#i just…as someone who tries to generally speak from personal experience OR with citations (or preferably both!)

[indigostudies]

specifically the post i’m annoyed by is by a big blog that will remain unnamed (general big blog, not language sphere big blog…i think. unless my judgement of this person’s online activity is entirely off) and insists that if you “just turn on the [language] subs rather than english subs” you’ll…somehow magically begin to understand (presumably at least intermediate conversational) dialogue in shows? which, i think comprehensible input can be a great tool but…that’s not CI. you’re just advising people to do something that will have little to no payoff unless they’re already familiar with the language’s basics (at least!)(the post was specifically aimed at beginning learners with no/little familiarity, though!) and which will probably leave them frustrated and demoralised…i don’t mean to gatekeep but i think sometimes maybe people shouldn’t confidently claim xyz method is the One True Secret Solution. especially if they have, quite literally, no sources to back them up besides (to quote the internet) “source: trust me bro”.

[mishafletcher]

Are you a Gold Star lesbian? (Just in case you don't know what it means, a Gold Star lesbian is a lesbian that has never had the sex with a guy and would never have any intentions of ever doing so)

So I got this ask a while ago, and I've been lowkey thinking about it ever since.

First: No. I am a queer, cranky dyke who is too old for this sort of bullshit gatekeeping. 

Second: What an unbelievable question to ask someone you don't even know! What an incomprehensibly rude thing to ask, as if you're somehow owed information about my sexual history. You're not! No one—and I can't reiterate this enough, but no one—owes you the details of their sex lives, of their trauma, or of anything about themselves that they don't feel like sharing with you.

The clickbait mills of the internet and the purity police of social media would like nothing more than to convince everyone that you owe these things to everyone. They would like you to believe that you have to prove that you're traumatized enough to identify with this character, that you can't sell this article about campus rape without relating it to your own sexual assault, that you can't talk about queer issues without offering up a comprehensive history of your own experiences, and none of those things are true. You owe people, and especially random strangers on the internet, nothing, least of all citations to somehow prove to them that you have the right to talk about your own life.

This makes some people uncomfortable, and to be clear, I think that that's good: people who feel entitled to demand this information should be uncomfortable. Refusing to justify yourself takes power away from people who would very much like to have it, people who would like to gatekeep and dictate who is permitted to speak about what topics or like what things. You don't have to justify yourself. You don't have to explain that you like this ship because this one character reminds you a bit of yourself because you were traumatized in a vaguely similar way and now— You don't have to justify your queerness by telling people about the best friend you had when you were twelve, and how you kissed, and she laughed and said it was good practice for when she would kiss boys and your stomach twisted and your mouth tasted like bile and she was the first and last girl you kissed, but— 

You don't owe anyone these pieces of yourself. They're yours, and you can share them or not, but if someone demands that you share, they're probably not someone you should trust.

Third: The idea of gold star lesbians is a profoundly bi- and trans- phobic idea, often reducing gender to genitals and the long, shared history of queer women of all identities to a stark, artificial divide where some identities are seen as purer or more valuable than others. This is bullshit on all counts.

There's a weird and largely artificial division between bisexuals and lesbians that seems to be intensifying on tumblr, and I have to say: I hate it. Bisexual women aren't failed lesbians. They're not somehow less good or less valid because they're attracted to [checks notes] people. Do you think that having sex with a man somehow changes them? What are you so worried about it for? I've checked, and having sex with a man does not, in fact, make your vagina grow teeth or tentacles. Does that make you feel better? Why is what other people are doing so threatening to you?

Discussions of gold star lesbians are often filled with tittering about hehe penises, which is unfortunate, since I know a fair few lesbians who have penises, and even more lesbians who've had sex with people, men and women alike, who have penises. I'm sorry to report that "I'm disgusted by a standard-issue human body part" is neither a personality nor anything to be proud of. I'm a dyke and I don't especially like men, but dicks are just dicks. You don't have to be interested in them, but a lot of people have them, and it doesn't make you less of a lesbian to have sex with someone who has a dick.

There's so much garbage happening in the world—maybe you haven't noticed, but things are kind of Not Great in a lot of places, and there's a whole pandemic thing that's been sort of a major buzzkill? How is this something that you're worried about? Make a tea, remind yourself that other people's genitalia and sexual history are none of your business, maybe go watch a video about a cute animal or something. 

Fourth: The idea of gold star lesbians is a shitty premise that argues that sexuality is better if it's always been clear-cut and straightforward—but it rarely is. We live in a very, very heterosexist culture. I didn’t have a word for lesbian until many years after I knew that I was one. How can you say that you are something when your mouth can’t even make the shape of it? The person you are at 24 is different to the person you are at 14, and 34, and 74. You change. You get braver. The world gets wider. You learn to see possibilities in the shadows you used to overlook. Of course people learn more about themselves as they age.

Also, many of us, especially those of us who grew up in smaller towns, or who are over the age of, say, 25, grew up in times and places where our sexuality was literally criminal.

Shortly after I graduated high school, a gay man in my state was sentenced to six months in jail. Why? Well, he’d hit on someone, and it was a misdemeanor to "solicit homosexual or lesbian activity", which included expressing romantic or sexual interest in someone who didn’t reciprocate. You might think, then, that I am in fact quite old, but you would be mistaken. The conviction was in 1999; it was overturned in 2002.

I grew up knowing this: the wrong thing said to the wrong person would be sufficient reason to charge me with a crime.

In the United States, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996, clarifying that according to the federal government, marriage could only ever be between one man and one woman. It also promised that even if a state were to legalize same-sex unions, other states wouldn't have to recognize them if they didn't want to. And wow, they super did not want to, because between 1998 and 2012, a whopping thirty states had approved some sort of amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Every queer person who's older than about 25 watched this, knowing that this was aimed at people like them. Knowing that these votes were cast by their friends and their families and their teachers and their employers. 

