8 ms·

I love literature - there's something about the writing of a real writer compared with the rest of us slobs, it's like the difference between someone's function

I love literature - there's something about the writing of a real writer compared with the rest of us slobs, it's like the difference between someone's functional diagram or photo and a painting by an artist. IME it's also by far the best way to explore many very human things (thus humanities), as Shaw gently and subtly - and so effortlessly and quickly - leads us deeply into these issues. The unsaid tension between them, over commitment, devotion to each other - why not spend Sunday alone together? - and the fate of their marriage. I get the sense of people, or at least Michael, who is not really ready to commit fully, and the negotiated peace that Frances accepts. Not the point of the story itself (which IMHO is to explore real humanity, not give pat, perfect answers), but I don't understand other people: If something will make your partner happy, why not do it? Imagine how overjoyed Frances would feel, how special she would feel, if Michael responded - 'hey, if it bothers you, it won't happen again', and maybe, with a wicked smile 'but I'm going to need to look at you a lot more.' And imagine how not respecting her feelings makes her feel - and it's every effing time you leave the house together, for the rest of your lives. Is it really worth it to cop some brief stares? Is there anything better in the world than seeing your partner happy? Even omitting the feeling of seeing that joy, purely selfishly, what would make Michael's life better. I guess, in my reading, he's not ready to try it and find out. (And any general statement must make many assumptions about the relationship. I think every relationship is unique and they cover an inconceivably - I mean, we really can't conceive of them all - wide range. It's all a bespoke arrangement between two people. Some are open, some closed, some long distance, some together every moment for decades, some passionate, some practical, some angry or sad or joyful or whatever. IME we almost shouldn't be using this same word for each one; it's like saying everything with a processor is a 'computer'.)

polishdude20 3y ago
What I noticed when reading this was just how well he's able to write realistic dialogue. I could never write a real conversation between people. It's hard enough to be one of the partners and answer with my own words let alone conceive of what the other partner would say.
stcredzero 3y ago
Is it really worth it to cop some brief stares? There's a reason why the most authoritarian regimes in history had you avert your gaze. That said, I'd somewhat agree, then just buy a pair of sunglasses and not crane my neck. (This is basically the state of my marriage. Except, I would refuse any come-on. My wife knows this. It's not a sacrifice, unless it really is a sacrifice.)
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > There's a reason why the most authoritarian regimes in history had you avert your gaze. You're comparing keeping your eyes to yourself with your partner to authoritarian dictatorships?
  - angiosperm 3y ago
    Well, yes.
  - stcredzero 3y ago
    Yes. There are clearly different levels of severity and magnitude here (So no false equivalence, Jack!) but the act of averting your gaze is particularly submissive, IMO, and the act of asking it to be done is particularly aggressive. I do not ask my wife to avert her gaze, and I would not. It's a pernicious thing to ask of a human being. I would not ask anyone to censor that level of their experience and information gathering. So long as there's no signaling and no touching, truly what is the harm? Everyone should be free to exercise their curiosity. That is, truly, a human right. The very idea of it puts me in mind of a propaganda piece about the "male gaze" which was on Feminist Frequency. (Not the one that comes up easily in the search, but one which had no dialogue in the soundtrack.) The hate of men that comes off that thing is quite palpable!
    - whynotminot 3y ago
      Oooh buddy your poor wife. Her: “Can you please not ogle every woman that walks by our table?” You: “How dare you impose this authoritarian regime upon me you man-hating harpy!”
acjohnson55 3y ago
> If something will make your partner happy, why not do it? Imagine how overjoyed Frances would feel, how special she would feel, if Michael responded - 'hey, if it bothers you, it won't happen again', and maybe, with a wicked smile 'but I'm going to need to look at you a lot more.' I think he knows he won't keep that commitment. He doesn't want to lie to her, even though it would score immediate points. I can respect that on some level. But constantly gawking at random women for long enough durations to be obvious to the wife is both strange and cruel. Not to mention how it probably feels to the women. 1939 might have predated women's studies and ideas like the male gaze becoming mainstream, but I think we underestimate the extent that people one basic right and wrong in these situations without the benefit of academic analysis. I think most guys notice attractive women around them but have the decency and discipline to not gawk.
disambiguation 3y ago
> If something will make your partner happy, why not do it? Good practical advice, but my take is that the point of the story is to play on the irony that they were both making the same error. They were both acting out of incompatible irrational instinct, the man and his lust, and the woman and her possessiveness, neither willing to sacrifice it for the sake of the other. Even going as far as to win the other over, the man through rational argument, the woman through emotional appeal. It's a very elaborate and realistic tension.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  As I said, the practical advice wasn't the point of the story itself. Regarding the story, I don't know that I quite see it like you do: Michael confirms to Frances that he will cheat on her someday. Frances suspected that, and connects the oggling to it; it's not especially possessive to object.
  - disambiguation 3y ago
    Maybe possessive isn't the right word, but she wants to be the "sole object of his desire." I call this an irrational instinct because she continues to want this in spite of Michael's cruel confession. Frances has a right and reason to object, but she never considers the option of leaving, arguably the most rational course of action. That said, I dont think there is a single objective truth in fictions like this, but it's certainly interesting to hear all the different interpretations!
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > That said, I dont think there is a single objective truth in fictions like this, but it's certainly interesting to hear all the different interpretations! Yes, indeed, that is the point. I am not asserting that I'm 'right'. I think we are coming together on the interpretation. I see most of what you said. To me the story depicts the trade-offs made for the relationship. Is it rational to leave? Frances won't find a relationship which isn't messy and require compromise (I'm not excusing Michael at all).

