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.

Maybe Next Time

King Henry IV by William Shakespeare didn't bring forth any new ideas in terms of love. Hal helped strengthen the idea that an absence of love might be the wise way to role. He bears little to no love for his father and his main father figure, Falstaff. His absence of relations to the two is part of his grand scheme that he begins to act upon at the end of the play. If he bore a love for either of these two people, his plan would be non existent, he would be loyal to his father's poor rule and/or loyal to a witty drunk, either of the two I believe to be unfortunate. Yet I don't really know how this series of plays ends, so I can't really say if his absence of love lead to his strength in the end.

There is another relationship I remember that should have contained love, that between Hotspur and his wife. Yet he says he doesn't love her and she doesn't seem to love him back, so this is a very poor example. For the Blue Fox I was able to get away with my "absence of love" statement as there really should have been love, but this play was a comedy and from long ago and an absence of love in marriages and such was common. Overall, King Henry IV Part 1 gave very little insight to the world of love, as no one ever really had any love.

Absent

In a world of isolation, bitter cold, and icy graves, it would take a miracle for love to thrive. Sjon, the author of The Blue Fox clearly doesn't believe in miracles. What astonished me the most about this short one hundred and fifteen page book, was the surprising absence of love. It seems to have fled this land, leaving only cold behind. Not once can I recall the mention of a married couple, or even a couple, except for one instance. That is with one of the book's main character where his past love (or absence of it) with another woman created the plot of the book. This character, Reverend Baldur Skuggason, had been in relations with a woman long before the events  of the book take place. These situations are vaguely mentioned, but he had a daughter with this woman, and the daughter had Downs syndrome. For a reason unknown to the narrator, the couple spared the young girl's life, which was quite rare for people living in 1800's Iceland. Normally, I would be able to provide some insight as to whether or not this was a strength or a weakness, but in a book as complex and dreary as this one, I cannot. I do not know the reasoning behind keeping this child, whether it was for love or personal gain I cannot say. Moving on, the girl escaped her house unknowingly, where she was found by a different man, who eventually tracked down her parents and returned her home. This man comes back to the home years later to find the mother dead from poison, and the Reverend trading his daughter into sexual slavery for a gun and some ammo. Fast forwarding into the future, the daughter is found and eventually taken to the town where the Reverend presides. Being the awful person he is, he does not let her participate in Mass because her out of tune singing interferes with the others' connections with God.

I just remember now that there is one other relationship present. The Reverend's main helper is actually in a love affair with the Reverend's daughter. Yet no love is ever shown between the two, it is just mentioned and hinted at.

This absence of love, however, is a vital piece of evidence for my question. There is no love present in this relationship. The mother dies for an unknown reason, she may have been the one that saved her daughters life from beginning because of love, but that cannot be proven, all we know is that the father has no love for his daughter. This upsets me. I do not see the reverend as strong because he doesn't love his daughter. Throughout these various works we are reading, I am starting to a see  a pattern that the only needed, the only important love, is that between parent and child. When this love does not exist, chaos seems to follow. All the other love in this world may be trivial but the love a parent bares for his/her child (not the other way around) is the only love that truly matters.

A Wuthering Love

The trivial arguments. The brutal affections. The withered memories. Wuthering Heights is a love novel at its core, a book about the love between unstable and reckless people. So clearly it is a viable resource in the answering of my big question. The most inspiring love affair occurs between the tender Catherine and rowdy Heathcliff. Heathcliff musters all his strength to getting the girl that it corrupts him. When the girl marry's another, Heathcliffs heart changes and spends her whole life in flaunts of revenge and romantics. When Catherine dies a tragic death Heathcliff utters that Catherine's soul must not be at peace as long as he lives, going on to say, "'Only do not leave me in this abyss, where I cannot find you!... I cannot live without my life!'" He wants her soul to be restless until he dies. Yet all he wants is her, and if she does not leave him, then at least he can live, because if she were to leave him he would die. His maddened love has sapped the strength from him, forcing Heathcliff to rely on talks of ghosts and spirits as a source to his life. Heathcliff in the end is the embodiment of a weakness that thrives in the depths of love. Catherine also provides an interesting statement on love. Her famous quote, "'I am Heathcliff!'" creates a distinct balance between love being strong or weak. She is Heathcliff. The weakness of love is shown as she trades away all her individuality with this statement. She essentially loses her self, losing Catherine, which would be a distract downfall and weakness. More optimistically, however, this quote evokes an images of soul mates and kindred spirits. Their souls are bound together and exist as one, which relates to the previous quote about Heathcliff. In this case they're love provides strength for both of them, they are connected and bound on a deeper level then the romantics of others. Catherine's 3 letter statement lends my question a fascinating answer. In this example love is both a strength and a weakness, love is a double edged sword, one side gives strength, the other side fuels weakness. Maybe this will be the ultimate answer to my question. Or maybe not.

Love: A Regal Inconvenience

As is the deal with most things in my life, my question is derived from Game of Thrones. Cersei Lannister, the beautiful, cunning, power hungry queen states that the more people you love, the weaker you are. When that song was first sung to me, I thought nothing of it. Love was strength, love was courage, love was all that was needed in life. Her quote was just words, and words are wind. Though soon the winds rose and gusted into my mind. And when I pondered, those words cut deeper than any sword could. I have witnessed first hand people spending so much time and energy on a single person, only for them to love another. I have seen men and woman become whole new people, both inside and out, all for the sake love. In so many stories, death comes to those that love, and the love is what stabs them in the back. I have been the fool. All these things I have seen, and I believe what I see. But I have also seen and read about love that lasts, seen people that are the happiest when they are around the people they love. I have seen what a soul mate looks like. Both these truths I have seen. So with this big question I would like to explore if the good really does out weigh the bad. I want to know if love is truly a weakness.

The Many Loves Of Oedipus Rex

Oedipus was cursed. Oedipus lost his eyes. Oedipus went into exile. Oedipus loved. A possible correlation. In Oedipus Rex, the great tragedy written by Sophocles, is littered with love. From the beginning of this tale, love has proved to end in despair. The original love of the story was between Laius and Jacosta, the love that created Oedipus. The love that created the monster that murdered his own father. The love Laius bore Jacosta, as represented by Oedipus, proves to be his death in the end. Love is weakness. The second love, was quite different, involving the love a mother has for her own child. Jacosta was forced into murdering her own son. The love she had for Oedipus prevented her from carrying out the action, causing Oedipus to live. This love shames Jacosta in the end, but saved her child's life. Love is strength. The third love, between Oedipus and Jacosta, leads to the demise of them both. This forbidden love between mother and son, unknowingly yes, undoubtedly ruins them both in the end. The love hurting Jacosta so much, she hangs herself. Love is weakness. Last is the fourth love, the love Oedipus holds for his two daughters. He feels deep remorse for having them being born into a family of sin. He begs Creon to protect them while he is in exile. The last love shows that through darkness and wrath, love can protect. Love is strength. The similarity between the loves that prove useful only involves the warmth and trust between child and parent. The fatal attractions between normal people with no real connection is where the weakness stems from. Yet from just these examples a conclusion is impossible. Love is a complex beast, giving both life and death, transforming into both a strength and a weakness. A labyrinth that must be traversed, not knowing the truth until the walls cease to form and the exit is all that remains. The question persists.