Some states were worse than others. Ohio passed their bill in 2004 with 62% approval. Mississippi passed theirs the same year with 86% approval. Imagine sitting in a classroom, or at work, or in a church, or at a family dinner, and knowing that statistically, at least two out of every three people in that room felt you shouldn't be allowed to marry someone you loved.

Matthew Shepard was tortured to death in October of 1998. For being gay, for (maybe) hitting on one of the men who had planned to merely rob him. Instead, he was tortured and left to die, tied to a barbed wire fence. His murderers were both sentenced to two consecutive life terms in prison. This was controversial, because a nonzero number of people felt that Shepard had brought it upon himself.

Many of us sat at dinner tables and listened to this discussion, one that told us, over and over, that we were fundamentally wrong, fundamentally undeserving of love or sympathy or of life itself.

This is a tiny, tiny sliver of history—a staggeringly incomplete overview of what happened in the US over about ten years. Even if this tiny sliver is all that there were, looking at this, how could you blame someone for wanting to try being not Like This? How can you fault someone who had sex, maybe even had a bunch of sex, hoping desperately that maybe they could be normal enough to be loved if they just tried harder? How can you say that someone who found themself an uninteresting but inoffensive boyfriend and went on dates and had sex and said that it was fine is somehow less valuable or less queer or less of a lesbian for doing so? For many people, even now, passing as straight, as problematic as that term is, is a survival skill. How dare you imply that the things that someone did to protect themself make them worth less? They survived, and that's worth literally everything.

Fifth, finally: What is a gold star, anyhow? You've capitalized it, like it's Weighty and Important, but it's not. Gold stars were what your most generous grade school teacher put on spelling tests that you did really well on. But ultimately, gold stars are just shiny scraps of paper. They don't have any inherent value: I can buy a thousand of them for five bucks and have them at my door tomorrow. They have only the meaning that we give them, only the importance that we give them. We’re not children desperately scrabbling for a teacher’s approval anymore, though. We understand that good and bad are more of a spectrum than a binary, and that a gold star is a simplification. We understand that no number of gold stars will make us feel like we’re special enough or good enough or important enough, or fix the broken places we can still feel inside ourselves. Only we can do that.

The stars are only shiny scraps of paper. They offer us nothing; we don’t need them. I hope that someday, you see that, too. 

[agirlunderarock]

How I accidentally wrote 20 page paper on Boromir for one of my Final Ever University Papers PART 2

So this took me 5ever because I had to go through my actual paper again to find the sources and the citations I had, and then throw out the academic fluffer I had to speak with. But anyway just be prepared for a long ass read because we gotta touch on nearly every source I argued with in this post before getting to the good stuff. If you haven’t read Part 1 well here it is

Okay Okay where was I?

I said that academics were wrong with how they were judging Boromir right? Is that where I left off? Well thats where I’m starting

So before I go further I need to explain that the main premise for my paper is an argument to characterize Boromir with loyalty and fear, instead of power hungry and whatever the hell used, and then throw out this good vs. evil binary that’s often used to describe the lord of the rings- because lets be real, it looks like that on the surface but everyone has their ups and downs at least once or twice, and if not within the Lord of the Rings, it comes from books that are set in previous ages. 

ANYWAY

Keep the fear and loyalty things in mind alright?

Fear sounds like an odd choice for a character I’m supposed to be defending right? I know.

We’ll get to that just bear with me. 

So in order to say that academics were wrong, I first had to look at where they were coming from and try to see what textual evidence they had. Because if you’ve done academic research, you know how important textual evidence is. 

So while finding literally nothing that focused specifically on Boromir, I found  J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia : Scholarship and Critical Assessment by Michael D. C. Drout, which I still have questions about but hey it was a good starting point. You would think that a whole Encyclopedia dedicated to Tolkien would have more than a handful of entries dedicated to Boromir. I mean mentioning him in Gondorian politics or relations with Rohan or even Boromir I instead of just Boromir II but heres the thing, IN THE WHOLE IN ENCYCLOPEDIA HE WAS ONLY MENTIONED 8 TIMES.

THE NAME BOROMIR (which in this document only refers to Boromir II) ONLY APPEARS IN EIGHT ENTRIES.

You know what those entries are? 

‘double of,’ - okay what the fuck does that mean?

 I honestly don’t remember what it means I think it had to do with character foils, you know like how Neville is a foil for Harry in Harry Potter? If I remember correctly, it identified the common foils, Gandalf v. Saruman, Frodo v. Gollum and Aragorn v. Boromir. I could be totally wrong about this, its been exactly a year and I didn’t focus on this entry.

 ‘Faramir and,’- yes we know Boromir is Faramir’s older brother. What else ya got?

 ‘herosim of,’- Ah yes sounds promising

And you think it would shed some positive light on our boy right? RIGHT? Heres what the entry said per the quote in paper “It is in fact Boromir’s desire for the victory of Minas Tirith and his own glory there in that motivates his own grasp for the ring: the heroic motivations of fame, reward, and revenge (in this case on Sauron)” ( Drout 270 ).  

LIKE EXCUSE ME WHAT THE FUCK- sorry wait, let me show you how I rephrased that for academic purposes:  This description does not actually describe Boromir as being heroic, but later explains why these descriptions of heroism are actually evil compared to characters like Aragorn, Frodo, Gimli and the rest of the Fellowship.

