chopin’s infamous relationship with the feminist writer george sand is, although a major facet of the composer’s life and consistently acknowledged in any respectable record of chopin, often presented in variable ways. more romantic historians portray them as star-crossed lovers with one too many mishaps between them, others propose either sand or chopin were unbearably enamoured with the uncaring other, etcetera… i have seen little discussion about chopin’s dependency on her as a disabled man, and her views of him as ‘her corpse’ or a child rather than a lover as a result of this. it is no doubt ableism, compounded by further personal stings such as sand’s refusal to attend chopin’s funeral. at the same time, i find it uncomfortable to barrage sand with accusations of abuse or even proper ill will. the nature of publicity even at the time of this affair means people were, as people often do, enabled to take sides and spread gossip through thirdhand grapevines. further distortions of history push this ambiguity further. there is no way to know the true nature of chopin and sand’s relationship, lest one were to invisibly hover around the pair for seven years — and even this voyeuristic desire speaks to how much people believe affairs such as these ought to be published and spread all about for momentary public entertainment.

don’t get me wrong; i do not want to describe this as a sin. i have spent all my life observing people and thinking, hmm, that makes a pretty good story. in fact, i enable myself in this, and i will enable others to seek gossip to improve their craft. but i think there is something fascinating about the meta implications of george sand being depicted as a "bitchy idol" meant to make an able-bodied anime boy depiction of the extremely disabled extremely sympathetic chopin even more sympathetic. it is truly, truly fascinating.

classicaloid is a comedy first and foremost. it is also beheld to the typical standards of a 20-minute anime episode, specifically for an edutainment show targeted towards teenagers. i would not expect classicaloid to touch on fragile topics like abuse and i am glad it does not. but what it does instead is leave a gaping absence of oversimplification that only draws more attention to said absence.

chopin is indubitably obsessed with technology, and he is indubitably depressed and friendless. his dependency on jolly is still mostly a setup for the punchline that is george sand. i wish it was more multifaceted. i am famously a fan of toxic codependency in fiction. i like it when characters ruin one another. there are shades of this present in classicaloid. but it is not enough.

moreover, i started to realise that simple preference was not all that contributed to my view of chopin and jolly. i realised i was perhaps chasing writing better than the one on the wall — if jolly was meant to be an erratic, inaccurate portrayal of george sand partially informed by a reborn chopin’s immaturity and helplessness, it would make what feels like the bitter misogyny of her sudden death and heel turn much less… uncomfortable? stinging? instead, jolly is simply a flattened down love interest who dies immediately after being introduced for the sake of chopin’s manpain. not only is a woman who took wild leaps to be respected in her era of history minimised to such a small role, but it is done in a way completely removed from the reality of chopin and sand’s own relationship.

you see, sand was divorced when she met chopin, and the two never married or eloped. accounts exist of sand both coercing chopin into sex AND advising him into celibacy for the sake of his health. chopin knew his place as a ‘distant lover’ to sand and respected her wish to remain independent in the masculine-dominated times of 1800s france. thus i really have been thinking to myself; how would both of these figures react to such an off-kilter portrayal of their relationship? i struggle to think that even chopin would be flattered for receiving more elaboration than sand did.

this is all conjecture, though. even my retelling of these facts is based on the arbitrary memories i have of what i have studied as a complete amateur driven only by intrigue and obsession — if i read all the letters again, i would maybe place different emphasis on different events. maybe i would find a barely-mentioned instance that sheds light on everything if i reread all the letters. i still have not read much on george sand. all the letters i read are chopin’s, translated into english. i would have to learn polish and french to perfectly understand the nuances. and even then, i could not bear the knowledge and context of a native pole, much less an expat into france, much less in the 1800s… i do not know the people chopin knew.

i do not know what you make of this, either. you may know nothing about classical composers, you may know nothing about classicaloid, and you may not even know me.

this is all conjecture.

next reflection.