Talk:Amon/@comment-108.248.176.6-20120729215822/@comment-5225415-20120730190110

Not lying to yourself? Going right by the fact that I was referring to all people who try to justify pairings with no basis. . . I'm sorry, but was it not you who said "But there are the few moments in canon where they do interact, and then there is subtext you have to analyze. I have personally analyzed those scenes, and I thought that a romantic relationship between them would be interesting and multi-layered."

This suggests that you believe there to be reasonable amount of evidence in the show to justify the pairing. However, it is pointless to press the matter. I find this need some have to create romances, ignoring the potential for deeper, non-romantic relationships, to be laughable. And, yes, a bit saddening.

As to your question of why I am upset, all I can do is respond with humor. I was never upset. In truth I feel now, and felt then, nothing but confusion. Yes, I think this obsession with romance is silly - and dare I say, stupid - but it upsets me not. No, all it does is confuse me. Just because I called you out on your strange need to create pairings that have no founding and which would ruin the potential for more in-depth interactions does not mean I am upset. It just means I don't get it and I challenge the need to make romances where they do not, and should not, exist. I am one who dislikes this tendency shows of late have displayed, this trend of always adding in a romance. They don't even make the romances a side interest, something that's merely alluded to, but not overly focused on. No, they're right there in your face and it just takes away from the overall plot. I dislike it, but that is simply my own preference.

I was unaware that one couldn't disagree without becoming upset. Ah well. However, I do find that the need so many have shown for romances/'ships' is rather alarming. So many seem incapable of accepting the fact that characters can be in relationships of a different variety without there being any romantic feelings involved and they justify this bizarre need by saying the relationships would be more in-depth, more dynamic, if these characters had romantic feelings for one another. They ignore the fact that a relationship doesn't need any romance whatsoever to possess depth or complexity. I challenge that notion and I always will, but of course it doesn't upset me. Confounds would be a more appropriate word.

As to Frodo and Sam, there are indeed quite a few people who insist that there was something other than friendship between the two. They are quite adamant about it, in fact. However, Frodo and Sam were just one example of a close relationship devoid of any romantic stirrings. I only used them because of Tolkien's view of friendships and how binding they can be; beliefs that seem to be almost extinct these days. Naturally, there are many sources I could also use, given the popularity of impossible 'ships'. I mean, goodness, there are probably thousands of unsupported, unjustified pairings out there right now - pick one.

My point is simply thus; people should be able to enjoy the veritable plethora of relationship varieties life has to offer: friendships, comradery, rivalry, et cetera, for any kind of relationship can be engaging, thought provoking, compelling or 'multi-faceted and they do not require romance of any kind to make them so. To focus so doggedly on one manner of relationship, to be so intent upon romance even where it does not, and will never, exist is to ignore the potential a different manner of relationship offers. If anything, focusing so determinedly on romance takes away from the potential depth and complexity of a story, because you're too busy trying to find any and every reason for two characters to be together in a romantic fashion. Why not try allotting some of that attention on other facets of the story and its characters, something other than romance, both canon and non-canon.ts characters, something other than romance, both canon and non-canon.

A'Len