Random fragment #2571

[kyrasantae]

It is like a long-distance relationship.

Maybe you met this guy on a vacation or something. You are absolutely sure you love him like you love no other person on earth. But the fact is that he lives in the far side of a different country than you, speaks your language as a second language, and that his country is at war with your own.

Fortunately, you've already learned his language, but he speaks a very distinctive dialect that nobody speaks in your area so you can't learn it from your neighbours.

At the same time, though, you have your reasons for being where you are; you're a soldier (not fighting on the front lines, though). You're obligated to serve for a few more years.

You've just met your soulmate; does that mean you should leave your country right now so you can be with him?

Your family strongly believes in the justice of this war. You don't, but you have told them about this guy you met and because he's one of the enemy, they're set in believing that he's ultimately out to corrupt and destroy you. If you do anything to support him they will see this as traitorous behaviour, report you to your higher-ups and you'll end up being court-martialled. Should you be so willing to make enemies of those who brought you to life?

Of course not.

Well, what do you do? For sure, you'd rather be living with him, but you've been secretly communicating to him through the phone, letters, emails, and so on. You know that he'll still love you and you'll still love him in 5 years when your military service ends. But you also know that the war will probably be over by then.

Why should you put behind the world you know, make enemies of your friends, and risk your life, reputation, and honour by immediately going to marry your love, when you can wait a little, finish doing your military service, and keep yourself (relatively) safe while the war rages on? When the war is over, your family will probably still hate the other country, but their antagonism will likely not be so incensed. It'll also be safer to travel there in peacetime.



(This was supposed to be a simple story, but then I added the language thing, and then I added the war thing, and so maybe it's gotten a little out of hand.)

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Uh... did you join the army or something?

-Guillaume

[kyrasantae.livejournal.com]

No, it's an extended metaphor. A pacifist like myself would never join the army even if I were forced to. ;-)

[forgottenlord.livejournal.com]

I'm debating (I'm using it, shush) whether I should risk your wrath disagreeing with you or not. I don't disagree with the point you're trying to make (I actually fully agree with you on that regards), but the metaphor is something entirely different. Wild Rose and her bf whom have been together a long time (well, ok, including the two months they were officially broken up last summer) are an excellent peace-time example, but war-time really changes the entire scope of the matter. Particularly total wars, as you allude to, bring forth the feeling of mortality to people's minds and so people often take more rash acts they normally would not because under a total war, no one is safe, and you have a very decent chance of not making it till the next morning. Civilian or soldier. When a soldier discovers something so valuable on the other side of the war as a "soul mate", it makes his/her job hundreds of times more difficult.

There was a study done during WWI where they discovered that for every 10 men, 4 weren't shooting, 5 were intentionally missing, and 1 was actually fighting the war. When they moved to WWII, the enemy was a monster. The entire concept of the training changed to a mode of "the enemy is less than human" - which enabled such horrific attacks such as the bombings of London and....is it Dresden? The German city that was burnt to rubble, anyways. When a rather human element is introduced, the entire illusion is fractured.

And then the only thing left is mortality - and a wish to live. My favorite line from Serenity is near the end, they've got a bunch of...."savage brutes" bearing down on them and one girl is contemplating her death. The Doctor admits his feelings to her and his regret at not having pursued them, and she goes "to hell with this, I'm going to live!"

Now in her case, it meant she was more willing to fight (cornered animal, what do you expect), but in the case of a war, it is more likely to result in absenteeism. Why? By the end of the war, you or your soul mate might be dead, and then you have nothing but regret. Many would be willing to risk treason to pursue love. I hesitate to suggest most.

Limited wars are a fairly different matter. They tend to be shorter, the civilians are generally left alone, so unless you meet your soul-mate on the front line, you're less likely to have that overwhelming sense of mortality in your way. I'm not sure if there's any stats to actually back me up or if I'm just spewing BS, but I think they're also less deadly in terms of ratios.

[kyrasantae.livejournal.com]

Seriously.

Please stop trying to analyze a work of art.

I'm trying to get a point across using a metaphor, not trying to argue a point using facts. My art is about appeal to emotion, not rationality.

Again, why I left you.

In fact I'm quite tempted to delete your post on which you spent (I'm sure) very hard work.

[forgottenlord.livejournal.com]

1) How am I trying to analyze a work of art
2) My entire argument was based upon an emotion - the emotion of "that doesn't make sense considering where she's coming from". A feeling of wrongness - I'm sure you know it better by that name
3) A metaphor with no basis in reality is a flawed argument and does little to further your point.
4) Stop hiding behind "I don't need to argue to make my point" because you end up losing your arguments that way. If you're going to make an argument, make it to try and convince the world that at least your argument is worthy of enough respect. If you aren't willing to defend your argument, it becomes a useless argument and does absolutely nothing for you.
5) You do need to apply a bit of knowledge and psychology to a post trying to demonstrate psychology (ditto with sociology). Your post is clearly trying to show what is driving you into the position that you're in, but you use areas where the psychology is completely different and therefore the results from the situation are completely different.

[kyrasantae.livejournal.com]

You're ruining the effect of my for everyone else who's reading it, so give me one excellent reason not to delete your comments or I will.


At least one person has increased her understanding of my situation through my post, and I'm not going to let someone's nitpicking of war psychology ruin it.

(The context I was sort of alluding to is a bit more like the current Israel-Lebanon thing than an outright war, where the conflict is centered around the border area and therefore the soulmate-on-the-other-side-of-the-country-from-you is relatively safe.)

[forgottenlord.livejournal.com]

I've made my point to you, you've read it.

Go ahead

(And actually, I do think that one would work much better as a peace-time argument as well. I did, BTW, get the allusion.)