and though my mind is cut by battles fought so long ago

[dragonladyflame]

A while back I was talking to a housemate and I said something I didn't get to defend at the time, which naturally means I get to go all defensive in blogland. Yay defensive

Comments

[eladria]

There's a quote about gifts that I want to fire at you, but the book is upstairs and it's almost 6 AM. When I wake up again, I shall get it for you.

[crywolf]

There's a bit of a corollary I can think of too. Some people demand gifts, with the thought that "If you don't give me gifts, you don't love me." And very frequently the gifts are more "here's something expensive to prove that I spend lots of money on you" and less "hey, I found this really nifty thing that I think you'll love."

The latter seems fine to me, but forced gift-giving bugs me to no end.

[dragonladyflame]

This reminds me for some reason of a parable my mother used to tell. Her cousin Sissy (abbreviation for her real name, but still) dated this one guy who was really rich, and for her birthday he bought her this awesome natural-bristle hairbrush. She was all pleased and stuff because it showed that he'd paid attention to what she wanted, etc, and that he was really thinking about her when she bought it, etc. Then he dumped her and started buying his next girlfriend dozens of diamond bracelets and rings and assorted other jewellery, etc. And when they got back together, he didn't buy her those things. When queried, he sort of perplexedly was like, "But you're not a diamond bracelet kind of girl

That quote

[eladria]

"Gifts, she recalled him saying, aren't frivolous things, they're very necessary. They're demonstrations of love and affection, and their 'excess' makes life more than mere drudgery. You can do without many things, but not gifts, however small and insignificant they might seem." - The Book of Ti'ana, David Wingrove, Rand Miller, Robyn Miller

Re: That quote

[foxfour]

reminds me of the japanese take on gifts, or more particularly, o-miyage, which are gifts brought back from travel. they're essentially culturally required, but are still a nice little way of showing consideration for someone.

[dragonladyflame]

How culturally required? What does it mean if you don't get one for someone?

[foxfour]

it means that no one will complain. see this.

[foxfour]

the duck quack thing is a relief. i've always thought it was a stupid legend, but had never actually tested it. i mean, exceptional claims require exceptional proof, neh?

[dragonladyflame]

Seriously. I'm most puzzled by how the hell this one arose.

[bansuki]

gift-giving varies too much culturally for me to really say anything positive or negative about their "trappiness". but i do think that the american way of giving gifts as a copout (parent who's never home buying everything their kid wants...) is particularly strong due to materialism. i know that in korea during the post war years (when many people lived in deep poverty), a small gift could speak a thousand words. in those times, a gift indicated sacrifice (on the part of the giver) and solidarity.

my solution (for a materialistic society), is to never give gifts. that way, when i actually give one, that person will feel that it was significant :)

[dragonladyflame]

Yeah, I think the sacrifice aspect isn't ... necessary, but certainly adds to it. And maybe it is necessary; if not a matter of money, then at least of time and thought. A gift which not only was easy to buy (for whatever reason) but also took no time or consideration seems like the epitome of good-person-copout, I feel. But gifts that do require consideration can still be used as copouts.