Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Anonymous said: Bear in mind, Rachel is an unreliable narrator for most of the story (which isn't fully revealed until the middle), so don't trust her interpretative skills. Trust the observations of actual words/behavior. Also, the whole story is littered with examples of how much Q succeeds once she puts her mind to something, so. I think they're safe, in the long run. Will they still fight about things? Absolutely, but that's *normal*.

 This is usually how I interpret Quinn and Rachel’s prospects for a future post-TSS, Anon, so I’m right there with you.  They go through so freaking much to get where they end up.  The question the others seem to be raising though is whether or not where they end up is actually a solid place to be.

I think it’s interesting, however, that you bring up Rachel being an unreliable narrator, and use that as a reason to justify looking outside of Rachel’s romanticized/idealized viewpoint to contextualize the relationship, rather than a reason to call the relationship into question.  It’s also interesting that you mention Quinn’s inability to verbalize her feelings for Rachel in a conventional sense, but see that as more of a “tip of the iceberg” type of thing, rather than a red flag.

I can’t help but wonder if that reasoning is a direct result of TMF herself emphasizing the idea that “just because Quinn doesn’t say ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean she doesn’t it feel it tenfold” on her blog several million times.  Keep in mind, this is information we as readers wouldn’t normally have if, say, TSS was a novel.  Most authors don’t explain those otherwise unknown aspects of their characterizaton.  And even if they do, a lot of people don’t know it until much later.

I suppose the next step would be to try to interpret Quinn’s behavior towards Rachel, ignoring all of that.  Do her actions indicate that she is in this for the long hall with Rachel?  Do they indicate that Quinn understands the necessity of both trust and communication in order to maintain a successful relationship with Rachel?

I dunno, Anon.  I need to read it again.