English and Writing Gender

 

My blog has basically been in a coma for a long time, and it annoys me, so I'm going to try something: From now on I'll sit down every Wednesday (because I rarely have obligations on Wednesdays at the moment) and I'll just write whatever is on my mind. No matter how trivial it may seem to me.

So, what's on my mind right now? The English language and the views on gender that the language itself carries and how other languages (in this case, Finnish) are sometimes just... not translatable at all, or parts that seem tiny but aren't, are not translatable because some mindsets just don't translate well when they are ingrained in the language.

In short: It's impossible to write in English (and many other languages) without drawing attention to people's gender. It's impossible to not see gender. Even if you decided to refer to everyone as they, people would wonder why you'd do that, so the attempt to not draw attention to gender would actually draw extra attention to it.

As a nonbinary person who grew up never having to think about pronouns, because there are no gendered pronouns in my native language, it's understandable that this bugs me to no end.

In my debut novel "Unitytöt" (Dream girls) one of the main characters originally belongs to a species that has no sex or gender. So, I ran into a problem when I was translating the back cover summary into English. The character in question, Venna, acquires a human form in the story, and appears female. I imagine that, if the characters spoke English, they would refer to Venna as "she" and I don't see why Venna would have any disagreements about that. BUT if this story had originally been written in English, then Venna's species would naturally refer to everyone as some equivalent of "they" because they have no gender. And then, as Venna appears as a girl and experiences no conflict about that, she would be called a she, and that would be a change. But in my book there is no change because no such pronouns exist.

So, my question was how to refer to Venna in the summary, because the context doesn't seamlessly translate. You could think of it in multiple ways. I could refer to Venna as they, but that would feel misleading to me, because she ends up having a feminine identity in her human form, and I don't want to trick people into thinking there's "real" nonbinary representation where there isn't. Basically, in English you only refer to people as they, if they are nonbinary or something similar, or if you don't know their gender. And the latter doesn't make any sense in the summary of my novel. So, I ended up referring to Venna as she in the summary, even though that's not technically true in the beginning. I'm not a 100% satisfied with that, but it seemed like the only option. Because in a language where everyone is constantly gendered, the only way to not draw attention to it, is to gender everyone. That is SO weird to me, but I couldn't think of other options. It's only the back cover text anyway, and you don't want to draw attention to anything that isn't actually relevant to the story.

Then there's another one of my stories, where the made up fantasy culture has a concept of gender that doesn't make any sense in English either. Basically, they don't have a concept of gender, only sex, because that's relevant for reproduction. They have no women's or men's clothing, jobs, or any kind of gender roles. Yeah, some things are more likely to be done by one sex than the other, but they don't really think about it that much. Music is a big part of that culture, so yeah, they do note that men are more likely to sing the lower voices in a choir than the women, but it's not like they make a big deal about it. Everyone just does what they're inclined to do. However, intersex people are still pretty rare, so most people have a binary concept of sex, for the most part. And here's the part where my story doesn't translate to English:

They don't care if they don't know someone's sex.

That's very easy to write with a language that only has one third-person singular pronoun. That's how I was easily able to have a character whose sex isn't known by the viewpoint characters, but no one cares.

See how this is easy to write when everyone is a "hän"? I didn't think about it at all. But when I started to consider the possibility of translating the story, it suddenly became clear to me, that if these characters spoke English, it would suddenly become clear that this one person's sex isn't known. Because people would have to call that person "they". When everyone is a "hän" and no one has gender roles then no one knows whether someone's sex is known by someone else or not, without specifically asking something like: "Hey do you think this person is a boy or girl?". But if you call other people "she" and "he" then by calling someone a "they" you make it evident that they look too androgynous for you to guess.