polishdude20 3y ago

What I noticed when reading this was just how well he's able to write realistic dialogue. I could never write a real conversation between people. It's hard enough to be one of the partners and answer with my own words let alone conceive of what the other partner would say.

stcredzero 3y ago

Is it really worth it to cop some brief stares? There's a reason why the most authoritarian regimes in history had you avert your gaze. That said, I'd somewhat agree, then just buy a pair of sunglasses and not crane my neck. (This is basically the state of my marriage. Except, I would refuse any come-on. My wife knows this. It's not a sacrifice, unless it really is a sacrifice.)

wolverine876 3y ago
> There's a reason why the most authoritarian regimes in history had you avert your gaze. You're comparing keeping your eyes to yourself with your partner to authoritarian dictatorships?
- angiosperm 3y ago
  Well, yes.
- stcredzero 3y ago
  Yes. There are clearly different levels of severity and magnitude here (So no false equivalence, Jack!) but the act of averting your gaze is particularly submissive, IMO, and the act of asking it to be done is particularly aggressive. I do not ask my wife to avert her gaze, and I would not. It's a pernicious thing to ask of a human being. I would not ask anyone to censor that level of their experience and information gathering. So long as there's no signaling and no touching, truly what is the harm? Everyone should be free to exercise their curiosity. That is, truly, a human right. The very idea of it puts me in mind of a propaganda piece about the "male gaze" which was on Feminist Frequency. (Not the one that comes up easily in the search, but one which had no dialogue in the soundtrack.) The hate of men that comes off that thing is quite palpable!
  - whynotminot 3y ago
    Oooh buddy your poor wife. Her: “Can you please not ogle every woman that walks by our table?” You: “How dare you impose this authoritarian regime upon me you man-hating harpy!”

acjohnson55 3y ago

> If something will make your partner happy, why not do it? Imagine how overjoyed Frances would feel, how special she would feel, if Michael responded - 'hey, if it bothers you, it won't happen again', and maybe, with a wicked smile 'but I'm going to need to look at you a lot more.' I think he knows he won't keep that commitment. He doesn't want to lie to her, even though it would score immediate points. I can respect that on some level. But constantly gawking at random women for long enough durations to be obvious to the wife is both strange and cruel. Not to mention how it probably feels to the women. 1939 might have predated women's studies and ideas like the male gaze becoming mainstream, but I think we underestimate the extent that people one basic right and wrong in these situations without the benefit of academic analysis. I think most guys notice attractive women around them but have the decency and discipline to not gawk.

disambiguation 3y ago

> If something will make your partner happy, why not do it? Good practical advice, but my take is that the point of the story is to play on the irony that they were both making the same error. They were both acting out of incompatible irrational instinct, the man and his lust, and the woman and her possessiveness, neither willing to sacrifice it for the sake of the other. Even going as far as to win the other over, the man through rational argument, the woman through emotional appeal. It's a very elaborate and realistic tension.

wolverine876 3y ago
As I said, the practical advice wasn't the point of the story itself. Regarding the story, I don't know that I quite see it like you do: Michael confirms to Frances that he will cheat on her someday. Frances suspected that, and connects the oggling to it; it's not especially possessive to object.
- disambiguation 3y ago
  Maybe possessive isn't the right word, but she wants to be the "sole object of his desire." I call this an irrational instinct because she continues to want this in spite of Michael's cruel confession. Frances has a right and reason to object, but she never considers the option of leaving, arguably the most rational course of action. That said, I dont think there is a single objective truth in fictions like this, but it's certainly interesting to hear all the different interpretations!
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > That said, I dont think there is a single objective truth in fictions like this, but it's certainly interesting to hear all the different interpretations! Yes, indeed, that is the point. I am not asserting that I'm 'right'. I think we are coming together on the interpretation. I see most of what you said. To me the story depicts the trade-offs made for the relationship. Is it rational to leave? Frances won't find a relationship which isn't messy and require compromise (I'm not excusing Michael at all).