KevinD

This is a great statement, Elle. I certainly sympathize and agree. I like a lot of what you say here, too — though I think you conclude with a gross and potentially dangerous over-generalization. Lately I've been writing a great deal about rationalism in romantic love, and I've frequently cautioned against using syllogisms to arrive at knowledge about sex and human relationships. Intended or not, the paragraph quoted above boils down to an if-then statement: If a man is aroused by pornography, then he has a self-esteem problem — a conclusion utterly unsupported by facts, your own or any others. It's also a conclusion which is shared by many men, and is the cause of no end of unearned guilt and suffering. The statements you make in your post about pornography, while interesting and no doubt true for many people, are themselves an oversimplification. Though at one point you speak of using pornography as a substitute for human relationships (which would seem to imply that there are other ways one could use it) your other statements, and especially your conclusion, don't allow for any alternative possibility. I would ask you the same thing BurgessLau asked the initial poster: What is pornography? Is it, as the initial poster defined, "entertainment for the sole and exclusive purpose of sexual arousal"? If so, does every man who finds himself aroused by the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue necessarily lack self-esteem? If no, what about a man who is aroused by Playboy pictorials or videos? If no to these as well, then what is the essential difference between these and other, more explicit types of pornography — other than, perhaps, that you find them distasteful? For the record, I find very explicit pornography distasteful too, and I'm entirely unimpressed by the "porn star" types you mention. Still, being a guy myself, I know how easy it is for a man to become aroused, especially by visual data. Merely the thought of sex, or even a brief glimpse of a naked female body can begin the process of arousal, which for a man can be virtually instantaneous compared to that of a woman. (More than that, I would say it's nearly impossible for a man not to be aroused to some extent on almost a daily basis by the sexual imagery in our culture. Here in Los Angeles — in addition to the onslaught of sex on TV, in movies and popular music — there are naked women on billboards, at bus stops, and crawling up the sides of buildings. Of course there are also thousands of actual women who delight in dressing extremely provocatively, and then have the nerve to go out in public and cross the street. I would defy any woman, could she miraculously experience life as a man for twenty minutes, to drive from Hollywood into Beverly Hills via the Sunset Strip — without getting into an accident.) I bring this up particularly because I know that this forum is read by many young men who are still discovering and forming their view of sex, who to some extent may be in the clutches of hormonal changes, and who very likely find themselves powerfully fascinated by pornography — sometimes even to the point of what may seem like an obsession. It's usually temporary, and is completely normal, and in no way at all indicates a problem with self-esteem. One of the toughest tasks a young man faces is to develop a positive, guiltless concept of sex and of his own sexual responses — a task which is made considerably more difficult by sweeping generalizations and hasty moral condemnations. If we want to see more men in the world with high self-esteem and a healthy sense of sexuality, let's take care not to inadvertently make ourselves part of the problem.

Hi, Dagny -- There's a special introductory rate . . . you can read all about it here. Most other voiceover classes in L.A. cost at least twice as much (but are only 49-67% as much fun!) If you want a space, I suggest you sign up soon, as the spots are going fast.

I'll be teaching a 4-week voiceover class for women in Los Angeles starting Saturday, February 5. For more information, visit my website: www.captain-transistor.com

Hi, Jennifer. What a beautiful name. Thanks for sharing your inspiring story. It's so great to see so many WOMEN joining this site! Welcome all! Kevin Delaney