 ‘penance of,’- Yet another character who achieves redemption through death. Great. I hate it. Shut up. Kill this trope.

 and finally,  ‘tyranny of.’- yes because Boromir was obviously a tyrant, but I say again SHOW ME TEXTUAL EVIDENCE

AND I’M TALKING ONLY ABOUT THE BOOKS HERE REMEMBER ALL OF THIS IS INFORMATION ON THE BOOKS. like there were entries on things from the movies, and even fanfiction, but THESE ENTRIES WERE BUILT ON RESOURCES THAT BUILT ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE BOOKS

I’m getting off track here

SO 

ANYWAYS

At the end of each of those entries were list of sources that the author used to create those entries. So guess what that meant- Ya girl was hand delivered sources to search for and hopefully they had some specific pages references for me to look up within the actual book series. At least you would think thats what I found, but NOOOOOOOOO, what I actually found is that EVERY SINGLE REFERENCED SOURCE CHARACTERIZED BOROMIR ONLY BY HIS ATTEMPT TO TAKE THE RING FROM FRODO.

Thats like living your whole life and having people who say they know you intimately (not in the romantic sense in the knows you to your core sense) BUT the only thing they really know about you is that one time in pre-school you tried to draw a rocket on the wall but actually it looked like a penis thats the only thing anyone will remember you for. I didn’t do this by the way, nor know anyone who did this but some kid somewhere probably did

But you know me at this point I had to check the sources and see what they were saying. So I took up Patrick Grant’s  “Tolkien: Archetype and Word,” where he talks mostly about Frodo. I know its a stretch BUT he talks about loyalty specifically Sam’s loyalty to Frodo, and remember we want to establish that Boromir is incredibly loyal, so we have to see what he’s actually up against according to the critics

“…Sam Gamgee, whose part is least publicly acclaimed of all, but who in the sense in which we are now using the word, is especially heroic. His unfailing devotion to Frodo is exemplary, and here again Sam is a key link in bring the meaning of the book to the reader, the everyman who admires great deeds but wonders what his own part might be in important events which seem well enough wrought without him” ( 180 ).  

Okay that seems fair from how Tolkien himself has talked about Sam right. And you’re probably like okay, but what the fuck does that have to do with Boromir? Literally just further down the page  he says:

“…. The fellowship breaks only when the bond of obedience is broken, as it is by Boromir, whose pride and lust for personal power are evidence of false heroism” (180).

LUST FOR PERSONAL POWER???? PRIDE?????

SHOW ME THE PAGES SIR

GIVE THEM TO ME

I know you’re probably thinking, ‘but wait he’s actually kinda right-”

WRONG

Its anxiety, I’m telling you

I counted 

its fear and anxiety

but again I’m getting a head of myself. Basically Grant just took a shat on Boromir to make Sam look good.

EXCUSE ME SIR SAM IS A GODDAMN MASTERPIECE ON HIS OWN THANKS. DON’T TRASH BOROMIR TO COMPLIMENT SAM. Also be wary of people who do this in general, if they put someone else down instead of just out right complimenting you take it as a warning

Oh and did I mention that because Grant says Boromir is technically being selfish, another critics analysis makes Boromir Evil, because acts done out of selfish pursuits are seen as evil and a “perversion of human will.” But you know, thats just how it be sometimes when you’re putting literature in conversation with one another.

Just know I pick on Grant a lot, mostly because he says shit like this:  “…the most blinding love derives directly from such obedience,” (180). when it comes to Sam, and then takes a shit on Boromir. Like we’re going to come back to the obedience thing in a little bit, but just know that Merry, Pippin, Faramir, Eowyn, Even Sam at one point, and I mean I guess by some extension movie!Arwen take a big ‘ol shit on the idea that the only way to be heroic is to be OBEDIENT.

I get it, its another Catholic thing. I’m Catholic, I know what its getting at. But consider- no

Basically I boil this shit down to one thing

Sam Only Owes Loyalty To Frodo.

Literally his main concern throughout the book is Frodo and then the Shire and what that encompasses. So yeah its easy to be loyal and obedient to someone who shares all the same ideas and values as you and has a pretty similar lived experience right??? ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY And before anyone says Sam was loyal to the fellowship, Sam would literally cut a bitch for Frodo. He woulda fought Aragorn in the Prancing Pony if he thought he had to. He gave a second thought to Merry and Pippin when they left the Fellowship, but it wasn’t a “we should go back for them all or wait for them” It was “i’m gonna support mr. Frodo, even if Idon’t much like the gollum creature he decided to drag around but fair i guess cuz none of us know the fucking way into Mordor.” 

So I made a chart to demonstrate why comparing Boromir and Sam is a big no no, and what kinda things Boromir was working with the whole time he was part of the fellowship.

Did I forget to mention that this was supposed to be a visual research paper?

So Sam and Frodo had a lot of the same Fears and values.

Our Boy Boromir over here has to deal with being a political/military figure, meet the demands of his father, he’s gotta try to be a good brother, he’s gotta learn to get along with the fellowship, and then each of those new or old loyalties has different responsibility and expectations he’s supposed to meet. And because I had to include Aristotelian ideas as part of the class, to quote myself: Despite the Aristotelian concept that it is impossible to be a virtuous friend to many, Boromir’s actions throughout The Fellowship of the Ring show him attempting to do this ( Aristotle 9 ). Like thats literally why he ends up a member of the Fellowship, he’s a little unsure of this plan, but hey its the best one he’s heard and if everyone thinks its going to work then by golly he’ll see it done. But again Aristotle (just in your head pronounce it like chipotle for me please) wants to try to establish a structure that I think is stoopid, he’s got a thing that says  “it is a more terrible thing to defraud a comrade than a fellow-citizen, more terrible not to help a brother than a stranger, and more terrible to wound a father than any one else” (15). 

So remember those loyalties in the little blue squiggles up in the picture, we already know that Denethor, and Faramir bump heads a little, and then the soldiers serving with Boromir probably have their own ideas about how Gondor should be defended, and then he goes to the Council of Elrong and they’re saying something completely different from what he’s heard- theres a lot of threads pulling the Captain in different directions. He’s got a lot hats to wear and demands to fulfill and living under the shadow of Mordor with all of those responsibilities is bound to give anyone anxiety. 

But don’t just take my word for it

The movie actually reinforces this. I know the book says Boromir was “...pierced with many black feathered arrows” But the movie specifically makes it 3

Now I’m sure Mr. Peter Jackson didn’t intend for what I’m about to say, but I think its a pretty cool notion to think about. Because you can summarize Boromir’s conflicting loyalties into “family’ ‘country’ and “Fellowship’. Like his father would have him bring the ring to Gondor, his role as a military/political figure for Gondor means he should be doing whatever he has to in order to protect his country, and the Fellowship is like nah man we destroy this thing and everything else will fall into place, and Boromir is left having to decide whih of these things to act upon. Family, Country, and the Fellowship are the competing signs that make up is character arc, and his grapple with these three things is ultimately what leads to his death.

Now if your thinking family and country should be lumped together- theres a reason for it, just trust me, bare with me please

But basically what I’m trying to get at is given all these factors, you can’t compare a character like Boromir with all these responsibilities hanging off him to be comparable to Sam whose only responsibility is Frodo. 

But you know who does share all these same demands

Faramir

Like take a look at their character arcs- if you can the text on this next pic is super teeny

If thats too small for you don’t worry about it because we’re gonna get into why Faramir is a better foil for Boromir, and how this should affect the way we as the reader come to understand his character. So fun stuff in the next part! Sorry for dragging this out, but just like my original paper, this turned out to be WAY longer than I expected. 

[sophieakatz]

Thursday Thoughts: Frozen, Frozen 2, and Why There Are Songs In Musicals

Mild spoiler warning: this blog post discusses the first half of Disney’s Frozen and includes a summary of the Frozen 2 song “Into The Unknown,” while otherwise avoiding spoilers from Frozen 2. You have been warned.

I’ve been trying all afternoon to figure out a proper citation for this saying I’ve heard about theatre, but I can’t place it. If you’re an awesome theatre nerd who knows who said it first, then please let me know!

The saying is that characters in musicals sing when their emotions are just too big to be expressed in words alone. If words aren’t enough, then they sing. If singing isn’t enough, then they dance.

This saying occurred to me while I was trying to figure out why some songs in Frozen 2 hit me just as hard as the songs of Frozen, while others didn’t. Objectively speaking, there isn’t a bad song in either film. It all comes down to the way that the songs handle emotion.

Two questions cover the rest of this blog post: Is the emotion expressed in the song intense, or humorous? And is the song the result of an emotional build-up, or is the song the primary evidence we have for that emotion?

As a first example, let’s talk about “Let It Go” from Frozen.

Before we even hear the opening riff, we’ve already seen Elsa grow up. We saw her early traumatic experience of accidentally hurting her sister, and we saw all the years she spent since then repressing herself, shutting herself off both physically and emotionally from the rest of the world to hide her magical powers. But now, Elsa’s secret is out, and she is alone on a mountaintop. For the first time in over a decade, she can try out her magic and see what she’s capable of. Over the course of a four-minute song, Elsa finally lets out her emotions, which have built up to the point where they are much too big for words alone. She expresses sadness and pain about the years she spent hidden away, and a powerful joy at finally being free.

The emotions of “Let It Go” are undeniably intense. There’s a reason that this song resonated with so many people even before the film was released. We may not have known exactly what Elsa had been through, what she was trying to hide or who she was hiding from, but we could tell what she felt. That’s what happens when a song is the result of emotional build-up: the audience feels that emotion in a serious way, appropriate for such an intense mood.

On the other hand, Frozen also has “In Summer.” Mere seconds after we meet Olaf the snowman, he sings this song about how much he loves the idea of summer. We haven’t gotten any emotional build-up for this; we haven’t seen Olaf wandering around longing for summer. Instead, the song itself serves as evidence of how much Olaf loves summer – which in the grand scheme of emotions is pretty humorous.

The result is utter hilarity. “In Summer” throws a dramatic level of emotional investment into this character before we’ve really had any chance to emotionally invest in him. If Olaf simply said that he liked summer, it wouldn’t have had nearly as big of an effect as it did when he sang it. His singing is evidence of heightened emotion. The humorousness is only heightened by the absurdity of the idea of a snowman enjoying summer. Audiences laugh and fawn over Olaf. It’s a much less intense experience than “Let It Go,” but that’s the point. “In Summer” is a moment of levity in the film, focusing on the comic relief. It does what it’s supposed to do, and it works well.

Funny songs do well without emotional build-up. We can just enjoy the moment, laugh, and move on.

Intense songs, on the other hand, generally need that build-up.

When Frozen 2 came along, the song released to YouTube well before the release of the film was “Into the Unknown.” This three-minute song is one of the first scenes of the film, following Elsa’s late-night conversation with the mysterious voice she’s been hearing.

A lot happens in this song. Elsa tries to brush off the voice, saying that she’s done with adventure. She expresses fear of what will happen to her and the people she loves if she follows the voice. She voices suspicion about the voice, wondering if it is a trick. And then, two minutes in, she suddenly changes her stance – wondering if the voice is someone like her, saying she doesn’t really feel like she belongs in Arendelle, and chasing after the voice with an impassioned plea for it to not leave her behind.

“Into The Unknown” is an intense song. It’s catchy as heck. Idina Menzel and Brandon Urie hit some impressive high notes.

