Things that are common in fiction but not in your real life

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

How it could have been worded to make it uncontestably clear to any reader regardless of their language background, I'm not sure.

I would have thought the multiple followup posts where I claim "that's not what I said" would have been a sufficient start toward clarification, but then that's just me.

[what follows is unconnected to what Uncle Robin specifically posted]

To me, saying Love as a singular motivating force is overdone (or lazy or unrealistic) in fiction, is like saying greed is overdone as a motivating force (or lazy or unrealistic). Or revenge, or hate, or sociopathy. Love alone is just as valid a singular motivator as any other motivating force is in fiction. Especially when real-life examples of all of them abound.

My objection was to someone trying to brush off romantic motivation as unrealistic (or a literary crutch, or an overdone trope that needs retiring) instead of simply acknowledging that fiction which relies heavily upon characters who are primarily motivated by love is not their cup of tea.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I would have thought the multiple followup posts where I claim "that's not what I said" would have been a sufficient start toward clarification, but then that's just me.

This may well be worth considerably less than the proverbial hill of beans, but using Google Translate to render your phrase into German, Italian, French and Hindi all seemed (as far as I could tell from my varying comfort levels with those languages) to render it in the way you did not intend it to be parsed.

Again, incoherent? no. Immediately allowing of only one possible interpretation? Also, no.

The title of one of my alll-time favorite Hindi filmi songs is all about this problem "jaane kyaa tune kahi, jaane kyaa maine suni" "who knows what you said, who knows what I heard". For putting me in mind to listen to it again, I thank you.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Well, I'm female and the latter two certainly aren't true for me (I don't hate children - I'm just rather indifferent about them)

Other people's children: Evil monsters.
Your own kids: Better than kittens.

[fabricalado]

Originally Posted by hildea

fabricalado: I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding DiapDealer. They aren't saying that all actions are motivated by love, but that all types of actions can be motivated by love. In other words, if we make a list of all possible actions -- committing murder, creating art, getting house insurance, making a cup of tea, and so on -- DiapDealer's claim is that each of those actions has been performed for love at least once.

I get it now. And yeah, apparently I misundertood what they were saying and took it for a reductionist instance, and had issues with that.

Originally Posted by hildea

In American Gods the love between Shadow and Laura is a powerful thread in the story, and a strong driver of the plot at least in the first part of the book.

Agreed. My pet peeve is when love as a drive seems to trump every other motivation in the plot and it becomes overwhelming.

In American Gods, love probably is what made Shadow endure his time in prison and maybe it is what resurrected Laura (though likely it was the magic in that golden coin). However, it could be argued that there are several other reasons why Shadow decides to work for Wednesday and, ultimately, chooses a side in the fight between old and new gods: for instance, loyalty to his blood/family, his belief that modern day America is not fit for the gods of old and, finally, being faithful to who he thinks he is.

Additionally (SPOILER ALERT),
it could be said that love wasn't involved in Shadow's decision to let Laura die?
Mercy, maybe. Or maybe he got over her after her affair with Robbie, too.

So: there is love, but Gaiman seems to be aiming at other things, in AG and with Norse Mythology, like tradition and spirituality x materialism (the new deities), for instance. And those make for a more interesting read than, say, if AG was mostly about Shadow's love for Laura, the ups and downs of their relationship, and how Shadow ultimately decides to sacrifice himself out of love for Laura or to let her out of harm's way. (Again, IMHO; I'm not trying to change anyone's minds and hearts here).

Anyway, I don't know if I'm contradicting myself by writing this, but: I'm ok with love being there, I just don't buy it when love is everywhere and seems to be covering up 'motivational holes' in the plot.

But you phrased that better than me, no doubt.

Originally Posted by hildea

I haven't seen those shows you mention, though, and if they use love as the only significant motivation and theme, that seems likely to get boring.

That's what I was aiming at! For me, the "love makes you crazy/murderous/courageous/oblivious" routine makes for uninteresting, or unconvincing, stories (is why I don't like, for instance, romantic comedies).

[fabricalado]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

My objection was to someone trying to brush off romantic motivation as unrealistic (or a literary crutch, or an overdone trope that needs retiring) instead of simply acknowledging that fiction which relies heavily upon characters who are primarily motivated by love is not their cup of tea.

I did add "for me" in all/most instances in which I argued that love as a motivating force does not work for me.

Since that didn't work, I'd be happy to hear what else would help make it clear(er) that I was talking about my personal preferences.
(and that's not a rhetorhical question; I should add that I'm ESL.)

Anyway, I still think what I wrote. For me, love gets overused as a reason for actions/conflicts, to the point where it doesn't interest me much these days.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

This may well be worth considerably less than the proverbial hill of beans, but using Google Translate to render your phrase into German, Italian, French and Hindi all seemed (as far as I could tell from my varying comfort levels with those languages) to render it in the way you did not intend it to be parsed.

It would be disturbing if Google Translate rendered the same English input into different meanings in different languages (to the extent that same meaning is possible). A better test would be different translation engines (not just different brands of the same engine).

However, over the years, I have misunderstood DiapDealer's intended meaning many times, including this one. That might often be my fault, but I don't think that is always the case.

[4691mls]

And to think I believed I was starting a fun, uncontroversial topic....

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

And to think I believed I was starting a fun, uncontroversial topic....

There is no topic in existence that's uncontroversial.

[fabricalado]

If you wanna see true violence, try asking a group of connoisseurs to decide which sewing machine is better. I tell ya, it won't end well.

[ps67]

Originally Posted by fabricalado

If you wanna see true violence, try asking a group of connoisseurs to decide which sewing machine is better. I tell ya, it won't end well.

Or if it is better Kindle or Kobo.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by ps67

Or if it is better Kindle or Kobo.

Nah, that one doesn't raise nearly that much passion here. Unlike debating the age old life-and-death questions: "cover or no cover?" "USB-C, or micro?"

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

Nah, that one doesn't raise nearly that much passion here. Unlike debating the age old life-and-death questions: "cover or no cover?" "USB-C, or micro?"

Step back, now! We don't want to wake the bear! (or wolf)

Shari

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

Nah, that one doesn't raise nearly that much passion here. Unlike debating the age old life-and-death questions: "cover or no cover?" "USB-C, or micro?"

Don't forget are audiobooks real books and is listening considered reading?
Apache

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Apache

Don't forget are audiobooks real books* and is listening considered reading?**
Apache

*Yes.
**No.

Carry on.

[arjaybe]

In fiction, people seem to remember what all their keys are for.