Love ‘Em and Leave ‘Em
From http://www.urbandictionary.com/ the most popular definition of “Love 'em and Leave 'em” is:
1)(v)To have sex with someone and possibly make them think you love them, then leave and break off the relationship.
In today’s reprint of For Better or For Worse, it strikes me that Elly is less concerned with Connie’s implication of Phil having sex with her and more concerned about the part where he may have made her think he was in love with her. From Lynn Johnston’s perspective, she cannot address the sex directly for fear of alienating her audience, so she has Elly address the only issue she can address directly – did Phil actually mislead Connie or did he just take Connie on a “date with benefits”? Connie admits to Elly that she was not misled by Phil; but ultimately we know she is not going to let this go.
As we have discussed in the Howard Bunt Blog before, there are many women who believe sex = love with the intent to marry. Connie Poirier is apparently one of these. As her upcoming trip to Montreal is about to prove, she believes that if a man is willing to have sex with her, then he is also willing to have a relationship with her. In essence, she is about to prove that what she said to Elly in today’s For Better or For Worse is a lie.
I have to wonder if back in 1980, the implications of Connie’s statement were understood by the audience. Phil’s late night with Connie where he is unwilling to talk about what happened + Connie’s reference to “love ‘em and leave ‘em” spells it out pretty clearly. Back in 1980, Connie was a simple divorcee from ex-husband Pete, who was like many other ex-husbands out there. Perhaps women could relate to Connie, doing what she could to try and find a husband. When Pablo da Silva was added into the storyline some years later, it changed Connie from not only a woman who used sex to get a husband, but also a woman who would make a baby in an effort to get a husband. Back in 1980, Connie was humourously desperate, but with new-run Connie and her history with Lawrence’s birth tossed in the mix; it's hard to enjoy the strip for what it once was.
1)(v)To have sex with someone and possibly make them think you love them, then leave and break off the relationship.
In today’s reprint of For Better or For Worse, it strikes me that Elly is less concerned with Connie’s implication of Phil having sex with her and more concerned about the part where he may have made her think he was in love with her. From Lynn Johnston’s perspective, she cannot address the sex directly for fear of alienating her audience, so she has Elly address the only issue she can address directly – did Phil actually mislead Connie or did he just take Connie on a “date with benefits”? Connie admits to Elly that she was not misled by Phil; but ultimately we know she is not going to let this go.
As we have discussed in the Howard Bunt Blog before, there are many women who believe sex = love with the intent to marry. Connie Poirier is apparently one of these. As her upcoming trip to Montreal is about to prove, she believes that if a man is willing to have sex with her, then he is also willing to have a relationship with her. In essence, she is about to prove that what she said to Elly in today’s For Better or For Worse is a lie.
I have to wonder if back in 1980, the implications of Connie’s statement were understood by the audience. Phil’s late night with Connie where he is unwilling to talk about what happened + Connie’s reference to “love ‘em and leave ‘em” spells it out pretty clearly. Back in 1980, Connie was a simple divorcee from ex-husband Pete, who was like many other ex-husbands out there. Perhaps women could relate to Connie, doing what she could to try and find a husband. When Pablo da Silva was added into the storyline some years later, it changed Connie from not only a woman who used sex to get a husband, but also a woman who would make a baby in an effort to get a husband. Back in 1980, Connie was humourously desperate, but with new-run Connie and her history with Lawrence’s birth tossed in the mix; it's hard to enjoy the strip for what it once was.
posted by howard at 10:16 PM
11 Comments:
howard,
Back in 1980, Connie was a simple divorcee from ex-husband Pete, who was like many other ex-husbands out there. Perhaps women could relate to Connie, doing what she could to try and find a husband. When Pablo da Silva was added into the storyline some years later, it changed Connie from not only a woman who used sex to get a husband, but also a woman who would make a baby in an effort to get a husband. Back in 1980, Connie was humourously desperate, but with new-run Connie and her history with Lawrence’s birth tossed in the mix; it's hard to enjoy the strip for what it once was.
I quite agree; Lynn's attempt to add depth to Connie's character had the nasty effect of revealing her lack of it. A woman who started out as a lovable goof filled will blind optimism and comic neediness became at the stroke of a pen someone monstrous. Not only did she try to trap da Silva with a kid (forcing him to come up with a lie about not being able to survive up North to cover his reluctance to give up his life in Brazil for a crazy woman), she barged into Greg Thomas's life and demanded the fealty of his children while making a point of not doing anything to deserve it. Worst of all, she treats her son like a shitheel because she can't be the mother of the bride. Elly sure knows some despicable people, doesn't she?
