#perhaps SM assumed his life really was perfect pre-Keeper and he never would have had intense enough emotions to start internalizing?

[uni-seahorse-572]

Internalization vs. Externalization & Keeper

this ended up longish, fair warning. I’m going to go ahead and tag everyone who expressed interest: @gay-otlc, @if-only-wishes-were-answered, @keepersofthelostbullhorn, @spellbound-fire, @simpbito

~

~

In KOTLC, Keefe and Fitz represent a fascinating dichotomy also present in society as a whole. 

As an oversimplification, most people tend to either externalize or internalize their mental health issues and emotions. Those who tend to internalize repress it all, refusing to seek help, holding it together outwardly while also deteriorating inwardly. Those who tend to externalize lash out and hurt those around them. I’d like to emphasize that I’m not here addressing which one is “better” - they’re both simply ways to cope with difficult emotions and affect people in different ways. 

It’s easy to assign Fitz the externalized method of coping. The fandom may theorize that he has unaddressed issues from the pressure of his upbringing, but in canon, his emotions are completely externalized in times of major strife. 

Keefe seems a little more difficult at first. After all, his actions are so often drastic and negatively impact those around him, right?

What I’d like to argue is that this doesn’t matter. Part of internalization is the fact that it primarily focuses the hurt on the person who’s doing the internalizing. They lack any way to let their emotions out, and thus when their facade cracks others may see a glimpse of what they’re going through. Furthermore, internalization can lead emotions to boil over as they’re being repressed instead of dealt with, at which point they do harm those around the person in question. Sounds like Keefe. 

Here’s where society comes in: we glorify internalization over externalization. This connects to the whole “go in even if you’re sick” mentality that, well, kind of really backfired. (please note: when I say society, I am here discussing American society. I can’t speak for other cultures, though if anyone has more knowledge on how a different culture regards externalization vs. internalization I’d love to hear your thoughts). 

Among the mentally ill, the false perception that one must somehow prove their mental state to deserve help causes major issues. What this means is that people will attempt to internalize their problems until they can’t anymore, with the idea that what they’re going through is only “real” if they can no longer keep it hidden and someone else notices. This repression of feelings is legitimately dangerous. 

On the other hand, people who externalize are often blamed for any outbursts they may have. This occurs especially frequently if all it takes is something small to push them over, as they’re seen as overreacting even though it’s more related to having problems no one else can see than anything else. Emotions that are externalized are often treated as if there’s nothing deeper behind them.

Heroes in general who don’t care about their well-being are hailed. Sacrifice is hailed. Characters who are angry are demonized, and while anger is a major and damaging problem to many, when was the last time you saw a character who struggles with anger who wasn’t morally grey at best? How often do you see depictions of those who get angry, occasionally to the point where it’s controlling them, as just... people who aren’t perfect?

In all honesty, Shannon Messenger herself handled this pretty well. Fitz is often made to apologize in ways Keefe isn’t, but the narrative as a whole is pretty understanding of both of them. We can also see how Fitz’s externalization does lead to disastrous fury but also means that’s both released and obvious, instead of festering into a huge mistake like it does with Keefe. Grady is a good example of this as well, as someone who gets protectively angry and may go too far once in a while but still means well and is a good father and husband. This complex representation of anger isn’t all that common. 

But it’s the way that the fandom reacts to the two of them that’s revealing. 

Fitz receives an incredible amount of hatred for his anger. By many, it’s viewed as toxic towards those he cares about. Among many, the general consensus seems to be that he’s so privileged he needs to stop getting so angry because everything isn’t perfect and be quiet (allegedly because “Keefe has it worse”, yet so many things have happened to the Vackers that if Fitz internalized his emotions I believe the hatred wouldn’t be near as much of an issue). Depending on the site you go on, there’s a good amount of blatant bashing in fics and comments, largely centered on somehow both his anger and apparent perfection at once - would they view internalization of feelings a legitimate flaw that makes him complex and less than perfect?

Keefe, on the other hand, is embraced by most of the fandom. People talk about his trauma quite a bit from what I’ve seen, his quiet inner pain that he only lets Sophie see, that he tells her she shouldn’t have to deal with. Unlike with Fitz’s occasional bouts of anger, his penchant for running away, putting himself in danger, and his lying to Sophie isn’t, on the whole, seen as toxic. His internalization has led to a lack of self esteem and perceived worth that creates a selfless sacrificial streak too often hailed. 

Now, you may say, however, that not everyone has these opinions. But the truth is this often exists in a way that inadvertently reinforces society’s treatment of externalization and internalization. 

Those who dislike Keefe tend to focus on the ways he’s hurt others with his decisions. While this makes sense, as he doesn’t have to do much for forgiveness in the narrative, it also attempts to frame his emotional reactions as externalization. Fitz, on the other hand, is often depicted as someone who struggles with internalization, particularly when it comes to pressure. Just look on AO3 for proof - in all honesty I’m guilty of it. This interpretation of his character isn’t necessarily wrong, as it can allow authors to write what they relate to and addresses the issues Fitz must have in a way the narrative ignores, yet still focuses on internalization. 

We as a society are deeply uncomfortable with externalization. We don’t know how to discuss it. And we continue to glorify internalization.

At this time, I can’t say I have a good conclusion as to how we might try to counter this, though approaching both Fitz and Keefe from a more complex viewpoint would be a good place to start. Consider looking for this in both society and other fiction as well, perhaps. It’ll be interesting to see where Keeper itself goes going forward.