h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Great Romantic Myth and the evils of The One - A4068966
Author: B - a Girl Called Ben - U148580

Yeah. Well.

Well - yeah.

I know what you're talking about - because I've been in those relationships - but I think you might have to re-package this for the EG. (Though you doubtless know more about it than me.)

How ? is escaping me to be honest.

Thinking.............

Before anyone devotes a lot of their time on discussing the merits and EG-worthiness of this entry can I ask if this is is a serious attempt to get an entry into the EG or is it another boundary-pushing exercise? Quite a few people got brassed off in the River Don thread about the fact that they wasted time on that one that they could have used reviewing other entries or doing something IRL that needed to be done.

Let's get a heads-up so that those who want to discuss the state of PR and the EG can do so, while those who want to review entries can either spend time here and talk with the author about getting it into the EG, or overlook it and go to other PR threads.

I wasn't aware of another boundary-pushing exercise, and since I probably would've read this anyway, here goes-

I think it's interesting you're only looking at it from a woman's perspective. Well, expected as you are one, but interesting that you don't think a woman can be the one. I wonder if this is a guide For Women, or if it's just a general interest piece.

Two typos I noticed near the end-
dicorce --> divorce
whateve --> whatever

F48874?thread=641924&skip=20&show=20#p7042757

Can I just say Oojakapiv I'll miss you tonight when you're gone ?

I'd say that this has AWW written all over it. This is an opinion/creative writing piece and ever more shall be so.

I'm not saying it's no good, I just suspect it'll never get into the Guide. If you were to chop and change it, then the bits that you'd have to take out would be the good bits.

Regardless of the motive behind it, I really don't see any problem with this eventually going into the EG. For example, I don't think it's all that different in style or type of content than the entry on being a mistress (A878204).

There are a few suggestions I'd have, though --

* I'd make it clear in the introduction that this is solely from the perspective of women -- or, alternatively, do some modifications and additions to add information about how men face this same issue. I think the latter would strengthen the entry considerably. Personally, I've seen people struggle with this from both sides of the table, and in almost every type of relationship -- it may happen with young heterosexual women more often than most, but it can happen just about anywhere.

* The little pieces that are part of the ongoing 'story', I'd set off in blockquotes. Not only would this put the entry more in line with style for previous EG entries, I also think it would enhance the readability.


Mikey

I'm guessing that you deliberately didn't put the headings in as headings, as there doesn't seem to be any GuideML in there at all. Fair enough.

'And in the meantime, she wrapped herself in her standards like a chastity belt.'

Great line.

'I feared for whateve relationship she finally settled on'

Should be 'whatever'.

'Of loving you lover'

'your lover'

Other than that, looks pretty pukka.

That's another point. It has first-person perspectives in it, hence my opinion that it wouldn't get in the guide. If you were to remove the I/Me/My perspective from it, then it would be more likely to go in but would be a less effective piece of writing. I'm not going to try and make a call on that as I rather like it as it is.

McKay - Nice one, and well spotted

*sigh*

No Gosho/Oojakapiv, it isn't "another boundary pushing exercise" as you put it.

If you read my other entries, "Being a Mistress", "Money and the Power of Belief", "Affirmation and Prayer, a Common Process" and "Princess Diana and the Power of Myth" you will see that it is just one in a series that looks at the benefits and limitations of belief-sets, and of course at sexual dynamics.

It is an entry that I hae been thinking about writing for almost a year, and, to be honest, I am more than a tad p**sed off that you want to dismiss it out of hand as a piece of game playing, but that is my s**t, not yours. I guess that, given the amount of time I have spent running with the hounds, I cannot complain about being thought of as a bitch.

Can I skip reading the Don piece and the PR thread? I find a lot of Pin's stuff overblown, and when I saw the length of it my heart sank and I ran away like a wimp. Sorry, Pin, but there you go.

The timing was co-incidence, no more. I've not been involved at any stage in the PRODding because I have no opinion on PR for the simple reason that I haven't put anything in here for 18 months or so because of other commitments.



Now that I have got that off my keyboard I'll address the other comments.

