The Three Books That Have Taught Me The Most About Dating

Image credit: Hermann Seeger "Reading to His Sweetheart in Summer"

I recently made a statement that I thought would be fun to randomly expand upon on the blog, so here I am. Hello. (Am I also procrastinating homework as I type this? Yes. Aggressively. I need to stop.)

Anyway, that statement was "these three books have taught me the most about marriage". And actually, as Sarah Seele kindly pointed out, what I actually mostly meant was "these three books have taught me the most about dating and discerning marriage", since I'm not actually married yet. But in any case. 

Warning: mild spoilers may ensue for Frederica and Anna Karenina--my apologies. It was unavoidable.

(Will you get any details about any dating I may or may not have been doing? No. Not at all. None. However, you will be getting to hear my thoughts on dating. Enjoy.) 

The Three Books That Have Taught Me The Most About Dating

Gaudy Night by Dorothy Sayers
There are two conversations in Gaudy Night that I think about on a regular basis apropos of dating, especially apropos of beginning a relationship. One takes place at the beginning of the book, while the other takes place about halfway through and flavors several other conversations that Harriet has with various people. 

The one at the beginning of the book happens when Harriet is talking to one of the professors/tutors, and revolves around the importance of not persuading one's self into appropriate feelings. 

“I imagine you come across a number of people who are disconcerted by the difference between what you do feel and what they fancy you ought to feel. It is fatal to pay the smallest attention to them.”

Persuading one's self into the feelings that one thinks one should be having is such a big temptation, especially at the beginning of a relationship, but really at any point. I think this can especially plague those of us who read a lot and are like "but I don't feel like this character does when they're in love" x1000 (because we've read thousands of love stories) because that is fiction but it's also the vast majority of our experience with love.
And I'm going to tell you from experience: persuading one's self into appropriate feelings is never healthy. Harriet comes to the same conclusion. Don't do it. Feel what you feel--assess what you feel. But also, if you don't feel "just like x character does when they're in love" that's okay. They are fictional. 

The second one further towards the end of the book is a discussion between Harriet and Miss de Vine about another contemporary of theirs who seems extremely happy in her marriage. It's an interesting conversation, because it seems to start with one premise, and then flips it on its head.

The first premise is that one should not marry someone else if one isn't prepared to make them their "project" or "occupation." The other woman says that she was engaged to be married at one point but broke it off because she kept making "quite fundamental errors" where the man was concerned. Not that they were quarreling or that she misstepped one time, but that she was making fundamental errors. And I'm familiar with that situation--not being engaged, to be clear, but making fundamental errors about someone even after dating them for a long time. It's not comfortable, it doesn't make for a happy relationship, and it wouldn't make for a happy marriage. 

"You can usually tell," said Miss de Vine, "by seeing what kind of mistakes you make. I'm quite sure that one never makes fundamental mistakes about the thing one really wants to do. Fundamental mistakes arise out of lack of genuine interest. In my opinion, that is.”

They have a whole conversation about this "fundamental errors" vs. "fundamental understanding", and then flip the whole thing on its head by saying that seeing the other person in the marriage as a "project" or "occupation" will make neither person happy, but that the relationship must be a partnership. That is, one should not see the other person as a project, but as a partner. It's a very interesting twist to the conversation, I think, but also both things are true. One should not be making fundamental errors about one's significant other--but one should also not see them as a project. Neither should they see you as a project. Lots to mull over. :) 

“I suppose one oughtn’t to marry anybody, unless one’s prepared to make him a full-time job.”
“Probably not; though there are a few rare people, I believe, who don’t look on themselves as jobs but as fellow creatures.”

The Awakening of Miss Prim by Natalia Sanmartin Fenollera
As in Gaudy Night, there are two scenes in TAoMP that have stuck with me in terms of 'dating advice', both of which relate to the feminist society of San Ireneo (which is one of my very favorite things about San Ireneo, of course ;)). 

In one scene Hortensia tells Miss Prim that in order to find the right husband, one has to consider the principal of the Greek Ἁρμονία or harmonia, the harmonization of two people that very nearly leads to the creation of one perfect person, as in Greek myths, people originally had four legs and four arms and two hearts, and were split up into two, and are forever searching for their other half. 

“'I don't think we've explained it very well, Prudencia,' said Hortensia. 'It's not the husband who has to be the source of harmony. It's not in him that you have to seek harmony. No, it's in the marriage, in the combination of the two of you, that you've got to look for it.'”

But in a later scene, Lulu Thiberville (a lady who is I believe in her nineties and has buried several husbands) says that this point of view is stuff and nonsense, and what Miss Prim really needs to find is a man who she views as her superior--and who also views her as his superior. This way, both will admire each other, and neither can look down on the other. Both will feel lucky to have found and be married to the other person, which will set an excellent tone for their marriage. 

"I have to tell you that equality has nothing to do with marriage. The basis of a good marriage, a reasonably happy marriage-don't delude yourself, there is no such thing as an entirely happy marriage-is, precisely, inequality. It's essential if two people are to feel mutual admiration."

