ext_37245: (back to back)
Invisible Friend ([identity profile] el1ie.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] ash48 2015-06-21 12:15 pm (UTC)

Yes, it was a word for mutual dependency long before it became a clinical diagnosis, which is I think causing many of the problems with fans arguing over how it's horrendously negative and destructive or the corner stone of their lives. One of these things is not like the other, so you can't really discuss it as the meanings are totally opposite of each other.

I guess I've always seen them as knowing deep down they can only rely, trust, work, really know each other in the whole world, an isolation that makes them incredible attuned to each other, the ultimate fighting unit because each is the other half of the other and I've never seen anything wrong there. Tom Burke, when talking about the Musketeers, always talks about their 'codependency' and he always means how they ultimately only totally trust and rely on each other, the bond that has been forged in fire of war and brotherhood and there is nothing unhealthy there.

I think maybe we need to actually drop the word 'codependency' because it is obviously not meaning the same to everyone? Yeah, oh look - there's a piggy up there behind that cloud...

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting