#i may be oversimplifying or misremembering some of that

[sonic-adventure-3]

remember sonic riders zero gravity? i wanna think about sonic riders zero gravity for a second. that plot was entirely insane. the sonic riders duology went from special race to prove who’s the fastest as a plot to steal the chaos emeralds -> ancient babylonia is unearthed and babylonians are decendants of genies, to eggman created a whole y2k themed city and can completely control it using a meteorite except for some of them who got struck by another meteorite that caused them to go on a global rampage and amd wants all the meteorites so he can control all the robots in the world also did i mention he does all this using a shell company (most evil thing hes done) -> babylon garden implodes into a huge spaceship and black hole and threatens to destroy the world until sonic and co beat up the huge robot that is the spaceship and outrun the black hole also birds are aliens

zero gravity is to riders what shth05 is to sa2. whats up with all the retconning aliens into things. wait they did that with frontiers too didn’t they. WHATS UP WITH ALL THE REVEALING THINGS ARE ACTUALLY ALIENS

[jeannereames]

Hello again, Dr. Reames. This post about the hero's journey across world cultures but especially in Ancient Greece has been going viral on tumblr. As both a writer of fiction set in the ancient world and an academic, do you think the hero's journey holds any merit? Especially in regards to the Illiad?

So first, thank you for that link and sorry for the delayed reply. I enjoyed reading the post, and agree with her for the most part, but there is a very useful comment (I’m not sure I’d quite call it a rebutting) from Ian Robinson in the notes. His reply offers several useful points about, et al., masterplots and correctives to her take on Campbell, which is a bit narrow, although the Frazier/Campbell/Jung approach to myth has long been recognized as problematic, beginning with Levi-Strauss. So I’d suggest that those who read her post also read his comment, as he gives some good additional bibliography. There are some other good comments, but I’d specifically point to that one. Unless I really misremember Campbell, I don’t think he’s suggesting the Hero’s Journey is the only sort of myth out there. That would be oversimplifying him and creating a stick-man argument, which is where I might ding her analysis.

Walter Burkert (and his students, et al.) have noted that similarity in myths may owe more than a bit to some basic similarities in human experience due to human biology. So, we get a goodly number of coming-of-age stories/myths and accompanying rites of passage. Similarly, marriage is another commonality. There’s only one culture that doesn’t have marriage (if my anthro class memories serves); but what “marriage” entails, and who may marry whom, varies quite a lot over cultures. Death and funerals/mourning are another commonality strongly hedged by culture-specific details, along with birth and fertility rites. We can include also anniversary and commemorative rites, feasting and fasting, even water rituals. These all cross the globe in myth and religion. Thus, our very humanness produces similarities of experience, although details are shaped by culture.

Additionally, throughout history, human beings have tended to look for points of commonality when facing difference—a purchase to grab onto, if you like. We’ve been doing this for millennia, right down to: “Your god seems like my god, just with a different name.” Difference is occluded to focus on the similarity.

I don’t think that’s a bad thing. It promotes connection…and empathy. It’s only problematic when difference is not just ignored but erased and replaced. That happens too. The Greeks (and later Romans) were notorious for ignoring other people’s names and categories in favor of their own… but so were the Egyptians, and the Chinese. This is not simply a white Western/European fault. It’s a Center-Periphery phenomenon. And it may be the height of white Western/European privilege to assume they’re the only ones guilty of doing it!

All that said, we do find some common … themes? ... across myths. Trickster figures, for instance—perhaps because they make us laugh. But a culture that doesn’t have one isn’t “lacking,” nor do all tricksters look/act the same. Humor can be a very cultural thing. That’s just one example of a “semi-universal” mythical motif.

So, in short, I don’t see a problem with utilizing the Hero’s Journey as a useful frame in storytelling. But I would say that we may need to learn new stories too, as writers.

My current WIP (work-in-progress) is a 6-volume epic fantasy that turns the conquest narrative on its head. One (of the two) main characters transforms from “Master of Battles” to “Mother of Peace.”

Writing it has presented me with some narrative-arc struggles, most notably writing “battles that aren’t.” E.g., an expected battle that doesn’t come to pass/is short-circuited in some way. I mean to challenge the notion that “glorious conflict/combat” is a necessary conclusion for a story arc. Yet that runs the risk of annoying readers who complain of bait-and-switch. Nonetheless, the point IS that a peaceful solution may be the true victory. How to do that involves maintaining enough narrative TENSION even if battle isn’t the resolution of that tension.

That’s a different sort of story, and entails bucking millennia of narrative expectations. Of course there are other forms of story (metaplots) that don’t even involve a (big) battle at all, but I’m specifically trying to subvert that one. That means I must rethink dramatic tension. (Hopefully successfully.)

In any case, I offer it as an example of the struggle any storyteller faces when swimming against the current of reader/listener/viewer expectations. Especially when those expectations are formed by the freight of human storytelling tradition. We are “programmed,” if you will, to expect certain things out of any given plot arc. One ignores that—or in my case, deliberately flaunts it—to one’s peril.