During the course of two novels, one character notes that they don't know this person's sex, and one other character notes that they thought it was different than what someone else thought, but these things are more like a passing thought, or an afterthought created by a specific situation. (There doesn't seem to be many such situations.) It's not something that affects their social interaction, because nobody has a concept of gender identity. Everyone treats everyone the same and while there may be some average differences in men and women, that's what they are, they are averages and people are not really aware of them much, anyway. They don't really think in terms of "men tend to sing lower voices", but rather "people with a lower voice sing these parts". If someone pointed out that these people with lower voice are mostly men, they would go like "true" and move on. It's not really something they think about, because there's no discrimination by sex. They don't need to think about it.

The only way to make this story work in English would be to call everyone "they". I see no other way to translate this culture, because if there are pronouns that refer to people's gender or sex, it's impossible to not care about what that is. The problem would be, that it would take a bit of time for the average English-speaking reader to get used to everyone being called they. It's not intuitive to most people. But it would be the only way that makes sense.

I don't know if you can tell, but this is very frustrating for me. It feels exactly like trying to shove a rectangular block into a round hole.

I love English, but I hate gendered language. It's so unnecessary for the most part. Even in my own case, it's like... I have to choose a pronoun now, after growing up assuming people aren't magically so different that you have to point it out constantly when you speak about them? I'm a she?? I'm a he?? I'm a they?? What the heck does that even mean, like really? It all feels like completely unnecessary role playing to me.

I love to think back on my first English class at school when I was 9. Because no one got it, so you can't just blame the fact that I happen to be autistic, for me not getting it. Everyone looked so confused for having different pronouns for boys and girls. Everyone thought it was weird. People kept mixing the pronouns up long after the first class. And I hate being essentially forced to adapt into this mindset, English being the lingua franca and constantly coming out of all our devices. I don't hate English, I really do love it, I think it's a beautiful language, but I really dislike this aspect of it. (I know French and some other languages are even worse.)

I do respect people's pronouns, but I LOVE that in my native language and every day life I don't have to think about them.

Different types of selflessness

I guess this was triggered by a conversation I had online recently.

There are different ways to be selfless and there are different ways to be selfish. Sounds pretty obvious, I know. But, as people generally like to do with other things too, sometimes some of them get really caught up in whose way is the right way.

Particularly, right now I'm thinking about people who think the only true way of serving the world around you is to be an activist of some sort. To help the people who are the most in need, to go to the places where things are the hardest.

People generally agree that being helpful or selfless is a good thing. But there are also people who think that the only true way, or at least, the highest level of doing that, is what I described above.

And sometimes people can be really quick to judge other people's lives by this standard, without having ever met them, or knowing much about them at all.

A character who would agree with me. Her name is Venna.

Often this starts with someone either describing their "cause" to me, or asking what mine is when they assume I have one. And then I will describe the way I live my life and some of the philosophies behind it. How I don't have a singular "cause" that my life is centered around. How I care about many humanitarian and environmental issues, and do my best to live my day to day life in alignment with that. How my sister describes me to be "thinking globally and acting locally". How I'm more concerned with what is happening in my immediate surroundings, and being of help to the people who are the closest to me, or reach out to me. How I have no drive to go somewhere else or lead a campaign, and how my personality wouldn't be suited for it. How I think that I personally feel I've accomplished the most, when I've touched an individual life, when someone tells me that the way I live my life has inspired them.

This is usually when they start "disagreeing" with me, though I'm only describing my personal ways. They don't want to see us as equals with different life styles. They see me as "going in the right direction but not being quite there yet". As if my life style is merely a stepping stone to their life style, which is the ultimate goal.

I really don't like this kind of condescending attitude, but I will go on to explain to them how I don't think there's only one way to help the world around you. How some people are more suited to take on leadership roles, how some are more suited to be an activist, and how some are more suited to take care of what's right in front of them. It all comes down to personality and motivation. How I also don't think that helping the one most in need is what everyone should always be focused on. Of course it has to work that way in things like health care, you have to prioritize patients to keep everyone alive if possible. But I don't think that my neighbour's heartbreak is irrelevant because of "the children in Africa". (Quotations because the people who use that phrase usually don't even consider what it really means, they just like to say it for argument's sake.)