At present it is too female and heterosexual because my exposure to this thinking has been mainly from female heterosexuals. That said, when I first re-read it I thought 'I must make it less gender-specific and less heterocentric', but because I have limited time I slapped the first draft in here, bias and all.

The first-person bit is a nuisance because I couldn't think of a neat way of avoiding it, but a few changes and blockquotes would probably do it.

What IS it with the 'R' on that keyboard?

Thanks for picking up the typos. I will have another crack at it next weekend, and will read all comments with interest.

Many thanks to those who have already read and commented.

Ben

Don't imply that there was any more to my question than a request for an answer Ben - that's all it was. No subtext, nothing between the lines, no veiled comments, just a request for information.

Oh, sorry about that. I am still a relative newcomer and didn't realise that this was part of a series.

I may have to go and find the other parts and come back again later.

No worries, Yalson. It isn't a series as such, just a continuation of a series of obsessions I have with beliefs and myths and money and sex and stuff like that.

They are all rattling around on U148580, which I used for writing way back when.

No need to read the others, they don't contribute much to this one.

My own personal experience has been that while this 'myth' definitely afflicts men as well, it tends to hit them a little later in life than it does women -- although even that seems to be changing over time.

It seems like people at some point hit a 'transition' in their dating life -- they go from dating for its own sake to dating as a means to an end. And while women do seem to hit that transition a little earlier than men, it seems like the timing of the transition is slowly being pushed back, especially among women. And of course, you have both men and women out there who never make that transition -- part of it can be, after all, a conscious choice.

This transition, in of itself, isn't necessarily a bad thing in my opinion -- although I do think the entry portrays it as such in places. I think the bigger problem is when people hit that transition while still clinging firmly to the Barbie Dreamhouse -- where Ken was the only possible man for Barbie, and they had found each other, were happily married, in fulfilling careers, in a great house, with the same goals in life, and all by the age of 25. The idea of finding "the One" is really only one part of what I'd consider 'The Great Romantic Myth'.

The other parts have to do with what happens after you find 'the One' --

* When I find 'the One', everything will suddenly be different -- all of the problems I've had in past relationships will disappear, because now I'm with 'the One'.

* When I find 'the One', I won't need to work at a relationship, and there won't be any arguments; after all, those are both signs that this isn't really 'the One'.

* When I find 'the One', all the other pieces of our lives will magically fall in place - like our careers and our finances. Or, alternatively, we'll discover that those don't really matter to us any more because we have each other.

* When I find 'the One', the relationship is locked in place. If, down the road, the relationship heads in a different direction, it's proof that he was never really 'the One' to begin with, and didn't love me after all.

I think it all comes down to two basic concepts -- 1) somewhere, out there, is 'the One' for me; 2) when I meet 'the One', everything will fall into place without effort, just because he is 'the One'.

I'd like to discuss one part of the entry with you Ben:

"When we fall in love, our guard goes down and so do our ego boundaries. We become less whole than we were, we become half of a pair. We become intensely attuned to the other person's feelings, and we relax as they become hyper-sensitive to ours. We know what they think and feel. They finish our sentences for us. Oh, and we f**k like rabbits."

Not always we don't. I've had one platonic relationship which in some ways was even more satisfying than any of the sexual relationships I've had. I'm not sure that I can describe exactly how or why, but I know for certain that it was love and that I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

One other thing that happens to us when we fall in love and which you haven't mentioned, but which for me has always been a hallmark of being in love - "You make me want to be a better man" (Jack Nicholson - 'As Good As It Gets'). Being in love makes us want to be a better person, whatever 'better' means. More moral, more righteous, more upstanding, more generous.

Good points, both of them, Oojakapiv, and I'll bear them in mind when I revise the thread next weekend.

Thanks for reading and commenting.

Ben

Glad I re-read this from the beginning, because I had missed Mikey's post that it isn't just about finding The One, it is about making assumptions about what a relationship with The One would be like.

Can I recycle your points, Mikey?

Thanks everyone.

Ben

> Can I recycle your points, Mikey?

Yup.