#THINKING ABOUT IT....SO MANY OF MY VIEWS ON LOVE MAKE ME WHOLLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE OTOME GENRE LOL

[drdemonprince]

Recently, I've observed a pattern in my friendships where I connect with people who tend to be people pleasers or are less confident in expressing their thoughts. Given my neurodivergence and direct communication style, I've received feedback about sounding righteous, making them feel unsafe to share. How can I navigate these situations more effectively or seek out individuals with stronger personalities who appreciate straightforwardness?

P.s. it makes me feel so bad every time this happens, it’s not my intent to hurt people and I feel very rejected.

I have a bit of experience with this dynamic myself. Those of us who are read as negative or difficult to please can unwittingly be appealing to people pleasers, because it reminds them of people who have genuinely mistreated them and fraught family or relational dynamics of their past that have dug a real deep groove into their brain. Unfortunately the very qualities that feel familiar to them also burn them, because they want to win us over and soften us, but we're already just being ourselves and not abusive and don't need to soften. I've honestly been on both sides of this dynamic -- the person who keeps accidentally hurting someone's feelings and the one getting hurt with glib comments, incompatible communication styles, or whatever else.

That's just one of many dynamics at play of course. We're both traumatized, othered groups of people who may gravitate to one another because we share so many struggles in common -- but our triggers and sensitive points can be incompatible. When someone expects me to read their mind and pre-empt their needs, for example, it freaks me the fuck out because I've put a lot of work into no longer being that kind of person. At the same time, it's okay and normal for a friend to want you to understand the basics of what makes them comfortable and uncomfortable and to consider their feelings and needs.

Sometimes it's just a conflict one needs to talk through. I have plenty of cherished friends who are sensitive or people-pleasing in nature, and we can make it work because they don't view me in a negative light -- they fundamentally see me as someone they care about and like, and so even if they suddenly feel like I'm making fun of them or have left them out, they are able to check that instinct against the reality they know of me and we can talk about it or they can work on the feeling on their own as the case warrants. If I do say something hurtful or miss the mark, a lot of my closest friends are the types who can tell me, and then it's my job to not freak the fuck out on them or to feel controlled or penned in by them sharing that intimacy with me... sometimes I'm still not the best at it. but lord have i gotten better.

I think one has to just keep endeavoring to be oneself and to communicate early and often. I don't think the solution is ever to censor oneself or to feel that your true self deep down is too cruel or wrong for people to love. I used to really feel that way and still struggle with that sometimes, especially when I hurt people. It can be easy to feel, if you're a kind of negative/blunt seeming person like me, to feel that any time a person shares with you that they are hurt, that they are trying to censor or control you. Sometimes that very much happens. But it isn't always the case. Sometimes a person just wants reassurance that you like them, that you didn't mean the remark in that way, or even just acknowledgement of their pain and that they aren't crazy for feeling how they feel. Not everyone who gets hurt is a crybully or manipulating. Just as not everyone who accidentally hurts people is abusive or cruel.

I used to really gravitate only toward other negative prickly people. I still like that "type" a lot. But there is no type that is wholly trustworthy or safe. I got burned plenty of times by trying to win over the friendship of someone who I thought surely would "Get" me, because they were also blunt and to the point, and I assumed that made them "real," but in actuality they were manipulating people and steamrolling people and trying to make people feel bad. Some people can only be "real" about candid negative opinions. They can't be really contrite. Or curious. or humble. or even tell you directly when they are hurt. They might only be passive aggressive and barbed instead (i have also been that person).

As always I think it's most important to look to a person's actions and the impact they have on others, as well as their own capacity to both self-advocate and to admit fault. Can this person reflect? Can this person say they were wrong or that their opinion changed? Can they own that they might see things in a biased way? That they have their own triggers? That they need things? Do they help people the way those people want to be helped? Do they behave in accordance with a consistence values system you can admire? Do you like how they think things through? Can they understand their own emotions to at least a responsible extent? Etc etc etc. Some people who tick off all the right boxes on these questions will be someone who is pretty sensitive and people-pleasy but working on it. And some of them will be people who are patholdogical demand avoidant naysayers with a chip off their shoulder but who can also be vulnerable. And most of us are all of those things I think.

[actualbird]

Hey there! I love reading your tot analysis, they are so insightful! Anyway, I just wanted to know your opinion on this one: Who do you think Rosa will end up with if we do not get to choose other male lead routes? Like, who has the greatest possibility of wooing miss attorney? I’d say Luke and Rosa is canon, but somehow I have this gut feeling that it’s prolly gonna be Vyn.

hi, anon!! im glad you enjoyed my tot analyses :DDD

as for your question, im probably the worst person to ask this HAHA. cuz my opinion is gonna sound like one hell of a copout:

any of them, all of them, none of them, and that depends

personally, i dont think it's really possible or fair for me to pick out and rank which ships have a greatest possibility of happening? idk, doesnt feel right to do, in my mind cuz it feels too much like saying certain ships are better than others and that isnt how i like to roll cuz Every NXX Boy has their pros and cons

for nxx boy/mc ships, i am huuuuugely biased towards luke/mc. still, luke is a WHOLLY FLAWED CHARACTER and thats "working against him" in a romance perspective. my friend kathleen once noted that vyn is the only nxx boy who mc doesnt have a "resistance" against (mc resists seeing romance between her and luke cuz luke is a best friend, same for artem but because hes her boss and work senior, same for marius cuz.....hes annoying, HAHAKJKBF) so that would give vyn the "greatest probability" points

but im using quotes for all this cuz it is all SO SHAKY LMAO.

since u brought up my analyses, i figure you were maybe wondering if theres a character analysis explanation for a certain ranking of Most Probable to Least Probable but.....again, doesnt sit right in my mind. maybe there is a character analysis that could happen here, but i cant do it, cuz itd hurt my heart!!

cuz i ship mc with any of the boys! each romantic relationship is so interesting to explore, especially in terms of how it develops

but i also ship her with all of them all at once sometimes! cuz i sometimes want a full 5 person nxx polycule and theyre all in love with each other

but i also also ship her with none of them sometimes! cuz i also enjoy seeing the team as an incredibly dedicated and completely platonic found family group

and it all depends kjbkHKSDBKFS. my multishipper heart which sometimes also sways to "wait, no ships actually, i want them all in a cuddle pile cuz legit friendship" would not rlly enjoy picking apart each nxx boy to see which one is The Inevitable One cuz itd involve me having to pit characters against each other, not my thing

in general, i dont vibe with the concepts of Most Good and Compatible For Relationship cuz compatibility is a sham anyway, it's about the work the involved parties put into the love they cherish and care for.

