-Z- (z@gundam.com)
Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:13:04 -0800

> > We're using the same word to mean to different things. There's
> > meaning an emotional connection and interaction and there's "relationship"
> > meaning a romantic or passionate attachment, the latter usually implying
> > physical intimacy or sexual relations.
> I never said there's anything sexual between them - what's with you
> Americans ^_^ Seriously, when I said "heavy", I just mean that they are not
> just friends, probably not just best friends, probably something along the
> lines of Lalah/Char back in OYW...

Chalk it up to my being American. "Heavy" almnost invariably implies physical
or sexual over here -- that's what gives a relationship weight and makes it
heavy. (^_^) Sadly, emotional relationships are considered lightweight, hence
the term "puppy love" for the feelings of a youngster -- theoretically incapable
of a sexual or "heavy" relationship -- for either a peer or an elder. The depth
of the emotion doesn't matter, it's the ability to act on it that counts.

This makes sense when you realize that all marriage customs are based on lineage
and inheritance -- it's not how you feel about a person that's important but who
you have children by and what rights that gives them. Sexual fidelity is an
issue only because paternity was, until quite recently, impossible to determine.
You always know who the mother is, but until this century the only way to ensure
that a given child came from a given man was to isolate the woman from sexual
contact with any other man. Morality follows social need and expectation, so
activities that jeopardized the social order by confusing the succession of
power and property became and to this day remain illegal and immoral.

Fifty centuries to one -- it's not going to change soon.

By extension, any and all sexual relationships, which have the potential to
produce children, have an impact of the economic, political and social
infrastructure of any property-based society. This makes it heavy, especially
when either of the parties is politically powerful.

You can be heavily involved with another, but if that's of no consequence to
anyone but you, the relationship itself has not heavy, because it has no
sociopolitical consequence.

> I never said that - I am not sure where you get that. Given that most of
> the main characters in Gundam usually behave according the traditional
> Japanese tradition, you would rarely see them sleeping with other people
> unless they are really serious, especially for a TV series, since there's a
> lot of young children who watched the shows...

Alas, English is such an ambiguous language and some terms, such as "heavy"
cited above, take on connotations that change their meaning in some contexts.
You only meant to say that they had strong feelings for one another, but it
seemed to me that you were saying that they had the type of relationship in
which they must have acted on those feelings.

> I don't know why you and people like Ricky seems so against Char - I
> believe he got better after OYW. He might have tried to have a relationship
> with Haman, but probably with her trying to get more power, Char decide to
> leave. As for Mineva, I really think Char is quite fond of her - he probably
> see her as someone like his sister, since he hasn't really spend much time
> with Sayla.

One of the points made in CCA was that Char had never really changed, that he
was still frozen in the moment and trying to do what he'd always set out to do.
I don;t think that Char was capable of love, which is what makes him a tragic
figure. He does all the right things for all the wrong reasons and all the
wrong things for righteous reasons, but if he really cared about anyone or
anything but his "destiny" he'd've stuck by his sister. After beating her head
against this wall throughout First Gundam, Sayla finally got the message and let
him go. By the time he makes his speech at Dakar in Z Gundam, she's pretty much
written him off and gone on with her life.

The problem with Char is that you can see the nobility in him and you want him
to realize it and become nobel, but he never does, because he can't. You care
for him and want him to change, but like everyone else you just have to sit
there and watch him self-destruct, taking a lot of good people with him. See
also Londo Mollari in Babylon 5. Great characters both and, in the end, they
both redeem themselves to some extent, but not enough to undo all the harm
they've done.

> I don't think Haman really hate him - she give him plenty of chance to
> be back to Axis and back to her side, so I really don't think Char did
> anything "bad" to her other than leaving Axis in 0084.

Hamaan still loves him, which is why she also hates him. She turns on him every
time he disappoints her in her imagination. Women, you see, write mental
scripts for their men and fault them whenever they don't follow that script.
Nothing upsets a woman more than a man who doesn't live up to her expectation.
If you've ever been on a date and had it go cold for no apparent reason, it's
because you disappointed her in her imagination by saying or doing something
that wasn't in the script.

Furthermore, a woman will forgive a man for almost anything he actually does,
but may never forgive him for something he didn't do.

I've been married almost 20 years -- I know whereof I speak. You want to get
along well with a woman, you damn well better learn your lines and pay attention
to your cues. (^_^)

And I've said this before but it bears repeating: love and hate are the same
emotion, gone in different directions. You don't hate someone or something
unless it has hurt you or someone or something else you love. Yo can only hate
someone or something if you care about that person or thing. The more you love
a person or thing, the more you can hate the very same person or thing when you
get hurt. (Not if, when -- you always get hurt. You care, you get hurt -- a
sad but true fact of life.)

The opposite of love is not hate but indifference. Hamaan loves/hates Char in
part because he's indifferent to her as a person. He only cares about attaining
the destiny he would've (read should've) had if his father hadn't died and the
Zabis come to power. Hamaan stands for the glorious return of the Zabi Family
with herself as Regent -- Char can't possibly countenance that and, in fact,
rails against Hamaan's use of Mineva in this regard. Hamaan's just as much the
enemy as Kycilia was and Char never, ever forgets that.

Char means well and has both personal honor and integrity, but he's NOT a nice
man, especially when it comes to the ladies. Char and Scirocco have a lot in
common, the main difference being that Scirocco operates from a position of
power that Char doesn't come to enjoy until CCA.

Compare Scirocco and Sara Zabiarov or Reccoa in Z with Char and Quess in CCA.
Or with Nanai, for that matter -- their relatonship is very one-sided and Char
never acknowledges her or allows their private relationship to extend beyond the
time they spend together.

Don't get me wrong -- I like Char a lot. Part of what I like is that he's
fatally flawed, a true tragic hero, someone who is genuinely heroic but doomed
to failure because he'll never make the necessary sacrifice and set aside his
own ambition for something greater.


Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed Dec 20 2000 - 03:13:24 JST