Wizard and Glass Q&A *spoilers

[pathoftheturtle]

*sigh* What we have here is a failure to communicate.
I thought that I explained better in my last post.

...Coral/Jonas relationships don't have anything to do with Susan/Roland, just like nobody has actually to do with anybody, every case and every person being unique. ...

No man is an island. Again, it might be just me that is drawing a comparison... but I don't think that that's an entirely unreasonable means of interpretation.

Let me try to simplify discussion of where I think that you and I differ.

What do you think about Jonas and Coral's relationship? What was it like? Do you see any depth in it?

I think it was love.

I disagree. Or, at least, I would not put it that way. What I said yesterday on the thread "Their Love" http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/...&postcount=135 shows what I think about it. Hopefully, most of what we're talking about can soon move there; I really don't want to mess up this thread, but it's hard to resist responding to some of the comments.

...I am in the complete dark as to where you took the "cold reasons" part...

Why, from Coral Thorin, the businesswoman who thinks

Folks would always want to drink and gamble and rut, no matter who they kneeled before in church, and no matter in whose name their taxes were collected.

For the flowers of romance to mature into the fruits of marriage, both people must accept certain facts of life. I could be wrong, but I think that that was what you meant by

...Socks, armpits, tuneless whistling, will all be revealed as you live with the person you, allegedly, love... it's then that your love either grows stronger, or disappears, leaving only this frustration of your romantic anticipations (I thought she was an angel, and she belches after a glass of beer)

Very true... yet the same process will eventually turn to rot. If her glass of beer turns into serious alcoholism, and you just try to cope and you learn to enable her, is that still love? It's one thing to accept that all of us are only humans, yet another to accept that we really are only animals.

...no, I don't think Susan failed in love...

Okay. Thanks for clarifying.

... if was Roland who did...

That does make more sense. However, I personally still think that in different circumstances R&S could have grown old happily together. They failed to overcome their sick society and the sickness of their cosmos... but that's not the same as not loving one another.
IMHO, Susan would have failed at love if she had decided for herself that

...she would have (succeeded at love) if there had been most anybody else at Roland's place.

...and maybe jumping to that conclusion really was Roland's failure.

...Hendrix (if he traded his guitar for a saxophone, though, the whole mankind would have been hurt, there would be no replacement, by the way)...

Here again, I think that you are begging questions of destiny and holism. You're talking about changing the past, but you're not thinking fourth dimensionally. If someone could somehow take away what Hendrix did, tomorrow, then we'd all have lost something precious... but if he had just not wanted to do it in the first place, then it simply would never have been. That's more than just theoretical: Turn it toward the future... How many fathers in history have insisted that their sons would be hurting all of mankind if they gave up the piano for their crazy architecture hobby? Supposed talent is, necessarily, only a part of the big picture in our lives.
Anyway, what I was trying to say was not that art is less important than love, but that conscious understanding is generally more important in love, because it is so immediately personal.