a constant exchange of incomplete but tantalizing information

[rm]

But the Too Perfect theory [the idea that magic fails when it's too smoothly done] has larger meanings, too. It reminds us that, whatever the context, the empathetic interchange between minds is satisfying only when it is "dynamic," unfinished, unresolved. Friendships, flirtations, even love affairs depend, like magic tricks, on a constant exchange of incomplete but tantalizing information. We are always reducing the claim or raising the proof. The magician teaches us that romance lies in an unstable contest of minds that leaves us knowing it's a trick but not which one it is, and being impressed by the other person's ability to let the trickery go on. Frauds master our minds; magicians, like poets and lovers, engage them in a permanent maze of possibilities. The trick is to renew the possibilities, to keep them from becoming schematized, to let them be imperfect, and the question between us is always, "Who's the magician?" When we say that love is magic, we are telling a truth deeper, and more ambiguous, than we know.

The above quote from Adam Gopnik's "The Real Work: Modern Magic and the Meaning of Life" just came to my attention through lucretia_borgia. It is huge and can have implications all over the place. But for right now, I offer it to you in a "writers, take heed" sort of way, although it also serves as damn good advice for actors.

Especially if you are writing romance or really any relationship or any sort. And especially if you are doing either fannish writing OR original writing that you hope, when published, will inspire fannish participation.

Comments

[virginia-fell.livejournal.com]

Wow.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I just read that article and found it fascinating, both about stage magic and psychology. However, I also see a crucial error with the above quote. Perhaps it's just that I value stability and familiarity a great deal, but to me, the statement that: "Friendships, flirtations, even love affairs depend, like magic tricks, on a constant exchange of incomplete but tantalizing information." applies perfectly to NRE and whatever one calls the equivalent for intense friendship. However, I see somewhat the opposite in long-term relationships.

[gement.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting reaction. My first reaction was to mentally remark on the contrast (for me) between this which rang true and "Lovers are only interesting until you've learned everything about each other," which I find horribly false. (See "Heaven Help My Heart" from Chess for a sterling example.)

Even in really long-term friendships and romantic affairs, there are sparking moments for me, pretty regular ones, where I catch my breath and think, "Oh, our dialog can't be _this_ good. Are we really this cool? Is he really going to say that next? Oh yes, yes he did."

Which catches the same flavor for me of wondering how we can pull this off, even when we've spent weeks of our lives doing the careful and complete communication thing and tiresomely diagramming our feelings for each other in ways I would never ever allow fictional characters to indulge.

[phaenix-ash.livejournal.com]

Thank you so much. You can't imagine how timely this is.

[these-3-remain.livejournal.com]

That's a great quote; thanks for sharing.

[marchek.livejournal.com]

Intriguing quote.
It reassures me that I am making the right decision.

[argentla.livejournal.com]

engage them in a permanent maze of possibilities

I would say the key to this is not imperfection, but tension. Will they/won't they, etc. What makes a magic trick function is not imperfection or lack of smoothness, it's anticipation -- trying to figure out when and how the trick will take place. The magic ends once the transformation takes place; once the handkerchief becomes a dove, it's just a dove, and it's not that exciting.