But it really doesn’t hit me emotionally nearly as much as “Let It Go.”

While “Into The Unknown” is musically excellent, it is not the result of emotional build-up. This song is the primary evidence of the emotions it expresses.

We’ve seen Elsa look a bit confused and worried about the voice, and we know she hasn’t told anyone about it. However, before this song, the film does not show us Elsa feeling out of place in Arendelle or having any opinions at all about the pros and cons of another adventure. The intense emotion of the song does not feel grounded in anything outside of the song; all we can do is take it at face value. Unfortunately, this left me spending more time wondering why the heck Elsa changes her mind about the merits of following the voice so quickly (going from “I don’t hear you” to “Don’t leave me” in a matter of seconds) than I spent actually enjoying the song. I felt this way when I first heard the song, and again once I saw it in the movie and realized there wasn’t much context to go off of.

The emotions Elsa is feeling here are too complicated to be expressed only in this three-minute number. It’s not like Olaf’s simple love for summer. Elsa’s feelings needs more time and build-up for the viewer to completely buy in.

And then there’s “Show Yourself” – a song that I love.

In the name of avoiding spoilers, I will not explain what the song is about. All I will say is that this song is the result of an emotional build-up that spans the entire film. And man oh man does that build-up pay off!

Of course, this analysis is entirely based on my own personal feelings about the songs of Frozen and Frozen 2. As a storytelling geek, I place more importance on how a song fits into a story than I place on the musical quality of the song itself.

I firmly believe, however, that there is a tangible difference between a song that is the result of emotional build-up and a song that is evidence of emotion. There is a place for both kinds of songs, just like there is a place for songs that are intense and songs that are humorous. But there are situations in which one kind of song works better than another.

What do you think? Which songs from Frozen or Frozen 2 hit you the hardest? Do you think you’ll grow to love or hate the songs with ceaseless repetition? And how long until Disney announces a Frozen 3? Reply or reblog with your thoughts!

Subjects in my notes cut from the final blog post:

“For The First Time In Forever” is both intense and humorous (two words which sum up Anna as a character pretty well). It is also both the result of emotional build-up (Anna’s loneliness as seen in the film to this point) and evidence of emotion (her new desire for romantic love).

Just like how “In Summer” is sung for the sole purpose of showing how hilariously much Olaf loves summer, “Fixer Upper” is sung for the sole purpose of showing how hilariously much the trolls love Kristoff, flaws and all. The stage musical ups the emotion even further by throwing a huge dance number into the middle of the song. Words and singing alone were not enough!

Everyone in the movie theatre laughed through “Lost in the Woods,” a song which shows us just how big Kristoff’s feelings are. I’m tempted to say that we laughed in large part because the idea of a guy being emotional like that goes against American social norms. We laughed in small part because of the reindeer singing back-up.

I’ll be happy if Elsa is canonically any kind of queer, but “you are the one you’ve been waiting for all of your life” is such an aro/ace mood.

[harmonic-psyche]

The Finalysis: @askgoopi and @askthewaywardaliens

Hey, I am back with more characters for The Finalysis™! Below, I analyze the characters from @ecstaticshli​‘s EarthUnBound continuity on @askgoopi​ and CogDis sister blog on @askthewaywardaliens​. Both blogs are still continuing their stories. While technically only @askgoopi​ is set in the alternate timeline called “EarthUnBound,” I am using that title for both blogs here because of their shared author/artist and characters and because is sounds Really Friggin Cool.

I am still experimenting with the visuals for these Finalysis posts, and I wanted to try something a bit less bare than in my Finalysis post for @askgiegueandcrew​. Hopefully the image is not too crowded. Also, I swear that the “Goopi vs. J” fight in the middle of the picture was unintentional at first — but then I realized that it reflects how they would probably react upon meeting. oh geez, now i want to see them meet and see how many milliseconds it takes for them to start fighting

With that said, on to the character analyses!

Blue Starman ("Stupid," or "Blu"): Seems like an ISFJ.

This nervous-looking "[s]cared nerd Starman" is much more easily frightened than his fellow Starmen, which suggests inferior Ne — especially considering that he regrets being a coward, his "personality" is "Chicken," and he has a bad habit of second-guessing himself. Even in his military decisions, he shows caution. As a "pushover," Blu lacks the toughness of auxiliary Te, implying Fe instead. Also, seeing Giegue happy would make Blu happiest, showing Fe's desire to make others happy. While these facts suggest ISFJ, I have not seen enough of him to feel confident about my typing.

Giegue ("Goopi"): Probably ESTP, maybe ESTJ.

Canon Giegue is ISTJ, but "Goopi" here appears much more impulsive and aggressive. For example, his "bad habits" include "attacking others for seemingly no reason." While canon Giegue is not friendly, before the madness set in he tended to stay calm unless provoked or carrying out a cruel plan. In contrast, Goopi takes a sadistic pleasure in attacking others just for the sake of killing them. He once broke a promise with Static simply because he wanted to kill her after torturing her. Canon Giegue also uses a much more detached and clinical tone than Goopi, who loves using crude, petty insults so much that he literally named all of his Starmen after them. That degrading, crude humor is most common among ESTP types, and notably lacking from Giegue in canon or on @askgiegueandcrew​. In canon, Giegue only acts to follow his plan(s) or when he loses control of himself. On the other hand, Goopi often acts merely for pleasure without a plan or a reason: "I don't need much of a reason," "I did what I did because I wanted to." These show far more impulsive and hedonistic behavior, implying Se rather than Si.

At first, I was unsure if I could justifiably type Goopi differently from canon Giegue. Since they are from different universes, though, they are different characters: Goopi is "a completely different Giegue" (PMs with @ecstaticshli​ 2018-06-22).

J the Shadow: Definitely ISTJ.

Cautious, tough, and stoic to the core, J is an archetypal ISTJ. As an introvert who is still working on acting social, he prefers to avoid the spotlight. Si-dominance is evident in his (over?)protective unwavering loyalty to Vivi, since he considers himself her personal "bodyguard" (a.k.a. "guard dog" — compare the running joke about Si-dominant Pia the loyal dog). J does not hesitate to intimidate, threaten, or attack others to prove it when he thinks that they threaten Vivi. He shows no F-type squeamishness. While he "[t]ends to not be very friendly to others ... if he trusts someone he will be loyal and do his best to protect them," showing Si loyalty without Fe friendliness.

Te over Fi appears in his tough attitude, blunt tone, resent for receiving others' pity, "aggressive demeanor," and tendency to be embarrassed by emotional and cutesy situations — which, naturally, happen all the time around Vivi. When feeling insecure, he responds with aggression. As he has shown repeatedly, he hates being called adorable despite the obvious fact that he totally is adorable. In his own words, "It ain’t exactly easy for me to, uh, open up to others." Auxiliary Te's coldness and inferior Ne's paranoia make him distrust others by default ("We don’t know these people! I can’t trust them!"). While this can cause tension when he first meets other characters, it does help him protect those he cares about, especially Vivi. He also shows inferior Ne when he is totally thrown off by strange new perspectives, like whether he qualifies as an "insectoid."

Note also that, since "J is based on a later version of Giegue from EarthUnbound," it makes sense that J and Giegue would have identical personality types. Again, typing by analogy is unreliable, but in this case it sits on a huge pile of more-than-sufficient other evidence.

Nebula: Seems like an ISFJ.

This "[c]autious noodle" is "[c]alm, for the most part," but "[t]ends to panic when things go horribly wrong," making "other people assume ... [that s]he's a worrywart." Those show inferior Ne, and a lack of Te's decisiveness. Even though Nebula made Static act serious (a minor miracle) when Goopi attacked, came up with a plan, and pointed out that other mooks needed help escaping, she froze up and did not volunteer to help them when Static asked. These show her calm, serious planning skills (Si) and desire to help others (Fe) without any impulsivity (Ne). Nebula corrects others about scientific details even in crisis situations, showing that she is a stickler for detail (Si). Also, she probably would not dare kill anyone, showing what I call "F-type squeamishness." I do not have all that much confidence in typing Nebula, though. I have only seen her in a crisis situation, in which characters often act unusually compared to their normal personality. 

Rac: Seems like an IN__.

Nebula's boyfriend is a "really smart," "nerdy noodle" who "[t]ends to be skittish and awkward at times." Being skittish and awkward suggests introversion. While there is only a weak correlation between intelligence and MBTI (specifically, iNtuition), there is a strong correlation between nerdiness and being an IN__ type.[citation not needed] Rac’s "fears" include "[s]paghettification" and "black holes in general," which are an unusually abstract subject to fear, suggesting N. His "bad habits" include "[s]econd guessing himself," showing a lack of confidence. As a research supervisor, though, he possesses a strong scientific curiosity and enough leadership skills to run his lab. Having never seen Rac's behavior, I cannot type him precisely. Any of the IN__ types could fit this description.

Starman Jr. ("Ugly," or "Ly"): Definitely ESFP.

Ly's "[s]assy and snarky" attitude, chill demeanor, and casual slang-based speaking style point to Se-dominance . So too does her low patience and risk-taking behavior, like when she threw a secret party which accidentally got Static captured. Still, she had good intentions: "I just wanted to do something nice for my friend." Still, Ly's impulsivity and good intentions do not always end poorly. In fact, they may be the only reason that Vivi is still alive.

When Ly found Vivi on a deserted planet, Ly insisted on taking Vivi aboard to heal her. Another Starman asked how they would handle Giegue's reaction, and Ly replied that "I'll figure that out when we get to that point." In other words, she had no plan (low Ni and Te), acting only on impulse (high Se and Fi). When Javik Goopi tried to throw Vivi out the airlock, Ly saved her life by standing up to Goopi, literally annoying him into stopping. It takes nearly-reckless courage to stand up to someone so powerful and unstable. Beyond that, the intentional use of annoyance for persuasion shows Fi's determination and willingness to embarrass everyone involved (compare Vivek the ENFP), whereas Fe-users would likely melt from the secondhand cringe.

Like Static's, Ly's individualist passion (auxiliary Fi) is accomplished through a facade of toughness (tertiary Te). After all, she is "practically the only one who can pretty much talk trash to Goopi’s face and not be killed for it." Her high Fi often causes righteous indignation. Combined with her tough demeanor, this makes her take no BS from anons ("Screw you! Nobody asked for your two cents, bub") who try to help Goopi or from inexplicably hostile mooks. Those show no Fe politeness, even though Fi makes Ly "willing to sacrifice [her] safety" for her friends' at the drop of a hat because of how much she cares about them.

Unlike Static, Ly lacks the eccentric cleverness of Ne — but she makes up for it with Se's down-to-earth decisiveness. Also, contrast their speaking styles: Ly's tends to have more "shortcuts," like dropping letters from the front ("worried 'bout," "lost track of 'em,") or end of words ("somethin' to," "damper on everythin'," "comin' up"). Dropping the -g from the end of words shows informality. Also, a lot of Ly's slang comes from slurred speech ("wanna," "gotta," "gonna," "outta") — and "ain't." Those all shorten words to make them more convenient, but also sound "unrefined," for lack of a better less pretentious word. At least among CogDis OCs, that style is a dead giveaway for Se-dominance (compare Boson, Juice, Rigby, and Szortski). Sensors are more likely to view language only as a tool, making them more straightforward. In contrast, iNtuitors also like to play with it, which is why — unlike Ly — Static really, really loves puns. 

