I have been thinking - in connection with my writing - about why people (myself in particular) have a "type" they go for. The sort of person they are attracted to again and again, and will fall for even though similar relationships have failed. People they fall for who never return their "love". There are all sorts of psychological reasons advanced to explain the "types" we are attracted to. I am not entirely sure that I've ever quite conformed to those reasons. I have ultimately conformed in that I accidentally married someone quite like my father (although more critical, but probably a little less stubborn) but I don't think I've ever been really attracted to anyone else like him. In fact I know I haven't.
It occurred to me that I have had something of a pattern in LOs. Whether this is psychologically significant I do not know, but to some extent I have been seeking genetic diversity: firstly they have had to be (or appear to be) very intelligent. It helps if they are intelligent in a way that I am not - have a skill or scientific background that is quite unlike mine. When I met these types I would be very intellectually excited/attracted by them - their appearance was not usually a factor, I mean, I may not be Marilyn Monroe, but some of my exes would make Arthur Miller look like Mr Universe. It usually takes me several months before I accept that the feeling isn't mutual, during which time I have been thinking and scheming and trying to see them and fantasising that they will soon see the error of their ways, and see me in all my virtues. Usually they find a nice woman who is markedly less intellectual than them, and I realise that they did not long for an equal relationship, a marriage of true minds - but something a bit more humdrum.
There was a certain relationship in the late 80s which I almost cringe to recall with someone so inappropriate (but clever!) which used to make me think of a 1960's cartoon by Timothy Birdsall for That was the week that was. It was a series that showed a small moustachioed man - a bit like those in the cartoon below - conversing with a gigantic and very beautiful naked woman who is deeply attracted to him. Eventually she is seen kneeling while he stands in her hands shouting indignantly "But I can't love you - you're a giantess". I felt there was that thing occasionally - that one loved the undeserving - and however lovely you were you were just "too big" for them.
Sometimes I suppose it's very simple - they don't see the sympathies you see, they don't have the same vision of relationships, they quite simply don't love you/fancy you etc. Sometimes they are not interested in an equal relationship, it is necessary to ensure that they remain top dog. It hasn't always been a disaster, sometimes I have had relationships with clever men who admired me as much as I admired them - which worked, sometimes for long periods - on a couple of occasions we have even been in love with each other.
On the whole these unrequited love affairs are not so much fatal attractions as time-wasting - one spends a lot of time assuming that these people will see the error of their ways, understand you are the right woman for them, take you into their manly arms and swear to love you for ever. (I am talking about the past here). You can spend a year or two dreaming about someone - and nothing ever comes of it.
But where is this getting us? I am still not sure that unrequited love has any useful social/emotional function - and seems to exist simply to generate great cultural artefacts, Shakespeare's Sonnets, Stendahl's Love etc. It is a complete and utter bugger to suffer from, and never seems to end well. I would like to prove this wrong, but I don't suppose I ever shall. However, arguably, all those years "wasted" inventing elaborate stories and fantasies and coincidences and scenarios are now going to pay off in a series of books which use this material.
However, that is a bit of a circular argument - i.e. unrequited romantic love (inspires) - fantasy (creates) - literature (promotes) - unrequited romantic love. Where's the evolutionary biology explanation for that then?
It occurred to me that I have had something of a pattern in LOs. Whether this is psychologically significant I do not know, but to some extent I have been seeking genetic diversity: firstly they have had to be (or appear to be) very intelligent. It helps if they are intelligent in a way that I am not - have a skill or scientific background that is quite unlike mine. When I met these types I would be very intellectually excited/attracted by them - their appearance was not usually a factor, I mean, I may not be Marilyn Monroe, but some of my exes would make Arthur Miller look like Mr Universe. It usually takes me several months before I accept that the feeling isn't mutual, during which time I have been thinking and scheming and trying to see them and fantasising that they will soon see the error of their ways, and see me in all my virtues. Usually they find a nice woman who is markedly less intellectual than them, and I realise that they did not long for an equal relationship, a marriage of true minds - but something a bit more humdrum.
There was a certain relationship in the late 80s which I almost cringe to recall with someone so inappropriate (but clever!) which used to make me think of a 1960's cartoon by Timothy Birdsall for That was the week that was. It was a series that showed a small moustachioed man - a bit like those in the cartoon below - conversing with a gigantic and very beautiful naked woman who is deeply attracted to him. Eventually she is seen kneeling while he stands in her hands shouting indignantly "But I can't love you - you're a giantess". I felt there was that thing occasionally - that one loved the undeserving - and however lovely you were you were just "too big" for them.
Sometimes I suppose it's very simple - they don't see the sympathies you see, they don't have the same vision of relationships, they quite simply don't love you/fancy you etc. Sometimes they are not interested in an equal relationship, it is necessary to ensure that they remain top dog. It hasn't always been a disaster, sometimes I have had relationships with clever men who admired me as much as I admired them - which worked, sometimes for long periods - on a couple of occasions we have even been in love with each other.
On the whole these unrequited love affairs are not so much fatal attractions as time-wasting - one spends a lot of time assuming that these people will see the error of their ways, understand you are the right woman for them, take you into their manly arms and swear to love you for ever. (I am talking about the past here). You can spend a year or two dreaming about someone - and nothing ever comes of it.
But where is this getting us? I am still not sure that unrequited love has any useful social/emotional function - and seems to exist simply to generate great cultural artefacts, Shakespeare's Sonnets, Stendahl's Love etc. It is a complete and utter bugger to suffer from, and never seems to end well. I would like to prove this wrong, but I don't suppose I ever shall. However, arguably, all those years "wasted" inventing elaborate stories and fantasies and coincidences and scenarios are now going to pay off in a series of books which use this material.
However, that is a bit of a circular argument - i.e. unrequited romantic love (inspires) - fantasy (creates) - literature (promotes) - unrequited romantic love. Where's the evolutionary biology explanation for that then?
This is a cartoon by Timothy Birdsall which I copied from the University of Kent Cartoon collection. The Archaeologist is saying "As far as I can make it out, it reads "Pervert Slays Three in Society Brawl"...". I only discovered just now that this cartoonist, who I loved as a child had actually died in 1963 - the same year as my grandfather. I must try and find the book at my father's that had the TW3 cartoons in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment