Of love and LOLLIPOPS

[Tabouli]

(dusts off and dons Captain's hat, chuckling evilly)

The Elk(ins):
> It's not really the idea of Snape having loved Lily that bothers me at
all, you know. It's my feeling that such an emotional attachment, 
should it ever be set forth in canon, would almost certainly also 
be set forth as a driving cause of his turning away from the Death 
Eaters. And I really do dislike that idea quite a bit. 
>
>Sadly, I rather suspect that it is going to be canon eventually.
<clings to George for comfort, while she is still able>

Heh heh heh.  Resistance is useless.  Even those who detest the very idea of LOLLIPOPS have to admit it fits very neatly with the evidence (eyes Elkins suspiciously, searching for telltale pockets bulging with spray paint).  Liking it or not is not the issue here.  You can board the Good Ship while hating every timber, if you like.  I've never thought there was any *actual* sexual relationship between Snape and Lily.  Even I would find that a bit icky.  I've always held that Snape's love was unreciprocated.  Tortured.  Yearning.  I personally find that not icky at all.  I think it adds an interesting dimension to Snape which makes him make much more sense.  But that's just me.  I find the prospect of romance for one or more Trio members being woven into the future plot to be far, far more icky.  You know, Harry heroically rescuing Hermione or vice versa and them thereby discovering and declaring an undying love.  Now *that's* truly EWWW.

As for the driving force of Lurv, like it or not, it *does* happen, as well you anti-romantics know.  Eros is a powerful force.  People make all manner of drastic decisions as a result of their sexual relationships.  They leave their country and settle far away.  They cut off their families.  They radically change their lifestyles and opinions and appearance and religious affiliation and all manner of profound personal things.  They feel it is not merely feasible but mandatory to spend three weeks' wages on a circular piece of metal with a stone in it.  I don't think having a crisis of conscience and swapping sides because your political leader has ordered you to kill the woman you secretly loved in high school is beyond the bounds of plausibility at all.  The bounds of taste, of course, being rather more subjective.

(Hmmm.  How often do people do such radical things under the influence of one of the other three loves?  Any thoughts?)

I'm a diehard romantic myself, and have come to grief because of it many times.  It's not something that seems to be under my control.  All that attention and affection works on me like an addictive drug.  One taste and the drug possesses me, I crave more and more; cut off the supply and I go through agonies of withdrawal and temptation.  I've never managed to develop a controlled A&A habit, where I can limit my consumption to a healthy, balanced level and live a normal life.  Took me months of cold turkey to reach my present equilibrium, and one taste upsets it all again.  I'm a reformed junkie, I tell you!

As to why people do such radical things under the influence of Eros, I feel a few Freudian cliches coming on.  You know, the ol' people falling for someone who resembles one of their parents in some important way.  Perhaps the attraction of eros is linked to a sort of... infantilisation.  Longing for that all-consuming attention that you get (or didn't get) from your parents in an idealised childhood.  When you get lots of physical affection, and feel safe and protected and cared for, are the centre of attention, can be completely dependent on and trusting of someone, and can talk baby talk without nauseating onlookers because you *are* a baby.  A sexual relationship, especially in the honeymoon phase, can be a lot like that.  All the cuddling and feeding and gazing and cutesy talk and pretty little presents.  Very cosy.  Seldom enduring, in the cold hard light of adulthood, but nice while it lasts...

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]