If you want my opinion, you're treating the issue of having and raising children MUCH too casually. In another thread, you said that there was some concern recently that your girlfriend could be pregnant — which you said would be fine with you, since you intend to marry and have children with her anyway. Yet the two of you are not even "officially" engaged, and she lives a thousand miles away in another state. (You're also only 22 years old; extremely young to be thinking about making such epochal decisions as marriage and becoming a father.) True enough that no two parents will agree on everything. But as much as possible, parents need to present a "united front" to their children. This is a major problem in divorced families: when the children stay at one parent's house, they often live under a different set of rules and responsibilities than when at the other's. Consistency is critical with kids; it's essential to a child's developing sense of living in a rational universe. It's bad enough when parents differ over issues such as eating habits or which TV shows are appropriate — it's another thing entirely when Mom and Dad hold radically different views of the universe and of man's place in it. This is no mere "mixed faith" marriage you propose: this is an attempt to combine faith and reason (more or less) under one roof. The mysteries of religion are incomprehensible to grown adults, let alone to a developing child, let alone one whose mother drags with her to church while Dad plays golf every Sunday morning. You say you want to teach your children "the importance of making up their own minds," and that you don't intend to undercut your wife's influence. But you can't expect young children to critically evaluate religious teachings and accept or reject them based on reasoned conclusion. Not only that, but you're blanking out the fact that the essence of religion is faith, which is the opposite of reason — which means the opposite of making up your own mind — which means that your wife's religious dogma and example will certainly undercut any positive influence you may have to offer. Suppose, though, that eventually your kids do start thinking for themselves, and figure out that everything Mom has been feeding them all these years is a load of hooey. What do you expect they'll think of you at that point? Might they start to wonder why dear old Dad stood by idly while Mom was indoctrinating them about the fires of Hell and the wonders of Original Sin? Might they begin to view their father as a spineless, mush-minded, pragmatic jerk — and might they be right? All of this is really quite academic, though, since you're not married, not engaged, and haven't even discussed the issue with your wife-to-be-to-be, nor do you intend to anytime soon. Why not? What are you afraid of? Could it be that these plans of marriage and children have much more reality for you right now than for her? There are a number of gigantic red flags you've mentioned in your posts which indicate that this is not exactly a relationship headed for matrimonial bliss. But at the very least, you need to make sure you're on the same page with your girl about absolutely everything before you even consider tying the the knot with her. You can't wait until "later" to discuss how you're going to raise your kids, nor can you just assume that she'll go along with whatever you want — especially not when you're having pregnancy scares and her religion forbids abortion. (Come to think of it, doesn't Catholicism also forbid premarital s... — eh, never mind.) Then again, when you get involved with a person who in your own words is not exactly rational, you shouldn't expect too much continuity from one day to the next. Being spontaneous in a relationship is great — but I have a feeling, given the way you've described this girl and the problems you've already had with her, that there may be some very unpleasant surprises in store for you down the road.

Please see my earlier post on rationalism and romantic love. Any time you find yourself saying "thus" a lot when talking about human relationships, check yourself. Odds are you're locked air-tight inside your own head. At the very least, you're not looking at the aspect of reality you need to. If you want to learn about human relationships, you begin by looking at the nature of such relationships. Not radios, or bookbinding, or the winter Olympics — or government monopolies. That said, there's a kind of sense to what you're saying. Many people do "get lazy" once they're settled down, especially men. A lot of men hold the attitude, "I got her. I know she loves me. I don't have to do anything to keep her." They think of marriage as a kind of unchangeable state. They resist any suggestions that their wife is unhappy and the marriage is in trouble — they insist that "everything's fine"— and they're usually only shocked out of their complacency and their easy chair when the woman gets fed up, and either threatens divorce or actually leaves. Many men (and I'm sure women, too) have had to learn the very hard way just how open to competition they are. The good news is that the mere fact that you and your partner have a history and a relationship together is one major value that no dashing new rival can hope to match — provided, of course, that said history and relationship is a happy and fulfilling one. This is why I say, time and again, that love is a process. In our instant-gratification, range-of-the-split-second age, we want everything NOW — and men in particular tend to rush into relationships, only to see them fall apart just as quickly. It takes time to build a relationship, and it takes constant thought and effort to maintain one.

