved. When applied to the average relationship this appears to be a plausible assumption. Anyone who has been in a committed relationship knows that relationships are always growing and changing. The amount of affection each person in the relationship shares is not always equal. McCullers apparently felt that this was always the case and she crafted her characters to fit within these parameters. The three main characters are locked in a struggle to determine who will be loved by who and over the course of the story all of them switch roles from lover to beloved or viceverse. Doesn't this feel a bit jaded? I enjoyed the plot that derived from this idea of the lover versus the beloved but in the end, it seems that there isn't room for lasting happiness in a world of changing affections, bound by this dychotomy of love.
Questions: Can this idea be stretched to encompass the townsfolk and the Sad cafe? Is there any hope for lasting love according to McCullers' idea?
No comments:
Post a Comment