Well, it is that time again… another Blog Chain entry. 
In this chain, Ralph Pines started us off with his take on love vs romance and how he hates romantic tension in sitcoms. Ralph passed the torch to SouthAsiaBlog, who related it back to characters from two books and a movie. Now, it is my turn.
Each person views love and romance differently. To me, romance is a moment in time - a candle-light dinner, that first magical kiss, those head-swimming moments when time stands still. A couple can not survive on strictly romance. It is a thin layer of gloss, used only to make things shiny and pretty. There is no substance to romance, only glitz.
Romance isn’t about the person within, the living breathing human with feelings and ideals. It is our mating call or courtship ritual. We use rosy colors and infectious laughs to call our mates, then blind them with romance. We ensnare them in a web of pretties, biding enough time for love to take root.
Love, on the other hand, is lasting and deep. Love allows for disagreements and arguments, for the age-old better and worse. Love is what sustains a relationship through to the twilight years, when body parts sag and wrinkles come home to roost. Love is the truth and the realness of life during all of its ups and downs. Love is solid, and often messy.
Romance and love can coexist, but they don’t have to. When the bloom of romance fades, a relationship can only continue if there is love.
I think of love and romance as an orange. The shiny peel (romance) is only a covering for the tasty flesh it holds (love). For lasting nourishment, you must peal away the romance and feast on sweetness of love inside.
And now I realize that is a double entendre. I could go back and delete it.. but I think I’ll leave it and see what Ben Solah has to say.
Please visit all of the participants in the blog chain. Don’t forget to start at the beginning.
Razibahmed
Kat Frass
bsolah
AmyDoodle
FreshHell
escritora
ChaosTitan
Cathy C
harri3tspy
truelyana
tatkinson
February 8th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
=I posted and it didn’t go through. I’ll try again.=
Love sounds like a bore. Maybe words can’t properly describe it - no matter how much people try.
Toni Morrison wrote in her book, The Bluest Eye, that love is only as good as the lover. And that’s the most accurate assessment of love that I’ve come across.
February 8th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Well, I don’t really think that love sounds boring. I think that love gets down to the truest connection between two people. I’d much rather have something real, then something that is JUST glitz and glamor.
But I do agree that love is difficult to describe.
I’ll have to check out the Toni Morrison book. Thanks for the recommendation.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:28 am
I didn’t mean to imply that love is boring because it isn’t full of glitz and glamour. I mean when people describe love it sounds boring - not that it is boring.
To my ear, words never seem to capture love in its raw form. (or as you put in it’s “real” form). Love is never as boring as people make it sound. If it was, no one would want to fall in love.
On a different note, I find that the explanations of love are almost always romanticized. Which is funny to me since the theme of the blog chain is Love vs. Romance.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Kat, you made my argument better than I did myself!
February 10th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I agree with your assessment. Love is often romanticized in novels and movies because that’s our tendency to fantasize. That’s not saying that love can’t be like that in real life; it’s just more subdued and probably only interesting to the people involved in the relationship.
February 11th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
That is a nice angle to view romance and love. They seem to go hand in hand here. I feel they are as a whole, as action is within love and romance is a notion of that action that comes from within.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Most people make a very bad mistake of equating romance with love. They expect that romance will continue forever, but after getting married, things change a lot. I have seen many men or women to complain that their life partner was a completely a different person before marriage.
February 12th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
@ Razib Ahmed - Part of that originates from expectations one has of another person.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:31 am
I don’t really do the romance thing. Other than eating chocolates, and it can be argued I don’t eat chocolates for the romanticness.
February 13th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
[...] Kat Frass explained why love and romance are like an orange. [...]
February 13th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I especially liked that you consider romance the “lure” to love. I think it really is like that, and it’s probably why so many women complain that “My husband used to be sooo romantic! But now he doesn’t do anything nice.” The game is won for many men. The lures can be put away when the fish is in the pan.
February 13th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
If you think of love and romance as an orange, then I’ll think of it as a three-course meal. Romance is the appetizer, Love the main-course, and we all know what’s for dessert.
February 14th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Chocolate is as good as love, but more fattening. Except in the third trimester. Kidding aside, that’s an Insightful post, Kat. Wish I could skirt the edge of the double entendre like you did with that orange analogy. If I could write like that, it would open up a whole new market for me!
February 15th, 2009 at 2:11 am
I thought I commented, so maybe it didn’t go through.
My mind could’ve have so let me take that analogy on a completely different direction, but I left it
I agree that love allows for the ups and downs.
March 14th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
???? ????????, ???? ????????????? ???????!
March 15th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????. ??????????? ??????, ????????? ????? ??????? ??? ????.
March 20th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
???? ?????, ???? ????????????? ???????!