"You know, I adore you. So much so that, were you not married, I would try to make you mine. I know nothing can come of it, and I would never ask you to do something that would compromise who you are, but I needed to tell you. Goodbye."
I think it would be more empathic of him to keep that to himself. Or tell a friend. No need to burden her with that since her life is going so well as it is. In fact I think it would be selfish to let her know that her choices hurt him so badly and for so long. Don’t you think so?
Yeah it he tells her that’s always going to be in her mind (and her husbands mind). Making any interaction, no matter how innocent, suddenly loaded with doubt and uncertainty
I largely agree with you, Rich, t!, Dave…though I’d add an observation, personally, to this.
There is a place of peace, of acceptance of what is and what isn’t, from which there is something more to say. But when he’s there…saying it won’t hurt either of them. It will not be admission of an emptiness, but rather, admission of a completeness, and an expression of gratitude for the part of himself made complete by the existence, and presence, of her in his life, and his memories.
When he’s there, he will know what to say, and it will not hurt either of them to say it, or hear it. But he’s not there, yet. That’s okay…even if it’s a terribly painful place to be, and I mourn for his struggle to come to grips with it.
There are many moths in love with the moon. When one makes peace with the realities of this…what it truly is, and what it truly isn’t, alike…then one can begin to delight in, and draw strength from, what it is, and make peace with what it isn’t.
I hope this reflection — which again, is purely my own — stands in respectful solidarity with your own, though it carries with it some differences in nuance and chosen vantage point on the situation.
However I really hope he is telling SOMEONE, because I’m pretty sure there is plenty of people who know, starting with all dwarves on last frame, and feeling he needs to hide that from all of them won’t help anybody.
This specific example may be a grey area (and I love how it’s portrayed), but I really dislike glorification of self sacrifice for love:) Somebody really close to me is like that: they always put their loved ones (including me) before themselves, and it’s a pain. They don’t understand that I also love them and don’t wont them to suffer, even if I benefit from it. And yes, I tried to talk about it.
Certain amount of selfishness is good for a healthy relationship (even if it’s just a friendship). If somebody cares about you, would they really want you to suffer for their benefit? Or would they want to ease your burden and share it with you? And if they wouldn’t, do they really deserve your sacrifice? Why would you deprive them of the freedom to choose by not telling them?
I think utilitarianism slightly biased towards egoism is an optimal moral rule here- if an action helps one person more than it hurts the other, it’s a morally good choice. Of course, in a balanced relationship, it should average out to both parties benefiting equally over the long term.
And in case it’s not clear which choice is better, all persons in the relationship should go for more egoistical choice. There are two reasons for that:
a.) You know your own preferences better than preferences of your partner, so you can judge the pros and cons better.
b.) If both partners try to prioritize the other one, they will just argue forever who should have the last cookie or something, and that’s really annoying and it never ends 😀 If they had a little fight over the cookie, someone would win, eat the cookie and then they would smooth things out later. Alternatively, if it’s something more serious than a cookie, they should divide the benefits/cost fairly. Trust me, it’s so much better that way 😀
Under this moral framework, I think Stonefoot should share his feelings. I think it would hurt her less than it would help him, and they could move on. Or maybe not, who knows 🙂
Interesting outlook, and in some ways in other circumstances I might agree with you.
An issue here is that the hurt is entirely Stonefoot’s problem. He doesn’t have a two-way relationship with Roberta. They never had a ‘thing’, though back in their adventuring days, Roberta suspected he might have ‘feelings’, and gave him many opportunities to act on them (she was single then). He never did and she shrugged it off, not long before being flirted with and swept away by Holvo, to whom she is now married. So Stonefoot has no place in her life. She’s friendly to him when she sees him (and it’s been a VERY long time) and any hurt he’s still harbouring is entirely his own fault. One presumes he’s got friends he can talk with. Certainly there are other fish in the big wide sea. But after all this time to suddenly confront her and say ‘hey, I’ve got the hots for you and it hurt me to know I can never have you’ would do neither of them any favours.
