This study started somewhat subjectively through trying to analyse my own mistakes in my relationships, and then continued as a study to extend that analysis as to why so many others also made mistakes in their relationships. An almost immediate conclusion was that in the Western word we have all been subjected to a very subtle and pervasive conditioning process which, by its very nature, has often fatally impeded communication on the subject in general and in particular between men and women.
To put it simply, we've been brainwashed by a few relevant words for centuries, and we’re still being brainwashed today by so-called "romantic fiction” in all its guises.
I am withholding the actual draft title for this study for commercial reasons, 'Relationships' is a good-enough working title for the moment.
Whereas most people lie about their sex lives, their relationships and liaisons tend to be far more in the public domain and are likely to be a constant source of puzzlement.
Reading this study and applying the precepts therein may not make you more popular or help you attract more potential partners. However, this study will assist (I daren't say help) you to be more realistic and more objective by realizing that your relationship situation, although unique, had the majority of its elements based on age-old patterns.
“Falling in love” is such a wonderful experience, and the feel-good factor of the resultant adrenaline rush so high and unique, that it is hardly surprising that almost all literature concentrates on “becoming” rather than “being” or “remaining” in that state. This study cannot hope to redress that balance; however, by identifying the inbuilt initial destabilizing influences, it is hoped that this study will in some way help to promote long and loving relationships.
It is suggested that this study be treated as a sort of pocket dictionary – a phrasebook of the Grammar of Love, a mini-map of the countryside of that feudal state called love.
I am grateful to both the unwitting and the witting contributors to this study, particularly those who led me to new source material as references. My particular thanks must go to the authors of those references for giving me the confidence that mine was not a lone voice in the wilderness and for providing both enjoyment and inspiration to me. It must of course be emphasized that the quotes used are mainly the words of the author’s characters and do not purport to be the author’s opinion.
There are no checklists as such, this is not a how-to-fix-it relationship manual, this is not a sex manual - although I do include one reference (Chang {C02}) in gratitude to the author for the teaching (no pun intended) that the ratio of female orgasms to male orgasms should be far greater than one. Usually, a good relationship includes good sex (the converse may not be true). Neither are infidelity and jealousy covered in this study, nor the effects of children (either of the relationship or of the partners) save to say that they always represent the best of what was good in the relationship. The many mechanisms of emotional attraction (progress from pal to putative lover) are indeed worthy of detailed study, but they are not discussed here, and there is no other mention of pheromones. Wisdom through words on wooing sums up this study.
Paradoxes abound in relationships; my original intention was to devote a complete chapter to them. In the event, there were found to be far more of them than even I anticipated. As a result, each chapter now ends with a section on relevant paradoxes.
I apologise in advance for the multitudinous references and for the need for somewhat turgid paragraphs, particularly when I’m setting up a model or representation of a relationship. My background is in both science and accounting, so it is inevitable that a serious study will be fully referenced. Most authors of fiction deal with relationships, there are no doubt many from which I could (and should) have quoted.
The individual references are at present all contained in braces {}, and it will be apparent that as yet the referencing system is inconsistent; more apologies, but this is work-in-progress. I will eventually publish the full list of references here if there's enough demand.
The reasons I use copious quotes from the works of both lesser-known authors and well-known authors are as follows:
1. These (coupled with a lifetime’s observations) are my ‘cases’ since I am neither a therapist nor a counsellor;
2. Where a thought or sentiment has been particularly well-expressed (and I could not devise a better turn of phrase!);
3. Where those quotes highlight the paradoxes or contradict the Grammar which has been both propagated and perpetuated by literature (from the Bible through Jane Eyre to the multitude of "romantic" novels and the weekly magazine stories which still abound);
4. To add credence to my theories by demonstrating that someone, somewhere, has at sometime glimpsed some of those ideas - even if no one else appears to have recognized the underlying pattern;
5. To reassure myself that any “original” ideas I have are not in fact a form of madness;
6. To ‘fight fire with fire’ since I believe that so much of our brainwashing on this subject has come through the printed word.
It used to be thought that any quotes in Latin must be profound, there are no such quotes in this study.
The choice of which referencing method to use has not been easy:
• to give the full reference immediately after each quote would detract from its content;
• to give it as a footnote on the same page would look and be too complicated;
• to give superscript numerical references only might give the initial impression that the quoted words are mine (or give a spuriously scientific air);
• the method adopted is to give the actual quote in “italics” together with the Author (plus Character where relevant) and with a superscript referring to a separate Table of References.
When this study is completed, it will probably be finally published as what Sherlock Holmes described as "a trifling monograph" (Conan Doyle {C04}); this is appropriate since my work here has had much in common with that of a detective. However this study may turn out to be much longer; who knows, it might even warrant splitting into both a scientific paper and a more populist version.
I am not a therapist, I am not a healer, and I am not a counsellor – but I am a trained observer, seeking unifying principles behind seemingly unrelated things.
In the course of this study three universal Laws of relationships are suggested, together with two By-laws of relationships. By-laws are here in the sense of “the use of the adverbial prefix by- giving the meaning of subsidiary law or side-law (as in byway”; they should be implicit in the actual Laws, but in practice are often ignored (Wikipedia {W01}).
As others (in particular, Thurber {T02}) have remarked, the War of the Sexes is eternal despite the fact that there is so much fraternization!
|
Contributor's Note
This is an extract from a sort of pocket dictionary of relationships – a phrasebook of the grammar of love. © 2010, Roy Law, all rights reserved. Seven chapters were completed on 19 August 2010 and been published here, they should be read in sequence; their date order is also the logical order.
|
