The myth of happily ever after

If you haven’t yet seen the excellent Before Trilogy by Richard Linklater for whatever reason I urge you not to read ahead. Also, mild spoilers for The Littoral Zone by Andrea Barrett. Spoilers ahead!

But both of them remember those days and nights as being almost purely happy. They swam in that odd, indefinite zone where they were more than friends, not yet lovers, still able to deny to themselves that they were headed where they were headed.

In Andrea Barrett’s short story, The Littoral Zone, two much married people with families fall for each other and leave their families behind so they could unite. They realize later that so many things mean something (read everything) only in the moment. Their relationship was complete as it was in the moment but when it was stretched beyond it, the essence was lost. The attraction on the island couldn’t translate into an enduring relationship on the mainland for whatever reason.  Initially I found their behaviour odd. But Jesse and Celine from the Before Trilogy also reunited at a huge personal cost but this was acceptable. Why? Because we are conditioned to believe and root for them because they are two people who belong together. Does the audience ever think if they are even meant to be together? Imagine something other than what the narrative tells us to?

Ruby had talked about the littoral zone, that space between high and low watermarks were organisms struggled to adapt to the daily rhythm of immersion and exposure.

In their case, that perfect day they spent together in Vienna can never be replicated and it took so much from them. Celine and Jesse never really recover from that. Their whole life is in the shadow of that perfect day, the way they responded to each other and the way they connected which obviously pales to the reality they are living now.

What if they had let it be and let each other remain only a fond memory and not continued to pursue each other over their lifetimes?

Humans are notorious for always wanting more; never satisfied with what is here now and fail to realize that dreams for the future is this gigantic illusion. What if they had left each other alone and never met and treated that one day as a blessing? Would they be so disillusioned? I don’t know.

Is it a case of Law of diminishing returns or a case of exceeded expectations? Or a case of dreamy idealism replaced by cold hard reality? Facts can be pushed under the carpet but they can never cease to be true. They are what they are. I think it was the balance between idealism and pragmatism which went awry in both their cases. All the disappointment their families had to face so they could unite had to have played a role in it being bitter.

One relationship that takes over everything else in life. When they are together they bicker, there is tension, misunderstandings and disappointments. Was the companionship worth it? Better than facing the world alone? That’s for them to answer. Roses and romance don’t even exist in books and movies anymore, forget real life.

What did you think about the Before Trilogy by Richard Linklater? Were you satisfied with how he ended their life stories?

If you have read anything by Andrea Barrett do tell me how you found her writing. I loved her Ship Fever and other Stories. She takes real characters from science and creates historical fiction around them to tell really compelling stories with scientists at the forefront. This is a book I planned to reread as soon as I finished it and I am happy to say I have finally begun.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s