Static: Definitely ENFP.

See full analysis for details. also i totally would've called that this "noodle" is a hugger. wait now i want to hug her :S

Vivineeh ("Vivi"): Probably ISFJ, maybe INFP.

I have tried to figure out which of those two types this "adorable" and "precious" (seriously, she is absurdly cute) noodle is for sooo long! Either typing could explain that she is "timid," "[w]ill cry at just about anything," and "super sensitive," since those come generally from I_F_. Likewise, either typing could explain that she "likes [b]eing kind, ... being around children, ... hugs, soft and/or fluffy things, [and] anything she finds cute." Sentimentality, enjoyment of receiving affection, and compassion can suggest high Fi or high Fe.

The evidence that I have seen barely tips the scales towards ISFJ. Vivi "always tries to be super nice and polite," because "she dislikes making others feel bad," and she loves making friends. Wanting everyone to be happy is generally a trait of high Fe-users, as is indiscriminate positivity — especially politeness, which shows an intuitive submission to social norms. Fi is typically less prone to share its feelings, more selective about them, and defiant of social norms like politeness. Finally, the "fearful" Vivi frequently worries and is easily scared/offended by dark humor, suggesting low Ne. I have already mentioned why inferior Ne causes worrying, and dark humor is appreciated by high Ne-users (compare Ano and Static) but offends Si's often-purist sensibilities. Finally, unlike other CogDis-related IN_Ps, Vivi does not show absentminded or eccentric behavior (contrast Keter, Loris, Niiue, and Origen).

Now consider the evidence for INFP. One might think that Vivi's social awkwardness suggests dominant Fi, because Fe is more socially adept. Yet ISFJs can often be socially awkward too, especially when caused by inferior Ne caution (compare Yi the ISFJ "just being awkward"). The contrast between Vivi's personality and J's also makes her seem like an INFP, because it seems unlikely that they share the same dominant function. Typing by analogy is weak evidence, though, and different extraverted-judging functions (Te vs. Fe) can cause a huge difference in demeanor. At first I though Vivi did not show Si-dominance because I had not seen her show its common (and admittedly stereotypical) traits like obedience to authority or effective detailed memory, but she shows both (PMs with @ecstaticshli​ 2018-06-22). While many parts of her culture "sicken and unnerve" her, as one would expect more from a Fi- or Ni-dominant repulsed at their society, she inherited most of her beliefs from her caretaker Marair. Like most ISFJs, most of her values are inherited from her family.

I am not entirely confident in an ISFJ typing, though. Vivi "likes ... trying new things, learning, [and] visiting new planets," which suggests high Ne. While Si-dominants can love learning, especially if it involves fact-collecting (compare Ore), they generally do not like trying new things. I cannot explain why Vivi likes trying new things, such as visiting new planets, using an ISFJ typing. In fact, she can be downright "adventurous" if she does not feel threatened (PMs 06-22). Similarly, Vivi's "hopeless romantic" idealism is more common among daydreaming INFPs than concrete ISFJs. As a Geik, Vivi seems more like an ISFJ, but as a Gieeg, she seems more like an INFP — but since they are the same character (PMs 06-22), I cannot type them differently.

Alright, that concludes my analysis of @askgoopi​ and @askthewaywardaliens​! Unless I forgot any characters. I considered including some of the other Starmen who serve under Goopi, and probably ought to add the Last Starman featured in recent posts —  especially since he may have a type very rare to CogDis (canon and fan-) characters. But since most of them appear almost exclusively in the background, have minimal dialogue, and lack Charahub entries, I realized that I would not have enough material to make a guess at their personality types.

I am unsure whose characters I will analyze next. Hopefully it will take less time to post the next part of Finalysis. Until then, goodnight!

[sowingseedsandshootinghoops]

Rumi: Lover of God

Note on the text: I used Reynold A Nicholson’s 3 volume translation of The Mathnawi of Jalaluddin Rumi as published by EJW Trust. All citations are given in the following manner with book number in roman numerals and the lines in Arabic numerals. So a quotation of book 5 line 100 would look like V. 100.

“Choose the love of the living one who is ever lasting, who [gives the wine of everlasting life]. Choose the love of Him from whose love all the prophets gained power and glory. Do not say ‘We have no admission to that King’. Dealings with the generous are not difficult” (I. 220). 

There is a lot to write about here. Even as one tries to write about one thing, a million others seem to pop out at the seams. So in many ways, after much toil, it became obvious that the only theme one could write about without producing a book that is as long as the Mathnawi itself was the theme that stretches throughout the whole book: being one with God.

There is a lot to unpack here. In the third book of this six book epic Rumi writes that “although the final object of man is knowledge of God. . . .Yet every man hath a particular place of worship” (III. 2992). Some could argue this is one of the central themes of the whole work. Rumi believes that the purpose of every man (or woman) is to know God and that everyone has the ability to reach God in his or her own way. Every one can reach God according to the principles of his or her own creed. One does not have to be Muslim or Christian or anything else to reach God because God is bigger than all religions and calls to everyone in different ways.

The reason that Rumi speaks this way about God is because he believes that God is one. Meaning that there is no “Christian God” or “Muslim God” or “Jewish God”. There is just God: “In things spiritual there is no division” (I. 680). That means that God, as the giver life of Life, is the source of everything. It was through God that we were all given life and it is to God that we are all drawn. So although we, as humans, might think that Christians are being drawn to a different God than Muslims are, Rumi argues that this is simply not the case.

