It's a relatively common theme for fictional romances, in which two men (both good) are after the same girl, to have one of the men make some sacrifice at the end so he can't get the girl but is happy in knowing that she's happy. Nice. Also, pure crap.
This has been done so many times, but probably the most famous example is [Spoiler Alert! Well, not really. If you haven't read it, you probably won't and really who cares?] Sydney Carton taking the guillotine for Charles Darnay so the woman he loved (Darnay's wide Lucie) could be happy in A Tale of Two Cities. Okay, first why does the guy always have to make the sacrafice? Generally the girl has some affection for the guy, albeit not total love. So why can't she ever sacrafice her happiness and make the guy happy?
In the case of Sydney Carton, what more could Lucie want from a man? He looks just like Darnay, who's stuck in prison and about to be executed. amd he's willing to die to make you happy! I mean isn't that enough?
Moreover, I don't care what Dickens said, that marriage could not last much after the book concluded. If your Darnay, how do you compete? The guy your wife could have had died for her. Not only died for her, but died in your place for her! Next time you don't take out the trash or put down the seat, Lucie's just going to remind you, "Sydney Carton died for me, and you can't even do chores for me?" That marriage is doomed and, really, so would be any relationship that's started or sustained by a third party's sacrafice
No comments:
Post a Comment