# Immortal/mortal character relationships



## Ireth (Dec 21, 2012)

I've been thinking a lot about this, and it seems to me that there's a bit of a discrepancy in how people view relationships between immortal and mortal beings in fantasy. Take Twilight for example (*ducks thrown tomatoes and rocks*) -- much of the outcry against it, from what I've seen, is because Edward is 100+ years old and stuck in a 17-year-old body, while Bella is physically and mentally 17 (later 18). It's disgusting because Edward, while eternally young and beautiful (YMMV on that one), has the life experience of a very old man, making his relationship with Bella one of ephebophilia -- though you may argue it won't matter much once Bella's been dead for a century or two, the fact remains that while she's still human, it's icky.

Taking another literary example, let's look at Tuck Everlasting. Like Edward, Jesse Tuck is a 104-year-old stuck in the body of a 17-year-old, and he is in love with the 15-year-old Winnie Foster. The main conflict in the book, much like in Twilight, is whether or not Winnie will choose to be immortal, in this case by drinking from the magical spring that had this effect on Jesse and his family. This relationship, unlike Twilight, is realistically sweet and romantic, and I've yet to hear anyone protesting "but he's so oooold!" This may be due to the fact that Jesse is not an abusive, emotionally manipulative stalker like the aforesaid sparklepire, but that's beside the point. He's still an older man in love with an underage girl. Not to spoil it too much, the endings of both stories are quite different.

So why the discrepancy? There are other examples of such relationships I could mention, which have their own points for discussion -- a famous one is Aragorn and Arwen. In these cases, the lovers in question are both mature adults who have waited a long time to be together -- I believe Aragorn waited more than sixty years between meeting Arwen and finally marrying her after the War of the Ring. He's in his late eighties when they're married, though due to his elven ancestry he looks much younger. In this case, the woe of "but I'll outlive you!" is resolved by Arwen giving up her immortality (since she's only mostly elven, she has the choice), so in the end she only outlives him by a matter of years rather than centuries.

What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## Reaver (Dec 21, 2012)

This has always interested me. Particularly the character Claudia from Anne Rice's "Interview with the Vampire".  While not really directly delving into relationships between immortals and mortals, her story is in the same vein (I swear that there's no pun intended here).  Claudia is turned into a vampire at age five by Lestat. She continues to mature emotionally and mentally, having all the wants and desires of a woman while being trapped in the body of a five year old. Needless to say, she goes quite mad because of this dichotomy.

I agree that both Edward and Jesse are creepy. In my opinion, they're pedophiles. Just because they look like teens doesn't mean that they are. To me, this would be like if the undercover cops in 21 Jump Street dated high school girls to blend in better. Socially unacceptable by a vast majority of cultures and societies around the world. So why is it acceptable for 100+ year old vampires who look like teens to court and eventually have sex with teen-aged girls? Sick.

And for the record, that makes Bella a necrophiliac when she has sex with the vampire. Gross.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 21, 2012)

Reaver said:


> This has always interested me. Particularly the character Claudia from Anne Rice's "Interview with the Vampire".  While not really directly delving into relationships between immortals and mortals, her story is in the same vein (I swear that there's no pun intended here).  Claudia is turned into a vampire at age five by Lestat. She continues to mature emotionally and mentally, having all the wants and desires of a woman while being trapped in the body of a five year old. Needless to say, she goes quite mad because of this dichotomy.
> 
> I agree that both Edward and Jesse are creepy. In my opinion, they're pedophiles. Just because they look like teens doesn't mean that they are. To me, this would be like if the undercover cops in 21 Jump Street dated high school girls to blend in better. Socially unacceptable by a vast majority of cultures and societies around the world. So why is it acceptable for 100+ year old vampires who look like teens to court and eventually have sex with teen-aged girls? Sick.
> 
> And for the record, that makes Bella a necrophiliac when she has sex with the vampire. Gross.



Agree on all points and laughing at the same time. Another double standard: Lots of older women are infatuated with the movies which flaunt they physical forms of the young male actors. If the situation were reversed and middle-aged men were going in droves to movies where nubile women were running around topless everywhere, the reaction would be quite different.


----------



## Reaver (Dec 21, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Agree on all points and laughing at the same time. Another double standard: Lots of older women are infatuated with the movies which flaunt they physical forms of the young male actors. If the situation were reversed and middle-aged men were going in droves to movies where nubile women were running around topless everywhere, the reaction would be quite different.



I agree 100%. There would droves of women outside the theaters protesting the objectification of women. Don't you just love the double standard?


----------



## Ireth (Dec 21, 2012)

I'm very inclined to agree with you both, Reaver and T.Allen. Though I will correct Reaver on one small point -- paedophilia is not quite the right word to use with regards to these relationships. It's ephebophilia, because Bella and Winnie are both teens (though still jailbait); paedophilia refers specifically to sexual lust for pre-pubescents.


----------



## FatCat (Dec 21, 2012)

What is going on in this thread!


----------



## Reaver (Dec 21, 2012)

Ireth said:


> I'm very inclined to agree with you both, Reaver and T.Allen. Though I will correct Reaver on one small point -- paedophilia is not quite the right word to use with regards to these relationships. It's ephebophilia, because Bella and Winnie are both teens (though still jailbait); paedophilia refers specifically to sexual lust for pre-pubescents.



I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Reaver (Dec 21, 2012)

FatCat said:


> What is going on in this thread!



We're basically all agreeing that vampires who lust after teenaged girls or boys and said teenaged girls and boys who have sex with them are sick, twisted, perverted freaks.


----------



## Ireth (Dec 22, 2012)

It should be noted, though, that the issue at hand is relative to social and cultural norms. There was a time in Western cultures when it was perfectly acceptable for teenaged girls to marry and have kids (often with much older men) almost as soon as they started to menstruate, to maximize the window for childbearing time. Things have changed a lot in the past several hundred years.


