Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Deceive me

It seems clear that as a source of happiness, romance leaves a lot to be desired. And perhaps the Dalai Lama was not far off the mark in rejecting the notion of romance as a basis for a relationship and in describing romance as merely "a fantasy... unattainable," something not worthy of our efforts. On closer examination, perhaps he was objectively describing the nature of romance rather than providing a negative value judgment colored by his years of training as a monk. Even an objective reference source such as the dictionary, which contains well over a dozen definitions of "romance" and "romantic," is liberally peppered with phrases such as "a ficticious tale," "an exaggeration," "a falsehood," "fanciful or imaginative," "not practical," "without a basis in fact," "characteristic of or preoccupied with idealized lovemaking or courting," and so on. It is apparent that somewhere along the road of Western civilization a change has taken place. The ancient concept of Eros, with the underlying sense of becoming one, of fusion with another, has taken on new meaning. Romance has acquired an artificial quality, with flavors of fraudulence and deception, the quality that had led Oscar Wilde to bleakly observe, "When one is in love, one always begins by deceiving oneself, and one always ends up by deceiving others. That is what the world calls a romance."
The Art of Happiness, 111


At 10:16 AM, Blogger Janelle Renee said...

No comment on this post?! I'm shocked.

It so happens I've been thinking a lot about this subject.

That's all I have to say about that for now. When I have more to say, I'll do it on my blog and perhaps reference this post (if you don't mind).

At 11:55 AM, Blogger Beth said...

I agree with you. I'd rather go ahead and be deceived by romance, than to go living in harsh realities.

"Romance has been elegantly defined as the offspring of fiction and love."
-- Benjamin Disraeli


Post a Comment

<< Home