You know, I read your entire message in response to my post, and I actually thought the light of awareness may be starting to dawn on you. Then you post this. Are you kidding? You're going to ask her why she's been giving you mixed messages? For what purpose? Didn't you agree that lack of integrity was the root culprit here? Didn't you agree that you've been letting this girl manipulate your feelings? What do you expect she'll say? What does it matter what she'll say? What I'm worried about is that this woman is going to give you some cock-and-bull "explanation," you'll turn emotionally to silly putty for the 5,000th time, and we'll never hear from you again. All my typing will have been for naught. Face it, man: you're weak when it comes to a gorgeous girl. The only reason you're willing to embark on this ridiculous "talk" is to give her the chance to insist on her innocence, berate you for suspecting ill intentions, then turn the whole situation around on you. You'll apologize, saying you don't know how you ever thought anything bad of her (and you won't), and then you'll go right back to being wrapped around her pretty little finger, where you've been for the past 2 1/2 years. She can manipulate you because she knows SHE CAN. SHE CAN because she knows YOU'RE WEAK. You're an intellectual guy with a good mind, and you really do know the right thing to do. But all it takes is one thought of her sexy self and your grey matter becomes instant oatmeal. You're like a guy on LSD — a Love Struck Doofus, as I often say. (And don't try to tell me that love — or at least strong sexual attraction — isn't the operative factor here: you would never be acting like this over a MALE friend.) Again, sorry to have to put it this way, but you REALLY need to hear it. That said, let me take a breath and a drink of water, and address some of the other, vastly more lucid points you raise. . . . Damn near anything is possible in the realm of human relationships. After all, don't you have a "friendship" with this girl now? Granted it's an awkward, confusing, and miserable kind of friendship — one which has you bummed out, feeling worthless, and seeking the advice of strangers on the Internet. But that's what you asked, and there, I suppose, is your answer. See, that's the problem with us men. We don't approach the issue in the right way. We ask the wrong questions. We theorize about abstract situations and hypothetical people when we most need to open our eyes and see the most obvious facts of reality staring us in the face. "Can a man and a woman have a friendship after a romantic breakup?" But we're not talking about about "a man" and "a woman" here: this is about you, your situation, your life and your emotional well-being. That some other guy at some point in history may have managed a halfway decent relationship with an ex who dumped him means nothing here. You need to focus on you: What do you see? What do you feel? Is this situation contributing to your life? Your self-esteem? Your happiness? Why, truthfully, have you stayed in it? Do you think that continuing the situation will make it easier or harder for you to move on and start a new relationship? Again, don't look to outer space, to "morality," or to anyone else for the answers. Take a hard, honest, objective look at your life, your current emotional state, and what you hope for your future. I think you need to check your assumption. "Getting over" a person doesn't mean reaching a state of total sexual indifference toward them. It does mean that you've attained a certain level of clarity and objectivity about the relationship — what it meant to you, why you broke up, why you need to move on. It means that you accept that it's over, have had time to get your heart back together again, and are now rested, rehabilitated, and ready to begin the process with someone much better. To the extent that your feelings for someone were serious, you can never make them "go away." You were, after all, attracted to this person for real reasons; your feelings are rooted in real values, which you still hold and will likely continue to do so. Such feelings tend to diminish and become less of an issue, however, the longer you're out of the relationship — provided you stay focused on your values, your goals and your life. (Keeping away from situations that you know will only exacerbate the pain and feed the demons of false hope would probably also not be a bad idea.) It can be a tough process, but you just have to be strong and get through it. A word of caution: Although you may understandably be tempted to, don't ever repress your feelings. If you start to feel something you wish you weren't, just focus on it and become aware of it. Feel not only the feeling, but also how you feel about the feeling: I hate myself for feeling this way . . . I wish the feeling would go away . . . I feel like I want to call her right now . . . I'm scared I'm not going to make it on my own without her . . . She makes me so angry . . . etc. Whatever you're feeling, just own it. Don't even try to talk yourself out of it. Write it down. Talk into a tape recorder. The funny thing is, when you own your feelings, you stay in control of them, and they don't end up owning you. It's only the emotion that's driven underground that becomes unmanageable. Generally, I would say yes — though what's meant by "aggressive" would have to be very carefully defined and elaborated on. But certainly no woman wants a wimp or a wishy-washy guy; as I said earlier, women want a hero whom they can admire and look up to. For a good example of this kind of man, see Howard Roark from The Fountainhead. (For an example of the opposite kind of guy, see Ross from TV's Friends.) As for this going against what women say they want — well, a lot of women don't know what they want, or have a hard time putting it into words. Different women hold different romantic values, based on their level of self-esteem and other factors. Mostly, though, I'd love to know which particular women you've been talking to. One of them wouldn't happen to be the above-mentioned ex, would it? I hear you, brother. We all do. Dating can be a tough game, especially when you have no idea what you're doing. Fortunately, it's not rocket science. Any man can learn the basics — the "technique" of dating, if you will — in under twenty minutes. (What you bring to the experience, i.e., who you are as a person, is a considerably bigger issue, and takes a little longer.) I have news for you: You think you're alone. Every man does. But you're not. The sad truth is, most men's romantic lives are a pathetic shambles. Look at the divorce statistics — and realize those are just the people who paid for the wedding and made the vow to be together forever! The average man's love life is a series of periods of lonely despair, false hope, occasional elation over good fortune he has no idea how he's lucked into, and bitter pain and disappointment when it ends. (Did I mention divorce?) The most common statement from men, if and when you actually get them to open up, is that they don't understand women, and that their romantic relationships are a constant source of pain and humiliation. The most common comment from women is that men are utterly, absolutely and totally clueless about romance; if men would only grow up, take charge, and learn to be men, everyone's lives would be much happier. And I have more news: No matter how sensitive and skilled you become, dating is still hard. Most of the women you'll be attracted to are simply not available — they're married, have boyfriends, etc. Of the very few who aren't, you have to find a woman who is also interested in you. (This, by the way, is the one thing most men completely forget.) Then you have to judge her personality, intelligence, values, etc. — not just in the abstract sense, but in terms of her personal, emotional value to you. You have to get to know a person over time, in many kinds of situations, before you can really say you're deeply in love with them. And again, she has to be feeling the same thing, at approximately the same time, in order for a relationship to happen. The good news is that romantic happiness — indeed, romantic perfection — is possible. It can be attained. And, given the right conditions and enough time, you will attain it. And when you do, it's the greatest experience in the world. Not only that, but once you really start to figure things out, the journey itself actually becomes a lot of fun. You soon learn that it's just as much about discovering yourself as is a quest to find the ideal partner. You gain a sense of perspective, and even a sense of humor, as you progress: suddenly those horrible experiences from the past seem like the wisest and most benevolent teachers. You look upon "rejection" as a kind of friend; you even welcome it for the lessons it brings, and for carrying you one step closer to success every time. What exactly happened? What did you ask her? What did she say? Be as specific as possible — maybe some of the ladies on this forum would like to critique your approach. Just realize that you could have been Howard Roark himself (after reading my book, of course) and still have "failed" for any number of reasons. You didn't really fail, of course: you succeeded because you put yourself out there and went for it. Corny, perhaps, but very true. Now you're talking some sense! The book won't be available for a while — though I'm working on some audio materials right now which you may find interesting and helpful. Send me an email or PM if you want to be kept updated.

