Front PagePage TwoRecent OfferingsWeekly MagazineHoroscopesSubscribe!Feedback
Hi Eric,

If you don't mind, I'd like to add a thought or two regarding the Sex and
the City finale where Carrie ended up with Big.

As an undergrad, I studied English, French and comparative literature, and
graduated with a degree in English literature.  I don't remember much (it
being many, many years ago, and I not being a terribly zealous student), but
one thing I do remember is the distinguishing factor between a comedy and a
tragedy:  a comedy ends in a marriage (or, in modern times, in a couple
getting together) and a tragedy ends in a death.  It's a standard formula
employed throughout the canon of Western literature.  Any quick look through
Shakespeare, for example, reveals this formula used consistently.  (At this
point I'd like to disclaim being any kind of an expert:  I only have an
undergraduate degree.)

Interestingly, the bulk of historical literature is written about and/or
from the viewpoint of the male characters.  More importantly, almost all
literature before the post-moderns (and to some extent the moderns) was
written by men.  So, men developed the formula that happiness (both for the
man as well as the woman) ensues from the ultimate joining of marriage (the
institution that permitted the spiritual and physical union of two people)
and tragedy ensues from the ultimate separation of death.

I actually rented all six seasons of Sex and the City on DVD and watched
every episode this past fall.  I'd never seen it before and I wondered about
its popularity.  I was disappointed with the show for many reasons, but one
of the main reasons I found the show disappointing was the quality (or, in
my opinion, the lack thereof) of its writing.  I found the writing to be
episodic (as opposed to the development of insightful, complex characters;
instead we watched characters who simply reacted to the situation faced in a
given episode) and therefore shallow and formulaic.

So, the point of all this is that, consistent with the long-established
structures of Western literature, it is not surprising that the writers of
S&TC employed yet another formula and made sure that each of the women were
married or otherwise in a stable relationship by the end of the series.  
It's just how a comedy ends in the Western world.

My personal belief regarding marriage and death as metaphors for comedy and
tragedy in literature employs no notion of the fulfillment of an individual
through the possession and "ownership" of another, or the control of his or
her sexuality (I believe those were concepts developed by English common law
and the Church, but that's another discussion).  Instead, I believe that
humans ache to be joined, an ache born out of our perceived separation from
each other and the divine.  We pine to be joined to each other, and with
something greater than ourselves, in a state of perfect grace, or heaven, or
Nirvana, or choose-a-word.  For us as humans, the greatest tragedy is that
of separation, and, as discussed above, the ultimate separate for those of
us in human, corporeal form is that of death.

Therefore, I view marriages in literature as metaphors of the deep yearning
to be joined together, both by the man and the woman.  This is sex that
doesn't objectify the other, but is the physical manifestation and
expression of this deep yearning to be joined to something greater than the
self.  I think S&TC tried to reach those heights, but repeatedly failed (and
miserably so) in its attempts.

For these reasons, I'm not sure that it's an accurate to characterize
Carrie's relationship with Big as an archetypal exchange of sex for money
(security).  I don't think it's that simple.  Big certainly offered Carrie
no emotional security; he was coldly distant and withholding in his
affection.  Big didn't necessarily offer Carrie a more supportive
environment in which to express her sexual desire, either:  Goodness knows
that Carrie and her friends experienced an enormous amount of sex with an
unlimited number of lovers, sex which they had no difficulty enjoying
heartily (unless they encountered a poor lover).  And Big didn't offer her
financial security, either:  he wouldn't even give her a key to his
apartment.  In contrast, with the John Corbett character, Carrie was offered
both emotional and financial security, but she nonetheless rejected it and
Corbett.

Therefore, I believe that Carrie's relationship with Big (although not
particularly well written/treated/handled) expressed more of her desire to
join with something greater than it did a desire for security.  She called
it a pursuit of love, and in fact eloquently stated what drove her in one
episode:  "I'm looking for love. Real love. Ridiculous, inconvenient,
consuming, can't-live-without-each-other love".  Unfortunately, the
execution of the concept throughout the series fell short.

Well, it's past my bedtime.  I'd love to say much, much more about love, sex
and joining with the divine through human relationships.  And, I'd love to
just have some great sex (what Capricorn doesn't?).  But that's a topic for
another time.

I enjoy your writing very much, and look forward to reading your thoughts
each week.

Fondly,

Jenny D.