Is it Worth The Time, Marrying Ephemerals? Part II

Love (Two red hearts)

Who would want a relationship where one partner is guaranteed to die and the other isn’t?

Well, a lot of couples want it, it seems.

Judging by the number of human + long-life-species romances being published, there’s apparently something fundamentally appealing in the idea.

But is it fair?  Is a long-lifer + ephemeral relationship fair to either party?

The ephemeral must face the idea of certain death and that her lover with live forever without her (and potentially, will find another mate).

The long lifer faces the prospect that in a few short years, they’re going to lose their lover, and there’s nothing they can do about it (especially for those long lifers who cannot convert their lover into a long-lifer, too).

There is a third possibility…and it has even more drawbacks.  The long-lifer may masquerade as an ephemeral, and never tell his mate.  The positive side to this is that the ephemeral will never be troubled about dying and leaving their lover behind.  But for how long can the masquerade last?  Once the ephemeral begins to age and the long-lifer does not, things fall apart.  Besides, how can any two people have a genuine, intimate relationship if one of them is lying on a massive scale?

The Solution?

There is no easy solution to this question.  Authors have tackled it over the years in a variety of ways and all of them have problems, many of them moral and ethical in nature.

Robert Heinlein answered the question in Time Enough for Love in a particularly poignant way, that was nevertheless based on science.

I answered the question in another way altogether in Wait.

What do you think?

Should they?

Shouldn’t they?

And why?

_____________

Wait is my most recent release – an MF vampire time travel historical-futuristic novella, and part of the Beloved Bloody Time series. Buy Wait here in Kindle, and here for other formats.

This is Part II of a two-part Series.

Part I
Part II

2014-03-17T07:02:22+00:00 Tags: , , , , , |

2 Comments

  1. Jennifer March 21, 2014 at 12:26 am

    I think they should go for it. It’s cliché to say this but “’tis better to have loved and lost than never loved at all.” Besides, in the “real-world” there is no guarantee that two people of the same life-expectancy will stay together the entire life of both parties. Even without considering divorce, illness or an accident may end one person’s life early. Its a chance you take when marrying someone. For a long-lifer its more dramatic because its not a chance, its definite that his lover will die first and he will face a much longer future without her. I don’t think love is about “fairness.” And I feel it would better to spend a few decades in a wonderful relationship than an eternity alone. Sure it would be painful to deal with the loss but I still think the joy of being in love is worth the future pain, like the quote above states. I mean, before I got married if I learned that my future husband had a terminal illness, I still would have married him for whatever time we had together.
    The long-lifer should be honest with his partner (actually, he should be upfront about it from the beginning.) If the partner truly loves the long-lifer, she will want him to find happiness again even if that means sharing his heart with new love(s.)

    • Tracy March 21, 2014 at 5:22 am

      Hi Jennifer:

      Personally, I agree. I prefer a happy (even just for now) ending than a decision based on morals and ethics. I guess that’s why I write romance!

      Besides, you never know what’s around the corner. They’re already talking about longevity treatments for humans that will extend our lives beyond 200. Seriously.

      Thanks for commenting!

      Cheers,

      t.

Comments are closed.