Interestingly, Lulu is, perhaps inadvertently or perhaps purposely, also expressing the idea of Ἁρμονία, but in a much more practical way than Miss H's more philosophical description. If one finds a quality in another to be admired, it is most likely a quality that one lacks. If Miss Prim finds someone whose qualities she admires, those qualities are likely to be missing in herself, and vice versa. Thus, the two of them will harmonize with each other, their strengths making up for each other's weaknesses. 

This is something I've come to recognize as very wise. Opposites do attract. Although, to be fair, one must have enough in common with the person one is interested in to be good friends with them in order for the relationship to be successful. However, one must also be different enough from the person that one is interested in for the relationship to be successful. If two people are too similar, and especially if they share the same weaknesses, those weaknesses become weaknesses of the relationship. But if two people share different strengths, each strength becomes a strength of the relationship. Which is a consummation devoutly to be wished, at least in my opinion. ;)

Frederica by Georgette Heyer
Aside from all the other things I love about this book--the cute and the ridiculous and the sibling moments, and Alverstoke being a A Bear, and his sisters being The Worst--there is one singular moment in the entire book that has really shaped my view of dating and love, and what love should look like, in opposition to the Moony-Headed, Dewey-Eyed, Panting-Gazed love so often displayed in romantic fiction. 

Through the course of the book, Frederica has watched her sister Charis entertaining many suitors (and maybe even falling for one...) in a Very Dewey-Eyed Manner, but she's far too practical-minded to be dewey-eyed herself, so although she likes [redacted for spoilers] very much, she's pretty sure she's not in love with him. 

Until he asks her to marry him. At which point the following quote from her ensues:

“It has always seemed to me that if one falls in love with any gentleman one becomes instantly blind to his faults. But I am not blind to your faults, and I do not think that everything you do or say is right! Only—Is it being—not very comfortable—and cross—and not quite happy, when you aren’t there?”

And honestly--normal(ish) love in a nutshell right there! Being blind to faults is not good and not being blind to faults is an important part of true (i.e. faithful) love. Because blindness eventually falls away, and that's better sooner than later! But then being cross and not quite happy when someone is not there is really an excellent indicator of being in love with them (I mean, when paired with a few other circumstantial necessities, obviously) because it means they've become an integral part of your life, and you don't to lose them or be without them. Not a bad set of emotions to have in a relationship. :)

That quote especially resonates with me as a Not Especially Dewey-Eyed Person, who can sometimes second-guess her feelings because it's "not like I thought". (See also: Gaudy Night. No persuading one's self into appropriate emotions.) But just because it's not "like a book" or "like the movies" doesn't mean it's not the "right" feeling, nor does it mean that love isn't there. 

Honorable Mention

Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy 
The thing that struck me most about Anna Karenina is how well Tolstoy portrayed the human nature surrounding the dictum (that is blithely broken by several of the characters) against adultery. Does Anna really super badly want to commit adultery, and does her adulterous partner also desperately want her to do it? Absolutely. Do they enjoy it for the first few months? Yep. Is it good, long-term, for either of them? Not even a little bit. Anna is neurotic because she knows that [redacted for spoilers] could leave her at any time, and [redacted] is miserable because she's so clingy. Anna is separated from her son, and removed from society, which shuns her as an adulteress. Nobody is happy, and it doesn't end especially well. It's a really good example of why we don't do adultery besides because God said so. And extrapolating a bit, it's also a cautionary tale about emotional unchastity. It's not like Anna set out to commit adultery--but allowing herself to get emotionally entangled with [redacted] is what sent her down the path that ultimately led there. There has been one fairly messy example in my friendgroup this year of a woman in a long-term relationship who got emotionally involved with someone else and broke off her relationship because of that. I'm not saying that it's never a good idea to break up, nor that one never should, but I think it's important to not get emotionally involved with a guy when you're dating someone else. Not even a little. It's playing with fire, and someone is going to get burned, even if it's not you. So yeah. Anna is a good example of that. 

On a lighter note, the Lenin/Kitty romance always makes me smile, because it's such a great example of unconditional love (especially on Lenin's part) but also because it's an example of "ideals-meet-reality". I don't remember exactly when this happens, but there's definitely a moment where Lenin is waxing lyrical about his love, and how he and Kitty will be Floating Around In A Bubble Of Their Love Forever, and she's like "okay but what about the new curtains for the living room?" which bursts his bubble pretty quickly. Love doesn't consist of narcissitic navel-gazing (at each other or at one's self, lol!), and married life isn't a bubble of love--it's coffee and curtains and babies and bathtubs and late nights and long days. But there's still joy in that, and the love grows deeper, which is exactly what's seen in Kitty & Levin's marriage. And I love it. 

Long time, no talk! How are you all? Thoughts on dating? Other books that you've found very insightful on the topic? Tell me everything!