Let me make sure I understand everything: This woman dumped you 2 1/2 years ago, saying, in effect, that she doesn't have time for you anymore. Now the two of you are "friends" (you say best friends) though you still have romantic feelings for her. She has moved to another city, but you call and e-mail her all the time. When you do see each other, you engage in meaningless physical affection — meaningless to her, at least, since you obviously no longer represent any serious romantic value to her. She's indifferent to your touch and insensitive to your feelings (though she did perform the ultra-feminine gesture of sending you flowers on Valentine's Day). You're isolated from women and from friends in general, have no one to talk to, have had no other romantic involvement since the breakup, and — face it — at least a part of you would love nothing more than for this woman to change her mind and "take you back," which you know full well isn't going to happen. Am I fairly on track here? Why are you doing this to yourself? "Friendship" — where one party has romantic feelings for the other — is a long, slow emotional torture. Unrequited love is tough enough as it is, never mind when you drag it out across years in an uneven (and fundamentally dishonest) quasi-relationship. Not only that, but she dumped you. It's no wonder you're miserable: you're trying to be best buddies with someone who isn't even casual acquaintance material. You're trying to break the Law of Identity. That a woman is willing to keep you around for amusement and sexual gratification after making it clear that you don't make the grade as her long-term lover, shouldn't be viewed as some sort of consolation prize, or as a terribly bright prospect for a quality friendship. You say you really like and respect her. But how much does she respect you? (While we're at it, how much do you respect yourself?) Be honest: these "mixed signals" are much more a sign of lack of integrity than any real uncertainty about the nature of the relationship. And your constant giving in and letting her drag your feelings around isn't doing much for your mental health and emotional well-being. Given your view of what's acceptable behavior, I worry for your future relationships — should you ever get off the phone and get around to having one. Are you always going to let a woman run the show like this? Will you always be this "nice" — and this weak? Women, contrary to popular belief, don't want a man they can dominate and control: a real woman wants a hero; a man she can look up to and admire. One of the worst things we men do is to have ambiguous relationships with women. As the man, you're the initiator and prime mover: it's up to you to ask the woman out, to take the lead, and to set the overall tone and direction of the relationship. She can follow your lead, of course, or not. But if your feelings and hers don't match, you can't try to strike some weird, woozy "compromise" and expect anything but pain and heartache to come from it. I think you need to get out more and make a real effort to date women. As it is, the only thing you're making is excuses. You're wasting your time and destroying your confidence by focusing on something which should have been buried in the past a long time ago. The good news is that self-confidence and self-respect are generated through taking positive action: by doing the right thing. If you approach the process of dating and love with enthusiasm, and see every experience (including this one) as an opportunity to learn and grow, you'll soon develop the awareness and the inner conviction necessary to have a strong, lasting, and happy relationship. One last thing: Although I'm being hard on you, and I think you're being appropriately hard on yourself, the last thing you need right now is a sense of unearned guilt. Romantic understanding and skill is something that a man — every man — has to learn; unlike women, we can't just introspect and examine our own nature to see what romance is all about. Show me any truly aware, romantic man and I'll show you a guy with at least a few very painful experiences and disappointments in his past. What sets the romantic man apart from his less-enlightened brethren is not his ability never to make mistakes, but his willingness to examine and learn from them. Don't worry about what a "correct person" would do, or what is the "correct" way to feel — that's nonsense, and will only keep you stuck. Remember that you're in this life, I assume, to experience happiness and to find fulfillment. That should be your purpose and your goal, not conformity to some ideal of how one is "supposed" to act or feel.

