Your Own Decision?

Love is present in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, by James Joyce, yes, but it is an idealistic love more so than not, a love of the idea more than a person. It can be argued that Stephen has an intense love throughout this book, a love of words and understanding and this is an undeniably healthy love. I believe that is a total strength, but this doesn't answer my question now, does it? 

Stephen's "love" is a curious one. Near the beginning of the book, his love for his mother gets him in trouble (love representing kissing his mother) and he ends up in a ditch because of it. Thus it could be said that love is a weakness for Stephen resulting in more hurt than strength, yet when he says he doesn't kiss his mother he still ends up in a ditch, leaving the reader in a grey area of interpretation.

Stephen also expresses his love for a girl named Emma. Throughtout the novel she becomes a symbol of unadulterated love in Stephen's life. Glimpses of her are mentioned throughout the novel, and he consistently imagines himself being with her. Yet because of their minimal interactions, it is difficult to decipher this love as a strength or a weakness.  One could argue that she was just a distraction to Stephen yet at the same time, you could say she was motivation for Stephen, as she always imagines being with her as a reward to his devotion to the church.

Again I am left swimming in a pool of minimal evidence and my own biased opinions. Overall, I'd say that Joyce would welcome love, but say it is neither a strength nor a weakness, it is an emotion in life that is meant to be experienced. Your own self must be the one to decide whether it is a strength or a weakness.

Invisible Love in the Invisible Man

Yet again I am lost among another novel with seemingly no connection to love, trying to piece together what little scraps I can to form into a well written post. In the Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison, there is little to no love that occurs within the pages (the absence is what shines). The book is about a black man, The Invisible Man, and his travels throughout the east coast and how his experiences shape and change his opinions and views of the world. He never falls in love (yet he kind of explains why), and there are never any loving ties between any of the characters. That being said, some conclusions must be drawn.
The narrator grows progressively stronger in thoughts and actions throughout the novel and love is never involved. In chapter two the narrator explains why he doesn't "love" (he never actually uses that word) saying, "First, it was dangerous if you felt like that about anything, because then you'd never get it or something or someone would take it away from you." Though this is in reference to an object it can be discerned that Ellison is highlighting the dangers of love in this comment. Loving someone or something is a dangerous task because there is always the inevitable risk that the person or thing you love could leave and or be taken away. That is a classic risk, and it appears that Ellison is saying this is a risk not worth taking, saying it's dangerous.
Another fascinating example occurs in chapter 9, in which the narrator thinks, "Perhaps everyone loved someone; I didn't know, I couldn't give much thought to love; in order to travel far you had to be detached." This highlights how the narrator doesn't have any need for love. Again love is mentioned but his opinions of love are too transparent. Maybe when Ellison says "to travel far you had to be detached," he means that to get far in life you love is not a necessity it is in fact a drawback, but this idea seams a bit outlandish to me, as I don't have much proof to go along with that interpretation. The narrator never loved, but it never seemed like love would have made him weaker or stronger.
So based on this evidence, it can be concluded that love is a weakness, that it is an unneeded part of our "travels" and that the risk involved with loving something or someone  is not worth taking, it is in fact dangerous. But, the evidence was thin and vague, so I'll keep on reading hoping some more opaque answers will present themselves.