This isn’t self-sacrifice for a loved one’s benefit. This is self-inflicted long-term brooding that he needs to get over. It’s not her responsibility to fix it for him and she shouldn’t have to be burdened with it at all. She’s made right choices in her life. He didn’t. Don’t punish her.
For readers’ information: Stonefoot and Roberta were both PCs in a campaign I ran many years go. Holvo was an NPC. Partly created to spur Stonefoot into action, but he froze up and backed off. It was the same campaign that saw Vanessa (PC) and Prince Tambid (NPC) and Anna (NPC) and Shawn "The Fox" (PC) face the previous Rannite uprising.
> But after all this time to suddenly confront her and say ‘hey, I’ve got the hots for you and it hurt me to know I can never have you’ would do neither of them any favours.
I’m not sure that a clearer and more illustrative phrasing of what I was suggesting with "but he’s not there yet" exists. Yes. This. Both "this" because you’re the author and you *know*, in an authoritative and final capacity…and because you utterly nailed the point, clearly and decisively.
Should he find himself in a place of peace with what is, and what isn’t, one day…and I hope he does, for everyone’s sake…this would no longer be what he had to say.
Pick up your copies of YAFGC Volumes 1 - 5 at our online store. Multi-book bundles and sketch editions available.
The poor guy.
He needs to tell her
She’s married.
He still needs to tell her how he feels, even if he knows nothing will come of it, for his own wellbeing
"You know, I adore you. So much so that, were you not married, I would try to make you mine. I know nothing can come of it, and I would never ask you to do something that would compromise who you are, but I needed to tell you. Goodbye."
You look prettier than a gold nugget in a rich vein of copper ore!
I think it would be more empathic of him to keep that to himself. Or tell a friend. No need to burden her with that since her life is going so well as it is. In fact I think it would be selfish to let her know that her choices hurt him so badly and for so long. Don’t you think so?
Yeah it he tells her that’s always going to be in her mind (and her husbands mind). Making any interaction, no matter how innocent, suddenly loaded with doubt and uncertainty
You are right, he *is* hurting, and if he doesn’t tell *someone*, it won’t end well for him
Personally feel that, if they are as good friends as they seem, knowing how he truly feels won’t change that
As it is, the last place he would ever want to visit, is Silverydale
I mean, they haven’t seen each other for decades, so I’m not really sure about "good friends"… more like friendly acquaintances?
I’m with Dave and Rich on this: Telling her is selfish.
He loves her enough to be the only one hurting.
t!
I largely agree with you, Rich, t!, Dave…though I’d add an observation, personally, to this.
There is a place of peace, of acceptance of what is and what isn’t, from which there is something more to say. But when he’s there…saying it won’t hurt either of them. It will not be admission of an emptiness, but rather, admission of a completeness, and an expression of gratitude for the part of himself made complete by the existence, and presence, of her in his life, and his memories.
When he’s there, he will know what to say, and it will not hurt either of them to say it, or hear it. But he’s not there, yet. That’s okay…even if it’s a terribly painful place to be, and I mourn for his struggle to come to grips with it.
There are many moths in love with the moon. When one makes peace with the realities of this…what it truly is, and what it truly isn’t, alike…then one can begin to delight in, and draw strength from, what it is, and make peace with what it isn’t.
I hope this reflection — which again, is purely my own — stands in respectful solidarity with your own, though it carries with it some differences in nuance and chosen vantage point on the situation.
I’m English Rancourt. Suppressing our emotions while keeping a stiff upper lip is a national tradition (Grins)
Telling her would be selfish, yes.
However I really hope he is telling SOMEONE, because I’m pretty sure there is plenty of people who know, starting with all dwarves on last frame, and feeling he needs to hide that from all of them won’t help anybody.