Of course I agree that wealth and resources are divided anything but evenly in the world and respect the people who are trying to do something about it in larger scale. However, I also don't agree that everyone should be focused on that, because if I was helping the "children in Africa" then who would be listening to my neighbour's heartbreak? Just because she isn't dying at the moment, doesn't mean that I can't be concerned about her, or that helping her is lesser.

At this point it's usually evident that these people think I'm childish or small minded. They are so adamant that their way is the only right way.

But how did they come to the conclusion that their "cause" is the most urgent one, anyway? The one that the world needs the most? Usually they don't have a clear reasoning for it. Because it's way more complex than that. They aren't doing what they do because it's "right", like they seem to think. They're doing it, because they have a personal motivation, and a drive for it.

And if I don't have a drive for it, then what good would I be for them?

Yeah, I know, they think they can awaken this drive in me, because they think it's the only way to go about life. For some reason it seems like they have to believe that what they're doing is the ultimate good, and no one else is good enough unless they're doing the same thing with their lives.

But it's not like that. Because no one knows what's the ultimate best thing for the world, and everyone has different drives and motivations. These people are not, for example, trying to make the world vegan because it's a higher calling. They're doing it, because they have the drive and the personality for it. And they shouldn't think that anyone who simply is vegan is below them, or ultimately going to become like them someday.

Trying to make big changes in the world isn't the only way to make change, and the big changes will only last if individual people will live it true in their daily lives. And this isn't a one-way process, it's more of a circle. There are different ways to help people and that should be good! I'm glad that some people are fit to lead campaigns. Just like I'm glad that some people are fit to help their neighbours and friends in their day to day problems and sorrows, like me.

And though these ways seem opposite, neither is more selfish or selfless than the other. The one that is sacrificing all their time to a cause, can be extremely selfish in the eyes of that neighbour, who only asked for a little bit of their time, for a few kind words, but they only ever have time for "the world". Just like from the eyes of the activist, the person going around helping neighbours is selfish because "they could be doing so much more with their time".

But the world just wouldn't work if everyone was the same, right? Like, there has to be people who are able to ignore people's immediate feelings around them, and focus on practical things instead. Just like there has to be people who are willing to "waste" time, and listen to personal problems. Because even if there is enough food and water for everyone, it won't matter if people are so lonely and depressed, that they're not going to want to live. The same is true the other way around too of course. Words of kindness and a listening ear alone isn't going to pay the rent.

All I'm really saying is that people have a lot of different needs, and the environment has a lot of different needs too. And I wish that people would be happy that there are different kinds of people to cater to all those different needs! It shouldn't be about who is more selfless or who is doing the most good in the world. This shouldn't be an ego issue.

And what people should realize is an ego issue, is which things in the world you're determined to make better. Just because you have a personal instead of an "absolute, unquestionable, divine" reason to do what you do, doesn't make it insignificant. Instead, after realizing that, you can help people better, because you understand what it is you're getting from it.

Sometimes I just want to tell people "Relax, you're fine, you don't have to be perfect" but I know it wouldn't help them, it would just rub them in SUCH a wrong way.

If I don't stop now this is going to get out of hand, so I'll just conclude this with a rose I drew with my left hand, and another that I drew with my right foot. Because why not.

Selfish, childish and foolish

Why is it selfish to want more?

You already have a roof over your head, you don't have to worry about your next meal, you have a family you love, great friends, you have a degree, and you have hobbies. So many people don't have these things you take for granted. You are already good enough at many things, for them to bring you joy. You should just be grateful that you've been given such a gift, so many people can't do one of the many things you can do. You shouldn't have the nerve to say you aren't good enough at something when so many people are bad at it!

But people have other needs than the very basic ones. And for some reason I should show my deep gratefulness, and how humble my privilege has made me, by denying myself anything more. Because it's selfish. Because everyone doesn't have what I have. But that means denying my humanity. It means denying myself growth and dreams. It means to stop moving forward, to stop making progress, to stop striving for greatness? And for who? No one! Denying yourself good things isn't going to help anyone in need. It's completely and solely for your own ego.