----------



## Reaver (Dec 22, 2012)

Agreed. Although not directly relatable, here's a link to a documentary showcasing how some non-western cultures view children. I have to note that for some weird reason, this video is not available in Canada. Sorry Canada.


----------



## Penpilot (Dec 22, 2012)

I think it's all in handling of the relationship. To me the relationship that comes to mind most is Angel and Buffy. To me they handled it very nicely. If memory serves, they were both confronted with the question by the big villain in season three, the Mayor. He said something to the effect _He's a 200+ year old, ageless vampire, she's a teen with her whole life ahead. What kind of future can you both have?_ It was a sincere question that Angel and Buffy had to struggle with. 

Buffy turning immortal was not an option, so they talked about how things would be long term. He'd be forever young, never being able to go out into the sun, never being able to have kids. While she would age, grow frail, and if they stayed together, she'd never have a normal life. 

And to me, addressing the issue made things... genuine... so it wasn't creepy.


----------



## ScipioSmith (Dec 22, 2012)

Of course season 2 had already raised the much bigger issue in their relationship that the moment they had sex he would and had become a soulless killer, so not only was there no long term future in it there wasn't even much going for it in the short term.


----------



## wordwalker (Dec 22, 2012)

Then again, here's another side of it: if you're immortal, *nobody's* your age unless you and one of the few other vampires out there hit it off.

So I guess if we wanted to ask healthy emotional questions about this, there are two:

How good is it for an ancient immortal to fall for someone who's only been able to write a coherent sentence for a few years? For Angel and Buffy, well, Buffy's track record as a Slayer makes it easier to believe she was something special at any age. Bella, while I don't think she's any worse than _ordinary_, doesn't seem much better either-- how blind does love have to be?

And, what are the human's options? Again, I think Buffy got that right: in their final goodbye she told Angel she thought she "wasn't finished," that she just hadn't lived enough to make real decisions about him yet. Bella waited until all of age 18-- still, she did have a point that staying human was getting dangerous for her.

Age isn't everything, especially if someone's done some Fast Growing Up with an adventure or two. But since today defines 17 as a child, it also means they haven't been prepared for decisions like that...

No easy answers. Except, "don't write a Much Older Guy as just a gimmick."


----------



## Reaver (Dec 22, 2012)

All these points are fine and good, but it doesn't change the fact that anyone who has sex with a vampire is a necrophiliac. So therefore I reiterate: gross.


----------



## Reaver (Dec 22, 2012)

ScipioSmith said:


> Of course season 2 had already raised the much bigger issue in their relationship that the moment they had sex he would and had become a soulless killer...



Wait...since when do vampires have souls? Did I miss something?


----------



## Ireth (Dec 22, 2012)

Reaver said:


> All these points are fine and good, but it doesn't change the fact that anyone who has sex with a vampire is a necrophiliac. So therefore I reiterate: gross.



Well, what if you're unaware that the other person is a vampire? This is an issue I deal with in my novel's backstory; Conall is in love with a human woman named Sheona, though he hides his vampiric nature from her by claiming to have vaguely-defined "special dietary needs" and the like. Avoiding sunlight typically isn't a problem, since he lives in Scotland and the sun doesn't shine much there anyway. He and Sheona only have sex once, on their wedding night, and he bites her in the midst of it.

EDIT: I should probably add that Sheona is not a teenager, she's 20 when she meets Conall and about 23 when they marry. And at that point Conall is only in his fifties or so (physically 46), not hundreds of years old -- but even then it's not creepy for its time, since societal norms were that older men often married much younger women.



Reaver said:


> Wait...since when do vampires have souls? Did I miss something?



They don't usually, but Angel is an exception. He was cursed by a gypsy tribe and got his soul back, but the moment he experiences true happiness (i.e. by having sex with Buffy) he loses it again and goes evil.


----------



## Rullenzar (Dec 22, 2012)

My opinion on this matter is directly linked to how the character is portrayed. By this I mean, does the character grow mentally and emotionally. Not all cases suggest that they do. In Twilight, Edward lives out a teenage life year after year so from that perspective his emotional growth doesn't really go beyond that of a teen. In interview with a vampire it's a different case. You can clearly see that the character develops and goes crazy because their physical form doesn't match their emotional state.


----------



## Reaver (Dec 22, 2012)

Ireth said:


> Well, what if you're unaware that the other person is a vampire?



I'll concede this. But only under the notion that this lack of awareness goes on for the duration of their relationship. Realistically, the non-vampire would find out the truth sooner or later. Unless that person is a complete idiot.



> They don't usually, but Angel is an exception. He was cursed by a gypsy tribe and got his soul back, but the moment he experiences true happiness (i.e. by having sex with Buffy) he loses it again and goes evil.



Thanks for clearing that up!


----------



## Space Ghost (Dec 22, 2012)

Interesting discussion...Still, it's a bit much for me.


----------



## Cursive (Dec 23, 2012)

While I'm not overly familiar with any o the previously mentioned stories my personal opinions about immortal beings is that they probably wouldn't care too much about alot of these things.  I know in twilight the vampires have to pretend to be normal humans frequently and move around alot but I think a brilliant love story could be told about the immortal who sees past all the lines that we as mortals draw culturally and legally and loves indiscriminately because those thugs don't matter in his world. After you've been around for a hundred years I imagine that you worry less about what neighbors and gossips think and more about living a fulfilled and self-realized life. But it depends on the specific nature of immortality I suppose. One of the things I love most about Greek philosophy is when they talk about what it must be like to be a god because they make their immortals free of every human preoccupation.


----------