I've heard this kind of sentiment alarmingly often from Objectivists. It's a good example of the rampant rationalism that exists in the thinking of many otherwise intelligent people when it comes to issues of love and sex. Be very cautious of any kind of "rule-bound" approach to romantic love — even when the rules are your own, and especially when those rules are the end product of some brilliantly logical chain of deductive reasoning. Observe: Romantic intimacy, as we all know, is an expression of the highest degree of love. Naturally, it follows that one should experience such intimacy only with the person who epitomizes one's deepest and most profound values. Therefore, to engage in romantic intimacy with someone who does not embody one's deepest values (or to do so if one is not yet sure of one's partner in this respect), is to contradict and assault all of one's values, and to damn oneself to the lowest kind of depravity. Thus the only moral choice is to refrain from engaging in any such activity, until and unless one is absolutely certain that one has made one's final romantic choice and has found one's lifelong romantic partner. Until then: No Sex! I would venture to guarantee that anyone who actually believed this — and managed to live by it — would never achieve the kind of relationship he purports to idealize. Not only is the premise faulty and the conclusion entirely wrong, but such an individual is unlikely ever to meet and connect with anyone, living as he does inside of his own head. Imagine a person who has spent years punching numbers into a calculator, computing sum on top of sum — all with the goal, he explains, of one day reaching infinity. The poor guy is on a foolish and fruitless mission, because he doesn't understand the nature of the thing he's trying to attain — and no less so than the person who, in his alleged quest to achieve romantic-sexual happiness, syllogizes himself into a permanent state of chastity. Given everything I know about romantic love, I truly cannot imagine how someone could reach the point of knowing that another person is so profoundly and personally a value to him that he would seriously consider marrying them — without the benefit of a sexual affair. We're not bodies or minds: we're integrated beings of both, and nowhere more so than in a romantic relationship. You simply cannot get to know a person fully (nor can they get to know you) merely from observing, engaging in conversation, and maybe hand-holding and pecks on the cheek. You must have the full physical experience. This doesn't mean, of course, that you jump into bed with someone the moment you meet them. Often far from it. But it does mean that in an honest relationship based on serious values, there isn't any reason in the world why the partners shouldn't enjoy the freedom to express themselves physically and sexually, on any level and in any manner which they both enjoy and feel is appropriate — regardless of whether they've attained full, final certainty about their relationship and have made plans to spend their rest of their lives together. A relaxed, benevolent attitude of openness and discovery is normal, healthy, and essential to successful romantic love — to say nothing of success and happiness in life. I place very little credence in religious commandments, and maybe even less in rationalistic ones. Religion, after all, is merely a form of rationalism: an attempt to prescribe moral rules and regulations without reference to reality. At least religion is upfront about its mysticism — as Objectivists, this world is all we've got. If we want to be happy, we need to live in it.

