Parmaneri Literary Men
I will begin this post, as per Laura's request, with a short recounting of the medieval feast held in the dining hall this past Friday.
I spent an hour on my hair, putting most of it into two braided buns on the sides of my head with gold ribbon running around the braids (it may sound weird, but it's pretty) and leaving a long tail cross-wrapped with gold ribbon. I wore my blue and gold Renaissance Faire dress, at least two centuries too late for the theme but the best I could do.
There was a high table for the royalty and the court -- those professors who had chosen to dress up. We had a king and queen, a lord and lady of Meredith Wood, and several courtiers.
The food was wonderful. We had three-color soup (potato soup served with various purees one could add and stir in to color it), cheese, bread, chicken, nuts, figs, and apple dumplings all served with hot wassail. Our serving page sneaked us some contraband forks, but I wasn't about to cheat like that.
The entertainment was, for the most part, excellent. We had a medieval band, a chorus of virgins (a school choral group on whose collective chastity I won't presume to comment), a strange pseudo-feminist but interesting dance performance, a storyteller, and heavy fighters from SCA. The fighters were to select a lady for whose honor they would fight. The first declared, "Though I see many lovely ladies in this room, most of them appear to be over the ripe marital age of twelve." He fought for the honor of a cute little girl up front. After the feast, we had some dancing, with a lot of help from one of the band members who told us what to do.
The heavily advertised prizes for best costume and hair were given strangely. I was handed a card informing me I would "be called upon" for "finest frock at the festival." The king and queen summoned four ladies, including myself, and a gentleman, the husband of art professor Dr. Greenberg. He was not in costume. They held an applause contest to see who would win. They declared Abe Greenberg the winner and presented him with a trophy, golden dancing shoes, and a "slave girl" -- his wife. The rest of us got consolation prizes. Mine were soap, incense, and an incense burner. Note, these are illegal to have at Meredith. I am the RA's roommate. But I have nowhere to keep them except for beside my bed.
Several professors remarked to me that I was "gypped" out of my rightful prize. I thought that was funny. But Monday afternoon in my PR writing class, Dr. Duncan brought me a present for "Lady McGhin" from the English faculty as the prize they believed I should have received. It was a book of Irish lore and legends. That was really sweet of them.
I have been working like mad on my thesis research. I'm already behind. :(
And now, the long-awaited essay on topic #3
Men and Boys
I am not alone in having literary crushes. But I do tend to be in the minority when it comes to whom I pick. I remember being frustrated in high school and early in my college career that other girls seemed to like the literary men I found annoying. They'd prefer Laurie while I preferred Prof. Baher. They'd prefer Luke Skywalker while I preferred Han Solo. They'd prefer Raoul while I preferred the Phantom. They never liked Colonel Brandon or Mr. Rochester. I began to wonder why. Was I strange? Did I have bad taste? Was there any connection in these strings of men -- those I liked and those I disliked?
I began to discern a pattern in many of the romantic classics of literature in English. There tend to be two basic types of men, whom I will call Guy A and Guy B. There are many variations of plot for stories involving these men, but a very basic outline is as follows:
Girl meets Guy A. He is immediately recognized as a romantic interest. He is invariably a young, dashing, handsome, knight-in-shining-armor type. He is often fun-loving and idealistic. He's usually blond. He is every young girl's dream.
Guy A's virtues are very obvious, simple, and external. I believe most girls admire him because he's good, cute, and fun. He's pleasing to the eye. He inspires them with maternal feelings, making them feel a feminine superiority to his artless enthusiasm and innocence.
I do not admire him, because, with all his youth and idealism, he is immature, irresponsible, unsophisticated, whiny, and bratty. He needs a mother more than he needs a lover. He is a playmate, a child seeking companionship and security. As a character, he is boring because there is little complexity to him. What you see is what you get.
In her fascination with Guy A, Girl runs across Guy B. Guy B is so unobtrusive that we often don't notice him for quite a while into the story and only very well into it as a romantic interest. He is rarely as handsome as Guy A. He is older, wiser, more sophisticated. He's often jaded and cynical. He is experienced, romantically and/or sexually. He's often dark haired. Most girls seem to be turned off by him, but I'm not.
I think Guy B's perceived faults are as obvious as Guy A's perceived virtues, and just as external. Guy B is less handsome. He's gruffer. He's sterner. He's less goofy-fun. He doesn't bring an immediate smile to the female face. He often appears threatening, especially at first.
But to me, Guy B is incredibly attractive. Whether or not he has a handsome face (and he often doesn't), he's usually very manly -- tall, broad, strong. His manner, too, is strong and masculine. There is no timid beating about the bush with him. His experience and maturity mean that he isn't a child looking for a mother but an adult man looking for a lover. He doesn't inspire maternal instinct and a feeling of feminine superiority but awe, respect, admiration, and even a feeling of not being his equal. His external "faults" hide an inner worth far better than Guy A's cute face and simple, charming, empty manner.
Guy B's complexity makes him a much more interesting character. His jadedness and cynicism aren't turn-offs. They are usually a defense put up because of his past bad experiences and a challenge for the Girl to overcome. It's much more fun to argue with Guy B than to flirt and play with Guy A. It's easy to put a smile on the face of Guy A. But he will just as quickly become distracted, like a child, by his own concerns. A smile from Guy B is precious. Once the Girl has learned how to make him smile, he will not forget. She will melt the ice of his cynicism. She will remind him that life is wonderful and magical. He will love her not as a playmate and companion but as a soulmate.
Literary examples of Guy A/Guy B:
Laurie/Prof. Baher (Little Women)
Luke Skywalker/Han Solo (Star Wars trilogy)
Raoul/Phantom of the Opera (The Phantom of the Opera)
Christian/Cyrano de Bergerac (Cyrano de Bergerac)
Ashley Wilkes/Rhett Butler (Gone with the Wind)
Willoughby/Colonel Brandon (Sense and Sensibility)
St. John Rivers/Mr. Rochester (Jane Eyre)
Mr. Bingly/Mr. Darcy (Pride and Prejudice)
Dr. John/M. Paul (Villette)
David/Dr. MacNeil (Christy)
Frank Churchill/Mr. Knighley (Emma)
Edgar Linton/Heathcliff (Wuthering Heights)
I feel that Guy A is like apple cider -- bright, pretty, sweet. Guy B is like fine wine -- darker, stronger, richer, more bitter, but suited to the mature taste.
I know the plot sketch I gave above doesn't bear out in every situation. Jane Eyre meets Mr. Rochester long before she meets St. John. The Phantom of the Opera isn't exactly unobtrusive. Elizabeth is never interested in Mr. Bingly. But, at the end of the story, when the Girl chooses, whom does she always choose?
That's right. Guy B.
So maybe I'm on to something.
I should probably now make a distinction between my literary crushes and my literary loves. All of my crushes are Guy B. But there are only two literary men I love -- Mr. Knighley and Prof. Baher. They stand out from the rest of the mature, sophisticated men because of their virtue and selfless love. As incredibly attracted as I am to Mr. Rochester, I must admit he's a selfish scoundrel. Jane is better than he. He puts his own interests before hers. But Mr. Knighley and Prof. Baher are different.
Neither Jo nor Emma is perfect, nor even extremely good. Prof. Baher and Mr. Knightley are figures of near perfect manly virtue. (One thing that makes Emma one of the best love stories ever is that, at last, a woman gets a man who is too good for her instead of the other way around.) They could be good influences on their ladies. Then, they are selfless. Both of them are more interested in benefiting their ladies than in pursuing their own romantic interests. Prof. Baher tells Jo that she is writing trash and that she can do better, even though he knows she will be angry at him, because he desires to be her true, honest friend. Mr. Knightley scolds Emma for her shameful treatment of Miss Bates, though he knows that won't endear him to her, because he wants to be her true, honest friend. Both of these men respect their ladies and know their ladies can do better. These men won't let their ladies get away with acting below their ladies' level. Wise, mature, sophisticated, manly, virtuous, and responsible! Be still my heart!!
I will end this musing with a point made to my by my Romantic Comedy professor Dr. English. She informed me of the trend, in literary romances, for men to have to choose between a cute, sweet, naive, little blonde thing and an older, seductive, usually foreign "dark lady." Think of Ivanhoe. Guess what? He chooses the blonde. Is there a conclusion we can draw about male and female writers' tastes? I leave it to you.
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
ercasse_ainince) wrote,