I'm so annoyed when people tell me I should be grateful I draw, or write so well. That it's selfish to say I'm not good enough. Because there are other people who don't draw or write as well as I do. But how is that selfish, when me, and those people have completely different personal standards?? When I say I'm not good enough, I obviously mean I'm not good enough (yet) for someone who is looking to write or draw for a living, I'm not saying it because I want people to convince me I'm good! It's not a cry for pity, it's a realistic and critical examination of my abilities and how much I still have to grow before I can reach my goals. I'm not comparing myself to other people but the standard I have to reach! Can't people understand the difference?

Denying yourself the wishes that are higher in the hierarchy of needs means denying your human nature, and denying the progress humanity could have through you. And for what? For your ego.

That's what I call selfish.


Why is it childish to make your own path?

Get a high education, get a job that pays well, get a man, get a house, get a kid or two or three. You shouldn't be reluctant to have so stressful job that you have no energy for your hobbies anymore, because that is completely normal. You should be serious about finding a man, otherwise, when you are older and wiser and realize you want a man, there won't be any good ones left. Of course you will want children, you silly. After all, all of these are things that everybody owes to society.

I have nothing in particular against the idea of having a high(er) education, a well paying job, and a family.

Except, that I prioritize other things. And, there are only so many hours in a day.

But why is it childish to want to create a life that suits you personally? Why am I childish for prioritizing things that make my life meaningful, like my hobbies? As if it's childish to want to be happy. As if adults aren't meant to be happy.

As if I'm not a productive member of society, if I don't make a lot of money and kids. Well, in the name of Art and Culture, I firmly believe that there are other things to contribute to society besides those two mentioned earlier.

Doing what you're "expected to do" only because most people do it, labeling things that cause some people harm as "normal" only because it doesn't cause harm to most, and believing it's the only way even when it does, because others did the same before you and didn't whine about it... expecting everyone to become adults the same way, to become the same kind of adults...

That's what I call childish.


Why is it foolish to try, against the odds?

You can't make a living out of writing or any kind of art. So few people are able to make that happen, there's no point even trying. You must get a sensible job that pays well, then you can have hobbies in your free time. But don't expect anything to come out of them. Because most people dream of a creative job. But that's just it. It's a dream! You should really get it together and stop investing so much time to things that don't pay. It's time to get serious.

Yeah, okay, but some people do make it. Some people can make a living out of their dream. Technically, I could be one of them.

But I'm not expecting to be. I'm doing what I do because it's personally fulfilling for me, in itself. I'm not dreaming about being a writer because I think it's somehow a glorious career! I'm dreaming about it, because I love writing, and I have so many stories to tell. But it's not the end of the world if I can't make a living out of it. As long as I can tell those stories.

And I am very serious, thank you very much. I'm serious about all those things that don't pay. I'm serious about the experience of reading a great book, I'm serious about every doodle that is making me draw better, and I'm serious about every ballet class where I can improve myself, even though I've always known I'm not cut out to be a dancer. I'm sorry they're not the same things you're serious about.

What baffles me is, that some people seem to think that your job should automatically be more important to you than your hobbies. That if you can't make a living out of something you should pretty much just throw it out of the window. You shouldn't even try to arrange your life the way that makes you able to do the things you truly want to do, the things that fill your life with meaning, even when they don't pay, because it's... objectively more sensible to have a lot of money than be happy?

You can't make compromises because more money is always more important than more time and energy? Just because you can't get everything you dream of, you should just... stop dreaming, and not try to even get a portion of it?

That's what I call foolish.


End of rant.

Your Characters, You, and Other People

I know this is an old topic but I thought I'd give my two cents, since I don't think this is ever really going to be outdated. The more I write, the more I get asked if a character is based on someone, usually if they're based on myself. Or if I would base a character on someone, or if there's a character who represents me. I think this is familiar to most writers and it seems like the general assumption is that writers do base their characters on real people.

