[hero/shadow = still #1 OTP. le sigh]
Jan. 23rd, 2006 03:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaI've just finished 'Wolfskin' by Juliet Marillier, and while it's interesting and I like the main characters (one of which is the Plucky and Strong Yet Fragile and Feminine Heroine), I can't help it... the most intriguing part of the book is the bond between the straightforward, kind yet quick-to-anger warrior boy and the snarky, cunning, needy, lonely yet ruthless sociopathic boy whom he shared a blood-oath of friendship with during their childhood. Mmmm. The warrior-boy's denseness and simplicity and loyalty set against the other's insecurity and need to prove himself and sheer single-minded desire to get what he -wants-... oh, it's like music to my ears.... And yes, I admit, in its basest elements it's really proto!H/D to me.
And much as I understand these two are 'straight' both by author intent and common sense in context of their times and history, I can't help it-- I can't help but feel -this- is the more striking love-story, no matter how honestly heterosexual the warrior boy may be. This is the archetypal relationship between Hero and Shadow, and to me, nothing could really equal it in meaning or intensity, since it represents the basic union of Light and Dark of everyone's nature.
It occurred to me that the reason I'm so very fascinated strikes to the very heart of the reason of why I slash, why close male friendship means so much to me-- and the emotional stuntedness and closed-in inability of the latter boy to communicate his real self sort of underlines the 'normal' situation. It's almost like-- almost like -all- boys are a little sociopathic compared to ourselves (the girls, I mean); it's like they're often this closed in and verbally eloquent about everything but what lies in their hearts, so scared and insecure and ruthless in their defensiveness.
It also reminded me of the exchange I recently had with![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
fictualities about being able to see the surviving 'half' of a pairing happy after the 'end'-- in a situation like with Frodo and Sam, where Frodo had little left to give before he'd finally departed and Sam had his wife and children. In my natural inclination, I'd say 'settling' is bad, even if the person is unaware they're settling for something 'lesser' or not as intense and deeply vital. I'd rather a character be miserable with the one they can't bear to love or lose than content with the one who merely makes them uncomplicatedly happy. But then, I'm rather perverse. -.-
I was thinking (with some chagrin), of how friends normally tend to make you uncomplicatedly happy, especially female friends (in my experience). If a friend isn't monumentally messed up, your relationship isn't likely to be fraught or angsty in terms of betrayals and secrets and overall tragedy, though clearly misunderstandings and resentments are normal. Uh, this is all 'in my experience'. And so, perhaps this is only the life of a relatively tame, easy-going female like myself-- men are much more likely to hold things back, to be eaten up by ambition and divided loyalties and duties, to be rotted from the inside with feelings they simply -can't- express, to be-- emotional basketcases, basically. And of course... of course, that's why I love them.
More to the point, that's why I love to slash them, leaving aside the hot boysex for a sec.
I can't really imagine a healthy relationship here, and can't guarantee this rift in the boy's soul can be mended with the love and faith another clueless boy can offer, but oh-- oh-- the very idea. The possibility. It is like the dream of somehow bridging the gulf between Self and Other; more desperate and dark than any mere love-story, but also more painfully close to the heart, perhaps.
And much as I understand these two are 'straight' both by author intent and common sense in context of their times and history, I can't help it-- I can't help but feel -this- is the more striking love-story, no matter how honestly heterosexual the warrior boy may be. This is the archetypal relationship between Hero and Shadow, and to me, nothing could really equal it in meaning or intensity, since it represents the basic union of Light and Dark of everyone's nature.
It occurred to me that the reason I'm so very fascinated strikes to the very heart of the reason of why I slash, why close male friendship means so much to me-- and the emotional stuntedness and closed-in inability of the latter boy to communicate his real self sort of underlines the 'normal' situation. It's almost like-- almost like -all- boys are a little sociopathic compared to ourselves (the girls, I mean); it's like they're often this closed in and verbally eloquent about everything but what lies in their hearts, so scared and insecure and ruthless in their defensiveness.
It also reminded me of the exchange I recently had with
fictualities about being able to see the surviving 'half' of a pairing happy after the 'end'-- in a situation like with Frodo and Sam, where Frodo had little left to give before he'd finally departed and Sam had his wife and children. In my natural inclination, I'd say 'settling' is bad, even if the person is unaware they're settling for something 'lesser' or not as intense and deeply vital. I'd rather a character be miserable with the one they can't bear to love or lose than content with the one who merely makes them uncomplicatedly happy. But then, I'm rather perverse. -.-I was thinking (with some chagrin), of how friends normally tend to make you uncomplicatedly happy, especially female friends (in my experience). If a friend isn't monumentally messed up, your relationship isn't likely to be fraught or angsty in terms of betrayals and secrets and overall tragedy, though clearly misunderstandings and resentments are normal. Uh, this is all 'in my experience'. And so, perhaps this is only the life of a relatively tame, easy-going female like myself-- men are much more likely to hold things back, to be eaten up by ambition and divided loyalties and duties, to be rotted from the inside with feelings they simply -can't- express, to be-- emotional basketcases, basically. And of course... of course, that's why I love them.