This specific example may be a grey area (and I love how it’s portrayed), but I really dislike glorification of self sacrifice for love:) Somebody really close to me is like that: they always put their loved ones (including me) before themselves, and it’s a pain. They don’t understand that I also love them and don’t wont them to suffer, even if I benefit from it. And yes, I tried to talk about it.
Certain amount of selfishness is good for a healthy relationship (even if it’s just a friendship). If somebody cares about you, would they really want you to suffer for their benefit? Or would they want to ease your burden and share it with you? And if they wouldn’t, do they really deserve your sacrifice? Why would you deprive them of the freedom to choose by not telling them?
I think utilitarianism slightly biased towards egoism is an optimal moral rule here- if an action helps one person more than it hurts the other, it’s a morally good choice. Of course, in a balanced relationship, it should average out to both parties benefiting equally over the long term.
And in case it’s not clear which choice is better, all persons in the relationship should go for more egoistical choice. There are two reasons for that:
a.) You know your own preferences better than preferences of your partner, so you can judge the pros and cons better.
b.) If both partners try to prioritize the other one, they will just argue forever who should have the last cookie or something, and that’s really annoying and it never ends 😀 If they had a little fight over the cookie, someone would win, eat the cookie and then they would smooth things out later. Alternatively, if it’s something more serious than a cookie, they should divide the benefits/cost fairly. Trust me, it’s so much better that way 😀
Under this moral framework, I think Stonefoot should share his feelings. I think it would hurt her less than it would help him, and they could move on. Or maybe not, who knows 🙂
Interesting outlook, and in some ways in other circumstances I might agree with you.
An issue here is that the hurt is entirely Stonefoot’s problem. He doesn’t have a two-way relationship with Roberta. They never had a ‘thing’, though back in their adventuring days, Roberta suspected he might have ‘feelings’, and gave him many opportunities to act on them (she was single then). He never did and she shrugged it off, not long before being flirted with and swept away by Holvo, to whom she is now married. So Stonefoot has no place in her life. She’s friendly to him when she sees him (and it’s been a VERY long time) and any hurt he’s still harbouring is entirely his own fault. One presumes he’s got friends he can talk with. Certainly there are other fish in the big wide sea. But after all this time to suddenly confront her and say ‘hey, I’ve got the hots for you and it hurt me to know I can never have you’ would do neither of them any favours.
This isn’t self-sacrifice for a loved one’s benefit. This is self-inflicted long-term brooding that he needs to get over. It’s not her responsibility to fix it for him and she shouldn’t have to be burdened with it at all. She’s made right choices in her life. He didn’t. Don’t punish her.
For readers’ information: Stonefoot and Roberta were both PCs in a campaign I ran many years go. Holvo was an NPC. Partly created to spur Stonefoot into action, but he froze up and backed off. It was the same campaign that saw Vanessa (PC) and Prince Tambid (NPC) and Anna (NPC) and Shawn "The Fox" (PC) face the previous Rannite uprising.
> But after all this time to suddenly confront her and say ‘hey, I’ve got the hots for you and it hurt me to know I can never have you’ would do neither of them any favours.
I’m not sure that a clearer and more illustrative phrasing of what I was suggesting with "but he’s not there yet" exists. Yes. This. Both "this" because you’re the author and you *know*, in an authoritative and final capacity…and because you utterly nailed the point, clearly and decisively.
Should he find himself in a place of peace with what is, and what isn’t, one day…and I hope he does, for everyone’s sake…this would no longer be what he had to say.
in the immortal words of Johnny Bravo:
"how many times do I have to tell you, I have a boyfriend."
"well you look like the kind of girl that could use 2."
Oh honey
Yeah. Pretty much sucks…
Man, there appears to be equal to if not more pain on the emotional side then the physical
Too bad there wasn’t some cute Dwarven shield maiden on that battlefield who wanted to tell him how much she admired his ax technique.
He should just let it go, after all she’s married.
I mean, he’s not trying to pursue anything…
Maybe h should just ask for a small lock of her hair as a keepsake.
"… ayup. Time for beer."