Eccentric Flower:199905/more prenuptial pondering
From Eccentric Flower
 |
may fifth more prenuptial pondering Okay okay okay. I should have known I was asking for trouble, writing about weddings. Everyone has scads of wedding advice from their own survival stories. The fact that I use the latter term should tell you something. The truth is, though I really truly do appreciate the money advice, I probably misled you by focusing on the dollar signs in my postcard. The money is an issue, but it's not the biggest issue, and it's resolvable. We could probably have a $2000 wedding if we tried ... I knew that when I wrote the earlier entry, and the mail since then has only confirmed it. The real problem is one of philosophy: I want to marry Nonelvis - very much - but, equally strongly, I have doubts that the fuss and bother is worth it. Ideally, I could marry her without the ordeal - with no guests, no frills, no food, no nothing - and to me that would be the best of all possible worlds. How does she feel about that? As near as I can tell, she's torn. She manifests a streak of traditionalism and femme-ness at the oddest times. It surfaced briefly while we were discussing this last time. It's moot anyway. Circumstances that have nothing to do with us dictate that we will have a wedding where others are present, where there is some sort of celebration and so forth. "Circumstances" mostly means that if we don't, our friends and relatives will be incredibly pissed with us. My attitude is "if they're my friends and family, then they had better forgive me, or they weren't very good friends." But Nonelvis, I think, doesn't see it that way. Nor do I blame her - like I said, I am thoroughly in Cruel Bitch Mode on this matter already. I have seen a battle coming, and I have seen that I am going to lose it. That makes me very upset. Nonelvis is not my enemy here, it does no good to fight her. I don't want a commotion. This shouldn't surprise anyone who's read my take on birthdays. Guess what? It extends to all the other sacraments of my life as well. But since this one doesn't just involve me, my hands are tied. - - - Perhaps a little of an email I sent last night will make my position more understandable, at least, if not acceptable. Cat sent me a message, from which I quote two disjoint phrases: The real point, if you're going to go through with it at all, is to share your commitment to each other with the people you love and want to share it with. Do the guests first. Don't pare them down - they want to share this with you, and wish you well, they're not stupid expenses. I replied, in part: "The problem is, there is really only one person I want to share it with. Nonelvis. I could give a damn about everyone else .... I am not getting married for anyone else's sake except mine and hers." I don't want to be selfish and I don't want to make my friends any unhappier with me than usual. But this is not an event for them! And yet there seems to be no graceful way I can do it otherwise. - - - It would be unfair of me to quote Cat's first message without giving her equal time from her second, which followed my reply: It is "your" commitment, but I feel that the present tendency to opine that the day "belongs" to the bride and groom is perhaps a little too much in keeping with the current cult of selfishness. Symbolically speaking, it is good to have others there ... to confirm and witness the event, to lend their energy of good wishes and love to your union. And to deny them that chance is, in a way, not only rude but sad ... a denial of the whole traditional use and significance of ritual. That said, of course, I have no idea of the details of your situation, which are none of my business. It grieves me to see that what should be an occasion for happiness seems to be transforming into an unpleasant monstrosity meant to please everyone but yourselves, and probably ending by pleasing no one. And yet, to please no one but yourselves is such an act of retreat and self isolation that even my hermit-like soul rebels. Unless you mean to spend the rest of your lives seeking solace in absolutely no one but each other, it seems an ill way to begin. Bless you, Cat, keep those comments coming. You make me think. Sorry to quote you at such length, but I liked this message so much I couldn't resist. That doesn't mean I agree with it completely, though. I feel it casts me as a villain when what we really have is a difference of philosophy. You see the wedding as a group ritual, where the crowd approves and blesses the union, where the ties of matrimony are made before the eyes of gods and humans for them to smile upon and say, It is good. I see it as an intensely private, almost intimate event, a secret rite to be shared only by the bride and groom, a memory that they keep only for themselves to treasure and cherish, something that belongs to them and no one else. - - - I didn't realize some of this until I wrote it down just now. That doesn't make it less true. Sometimes I only reach self-awareness by spelling it out ... and trust me, I'm only slightly less surprised than you to find this lurking in here. It really is a problem of philosophy. It occurs to me, pondering it now, that my feelings on having spectators at our wedding are very similar to my feelings on having spectators while we're having sex: It wouldn't embarrass me, but I wouldn't understand why they wanted to watch, and I think I'd find it a little difficult to proceed.
© columbine |