More to the point, that's why I love to slash them, leaving aside the hot boysex for a sec.
I can't really imagine a healthy relationship here, and can't guarantee this rift in the boy's soul can be mended with the love and faith another clueless boy can offer, but oh-- oh-- the very idea. The possibility. It is like the dream of somehow bridging the gulf between Self and Other; more desperate and dark than any mere love-story, but also more painfully close to the heart, perhaps.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-26 01:53 am (UTC)I didn't mean to imply a contradiction between introversion and role-playing per se (lots of introverts become actors -because- the distancing allows more social freedom), but certain kinds of emotional introverts... I dunno, actually, because in a way writing/reading/day-dreaming the way I do is also 'role-playing', it's just that I'm still -after- The Truth or whatever. It's more about the process than the arrival; more about the awareness that this-and-this is *not* true than the certainty that *that* is. Heh. But yeah, this is all rather fuzzy :D But wheee, I like me some fuzzy :D
Interesting wide theory starting points would be this interview (http://www.innerexplorations.com/catpsy/a.htm) and this theory article (http://creativity.chaosmagic.com/custom.html) that sort of gives a grounding in the components that go into the creation of 'types' (ie, Jungian psych). To sort out whether you're INFP or INFJ, there's actually a whole in-depth informative website (http://members.aol.com/macvjv/INFJorINFP.htm); the same person did a whole extensive type overview (http://www.typeinsights.com/) website, which context/history/archetypes/etc, though I haven't explored it as much as I could. ^^;
Basically, this all started with Jung classifying consciousness into perception, thinking, feeling & intuition, and people added extraversion/introversion as another axis early on. It works because... well, that seems like a good way of modeling/understanding personality/individual consciousness to me, I guess. But I mostly like it 'cause it -fits- even if people fool around and put on masks and aren't aware of their true 'type' (which definitely happens). Besides that, it's clear some people are just more integrated than other (ie, actively learning to be more extraverted, pay attention to their senses or intuitions more, etc). The 'type' thing is merely innately preferred mode of operation, nothing too determinant. It is also typical of INFPs both to resist this categorization and to be interested in it as a pattern :D
This (http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/infp.html) was, I thought, a fascinating breakdown into inner-persona symbolage of INFP/others (and you can see we *do* contain all modes of functioning within ourselves, they just serve different functions). This (http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/mb-types/infp.htm) is a helpful summary/bulletpoint overview of how you'd recognize an INFP/other types and how they'd appear in stress or to others. Other 'profiles' of INFP I liked (just to see if they fit, because I can't judge as closely for other types) is this (http://www.murraystate.edu/secsv/fye/INFP.htm) and this (http://www.typelogic.com/infp.html), the latter because it creates categories/names the relationships between each type (ie, mentor, anima, complement-- which I find an interesting jumping off point). This (http://www.ranshawconsulting.com/infp.htm) seemed interesting for a completely corporate/work-related view of types, though this book excerpt (http://www.psychometrics.com/downloads/pdf/samplefiromb.pdf) goes into much more leadership-profiling detail for the INFP type.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-26 02:03 am (UTC)Hee! Me too. :) I didn't mean to jump all over this, it maybe sounded not fuzzy enough so it alarmed me!
And thank you for the multiple links. I will probably read them tomorrow since I am running on far too little sleep right now (which is also liberating when it comes to the fuzzy stuff, happily). But I have to laugh when you say that INFP's resist being categorized as INFPs, so maybe that's my problem! Though I went to the links at your Gandhi site and apparently I misstated a little bit because I had misremembered -- I mostly score INFP but sometimes INTJ, not INFJ, and E/I is somewhat of a close call for me, but N on S/N is probably the most marked tendency. FWIW.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-26 02:21 am (UTC)Perhaps the most concise starting point for the theory behind it so far is actually this link (http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/tt/t-articl/mb-dynam.htm), from the same site as with the bulleted lists I mentioned :> I have a weakness for bulleted lists, but this is also rather visual and clear-cut seeming (even though it's actually a pretty fuzzy issue, but you may as well start out from clear-cut & work towards fuzzier).
You should also trust me not to thrust something overly certain at you :D I'd rebel myself way before I'd learn much about it if it was actually like that, ahahah. My 'feel' is that you seem INFP, whatever skills and integrated qualities you also possess, but that's my fly-by estimate, of course; to look into your soul I'd haveta charge :>