It's a little funny to me. I doubt that the same people would assume that any of the standard soap opera characters they see every day on TV, would be based on real people. So, I don't think the reason for that assumption is that they can't imagine a fictional character could come from anywhere else than a real life model. I think that for some reason literature is just viewed differently. I still can't put my finger on exactly why, but I think it's mostly people who haven't really read since the required 3-4 books in high school or middle school. In that case I guess it could have something to do with literature's (especially with a capital L) supposed ”serious” nature. After all, what is more serious that real life?

But, they're not the only ones. Some avid readers assume, or at least ask those things all the time. And from authors whose worlds are clearly imaginary. Even J.K. Rowling has been asked if someone in her books was based on her. I think most people thought it was Harry, because they share a birthday.

So, here's another thought. Maybe some readers think that a character must be based an a real person because they find them so relatable? After all, that's the reading style I most often see in people. They like to read about something and someone they relate to. If they're not writers themselves, it doesn't seem weird to assume that a character who seems so realistic to them personally, would be based on a particular person.

That could be one reason, but actually it still doesn't explain my case, or probably that of most writers. After all, the people who usually ask it, or assume that my characters are based on me or someone else, have never read my stories. Like one friend from university. He heard that I write and his next questions was: ”Oh, are your characters all, like, different versions of yourself?” Sometime later he told me that if he wrote, he would write about his own Gary Stu version saving the world and getting the girl of his dreams and stuff.

Actually, I think this might be it for most people. Most people aren't writers. Of course that doesn't mean they're not empathetic enough to imagine what the world would be like through someone elses eyes, that's not what I mean. I just mean that when something is foreign to you the easiest way to get to know it is through something you already know. So when they think about writing a character, it's natural to think of the person they already know the best: themselves. The next would be the people you know intimately, those would probably be your supporting characters. And then your side characters would be the people you don't really know but remember for some quirk or personality trait. And it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that others would do the same.

Not to say that all writers start like that, not at all. I certainly didn't. The first character I wrote a ”book” about was Santa Claus. I think that at least a great portion of writers are naturally interested in looking at the world from many different eyes. That's why they're writers.

None of the people with the assumptions (or possible reasons for them) mentioned so far bother me. But there is a group of people who definitely do. The ones who insist that my character must be based on me, no matter what. And usually for reasons as dumb as a matching birthday.

These people already seem to look through particular lenses: that if they find ANY similarities between me and my character, the character is basically me. This is so dumb it makes me speechless. Are you seriously suggesting that a character is not me only if they share absolutely nothing with me? They have to be my opposites in every possible way? How many people like that do you come accross on an average day?

What I'm saying is that purposely making a character different from you in every way just to avoid people assuming that your character is you, is just as dumb as making all your characters just like you.

What's funny is, that the characters who get accused of being ”me” are not usually the ones in the whole cast who actually share the most qualities with me. (I guess it just shows how superficially those people know me...) The assumption is based on dumb triggers like, the characters name starts with an ”E”, or they're blond, or they like to draw. Their personality is actually given very little thought. Even if it's obviously different from me, I guess it's just easy to say that they're my Mary Sue, and what I'd actually like to be. Huh. Everything gets so weird when someone just loves their theory too much to look at anything objectively.

Here's why these people's logic is frustrating:

1. The point is that I know about drawing, and art. It wouldn't make any sense to purposely write about a topic I know nothing about or have no interest for. So if a character of mine is into these things it's not to make them like me. It's so that I can write about a subject I know and care about! It's because the subject itself is interesting to me. Obviously I need a character who is interested in art to write about art. Most of the time my artistic characters are not even artistic in the same ways that I am. They may like to paint ladscapes, portraits, or abstract art. I don't generally like to do any of those.

Even if a character seems to like what I like on the surface, they're not necessarily like me. Actually, a character who does something different from me, but does it in a similar way to how I do my stuff, would resemble me a lot more than a character who does ”what I do” but has a completely different approach. A character might even be a mage, or something I could never actually be, and they could still be a lot more like me than the artist who paints landscapes, if their way of magic was analogous to my way of art.

2. I have pretty vast interests. Most of them are also pretty common. In every one of my hobbies, I personally know at least one person who is also interested in it. And usually many. It's really unreasonable to expect that every character who likes something that I like is like me, if real people aren't.

And it would be really dumb from me to avoid writing characters who like music, dancing, writing, reading, or a dozen other things that many people like. I think in an average school class you would find more than one person in each of those fields. I certainly was never the only person in my class to do any of those.

3. People are coincidentally similar. If I set out to it, I would probably be able to find a lot of similarities (as well as differences) from me and all of my characters. That's because I could do the same with every person I met on the street! I would expect it to be fairly easy to find at least one thing we could bond with.

Also, some genes have a habit of appearing with a similar set of genes. I mean, for example, it's more common for blonds to have blue than brown eyes. (At least where I live.) The same goes for personality traits. Certain traits like to appear together. Writers, for example, are often pretty introspective people. That doesn't mean everyone is like that. It just means that not every single character can be the exception.

In short: When you think a character is ”like me”, because they are, let's say blond AND blue-eyed AND fair skinned, or artistic AND sensitive AND introverted, it's probably because in their circumstances, all those traits makes sense, they're simply more realistic than some others, and there's no reason to purposely deviate from that.

The circumstances also make them different from me. And there are countless shades of blond, as well as there are countless ways to be introverted.

If anyone looked closely enough, I think they would see that the amount of similarities and differences between my characters and me, seems completely random. Because it is completely random. In a way, at least. In the same way that it is between real people.

I think you can really think the process of creating a character to be analogous to the way real humans are. We all are a pretty random selection of genes from a vast pool. Characters come from the writers imagination where all kinds of stored human traits are just swimming around, as well as the patterns about how those traits form together. And at some point a selection of them always comes together and forms a character.

At least that's how it works for me, my characters are a synthesis of the general knowledge I have about humans. That's why none of them is exactly like some real person, not me, and not anyone I know. In that sense they are as unique as any human being.

Now that I've ranted about this, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at the characters who have been accused of ”being me” the most! And most of all, how much they actually resemble me...

I'm going to include MBTI and Enneagram here, but if you're not familiar with it, you can just ignore it, but if you know about it, I think it adds something to this comparison. So, I'm an MBTI INFJ and Enneagram 9.

Keller

(I know, a weird first name. I had a lot of those when I was a kid.)

This one might actually be the fairest accusation. Heh. She's from an exchange comic I drew with my friend when we were 12-16.

It's a story about a group of four girls with magical powers, and really weird unexplained missions, though that part of the story is frequently overshadowed by their personal life. It's more of a friendship/romance/family drama, really.

The reason: She kind of looks like me, likes ballet, is kind and always seems to know what to say.

Similarities:

• INFJ
• Blond hair and blue eyes
• Likes singing and dances ballet.
• Frequently ends up as the ”couselor” in her friend group.
• Sometimes writes songs.
• Sensitive in good and bad ways.

Differences:

• Enneagram 2
• Super religious: I'm not an atheist, but I'm nowhere near her end of the spectrum.
• Way more outgoing than me:
  • She likes to voice her opinions even when she knows it's going to put people off, which is something I still struggle with.
  • She butts in with everyone's business easily and is the first to give advise, while I'm generally the type to wait for others to ask my help.

• Rythmic gymnastics is her one true love (which I've never even been into) and ballet which is my thing is just extra for her.
• She's straight, I'm ace.

I have to agree that we share some significant similarities, even though I don't agree that she's essentially a self insert. I drew this to my friend, so we kind of communicated our issues through the comic sometimes, but not systematically. Like we were briefly using the characters for our benefit but then they continued their separate lives again.

One example: Keller confesses in one chapter that she's never been in love, but that is never mentioned again and she doesn't seem to have any trouble falling in love romantically later in the story and it's never reflected back to this earlier statement. I think it's pretty clear that I was figuring out my own asexual, aromantic identity and that's why it got in the comic but then again it didn't really stick as part of Keller.

