In Love in Excess Haywood manages to create a fairly large cast of characters that encourage the reader to struggle to find redeeming factors in them. This search may very well be a wild goose chase. If they were not the one's committing or attempting to commit terrible acts, they were just slightly too quick to believe their friends/lovers/family members capable of committing them. Brillian is quick to believe D'elmont would betray him for money, which only makes even less sense of the fact that he believes D'elmont when he says his wife is just crazy through no fault of his own. Aloysa is willing to sabotage the reputation of Amena for the sole purpose of gaining D'elmont, yet is surprised when he proves to be unfaithful. Camilla arose as my personal favorite as she was willing to love anyone except Cittelini, as long as they can save her from Cittelini. What I see are a group of people so unused to being denied anything that what they are denied becomes an object of desire to be mistaken for love.
What makes this story compelling is Haywood's insistence that this is the way it ought to be. When speaking of the how we should love she writes, "When love once becomes in our power, it ceases to worthy of that name; no man really posest with it, can be master of his actions; and whatever effects it may enforce, are no more to be condemned, than poverty, sickness, deformity or any other misfortune incident to humane nature." She goes on to say that those who preach moderation do not understand what love is, and that the actions of one in love can take two forms: one exalted, and one base depending on the nature of the person in love. This is clearly evident throughout the novel, albeit with more emphasis on the "coventousness, envy, pride, revenge" than on ambition and love. Of which all actions should be forgiven by a "generous heart," as they stem from love.
I can accept that interpretation of love as a premise for a story, if it seemed that the characters in the story who professed love for another actually seemed to follow that idea. Except that they do not. They attempt to preserve first the appearance of the propriety that their character's clearly show they do not possess. In one of D'elmont's letters he expresses that he would have expected inconstancy from a character like Melantha, but does she really seem to be any less reliable than any of the other characters? If anything she gives a little more honest interpretation of her intentions. Amena seems to be more upset that D'elmont is reluctant to approach her father with honest intentions, than at being caught and disgraced. More so the 'love' is invariably a physical one, just waiting for a more desirous object to attach itself to, as evidenced by D'elmont's love for Melliora nearly being displaced at first site of Camilla, possibly only held in place by not ever having that physicality realized. Essentially, the only character that managed to keep their wits about them while lustful thoughts filled their head (Melliora) is the love object that manages to stay constant under assault from another beauty.
I am also interested in the definition of "love" that Haywood puts forth in the novel, especially, since in MY opinion, the novel is pretty much devoid of it. As I read, I remember thinking how crude and superficial this 18th century definition of "love" is...but then I thought about how we now use the world "love." I think our concept of love may be even worse. I'm thinking of reality shows like "The Bachelor," for instance, where love is practically a decision after weighing pros and cons (kind of like how D'elmont decides between Alovysa and Amena). Or how many times have I said "I love my cat!" or "I love barbeque potato chips!" Here's where I think Haywood's little lecture on the difference between "liking" and "loving" (though the examples I just gave are slightly out of context) might still be entirely relevant to our generation, even if I still have some reservations about her defintions.
ReplyDeleteI loved that you picked up on the fact that these characters want what they cannot have. It makes them seem even more bratty and unlikable than before!
ReplyDeleteI think that the characters do seem devoid of love (as Ruth too points out). Haywoods concept of love in this novel is somewhat skewed. All the women seem desperate to obtain D’elmont and his affections. It’s pathetic really given that D’elmont really seems to care less. As you pointed out love in the novel was a physical love and thus not really a true or lasting love. I think that love needs to be used lightly when looking at this novel. Do the characters want to possess one another? Absolutely. Do they want to love one another in the manner that we deem true love to be? I would say not.
I already wrote about this on Catherine's blog, so I'll try not to go on and on, but where do we think Violetta then fits into this pattern? She seems to be the one person who loves selflessly, who wishes only to effect the happiness of her beloved and, as she seems not to have any designs on actually having a relationship with D'Elmont, who exhibits no possessiveness. Is she Haywood's ideal, or a representation of a kind of love not possible when mediated by human desire? If Melliora is "the only character that managed to keep their wits about them while lustful thoughts filled their head," is Violetta superior because she experienced no such lustful thoughts, or is Melliora the ideal to which to aspire because she experiences a very human temptation but is able to resist it?
ReplyDelete