Why do you think that passage refers to Galt?

I don't understand chain letters at all. I mean, the letter had to start at some point — how could its author be talking about what happened to those who didn't forward it?

It's from the Q&A following Miss Rand's 1968 Ford Hall Forum talk.

But Objectivism does deal with such situations — by identifying them as outside of the realm of morality. In an emergency life-threatening situation of the kind under discussion, there is no morally right or wrong choice to make. Aside perhaps from blanking out the reality of the situation, whatever one chooses to do under the circumstances is moral. On 9/11, some people sought to escape from and flee the World Trade Center. Others went into the building to save the lives of those inside. Who did the "moral" thing? Answer: All of them. (Miss Rand once said, in response to a lifeboat-type scenario presented to her in a Q&A, that she herself would probably not kill an innocent person to save her life — but that she'd kill ten innocent people to save her husband's life.) You're free to define for yourself what YOU would do under such circumstances, and you can rest knowing that, morally, you are 100% in the clear. But don't look to a rational code of ethics for guidance on what to do in such situations — and, whatever you do, don't confuse these questions and their possible answers with real-life moral principles.

Your question is based on a false premise — namely, that cooties is fatal. As a child I was diagnosed many times as having cooties. Today I live a perfectly normal life.

One brief observation of reality: Over a billion dollars worth of "cheap romance novels" are bought every year — by women. Another interesting tidbit: The majority of romance readers are married. Just a little food for thought.

Thank you, Americo. That needed to be said. Taken on their own, I like all of the versions. One of my favorite lines is the one from Google translation: "a secrecy which takes the mouth for ear." That makes me smile every time I read it. "Secular communication with an aftertaste of heaven," from the study guide version, is brilliant — though it seems to bear no relation to anything Rostand wrote.