The Pablo RetCon really bothers me. Maybe Connie was swept away by passion & didn't get pregnant just to snag a hubbie. Yes, yet another LJ Healthcare Professional doesn't know squat about contraception! But even the best method has a percentage of failure.
However, I really dislike Connie for going home, then letting the matter drop after Pablo doesn't show up. Foreign doctors can't just come to the US & hang out their shingle; I'll bet Canada has the same rules. Massive documentation & sometimes a repeated residency are required. Did they ever discuss Connie moving to Brazil? (I can imagine her studying Spanish diligently in Canada. Only to arrive in Brazil & realize she'd picked the wrong language.)
Connie should have made an effort to contact Pablo again; doctors don't just drop out of sight. He had a financial obligation to his kid. And he could have had some kind of relationship with him, even if long distance.
The story makes Pablo look like a bastard & Connie look stupid.
maggie_texas,
Foreign doctors can't just come to the US & hang out their shingle; I'll bet Canada has the same rules. Massive documentation & sometimes a repeated residency are required. Did they ever discuss Connie moving to Brazil? (I can imagine her studying Spanish diligently in Canada. Only to arrive in Brazil & realize she'd picked the wrong language.)
Canada does has the same sort of restrictions that you do; Pablo knew they existed and didn't want to spend his life asking us if we wanted to supersize our take-out meal while he was waiting for the G to certify him. As for Connie moving to Brazil, that's a non-starter; she couldn't possibly be expected to learn Portuguese. It would be like expecting Lucy Ricardo to learn her some Spanish.
Connie should have made an effort to contact Pablo again; doctors don't just drop out of sight. He had a financial obligation to his kid. And he could have had some kind of relationship with him, even if long distance.
The story makes Pablo look like a bastard & Connie look stupid.
I think that's the point. Pable is supposed to be an evil, bonehead dork who left her and Lawrence in the lunch because of his vanity and selfishness and Connie was supposed to be the idjit that let him.
DreadedCandiru2,
A woman who started out as a lovable goof filled will blind optimism and comic neediness became at the stroke of a pen someone monstrous.
The story with da Silva does not work well with the needy Connie of 1980. If she’s willing to run to Montreal chasing after Phil, it casts a shadow on the baby conceived in Brazil and those circumstances. Was the pregnancy accidental or intentional? Connie’s desperation with Phil inclines me to think “intentional” is the answer. Originally the story about Pablo da Silva was revealed in 1999, and was easier to take after the more serious storylines involving Connie and Lawrence. After reading that story, goofy 1980 Connie is harder to take.
maggie-texas,
However, I really dislike Connie for going home, then letting the matter drop after Pablo doesn't show up. Did they ever discuss Connie moving to Brazil?
This is the way it is written in Connie’s Who’s Who:
It was shortly after they moved to the last camp that Connie realized she was pregnant. Pablo became quiet at the news. Then, with sudden conviction, he assured her he wanted to marry her and be a good father to their child. His commitment to the medical mission was to end two months after hers. As soon as it was done, he would join her in Canada for their wedding.
His first letter to his darling "Coneja" was full of loving messages and plans for coming to Canada. His second told her that his term with the medical mission was being extended. Gradually, the letters became less frequent, more preoccupied with the importance of the work he was doing. Connie was at first impatient with his delayed arrival, then frightened. When her last letter was returned marked "address unknown", she gave in to her sorrow, dried her tears, and resigned herself to raising their child alone.
Based on this, the possibility of Connie moving to Brazil is not discussed. Connie goes to Canada and expects Pablo to show up.
Connie should have made an effort to contact Pablo again; doctors don't just drop out of sight. He had a financial obligation to his kid.
We have a conflict on this issue. The Classic Who’s Who lists the story like this:
It was Lawrence, of all people, who reintroduced her to Pablo DaSilva. Since he had not asked about his birth father since he was in kindergarten, this astonished her even more than the news that Pablo was in Toronto and wanted to see her. A little late! It had been twenty-four years since he had promised to meet her there.
In the strip from 8/7/1999, Michael interviewed Connie about Pablo and reported back to Lawrence:
Mike: Did you know that she keeps track of your father through friends?
Lawrence: I guess.
Mike: He’s a professor now. You know he’s famous.
Lawrence: Michael, I don’t care what he’s doing or how he’s doing or where he’s doing it.
Mike: He’ll be lecturing here in October.
In the Who’s Who, Connie knows nothing about Pablo. In the strip, Connie knows exactly where he is and feeds his location to Mike, who then tells Lawrence, who then meets his father. Strip Connie’s motivations are interesting, because it appears that she is encouraging fully-grown Lawrence to confront his father without taking a direct hand in it. It is a little like vengeance. However, in October, 1999; the strip turns into the story described in the Who’s Who.