Rumi further draws out this point by using the example of the light of a candle: “If ten lamps are present in one place, each differs in form from [the others, but] to distinguish, without doubt, the light of each when you turn your face towards their light is impossible” (I. 680). The important part of a candle, especially in the pre-electric light bulb world, is the light. The entire structure of the candle is there solely for the purpose of creating and maintaining that light. So what Rumi is saying is that important part of the candle, namely the light, you won’t see the individual candles at all. Instead you’ll just see the one big light that all the candles are generating. It’s just the same as when you see a wave in the ocean. You don’t see every drop of water, you just see the wave. And if for some reason you can see every drop of water in that wave then not only are you standing way too close, but you actually are not seeing the wave for what it actually is. It is the same with God. One light, which results in millions of different candles; one wave which results in millions of drops of water. The problem is that humans are so focused on the particulars, on this water molecule versus that one, that they cannot see the bigger picture. They cannot see how the wave connects all those molecules together, or how all of us are connected together in God. In another part of the book, he tells another story that illustrates this point:

A certain man gave a dirham  to four persons. One of them, a Persian, said: ‘I will spend this on angur’. The second one was an Arab who said: ‘No, I want inab, not angur you rascal!’ The third was a Turk and he said: ‘I don’t want inab I want uzum’. The fourth, a Greek, said ‘Stop this [foolish] talk, I want istaful.’ These people began fighting [and were] in contention with each other because they were unaware of the hidden meanings of the names. In their folly they smote each other with their fists. They were full of ignorance and empty of knowledge” (II. 3680-3685).  

The joke here is that they all actually want the same thing: grapes. They think that each of them wants something different, and is trying to get something different, but in reality they are all trying to get the same thing. It’s the same with God. We all have different names for Him and think therefore that those who don’t call Him by the same name that we do are pursuing something or someone else but that isn’t true. For Rumi there is only one God even though there are different religions.

No one person, or even a group of people, can say that they alone truly understand God. Rather each person can only understand a part of God. At this point Rumi tells a rather famous story about a group of people who go into a dark room to see an elephant for the first time. But the room is so dark that they have to resort to using their hands to feel the elephant and thus they all have different, and seemingly contradictory, ways of describing this one animal:

The hand of one fell upon its trunk [and] he said: ‘This creature [must be] like a water pipe!’. The hand of another touched its ear [and] to him it appeared as a fan. Since another’s landed on its leg [that person] said, ‘I have found the elephant’s shape to be like that of a pillar. [The fourth person] laid his hand on its back and said ‘Truly this elephant is like a throne’” (II. 1260-1265).

It’s worth noting that not only that each person could only see the elephant from his own perspective, but that everything they each said was technically true even when it appeared to contradict the testimony of one of the others. The same is true of God. Our minds are like the men in the dark room, unable to fully realize what is in front of them. So we reach out, grope, and investigate as best we can and form our idea of who God from our experiences of Him. It’s not that anyone is “more wrong” than anyone else, it’s that we aren’t able to step back and see God fully for what he is. And we aren’t meant to. We are not built for that. So whatever it is that God want us to do, however it is that God wants us to unite with Him, it cannot be through knowing Him intellectually because that is impossible. As was said before, we cannot really know Him. The answer, as it turns out, is love. God wants us to unite to Him not through intellectual knowledge of Him, but through love of Him.

No where does Rumi make this case more explicitly, or more beautifully, then in the second book through a conversation between Moses and God. In this conversation God is rebuking Moses for chastising a shepherd who was praying to God in a way that Moses thought was improper:

I have bestowed on everyone a particular way of acting. I have given to everyone a particular form of expression.In regards to [the shepherd his method of praying] is worthy of praise [but if you prayed in that way it would be] worthy of blame. [There are no right or wrong ways of worshiping me]. In the [land of the Hindus] the idiom of Hinduism is appropriate. In [the land of the Sindians] the idiom of Sind is praiseworthy. . . I look not at the tongue [or words of a man] but at the inward spirit and state of feeling. I gaze into the heart to see if it be lowly though the words may not be. Because the heart is the substance [and the words are only an] accident. The accident is subservient, the substance is the real object [of importance] (II. 1750-760).  

Rumi then ends this discussion by emphasizing for the reader how much more important it is for the reader to communicate their love for God in whatever way they can than it is for them to worry about whether they are doing it in “the right way” as dictated by others, including society at large because “to lovers there is a burning which consumes them at every turn. . . If he, the lover, speaks faultily, do not call him faulty. . . . The religion of Love is apart from all other religions: for lovers the only true religion and creed is God [who is the Beloved]”  (II. 1765-1770).

So the way to unite with God is to allow yourself to fall in love with Him. To become a true lover of God. How does one do that? By going out and trying with every fiber of your being to become one with his love by going out and trying to be united with him in love. Just like how “he that searches after wisdom becomes a fountain of wisdom” he who searches after God and his love becomes a manifestation of that love (I. 1065). And if you don’t know how to love God properly that is ok; just start with what you know: “Do service to God, that perchance then you might become a lover” (V. 2730). As Thomas Merton once famously said: “Lord, I don’t know if what I am doing actually pleases you, but I do know that my desire to please you does indeed please you”. If all you know how to love God is by going to Mass then do that; if the only way you know how to love God is by being a good mother or father than do that! It doesn’t matter where you start. God calls us all to become one with Him in different ways. We all have different paths to follow, but the important thing is that the more we strive to be one with God in love, the more successful we will be in that endeavor.

So it turns out becoming one with God does not mean knowing him in the intellectual sense, but becoming one with Him in love. It means letting yourself fall in love with God and be held by that love. Because, as has been said many times, in many different languages, through many different philosophies and theologies all the way back to time immemorial, all you need is love. That is what really makes the world go round