I have on my computer an excerpt from Cyrano de Bergerac. I don't know which edition it comes from, or who translated it. It's one of my all-time favorite passages from literature: After all, what is a kiss? A vow made at closer range A more precise promise A confession that contains its own proof A seal placed on a pact that has already been signed It's a secret told to the mouth rather than to the ear A fleeting moment filled with the hush of eternity A communion that has the fragrance of a flower A way of living by the beat of another heart And tasting another soul on one's lips! I recently wanted to find the context of the quote in the play, so I consulted my copy of the Brian Hooker translation. After quite a bit of searching, I found this (PB p. 113): And what is a kiss, when all is done? A promise given under a seal — a vow Taken before the shrine of memory A signature acknowledged — a rosy dot Over the i of Loving — a secret whispered To listening lips apart — a moment made Immortal, with a rush of wings unseen — A sacrament of blossoms, a new song Sung by two hearts to an old simple tune — The ring of one horizon around two souls Together, all alone! Quite a difference. Perhaps my version was some kind of weird modification of Rostand's words — like those reproductions of the Last Supper or the Mona Lisa with certain details inexplicably changed. So I went to the Project Gutenberg web site and downloaded a different translation. Here's the passage from that edition: A kiss, when all is said — what is it? An oath that's ratified — a sealed promise, A heart's avowal claiming confirmation A rose-dot on the 'i' of 'adoration' A secret that to mouth, not ear, is whispered Brush of a bee's wing, that makes time eternal Communion perfumed like the spring's wild flowers The heart's relieving in the heart's outbreathing When to the lips the soul's flood rises, brimming! "Brush of a bee's wing?" "The heart's relieving in the heart's outbreathing?" Where are they getting this stuff? I found yet another version of the passage at an online study guide site. (The site doesn't specify which edition it's from, but elsewhere it refers to a 1995 translation by one John Murrell.) And what is a kiss, specifically? A pledge properly sealed, A promise seasoned to taste, A vow stamped with the immediacy of a lip, A rosy circle drawn around the verb 'to love.' A kiss is a message too intimate for the ear, Infinity captured in the bee's brief visit to a flower, Secular communication with an aftertaste of heaven, The pulse rising from the heart to utter its name on a lover's lip: "Forever." I've since been comparing other parts of the Hooker translation with the one at Project Gutenberg. Not too much, though — it's too depressing. It's like two different plays. Entire sentences appear in one edition, with nothing even remotely similar in the other. It really makes you wonder what exactly constitutes a "translation." I have always been less than enthusiastic about translated works. I always have the nagging sense that I'm not "really" reading the work — that at best what I'm reading is a kind of collaboration between two people; the original author and the translator. In AR's fiction writing lectures, she gives an excerpt from one of Hugo's novels which she translated herself. She said she was shocked when she compared the same passage in some of the published English editions with the original French. "If you have read only the English translations," she said, "you have not really read Hugo." (I thank God on my knees that AR learned, and wrote in, English!) I located the original French text of Cyrano (again from Project Gutenberg). I'm functionally illiterate in French, but here it is: Un baiser, mais à tout prendre, qu'est-ce? Un serment fait d'un peu plus près, une promesse Plus précise, un aveu qui veut se confirmer, Un point rose qu'on met sur l'i du verbe aimer; C'est un secret qui prend la bouche pour oreille, Un instant d'infini qui fait un bruit d'abeille, Une communion ayant un goût de fleur, Une façon d'un peu se respirer le coeur, Et d'un peu se goûter, au bord des lèvres, l'âme! I plugged the passage into Google's awkward but often useful translation machine, and got this: A kiss, but with all to take, which is? An oath makes a little more closely, a precise promise Plus, a consent which wants to be confirmed, A pink point which one puts on the I of the verb to like; It is a secrecy which takes the mouth for ear, One moment of infinite which makes a noise of bee, A communion having a taste of flower, A way of breathing the heart a little, And to a little taste, at the edge of the lips, the heart! So the bee is in the original after all . . . or so it seems. I'd love to hear from someone who understands French. Particularly, I want to know how the Hooker version — which is considered definitive — stacks up against Rostand's words, especially Hooker's line "a new song sung by two hearts to an old simple tune." What in the French could possibly correspond to that? Actually, more than anything, I'd love to have a truly objective translation of that passage. Or at least as "objective" as a translation of a work of art can be. [Note: Some of the above passages were re-formatted by me for consistency and ease of reading.]