[pdid-culture-is]

Not P-DID Culture, but we want to give some info about a specific thing we see repeated a lot (if you don’t mind)

A while ago, an anon sent an and saying: “the point of the disorder is to have other consciousnesses be able to take over for you to help you survive” and that’s a common sentiment repeated in the larger system community…but, while true for some, that’s not quite accurate

Before we explain, five things are worth noting:

We’re not calling anyone out! This is just a thing we’ve seen repeated in system communities (over and over again) and it’s not 100% accurate and wanted to bring that up

We’re explaining two models/theories. There are others not mentioned

These are models/theories that try to explain things

For the sake of like simplicity, not writing a wall of text and whatnot, everything we’re going to say is a highly oversimplified explanation (also we’re human and might be misremembering things)

These won’t necessarily be applicable to everyone— everyone’s different and unique and there’s always exceptions (among other things)

TLDR though: most of the theories/models we’re read describe the point of (most) DID/OSDD/PDID systems as “it was (originally) created as a coping mechanism” (rather than “have others be able to take over to help you survive” specifically. There can be— and seemingly often is— overlap between the two, but not always with the main example being us PDID system)

Theory of Structural Dissociation (extremely simplified)

The Theory of Structural Dissociation (ToSD) is the current “main” theory when it comes to dissociation. It is a theory, which people have opinions on, and may or may not end up being replaced by another in the next decade

An extremely simplified explanation of ToSD is that: there’s an assumption that no one is born fully integrated and that one typically naturally becomes integrated (into one coherent and cohesive being) over time. This did not happen, however, in systems and dissociative barriers develop (these are the things tend to lead to alters and whatnot)

From what we’ve understood, ToSD says that the point is that the mind didn’t integrate and develop dissociative barriers in order to cope. Switching isn’t the point; it’s a thing that can (but not always) happen because of it

(Note: ToSD also discusses PTSD, CPTSD and other dissociative disorders. We, however, have extremely simplified it for the sake of this ask. For more details/info, that’s still easy to comprehend, we recommend the CTAD’s video (on YouTube) on the topic and/or DIS-SOS (website)’s articles on it (and the one about ego states vs dissociative states in particular since we found that article has the best explanation))

As a Coping Mechanism

To our knowledge, this is not an “official” theory/model (in the psych field), but we personally like it. This says that the point of the disorder(s) is, in short, it being a coping mechanism (and, as an extension, how one’s system function is the coping mechanism)

For some people, the coping mechanism the brain created is a system that involves switching…

For others, the brain “decided” (so to speak) that the best coping mechanism is a system with barely, if any, switching for whatever reason (e.g., maybe the brain thought creating other alters and giving them the memories/feelings/etc was enough and/or that switching was unnecessary; maybe the brain thought that being a system was the best coping mechanism, but that switching itself would be dangerous [as in it could cause more problems/not be something that would help the system cope])

We— or, at least, I (the host)— like this…whatever this is considered…because it helped us understand our system better (it was a very “oooooh. That makes so much sense suddenly” moment for me lol)

(This all being said, we do want to once again mention that these aren’t necessarily applicable to everyone. For example, ToSD articles/books/etc usually have some form of “we’re not looking at/referring to cultural and/or spiritual related multiplicity” disclaimer)

!!! Not much to add, I'm really tired, but thank you! That also makes sense to us, pretty helpful!

[iconiczuko]

I can get behind what you're saying to some extent, but the problem with this argument is that it ignores the variation within our community. trans men are a very diverse group. you'd be hard-pressed to define a singular experience or narrative that all trans men can relate to. we come out and 'transition' at a wide range of different ages, so to say that trans men, uniformly, have grown up as "girls" is quite reductive.

the extent to which any given trans man will experience misogyny or have access to male privilege is dependent on many other factors outside of his trans status. the gendered experiences of trans men are typically harder to generalize than the experiences of cis men. because we come to terms with our own masculinity at different ages and in differemt contexts, the social structures we interact with way may not always be congruent with the experiences of other trans men.

a trans boy who comes out at a young age will likely avoid ever being the target of sexualized misogyny, which may not be the case for in a trans man who comes out later in life. a trans man who has been out, passing, or stealth for decades may forget or misremember how it felt to experience sexism firsthand. some trans men currently experience misogyny, and to some trans men misogyny is a distant memory. some trans men have access to male privilege, and some trans men have never benefited from it.

saying that trans masculinity is a "completely different experience of manhood" works when you're talking about trans men like yourself who come out after puberty or are still in the process of 'transitioning', but it's not an all-encompassing rule. you're presenting your own relationship with gender as the experiences of our community as a whole.

yes, many trans men will have a more complicated relationship with gender than their cis counterparts. but acting like trans masculinity is /inherently/ different from cis masculinity incorrectly oversimplifies the issue.

why saying “trans men are men” as a dismissive statement comparing them to cis men is harmful:

i was first wolf-whistled at 11 years old by a man in a passing car, and was frightened and sick to my stomach. the creeping, sickening dread that comes with realising men are beginning to see you as an object for consumption is terrifying. walking down a dark street with keys between my fingers, being touched suggestively by drunk men at social gatherings, consoling my childhood friend after she was sexually assaulted and trying to help her find the confidence to press charges - these were things i had experienced firsthand through having a “girl’s” childhood and adolescence.

6 months into hormone replacement therapy i continue to experience misogyny firsthand from those who perceive me in my day to day as a masculine woman. i experience homophobia both from those who perceive me (incorrectly) to be a butch lesbian and those who perceive me (correctly) to be a gay man. i experience transphobia from those who can place me as a trans man, who see my high waist and hint of breasts and pubescent stubble and hear a mans voice from my mouth. even when i pass as a man completely i have to be on edge, i cant speak to a cishet man without worrying that he will take issue with however he could interpret my appearance and confront it, potentially violently.

i am a man, but i was brought up as a girl, and that has intimately shaped the way i experience and portray masculinity. denying what i experienced growing up as a “girl” would be essentially denying things that made me into the person i am today. trans men are men, yes, but its a completely different experience of manhood, and equating it to a cishet male experience is not only objectively wrong but also harmful, as it ignores the struggle, isolation & marginalisation that comes with being a trans man