i also dont vibe the whole concept that romance is a competition with winners and losers. which........probably means i shouldnt be so obsessed with an OTOME GAME KABKJFAKSFS but alas!

uh. i rambled and i think i completely lost my point

tl;dr sorry i got no thoughts on this one!! someone else might, tho! jus not me

#THINKING ABOUT IT....SO MANY OF MY VIEWS ON LOVE MAKE ME WHOLLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE OTOME GENRE LOL #anon #also been trying to answer asks with reqs i dont have thoughts for/dont wanna do. jus so yall kno i got the ask #as always: it's genuinely nothing personal! im just like...a picky eater but in terms of writing HAHA #asks

[elfyourmother]

a lot of downer ship talk, very long, and  i am begging you not to reblog this bc i am just talking about my own feelings on my own blog and don’t want to put bees in anybody’s bonnets

hmm but like. talking about Gisele’s conception of love and her inherent polyamorous orientation and worldview here made me think again about Thancred and why I rarely discuss or write Gisele/Thancred fic despite shipping it like burning and having a lot of feelings about it

their relationship arc was very different than with most other wols I’ve seen shipped with him, as a start. there were some heavy (albeit unintentional) parallels with Imani/Kaidan’s relationship arc in Mass Effect, what with one believing the other was dead for ages until they suddenly popped up again, and with Heavensward being their “Horizon moment”, though it wasn’t hostile so much as...many things left unspoken and hurt on Gisele’s part when Thancred inexplicably took this “I want my beloved to be happy so I will let her go” tack totally unasked and undiscussed solely bc of his intense feelings of guilt and his insecurities. and they didn’t reconcile until he damn near died in Amh Araeng all that time later on the First).

of course different isn’t bad, and I have to keep reminding myself that. lord knows fandom would be boring af if everyone wrote ships in the same way and I’m sure there’s an audience out there for this sort of thing, even if niche. but like...I really feel like myself and my wol stick out like a sore thumb in a sea of small white/light wols who are 100% monogamous with him (but for an occasional fridged Haurche before they got together). there is nothing wrong with writing that sort of thing but as a poly femme it’s just really demoralizing sometimes to consider that so many people seem to view Thancred’s promiscuity as a flaw that needs to be overcome somehow, that it was a sign of his emotional immaturity and that with proper character development and growth (and True Love from the right person) he will necessarily “settle down” into being monogamous. I see this idea expressed so frequently in fic and art and it hurts so much because it reminds me of nothing so much as the way Zev and Isabela got treated in da fandom (Zev’s actual romance in the game codified it as canon even), and it dredges up a lot of very old, very bad memories.i mean that one infamous scene at the Stones gets pointed to a lot but it’s like...the multiple gfs weren’t the problem, it was his lack of honesty about it. and it’s always contrasted with him in the latter stages of ShB, especially when it comes to the uri/than shippers. Weary Dadcred is wholly incompatible with Suave Thotcred to these people.

it’s like people think poly and/or promiscuous characters are not allowed to have any kind of depth or complexity, their romantic/sexual proclivities are treated as either something for laughs or a defect they need to work on. and I wholly, emphatically reject that not just wrt him but with Gisele also, her entire characterization and story absolutely puts the lie to that sort of thing. they do not and cannot relate to each other in that way. their conflicts were entirely down to his insecurities and a lack of communication on both their parts, not because they didn’t love each other enough because polyamory. shit, the whole reason Thancred couldn’t hate Haurchefant even though he rather irrationally wanted to at first was because of the compersion he felt seeing Gisele with him. and Gisele had been telling him to shit or get off the pot wrt Y’shtola for actual years. 

but outside of like 1 or 2 people, I really don’t know anyone else who views him that way and so I feel like I need to make myself scarce in those corners of fandom. especially since I also highkey ship him and Minfilia W. like listen I never played 1.0 and went into ARR knowing fuck all about anything and thus them being all “ugh no we don’t feel that way about each other, why would you think that???” in that one “no hetero” scene made me feel like absolute garbage considering I had OT3′d them and Gisele literally right up to that point. It felt like the game itself was shaming me, and then I saw that it was very heavily frowned upon in fandom for Important Lore Reasons and I was quite new and intensely self-conscious about having Wrong Opinions so I just made myself stop and turned it into a V with Gisele as the shared point. And ftr ShB only made the angst worse because it reminded me of it and it was all I could read it as (romantic angst) and I started hurting about it all over again, in large part because I felt like I couldn’t discuss it with anybody at all for fear of being viewed as a freak. The only thing I permitted myself to do was mention OG Minfilia having unrequited feelings for him a la Phedre and Anafiel in the Kushiel books, with her never telling him because he would never have seen her that way. (Never mind that he did end up with Alcuin; and I know some view that as very, very sketchy given the circumstances but I take no issue with how it went down bc D’Angeline social mores were very clear on Alcuin’s agency as a free & consenting adult when he made that decision. But that’s apropos of nothing here bc Min was a grown ass woman in ARR so.)

anyway tl;dr i don’t feel like i or gisele especially belong in thancred enjoyer land bc of my weird and apparently controversial views about him as a character so I tend to stick with fussing over my painfully victorian & catholic elves in public instead. i don’t even have wips that don’t see the light of day, i just straight up don’t write them lol

#gisele surana #thancred tag #like they still don’t even have a ship tag #that’s how self-conscious i am about it #negativity cw #tbd probably

[barisifictionarchive]

Author: Juniperhoot

Preferred Name: Jenny

Have any events in your personal life ever influenced the things that you've written? Absolutely. STRAP IN.

Sometimes I rework something that happened to me, or to someone I know, and use it as a template for filling in personal details. See also: Carisi’s tale of molten aluminum burning holes in his ma’s kitchen flooring. That’s something that actually happened to me (well, it happened to my second husband, who got distracted while playing CounterStrike and let the pan boil dry). In one of my Stony stories, Steve tells Tony about a comforting gesture he learned from his mother - three squeezes of the hand, to silently say “I love you.” That’s something I learned from my Mema.

Beyond those bits of color, there are things that have made their way into my writing that come directly from my experiences. My interest in Sonny as a queer Catholic who once considered the religious life is something deeply personal to me, because that was my life, too. Even though I’m an atheist now, the church still holds some fascination for me, and I’m keenly interested in people who find a way to walk that line, and retain some belief while also retaining their autonomy and sense of self. The way I write Sonny is, in many ways, the way I think I would be, if I still believed. Okay, if I still believed AND were also a tall, noodly, bisexual man.

The way I write Rafael’s overthinking interior life is partly me, partly the things I’ve observed in people I’ve loved. The carefully chosen words, the moments of retreating from revealing too much of himself, the guardedness and tendency toward self-preservation that comes from growing up in an abusive home… all very relatable and possibly part of why I mostly write from his perspective, even though I generally consider myself more like Sonny. The shadows in Rafael’s heart are in my heart, too. My empathy is built on those shadows.

I wrote a Stony breakup fic years ago during a difficult time in my life. I’d reached a point where I had to remove some people from my life, because my priorities and theirs were so radically divergent. It felt like a big breakup. It reopened some feelings from my second divorce, and compounded what I was going through with another more recent breakup. Somehow, I used the pain and disillusionment of all that to write about two dudes in love, who found themselves in a crisis of trust and faith in one another. Of course, I also wrote them coming back together, and the work it takes to do that, because in my heart, I want to see good people work things out, if possible. And at least in my story, and in the way I view both of those characters, they ARE good people. In real life, some people really do need to be cut loose, when their values are wholly incompatible with your own. Some relationships can’t be mended. Some friendships turn out to be mostly one-sided. But hey, if they can be mined for material, they were worth it, right?

I’m in a less volatile emotional space these days, so my fics tend to reflect that. I’m the queen of domesticity and cute banter, and love that I’m getting to explore the quieter side of drama. I know I’ve said this before, but it’s worth saying again. It’s not all slamming doors and WE’RE THROUGH!, you know? There’s a marvelous sense of drama in the ways we try to negotiate cohabitation, or meeting the families of our romantic partners. There’s drama in supporting one another’s goals and ideals. At least, I think there is? And I hope my stories achieve that.

Do you have a favorite movie? I have a few, and they’re very different movies, because they reflect different aspects of my heart.

Pee-wee’s Big Adventure (1985) is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen, and it still makes me laugh, 35 years after its release. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen it. The stupid characters, the kitschy aesthetic, the score… it’s so very silly. I love it.

Singin’ in the Rain (1952) is, in my opinion, the most perfect Hollywood movie musical of all time. Everything about it works. The entire cast is outrageously talented, and attractive, and the songs are all memorable. The title song and dance routine never fails to elicit chills and a thrill of giddy joy in my heart. When Gene Kelly does that spin in the street, with the umbrella held out before him like a dance partner? Aaaaaiiiieeee. This is the movie that makes me wish I could dance.

A Room With A View (1985) is the sort of quiet, clever, understated romantic (in every sense of the word) movie I turn to again and again. It’s a gorgeous adaptation of a really smart, surprising book that left a mark on me when I first encountered it in high school. The score is lush and inviting, the cast is beautiful (and oh, those costumes!), the script is just fucking delicious, and of course, the scenery, from Florence to Kent, is exquisite. Plus, we get interplay between sincere humanism (the Emersons), religious belief (the Reverends Beebe and Eager), and the religious-by-default stances of so many of the other characters, whose participation in the religious life of the community seems to be more for societal expectations than anything else. It’s just beautiful, and one of the only movies I urge everyone to sit through to the very end, not because there’s a post-credits scene, but because the closing track that plays over the credits is fantastic.  

Who is your favorite author? E.M. Forster, partly because of what I said above about A Room With A View. The novel is short, but crammed with interesting ideas and engaging dialogue. He has a unique voice that spoke to me as a teenager, and my appreciation for his writing has only increased over the many years since. Read Howards End. Read Maurice. Read Where Angels Fear to Tread. Read A Passage to India. But start with A Room With A View.

I know a lot of people would say Howards End is his masterpiece, and they’re probably right about that, but I’m telling you, the book that has meant the most to me over the years is A Room With A View. I’ve kept a copy of it with me since I first read it in 1985, and it’s traveled with me from Minnesota to Seattle and back again. Lucy Honeychurch’s ongoing muddle is something I’ve lived, and survived, and it means more to me every time I read the book. More than anything, it’s a book about authenticity vs hypocrisy, and that just fucking speaks to me, you know?

How did you start getting involved in fanfiction? Several years ago, I read a Sherlock fic called “The Road Less Traveled.” It was during the long, painful, post-Reichenbach Fall hiatus between series 2 and 3, and I found myself looking for something to read that would fill the gap. I’d never had much interest in fanfic before, but this thing did something to me.

I didn’t start writing fanfic until I saw an episode of Supernatural that I found upsetting. (Don’t get me started…) I started writing a little thing to try to fix the stupidity. I wrote a couple of things, but the show did everything in its power to kill my interest in it, so I drifted away. (That said, I am very proud of my short Destiel Christmas fic, which I still think is very cute and makes me wish things had played out differently.)

From there, I started writing Stony (Steve/Tony, mostly based on the MCU, but with some elements of various Marvel comics I’ve read over the years). I wrote several things in that fandom, and most of it was extremely stupid, but there are bits and pieces that I’m still rather fond of. I still want to finish my long fic that’s been gathering dust for a couple of years now. Oops.

How did you get involved with Barisi? Barisi is probably the first fandom that I’ve written for that really seemed to embrace me and encourage me to keep doing this. A friend of mine has been watching SVU forever, and would reference things occasionally on chat while she was watching it. (See also: SEX PARTY MEASLES BABY, an intriguing statement that I didn’t actually understand for YEARS.) I started watching SVU off and on, a few episodes here or there, sometime in 2018. I started at the beginning, and worked my way through the whole thing. When I started it, I was mostly in it for Olivia Benson. But I knew Raúl Esparza had been on the show at some point, and at the time, I was in the “oh, I think I remember seeing him in something, he’s good” camp.

It wasn’t until I got to season 14 that I lost my mind over the show. Rafael Barba is one of the greatest characters ever written for tv, and I’m so thrilled he came along and blew my frickin’ mind. My appreciation for Raúl Esparza went through the roof, and it made me go look for him in other things, which fed into my spiraling appreciation.

Fast forward to season 16. Sonny Carisi walks in, and is… a beautiful, mustachioed mess. I love him from the moment I see him, and I say, “Oh shit, this is the love of Rafael Barba’s life, isn’t it?” This is even before they’ve shared a scene. This is before they’ve blatantly checked each other out. This is just me recognizing the potential, and craving it. Then he shaves that stache and starts dressing better, and he’s shadowing Barba and they’re working cases together and Barba’s being KIND TO HIM? COME ON.

Naturally, I started thinking about writing them. And it wasn’t coming from a place of “I need to fix this episode” or “I need to work out a recent trauma” driving me. It was just “ugh, they have an amazing dynamic and I want to explore it and I want to see what their home life would look like.” That’s how I ended up writing Carisi’s Goddamn Legs. Suddenly I was being bombarded with thoughtful comments from readers. In one such comment, Maxi (mforpaul) asked me where I could be reached on other platforms, and messaged me privately about the story, and made a big deal out of tracking me down on Twitter, introducing me to the rest of the fandom. And that fandom turned out to be filled with really amazing people, who think about big issues like justice and queerness and representation. Those same people are also wonderfully silly and down to earth. The power of this fandom!

What inspires you to write? Lots of things. Life, because it is weird and messy and wonderful. My closest friend, who is a springboard for a lot of my nonsense, is always eager for me to write something new. My love of a ridiculous turn of phrase. The quest for dialogue that sounds in-character and natural. Sometimes, it’s just the seed of an idea, a thought that won’t leave me alone, like, “I bet a short king would be obsessed with those long, noodly legs.” Because I, a short queen, am similarly obsessed.

Sometimes, when the writing fever is upon me, it’s hard to sleep, hard to think of anything other than the story I’m working on. I just want to get it all out and done. If I’m writing something that I really enjoy, or feel very closely connected to, I physically tremble as I write. When that happens, I know I’m on the right track, and I don’t want to stop writing. I just want to inhabit that space, and wallow in that feeling.

What is your favorite fic that you have written?  Carisi's Goddamn Legs is really something. The pining, the uncertainty, the slowly dawning realization, but most of all, that scene at Lorenzo’s, where it all comes to a head and the way it creeps to the edge of intimacy and then is interrupted by Lorenzo and a retreat to the casual, only to be sent right back to the edge… I’ve re-read the damn thing several times since I wrote it, and that scene gets to me every time. I really like it a lot. I like the dynamic between them so very much, and the way the truth tumbles out of Carisi literally makes me shake.

What is your favorite quote from a fic of yours? Ooh, yikes, this is hard. I have a couple of lines I really like. One is short, one is longer. Just like Barisi.

One of them (from Carisi's Goddamn Legs ) was something I gave to Olivia, as she tries to counsel Rafael on his worries that his emotional armor isn’t protecting him the way it used to. 

“Wear and tear, I guess. Armor was never meant to be worn all the time.”

It’s a line that means something to me, personally, because I spent a substantial chunk of my life in armor, hiding who I was and trying to settle for “the best you can expect” rather than my actual heart’s desire. When I dismantled that wall, things got chaotic for a while, but I also realized I was capable of emotional depths and soaring heights I didn’t think possible for me. It’s something that the Jenny of today wants to whisper (or shout) at the Jenny of 25-30 years ago, and it’s that part of me that relates to Rafael’s journey from a lifetime of SHIELDS UP! to embracing vulnerability and intimacy. (I actually really like that whole scene between them, because I love their friendship and think it’s beautiful, and crave more of that dynamic. Platonic intimacy is gorgeous, and woefully underappreciated in most entertainment. I could go on for hours about that, but I won’t. Not right now, anyway.)

And from Staten Island Serenade, this passage of Rafael gazing at a sleeping Sonny really gets to me.

“As hard as it was some days, Rafael knew without question he wanted to be right here with him, because Sonny was worth the effort. He was a bewildering mess of contradictions and weirdness, too smart for his own good but capable of saying the most ridiculous shit Rafael had ever heard. Somehow everything about him was beautiful, and inspired something in Rafael that felt pure, and almost holy, or would be if he believed in holiness. Like Cymon of old, transformed in every way by the exquisite sight of sleeping Iphigenia, Rafael found himself similarly transformed; ennobled by the nearness of Sonny Carisi, someone so decent, so kind, so truly beautiful inside and out that it would have been a sacrilege not to strive to be a better man.”

What is your personal favorite fanfic? 

Again with the hard questions. I don’t even know where to begin. I honestly can’t point to ONE and say, “This is it! THE FAVE.” I’m so sorry I’m not able to narrow down my faves on anything. I’m terrible at this.

There are several Sherlock fics that I’ve read and re-read over the years, which I think really nailed their voices and their characters, and gave me things to think about. The Road Less Traveled will always be a favorite of mine, because it was the first, and because it is beautiful.

Pass Here And Go On by abogadobarba hits all the right notes for me. It rocketed to the top of my list the moment I read it. I’ve read it about ten times so far. I am ridiculous.

So Far in a Few Blocks by PhillyStrega is one of the only AUs I’ve ever read and loved. I’m not really an AU person, but shut UP, I love this story.

You Made Them Feel Like They Had the Devil Inside Them by cypress_tree really got to me. It’s about one of those issues that hits very close to home, and I think it’s a beautifully-written story about something that matters.

Anything else you would like to add?

I just want to say how much I love this fandom. I love my fellow inhabitants of Barisi Nation. I love that I get to obsess over things like the intersections of faith and queerness and humanism and sex and domesticity and justice and goodness. Even if nobody else wanted to read my stories, I think I’d still be over here, writing like mad, because I love these characters and it’s a genuine joy for me to spend time in their heads. But gosh, it’s gratifying to know the hours I spend on this silliness actually pay off for other people, too. I love hearing from people who’ve read my stories and found something meaningful in them, or giggled at something ridiculous Sonny said, or thought a sex scene was… well, anyway. You know.

I’m so grateful to get to do this. And I appreciate the hell out of all you lovely humans. You make me happy.

#barisi #Author of the month #Author recommendation #Juniperhoot

[bigskydreaming]

Hey, so ppl who have followed me awhile, you know how occasionally I toss out random concepts as like, just general prompts because they were a thing that happened in my brain and I thought they were a cool idea but have no time/plans to write them ever so I’m always like....dude, run with it if it sparks something for you?

So due to my physiological incompatibility with Being Subtle Ever and my many many rants on how much it annoys me when people who openly state they’re not a survivor themselves then go on to share writing that clearly views Law & Order SVU as viable Research Material like....its not exactly a shocker that I’m a big believer in the idea that there are just some stories that some people aren’t meant to write. Like full stay in your lane premises, stories where it doesn’t matter how thoroughly or sincerely you research experiences outside your own - its just not your story to write.

And occasionally I also definitely come up with novel ideas that fall in this category. Some even make it all the way to extensively plotted/worldbuilt stages of outlining before I clue in that the basic premise is just unworkable for ME, due to my specific axes of identity....like sometimes I just really love an idea and so try and workshop it and come at it from a different angle that is more approachable for me....but ultimately, there have been a number of times when I’ve just had to put aside even a really in depth world or idea because it was just too innately connected in my head to various lived experiences or cultural identities that I don’t feel comfortable writing towards.

Like for example, years ago I plotted out this one YA novel idea that’s like....historical sci-fi, ‘alienpunk’ - like the basic idea was what if a First Contact scenario with aliens coming to Earth happened, but in the 19th century, like late 1800s. Steampunk style aesthetics, but instead of it being ahead-of-its-time steam powered technology, it was the anachronistic results of combining advanced alien technology with early or mid-Industrial Age science.

The thing was, despite trying out various different eras or locations, the story that kept coming out in outline was pretty firmly centered in America in the late 1800s, and like, it would be a huge glaring omission for ME to write that story and not have any black characters or acknowledge the social aspects of it being set during a post-Civil War era, and like...that’s not really For Me to write IMO.....and so as much as I loved the general idea, I felt pretty strongly that as it was, it just wasn’t a story I needed to write, when I have plenty more that are much more based out of my own lanes.

And to be clear, the story isn’t ABOUT slavery, that was never the issue, its not thematically built around related concepts, nothing like that. Its a sci-fi ‘aliens came to Earth and shit inevitably happened both because Aliens and also because People’ adventure....that is also historical fiction, with the era in question being post-Civil War America. Its just a story SET during that time, because that was the way it unfolded for me and I couldn’t get it to click creatively any other way. But still, its just disingenuous to pretend that any story set during that era doesn’t have a ton of room for expansion or commentary or bringing in more themes - with me just not being the right author to do that. Not my place, it just is what it is, and I’m wholly fine with that.

Anyway, my point with all this is I have a pretty sizable number of basic premises and even full outlines along those ‘nope, this isn’t actually for me after all’ lines that I’ve set aside over the years because like....my brain literally never shuts off and I write a fucking lot lot lot. And I do think a lot of them are pretty good ideas that someone could make some really fun stories out of, because I’m biased and occasionally do manage to love myself, like yeah, I do write good shit if I say so myself. But given that I’m not that person to write those particular stories, like I’d love to offer them up to other writers who might be interested in doing something with them.

And again just to be total clear - I am very much an ‘any time I say do whatever the fuck you want with this, I really mean it’ kinda guy. These would come with zero strings or expectations. If you like one of these ideas and want the outline or notes I made for it, its yours to do whatever the fuck you want with. Stick to the outline, don’t stick to it, just run with the basic premise, use the notes as a springboard to launch your own creativity into entirely new directions that didn’t even occur to me - sky’s the limit, have at it, I wouldn’t ask for or expect any compensation or official credit or royalties or whatever the fuck, not the point of this. Literally my only request would be like, hey, if you finish something off of one of these and do something with it, maybe gimme a shout out in the acknowledgments section and drop me a copy when you’re done because literally every story idea I’ve ever had, I’ve had it because at the end of the day its a story I want to read so....I’d definitely want to read whatever you come up with lol, but its YOUR story at that point. No hidden strings or whatever, you can cite this post as your official proof of that if needed I guess? Idk, its all pretty bullshit to me. God, I’m a publisher’s worst nightmare.

But I mean, the entire reason I didn’t ever write any of these specific stories and don’t think I ever will is because I quite literally don’t think I’m the right person to write them which means I quite literally believe there’s a metric fuck ton of people who could write them better than me and do things with them I never could and would never even occur to me, so like...lmfao, please don’t worry that I’m gonna be sitting here ever thinking like ugh how dare they not stick to my outline and notes and think they knew how to write this idea better than me. Like, you can. I want you to. That’s the whole point.

So yeah, basically the endpoint of all this rambling is if any writers out there would be interested in this kinda thing, drop me a reply or a reblog or even just an ask with what you think is a good way to handle that. 

Like, I was thinking just whenever I’m thinking about one of them I’d maybe make a post (maybe tagged with a specific tag I use as a catch-all for any one of these ‘up for grabs’ outlines) about the general idea or a couple of the characters I came up with and a list of the kind of materials I wrote out for that story and their extent, like does that one have a full outline, is it more just worldbuilding and character notes, etc. And if someone’s interested or is like “oh I read this and it totally gave me all these ideas for what to do with a story like that” or whatever, just hit me up and first come first serve, the full file is yours. 

But like, that’s just my ‘puts the lazy in laissez-faire,’ pulled it out of my ass two seconds ago idea for how to approach this, so if anyone has a better or more coherent idea, or even just a thought for what to tag this kinda thing, I’m all ears.

(Just final additional disclaimers: I’m super duper aggressively not interested in being like ‘mmmm, lemme judge your writing first and pick whomever I think is the Most Qualified To Write Mine Idea Properly’ like eww, gross, and similarly I have no desire to ask for identity credentials.  Like if you’re a white writer and you read all of this and hit me up about a story I say I decided not to write because its heavily influenced by Mesoamerican cultures to a degree that I was like, I personally don’t feel anyone but a Latinx writer needs to be profiting off this story - I mean, you could definitely be like ‘oh I’m Latinx’ y’know, like a liar, and I’d be like okay sure, and if it ends up published later and I’m like hey I recognize that story and hey that author is as white as me, like.....you could do that I guess, and that’s a thing that could happen and like....that’s between you and your own choices and reasoning at that point and if you’re comfortable with that I mean, you do you, just be aware I probably think you’re an asshole then. C’est la vie. The world will keep turning.)

[klein-archive]

A debate with Elizabeth Zetzel in 1956

20th September 2018

I want to draw readers’ attention to an interesting paper by Elizabeth Zetzel (1956), in which she discusses Melanie Klein’s work in relation to classical ideas expressed by Anna Freud (1949) and the American ego psychologists, Hartman, Kris and Loewenstein (1946). Archive folder PP/KLE/D.17 contains Klein’s brief unpublished reply to Zetzel’s paper, in which she expresses appreciation for Zetzel’s understanding of many aspects of her work, while also taking issue with certain comments that she considers ‘erroneous’. (You can view photographs of the original paper on the Wellcome Library’s website, here.)

Elizabeth Zetzel (1907-1970), psychoanalyst and physician, grew up and completed her first degree in New York, before studying medicine at the University of London. She began her analytic training in the 1930s with the British Psychoanalytic Society (BPAS). Her training analyst was Ernest Jones. In a short memoir covering the years 1936-1938, Zetzel (1969) gives a positive account of her exposure to the ideas of Melanie Klein and her followers, Joan Riviere and Susan Isaacs, though she credits Donald Winnicott with exerting the greatest influence over her subsequent work. 

Zetzel returned to the United States in 1949 and became a leading member of the Boston Psychoanalytic Society. She was a prolific writer whose collected papers (1970) include contributions to psychoanalytic technique. In an obituary of Klein, she (1961) decried the fact that many of her analytic contemporaries remained unfamiliar with Klein's work. Indeed, her advocacy of Klein's work had important implications for the development of psychoanalytic theory in the United States. Although psychoanalytic theory in 1950s America is often framed as being dominated by ego psychology, Zetzel’s writings on Klein and her followers, and her dialogue with other analysts interested in pre-oedipal development (notably Edith Jacobson and Phyllis Greenacre), suggest that this is not the whole story.

In her 1956 paper, Zetzel considers the difficulty in psychoanalysis of correlating observed clinical facts with theoretical postulates; as she puts it, ‘content versus concept’. She felt that the capacity to integrate astute clinical observation with abstract conceptual deduction was a rare gift. In her view, Klein was more adept at the former than the latter, whilst many ego psychologists were too concerned with highly abstracted theoretical formulations lacking the substance of clinical data. She comments that: 

...the overwhelming emphasis in Melanie Klein’s work on unconscious fantasy [note that she uses ‘fantasy’ rather than Klein’s ‘phantasy’] as the mental expression of instinct; on concrete and specific fantasies as active from the dawn of life; on the ego as entirely derived from the id, mark an extreme contrast to the abstract conceptual approach exemplified by Hartman (1950) and Rapaport (1951), who, following on the whole Freud’s approach in the last chapter of The Interpretation of Dreams attempt to make general formulations relatively divorced from meaningful content. (Zetzel p.104)

Zetzel suggests that these very different approaches may not in fact be wholly incompatible.

Although sceptical about, for example, Klein’s use of Freud’s idea of the death instinct, Zetzel gives her credit for a number of significant findings. These include Klein’s recognition of the importance of aggression in early mental life; her emphasis on the importance of early object relations, as typified by the mother-child relationship; the connection she drew between difficulties in the early mother-child relationship and early depressive tendencies; her recognition of the significance of anxiety in mental development; and the role of symbol formation in early play.

Zetzel’s paper attempts to compare and contrast the work of Klein and the classical ego psychology model in a refreshingly balanced, scholarly and respectful way. This approach was, perhaps inevitably, absent during the impassioned and often hostile atmosphere of the so-called ‘Controversial Discussions’ of 1941-45 (see King and Steiner, 1992), where opposing colleagues were effectively ‘talking past’ each other, using the same words for radically different phenomena. I think there are, as Klein herself notes, some important misunderstandings of her work in Zetzel’s paper. I do think she misunderstands Klein’s idea of cycles of projection and introjection in gradually modifying primitive phantasy by exposure to external reality. What is more, she does not include Klein’s centrally important concepts, the paranoid-schizoid and depressive positions. However, I believe her work is of value in its effort to bridge the gap between what were unhelpfully rigid, and antagonistically expressed, theoretical positions.

I do not reproduce Zetzel’s 1956 paper here, but encourage interested readers to consult it in order to understand her arguments in more detail.

What I am including is Klein’s response to Zetzel. I do not know whether it was ever read aloud as part of a discussion at the British Psychoanalytical Society, or elsewhere, but the fact that it was typed up (apart from the heading ‘Technique’, which is in Klein’s handwriting) suggests that it was intended for an audience or publication.

Technique

It is not possible for me at this time to write a full discussion concerning Dr Zetzel’s paper. These remarks, therefore, are not intended as a comprehensive reply to her exposition of my work. I can, however, indicate a few points which I think are erroneous, as far as my work is concerned.

I have looked up the Psychoanalysis of Children and I find that I have nowhere expressed the view that the ego develops out of the id. In fact, as the index indicates, it will be clear that I take the strength or weakness of the ego as a constitutional factor. Directly, and perhaps implicitly, it is also clear that even at that time, I assumed the existence of an ego at the beginning of life. In particular, I would draw attention to page 183 from which it is clear that I believe that the destructive impulses, the death instinct, as well as the life instinct, operate from the beginning of life. According to my views, destructive impulses can never be fully put out of action. They can, however, be modified at times in varying degrees when love gets the upper hand. This is what I mean by “mitigating hate by love”, a term I have used for many years. It has always been my thesis that the ego deals with the anxiety arising from the death instinct from the outset of life. Hartmann’s autonomous ego is, I believe, another way of expressing the same point of view. There are, however, vital differences between my views and his concept of a conflict-free area, utilising neutralised instinctual energy as Dr Zetzel clearly points out.

Another point which should be clarified concerns my view regarding the early stages of the Oedipus complex and the origin of the superego. Dr Zetzel suggests both in this paper and in her earlier paper, “The Depressive Position” that my concept of the extremely early development of the superego has been formulated in relation to my views with regard to the origins of the oedipal situation. This is incorrect. It is my belief that superego development starts with the first relation to the mother’s breast through the introjection of the good and the bad breasts. This precedes the onset of the Oedipus complex which, according to my views, does not start at the beginning of life but arises together with the depressive position at about the middle of the first year. Since I do not believe that such a date can be precise, I have spoken of the depressive position and the early stages of the Oedipus complex as setting in during the second quarter of the first year. I have, however, repeatedly emphasised the middle of the first year as the stage in which both depressive and oedipal feelings can be observed.

There is long-standing criticism of my work to the effect that I do not attach sufficient importance to external factors. Although Dr Zetzel mentions in passing that I do not neglect that aspect of development, I feel that she under-rates the importance I have attached to these factors. For instance, in the Developments in Psychoanalysis, both in the theoretical chapter and in the observations, I lay great stress on the attitude of the mother and the way she feeds the baby. That is only one instance out of many.

I cannot agree with Dr Zetzel in her statement that I have failed to distinguish between concept and content. I was dealing with a very new and wide field, and although I am quite aware that more conceptualisation will take place in the future, a good deal has already been accomplished. I agree with Dr Zetzel that it is important both from theoretical and clinical points of view to clarify concepts, but I know that some of my colleagues who have made a thorough study of my work have found that my concepts of the paranoid schizoid and depressive positions have given them the necessary clarification.

I would also draw attention to the fact that I have always been primarily a clinician. It has never happened that I arrived at a concept theoretically and then allowed this concept to guide my clinical work. It has always been the other way around. From time to time, going over my psychoanalytic experiences and observations, I have arrived at certain concepts. If, for example, one compares my views in the Psychoanalysis of Children with regard to early persecutory and depressive feelings and the clarification of these points, in my paper, “A Contribution to the Psychogenesis of Manic-depressive States”, the changes in my theoretical position can be seen. These developments have been further clarified in succeeding papers “Notes on some Schizoid Mechanisms” (1946) and “The Developments in Psychoanalysis” (1952). I hope that the volume at present in preparation will add further conceptual clarification. In every case, however, the developments of theoretical concepts have been based on clinical observations.

Another point on which I disagree with Dr Zetzel is that Freud’s concept of the “life and death instincts was essentially a biological speculation which probably does not belong properly within the field of psychoanalytic theory”. It is true that Freud himself made this statement in 1920, leaving it open for analysts to accept or reject his hypothesis. He himself, however (and this is one of the various inconsistencies which I believe were characteristic of Freud’s genius when he did not fully clarify his concepts) based his paper “The Economic Principle of Masochism” on clinical aspects of this concept. This I believe implies that whatever he said about this hypothesis in his theoretical paper he nevertheless accepted it as carrying clinical implications.

As I have already indicated, De Zetzel under-rates, though less than most others, the importance which I attach to external factors. I would suggest that the emphasis I have laid on introjection, stressing the manner in which the picture of the internal world is influenced by the external world is in contradiction to this statement. I would also like to point out that maturation enters very much into my work. For example, I refer in the Psychoanalysis of Children to the manner in which the differentiation between external and internal reality is gradually achieved by the ego through processes of introjection and projection. Dr Zetzel refers to Rapaport (1954) who regards “the internalisation of reality as one of the crucial characteristics of the function of the ego”. I made similar statements in the Psychoanalysis of Children and on other occasions since that time.

Unfortunately, I cannot go into any more detail at this time. I hope, however, that what I have said may correct some conclusions with regard to my work which I believe to be erroneous. Nevertheless, in spite of these misunderstandings I should like to express my appreciation of the understanding of many aspects of my work which Dr Zetzel has presented with such strength and clarity.

References

Freud, A. (1949) Aggression in relation to normal development: Normal and pathological. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 3:37-42.

Hartmann, H., Kris, E. and Loewenstein, R. M. (1949) Notes on the theory of aggression. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 3:9-36.

King, P. and Steiner, R. (1992) The Freud Klein Controversies 1941-45. London: Routledge. 

Zetzel, E. (1956) An approach to the relation between concept and content in psychoanalytic theory (with special reference to the work of Melanie Klein and her followers). The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child 11: 99-121. Reprinted in Zetzel, E. The Capacity for Emotional Growth, Chapter 7 (Hogarth Press, 1970).

Zetzel, E. (1961) Melanie Klein 1882-1960. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 30: 420-425.

Zetzel, E. (1969) 96 Gloucester Place: Some personal recollections. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 50: 717-719.

#Melanie Klein #elizabeth zetzel #psychoanalysis #freud #emotional development #death instinct #symbol formation #Psychoanalysis of Children

[davisboy1]

Some Thoughts on the Ethics of Sexuality

Disclaimer: My intention here is to think through these issues, not to declare with certainty what my personal views on sexual ethics are. I will be making some observations and opening a window into my own thought-process here, but again, my emphasis is that this is a thought-process and not a dogmatic assertion of principles/beliefs/views. If I'm wrong or you disagree, please let me know, this is an important conversation.

Human sexuality is admittedly a touchy subject to discuss - partially, in my opinion, because of how visceral sex actually is and how viscerally we respond to it. I'm using the Bible for most of my source material because I grew up totally immersed in Christian culture, so my main frame of reference for any ethical issue has always been the Bible, and for better or worse, that has not changed. For the sake of this discussion, however, I am not using the Bible as an "authority" but as a guide, a frame of reference.

From my perspective, it seems as if the Biblical teaching regarding sex really boils down to one or two issues. First, the clear Biblical desire is for sexual interaction among people to happen within a marriage. Second, the Bible seems to teach that when a male and a female come together sexually, this is somehow a mystical (spiritual?) unification of those two separate people into one person or being. 

What are we to make of those two things as we discuss sexual ethics?

First, I like to nuance what is meant by "marriage." The Bible's definition of a marriage seems to be one man, leaving his parental family unit, and joining together with his wife into "one body." It really seems as if the base Biblical definition of marriage is two people coming together as their own new "family unit," so to speak. Two different people becoming one body, one family. This is quite different from, but not wholly incompatible with, the State's view of marriage as the "legal union" between two people, which is made, enforced, and can be voided by a contract. With these distinctions, I hold that a couple may be "Biblically married" even if they are not legally married by the State, but a legal marriage by the State would of course constitute a Biblical marriage inasmuch as the two people are joining their lives together into "one unit."

Why does the Bible want to restrict human sexuality to two people who have joined together as one unit? Or, to ask a different question, does the Bible view the sex act as two people coming together into one unit, and thus becoming married? I'm not sure I can answer these questions, but I do think one could make a case that it is the sex act that creates a "Biblical marriage," given that one of the dictionary definitions for marriage is "a combination or mixture of two or more elements." Sex is certainly the "combination of two or more." As regards Biblical marriage, I think cases can be made for either view, either that the sex act is what creates the marriage, or that the sex act should only happen after a marriage has been established. Either way, the Bible prefers sex to happen within the unity of a marriage, however it is that may be. 

So again, why does the Bible want to restrict human sexual expression to such a degree? Why is monogamy such a big deal? And why would the Bible reject the second half of monogamy's definition - "at a time"? I don't know the answer to these questions, but I do have some ideas, especially given our current cultural moment. 

In the #MeToo era wherein sexual misconduct (specifically against women) is being exposed, decried, and fought against, it's more important than ever to collectively try and discuss the ethics of sexuality. As far as I can tell, modern society has a fairly strict ethic regarding human sexuality that is not wholly incompatible with Biblical teaching, even if it is "less strict" than Biblical teaching.

It seems as if the most important sexual ethic in modern society is consent, the age of consent, and what constitutes consent. This is 100% compatible with Biblical teaching inasmuch as marriage is portrayed as two people coming "together" "as one" into "one body." In order for two people to come together "as one," there has to be mutual consent between both of those parties. Biblical sexuality is not meant to be a sexuality of dominance but of mutual self-giving. "1 Corinthians 7:4 (NCV) The wife does not have full rights over her own body; her husband shares them. And the husband does not have full rights over his own body; his wife shares them." 

Now of course, that is one of the many verses that has been misused to further a sexuality of dominance wherein men are "owed" sex by their wives. That's not what the Bible is trying to teach right here. The Bible here is teaching that sexuality is the *sharing* of bodies. This verse does not allow either the husband or the wife to "take" or "demand" the other person's body in a sexual way. Within the context of the preceding verses, and operating under his assumptive framework that marriage is the only proper expression for sexuality, Paul is warning people that sexual sin is a danger, and that to avoid the dangers of sexual sin married couples should be *freely sharing* their bodies with each other. 

As I mentioned above, a sexuality of dominance is incompatible with a Biblical sexual ethic. This would mean not only that sex requires mutual consent and self-giving, but also that neither party should feel like they have no choice BUT to consent. To use the example of Louis C.K., I would contend that while he did try to gain consent from the women he interacted with (and should be commended for at least that), his position of dominance as a famous, well-known, white male certainly seemed to give those women the impression that they had no choice but to consent. When one person holds a disproportionate amount of power in the sexual relationship, it is very difficult for there to be a truly mutually self-giving interaction. 

Why is sexual sin or sexual misconduct viewed in such a negative light? In my opinion, this has something to do with what I mentioned above about the sexual act being a mystical or spiritual union between two people. According to the Bible (and if we're being honest, probably most people) sex is about more than just the physical interaction of genitalia. There is something more than merely physical going on in the act of sex. While I certainly can't define what the metaphysical aspects of sexuality, I am content to claim that there IS some metaphysics of sexuality that contributes to our understanding of sex. We consider sexual misconduct a violation not only of another person's body, but of their entire person. A raped woman has more to deal with than merely the physical trauma. There is mental, emotional, and spiritual trauma associated with being (violently) forced or coerced into an act that is meant to be unifying. Sex is nowhere near "unity" when it is being forced upon someone. 

I think that in some aspects, yes, sex is an animalistic, bodily urge that is meant for the continuation of the species. But humans have transcended the purely animal force of sexuality into something that unifies us, comforts us, and makes us feel whole. Dominating sexuality is not the way humans are meant to interact. 

Finally, I'd like to discuss some aspects of same-sex interaction as it relates to the Bible. As you may know, I no longer see good reason to prevent gay and lesbian people from enjoying the experience of mutual self-emptying sexuality. I view the Bible's commands against same-sex acts as products of a deeply, deeply patriarchal system that viewed men as effeminate and therefore worthless if they weren't the "dominating" partner in sexual activity. Patriarchy is STILL ingrained in almost every modern culture, which is why there's still a long way to go on our development of sexual ethics. A society that views sex through the lens of male dominance is absolutely going to be opposed to any sexuality where the male partner is not dominant - which also means opposition to the Biblical idea of mutual self-giving. In all honesty, other than what the Bible has had to say on the matter, what moral reasons are there for being opposed to same-sex sexual activity? A gay or lesbian couple is no less capable of mutual self-giving consent and unity than is a straight couple. 

This is of course, where I do want to voice what I see as one possible argument against same-sex sexual activity. The Biblical idea of unity seems to be that of unity in diversity, that is, a unity between the diversity of the male and the female bodies. One could therefore argue that the Biblical ideal of sexual unity has to be firmly situated in sexual diversity. 

However, I see this lacking merit for two reasons. One, God Himself is said to be love and unified in the Trinity - but the persons of the Trinity are of the same "essence" or divine nature, so to speak, so this would be a unity of same-ness, not necessarily a unity of diverse peoples. Two, in a society wherein heterosexuality is the norm, could it not be said that same-sex sexual interactions are an example of the diversity of sexual expressions? If all people are straight, would this not be a unity in same-ness, to some degree? A human society that accepts straight or gay expressions of sexuality could be said to be unified within that diversity. 

That concludes this particular discussion on sexual ethics. I do look forward to some interaction on this topic, because I think it's vitally important. I do also think it is important for us to work through these tough topics together, with charity and grace for those who disagree or hold alternate views. Human sexuality is messy but it is also beautiful and unifying. Let's work together as one to figure out how best to interact with each other at every level, sexuality included.