Yes, if Connie was so adventurous, why couldn't she move to Brazil to be with the father of her child? That is definitely what would have made the most sense from a logistical point of view. Of course, Lynn is very whitebread and suburban-centric. So she probably doesn't see that Connie's insistence on dragging Pablo to Canada makes her look bad. Choosing to raise a child in a developing country if you have the option of Milboroughian paradise probably strikes Lynn as insane.
I didn't read the Pablo story as Connie using a baby to get a husband, though. I read it as a selfish, thoughtless young woman wrapped up in her own sense of adventure and passion. You see so many people in their teens and twenties who believe, regardless of how smart they may be, that pregnancy will simply not happen to them if they just ignore the possibility. Once she was pregnant, though, the story definitely reads that Connie thought she could use the baby to manipulate Pablo into moving to suburban Canada, marrying her, and settling down. Which is clearly not the life Pablo wanted. She didn't bother to ask him or offer compromise. She made it an all-or-nothing choice.
Frankly, if someone tried to manipulate me that way, I would not marry them, kid or no kid. And I would strongly consider that the kid might be better off if I dropped out and let him grow up in a family that was free of conflict between the parents. Maybe Pablo figured Connie would find herself a nice suburban Canadian husband in a few years, Lawrence would get a dad, and all would be better off. I doubt I could bring myself to abandon a child, but I can see the appeal of that kind of logic. Especially since an attempt for Pablo to accede to Connie's demands (marriage & Milborough) would surely have ended in misery for all three of them. Pablo's choice doesn't seem all that noble, but the end result was not so bad.
qnjones,
Choosing to raise a child in a developing country if you have the option of Milboroughian paradise probably strikes Lynn as insane.
This could well be the case. However, “developing country” would not be an accurate description of Brazil. Considering Lynn’s perspective on South America she has shown in interviews, that could be the way she thinks about Brazil as a part of South America.
I didn't read the Pablo story as Connie using a baby to get a husband, though. I read it as a selfish, thoughtless young woman wrapped up in her own sense of adventure and passion.
This is the story as it was originally written for Connie in 1999. It is only when you take the Connie Poirier of 1980, desperate for any single man, where you can draw that conclusion. Connie of 1980 is pretty clearly based on Lynn’s life before Rod. Like Lynn, she is a single mother who used to be married to a pretty boy, who deserted her, which worked back when Lawrence was Caucasian and Pete Landry’s son.
When you throw the Pablo daSilva retcon in with Lawrence and say he was born before Pete Landry came around, it creates a strange mix. Pete is no longer the guy abandoning his son with no good excuse (like Lynn’s first husband did to Aaron). Pete is just the guy leaving Connie. Pablo is the guy doing the abandoning; because the mother of his child marched off to Canada and declared, “Here I am. Come and marry me.” Now this same Connie sleeps with Phil once (or twice), and will end up chasing him to Montreal, leaving her son in the care of Elly. With Pablo mixed in, Connie appears to be even more reckless, self-centred, and self-destructive than before. Given the way she acts in other situations, I am not so sure that I can say the Connie’s pregnancy was accidental.
Maybe Pablo figured Connie would find herself a nice suburban Canadian husband in a few years, Lawrence would get a dad, and all would be better off.
In the strip, Pablo played the Constable Paul Wright card of “I could never live in Canada” as his excuse for not coming to Canada. And of course Connie did find Greg to marry. I did notice in looking over these old strips again, when Michael asks Lawrence about Pablo, Lawrence specifically says that he has no father, and that Pablo is only his “birth father”. So much for Greg as a dad.
In 1980, Brazil most certainly was considered a Third World or developing nation. I haven't read any of Lynn's interviews so I don't know how she thinks about Brazil or South America today.
It's always bothered me that Lynn Johnston thinks Pablo is a typical Brazilian first name, when the Portuguese equivalent of Paul is actually Paulo. Of course, given that Lynn Johnston also thinks that Abuya is a Haitian surname, I shouldn't be surprised.
I have to disagree with Pablo being written as a shitheel. If anything, the double standard between the way he and Therese were written is appealing to me. Pablo, like Therese, dropped out of his children's life (Even more so than she did), and made zero effort to get in touch with him, or Connie. Yet except for a few off-hand remarks by Lawrence, the whole situation gets brushed off--when Lawrence does finally meet Pablo, everything is hunky dory. He's not angry, he's not resentful, he's not even curious about his medical history. Instead, it's all corny jokes and seeing each other in the other's eyes and other such garbage. No character judged him harshly, but how is what he did any different from what Therese did? Yet she is vilified constantly, by both characters and the author, her non-maternal feelings her major defining characteristic.
Cedar: It just means Lynn's sexism is showing.
Post a Comment
<< Home