26.11.2023
In ‘Dangerous Liaisons’, when the anti-hero can’t get the woman that he loves – the married woman that he is after in the impossible game that he is in – he plunges into a duel and kills himself. It is an honourable death for the period in question. Not a suicide. Death by combat like a warrior. However, self-destructive the motives and the result. In ‘Romeo and Juliet’, when Romeo can’t have the love of his life, he also kills himself. He is also in the impossible game of the two star crossed lovers.
Each time, the hero is from a fight culture. In ‘Dangerous Liaisons’, the predominant metaphor for love is battle. Love is a game of attack and defence. The woman defends. The man attacks. The metaphor is stretched to its limit – there are very questionable ideas of consent involved in certain escapades in the life of the anti-hero. Romeo is also from a fight culture. The two families, the Capulets and Montagues are involved in a war with each other, a feud. The love arises in the midst of the feud. As in ‘Dangerous Liaisons, love forms a continuum with violence and war. This is the nature of love. It is a fight. It evolves from fight culture. The true lover is the man of violence, the warrior.
The ending of love is self-destruction in both cases. The aim of love is to destroy yourself. While Freud said that love has to fight against death, that Eros has to fight against Thanatos, both these masterpieces of literature see self-destruction as love’s ending. Why?
The context is the impossible game. Absolute frustration of an end, an aim, a plan. Of all organisation, control, everything. In both cases, love is a Sisyphean endeavour, a punishment from the world and the gods for transgressing the rules. In ‘Dangerous Liaisons’, the more perfect novel for the revolutionary, the impossible game of the anti-hero aims to attack the law and the subjects that it creates. The impossible woman is married, a good wife. Dutiful, loving. The hero is revolting against the rule of the law and its forcing of monogamy, of its control of all relationships. Romeo revolts against the law of the father. He goes for the daughter of his father’s enemy. He loves her. It is the conditions that these men are working against, that these lovers are fighting in, that makes the game impossible. But these are the kind of men that will fight in an impossible game. Because they are warriors from fight culture. And warriors have big hearts. That is the distinguishing character of the warrior. From Romeo and Juliet to Dangerous Liaisons to ‘Gadar’ and ‘Gadar 2’ – the recent Indian version. These men have a belief in themselves – that everything can be stacked against them, all power. And yet, they will win. That is why these men are special.
Why the self-destruction? In each novel, the threat to the law is neutralised through voluntary self-destruction. It has to be voluntary – because no one can fight against these warriors and lovers and win. They are invincible, supremely powerful. They have the power of love within them. No one can defeat them. No one can challenge them. No one can test the real king on this earth.
The weakness comes in separation. When these fighters are separated from their love, that is when the self-destructive urge takes over. Romeo sees the dead corpse of Juliet, the most horrible and ugly thing in the whole world. The anti-hero in ‘Dangerous Liaisons’ has to watch the woman he loves leave him without her. These fighters are joined to their women in eternal union. They choose death rather than having to live a life without their loves, rather than becoming separate, discrete entities. It is not technically thanatos (death) versus love (eros). Love is death. Death is love.
Have you ever seen the ending of ‘Devdas’, one of the most famous Indian love stories? It tells us about the wall. The hero drinks himself to death when he cannot get his love back – someone who has married someone else and has been taken by the law. At the end of the movie, she is separated from him by the Wall. The wall of society, of convention, of cowardice, force, arbitrary despotism, tyranny, fascism. She cries behind the wall. He dies behind the wall. The wall is what you cannot take. You can take everything else apart from that alienating, separating, dividing wall which takes our love away from us. They divide us and conquer.
But is this the nature of love then, that is a death? Love involves ‘the little death’. The oblivion of the self, forgetting. However, the context is the impossible game. This game is not one that everyone enters into. Most people – the lucky ones – enter into the possible game. Everything is easy for them. They don’t have to work hard. They don’t challenge anything for anyone. They don’t have to fight against everyone for someone. But if you come from a fight culture, if you come from a completely different tribe to the one you fall in love with, then the problem arises, then the impossible game comes into effect. You have to fight against everyone for someone.
The tribes? The anti-hero of ‘Dangerous Liaisons’ is amoral and he loves a rigidly moral woman that is a dutiful wife. He is not monogamous – he is forced into monogamous love. He is a libertine, he is converted into a relationship with someone that hasn’t got his daring and recklessness, someone that plays by the rules that he cannot play by. Of course, Romeo loves a woman from the other tribe, the warring tribe. He loves his Other. Just like the anti-hero of ‘Dangerous Liaisons’ loves his Other.
This is the mark of the hero, the lover, the fighter, the warrior. He loves the Other. He loves difference. The hero is the supreme man. He is masculine force. In ‘Dangerous Liaisons’, supreme masculinity is modelled upon the limitless. Femininity becomes the opposite pole of supreme masculinity which is limited by the law, by chastity. For Romeo, supreme masculinity is modelled upon the breaking of boundaries, of hate, of revenge. But both Romeo and Juliette cannot break these boundaries – they are bounded and limited.
In both masterpieces, the warrior’s world-shaking, world-breaking revolutionary love submits to the limit, to the boundary, to the law. The hero chooses voluntary self-destruction. But these are novels. That support the status quo. For the anarchist, for the tiger, for the revolutionary, love has to remain revolutionary. It can’t be tamed. It can’t submit. All the walls have to be broken down. In everything else, the anarchist and revolutionary can submit. Not in love. Because, according to the rules of gender, the anarchist can only love absolute difference. This is what woman is to him, his Other. If he loved himself, he wouldn’t need anyone. He needs difference. He lives for it. He loves it. The anarchist and the revolutionary lives for the breaking of the law, the breaking of the limit. The violence of his love is directed at the world as it is – not at himself. He won’t choose to destroy himself, even though this is where the narrative and the canon directs him. He will keep on surviving and fighting. This is the meaning of being the true warrior in the world, of being the tiger. If there is a force in love, if there is a violence in love, it is the violence of transformation. You obliterate yourself to become someone new. You obliterate hate to become a lover. You obliterate the conditions of reality to create the dream. It is only the bravery of the fighter that can achieve this. For some, the game is always going to be impossible. That is the nature of the game and of the warrior’s life. But the warrior has to choose life and not death, whatever impossible game he is in or not. And when one game ends, another one begins. That is life. And life, requires the bravery to accept the impossible game and accept the work that it will take. Revolution requires the courage to play.