"The light came from the window of a pawnshop. The shop was closed, but a glaring bulb hung there to discourage looters who might be reduced to this. He stopped and looked at it. He thought, the most indecent sight on earth, a pawnshop window. The things which had been sacred to men, and the things which had been precious, surrendered to the sight of all, to the pawing and the bargaining, trash to the indifferent eyes of strangers, the equality of a junk heap, typewriters and violins — the tools of dreams, old photographs and wedding rings — the tags of love, together with soiled trousers, coffee pots, ash trays, pornographic plaster figures; the refuse of despair, pledged, not sold, not cut off in clean finality, but hocked to a stillborn hope, never to be redeemed. 'Hello, Gail Wynand,' he said to the things in the window, and walked on." The Fountainhead, PB p. 658

This looks like a job for . . . ESPERANTO!!

Argive99: I hate to sound like I'm making a personal diagnosis, but do you think that possibly your attitude may have something to do with your situation? I find any trace of bitterness or hostility toward the opposite sex to be extremely unattractive. Perhaps women feel the same way.

Stephen: As a matter of policy, I don't publicly discuss my own romantic life or answer personal questions. Suffice it to say my ideas are the product of my own experience, my conversations with many men and women (both successful and unsuccessful in love), my reading, observations, and thinking. I enjoy discussion, and I'm open to rational persuasion. If you disagree with anything I have said, please indicate such and why.

Speaking specifically about romantic love, I would say it is at once three things: 1. A feeling 2. A process 3. A relationship In the most basic sense, love is a feeling — a feeling of strong romantic-sexual attraction and desire for another person; the feeling of being "in love." Love the feeling is the foundation of love the relationship. It's not the only element, of course, but it is essential: Absent the feeling of romantic love, on the part of either or both parties, there is no romantic relationship. How a romantic relationship begins, grows and develops — and how it is sustained and continues to grow across time — is an issue of romance: the experience of love viewed from the perspective of a process. Romance is the bridge, so to speak, between the feelings of love and their concretization in the form of a successful, exciting, dynamic, romantic relationship.

OK, but what specific kinds of actions are you talking about? (And what exactly do you mean by "gain her love?") My concern is that this issue may seem self-evident to both men and women, yet there may be vastly different ideas about what in reality it means. Re: Sleepless in Seattle — I think you're thinking of a different movie. I just wanted to be sure, which is why I asked. But in Sleepless, Meg Ryan goes far out of her way to meet Tom Hanks, who really doesn't even know who she is for almost the entire film. (I hadn't seen it, so I rented it last night after reading your post. It was a fun, interesting movie nonetheless!)

OK, definition/concretization time: What exactly do you mean by a man "pursuing" a woman? (This question is intended for anyone who has used the term here, or who has personal thoughts on the issue, pro or con.) Betsy, I'm especially interested to hear what you mean by Tom Hanks' character pursuing the woman he wanted in Sleepless in Seattle. What specific actions of his did you like?

If by "love at first sight" you mean seeing a person, liking their physical appearance and projecting onto them certain attributes of character because of it, and feeling a strong emotion of attraction to what you imagine the person is like — and then, through the process of getting to know him or her, learning that your initial estimate was correct — then yes, I do think that love at first sight is possible. In a sense, all love is "love at first sight" — meaning that we know pretty quickly whether or not we're attracted to a person; whether or not he or she is our "type." That initial spark can eventually grow into an inferno, or it can become snuffed out. But without that spark of interest on the part of both parties, no romantic relationship is possible. When an initial attraction leads to romance, we often think of it as a case of "love at first sight." We tend to forget about all the other people for whom our feelings of attraction vanished the instant they opened their mouth.