The good thing is, that the comments about Keller resembling me are the only ones without a hint of condesension. They're honestly based on impartial observation that we share some qualities.

Ekijo

(I know her name looks impossible to pronounce but, in the Finnish way it's not, actually. And yes, noticeable pseudo-Asian influences.)

She's an elf girl from a fantasy story I wrote when I was 14. It was really clichéd which is no wonder since it started as a school assingment and we were supposed to include TEN common fantasy elements (=clichés) in it. What a dumb exercise! I'm surprised my ten didn't include an evil overlord.

Ekijo is an orphan and an elf and neither of these facts play any part in the story. She's tomboy-ish, wants to be a hunter, but has to settle with carrying messages between villages, because she's a girl. She goes on a journey to carry messages with her best friend Hajai, who is a half elf (also no effect on the story) and together they discover a hidden kingdom that was created to protect magical creatures. Surprise, Ekijo is actually an heir to that kingdom, and to be married to Hajai because their mothers were friends! Yay!

The reason: She's a girl and every fantasy writer writes about themselves.

Similarities:

• Blond hair, blue eyes
• Born on the countryside and likes to be near forests and water.
• People do say I look like an elf sometimes... (My ears aren't that pointy though, only slightly.)
• Likes to climb trees.
• Creative

Differences:

• ENFP Enneagram 2
• Hyperactive:
  • Always running around or riding a horse for no apparent reason. (I'm more of a nice peaceful walks kind of person.)
  • Reckless and frequently gets into trouble when excited. (I'm almost overly careful.)
  • Always wants to see more of the world. (I'm pretty content, where ever I am.)
  • Always wants to try new things. (I've been stuck with the same obsessions since kindergarten. It's rare for anything new to really stick.)

• Agressive:
  • Most likely the one to start a fight. (I'll be the one calmly trying to solve it.)
  • Snaps the second she hears anything that might be read as misogynism, often when the person doesn't even mean it that way. (Like, if Hajai thinks Ekijo needs someone to look after her because she's so reckless, she immediately thinks it's only because she's a girl.)
  • In general doesn't let any insult pass. (I'll most likely only intervene if someone else is being mistreated.)

• Knows how to fight, with or without weapons. (I did kendo for a year but like that even counts...)
• Doesn't have any artistic, or musical talent.
• Expressive, quick to state her every opinion without much thinking. (I have trouble with both.)
• Pretty thick in some ways (which I'm not):
  • Wouldn't realize if someone had a crush on her.
  • Isn't generally aware of what people think of her.
  • Might not notice if she has offended someone.
  • Not aware of relationship dynamics or the emotional atmosphere to much detail.
  • Usually has a simplified view of people's personalities.

• Straight, and romantically interested in a guy in the story.
• Arranged to be married to her best friend.
• Has a job as a messenger between villages.

Yeah well, we aren't that similar at all. I think most of the comments were actually based on that. After all fantasy often gets accused of Mary Sues. Why wouldn't I want to write myself as an extroverted adventurer type? Doesn't everyone?

Well, as far as Mary Sues go, Ekijo is far from perfect. She doesn't hit many of the common Sue traits. I don't think she's labeled even pretty, let alone stunningly beautiful, even once in the story, she has many people who don't like her because she's honestly annoying, I can't say she's the destiny's favourite in anyway, and even though she's an orphan, she has a loving foster mother who doesn't die.

Ekijo gets her fair share of trouble because she causes it. She's an heir to a really small hidden magical kingdom which is no pleasure to rule and way behind the kingdom she grew up in, in pretty much every way. Most of her problems are personal and she doesn't go through any ”glorious” battles which would make the world worship her or something, like is common for fantasy Sues. Ekijo doesn't even get to marry the guy she's in love with.

Yeah, that's totally everyone's fantasy.

Joki

 (Her name means river in Finnish. And no, neither the spelling or the meaning was a reference to anything.)

I'm not even sure she has enough substance to really be reviewed. She's from a 10 page humour comic I did in art class in high school.

Basically the story is about how Joki tries to make her interests seem cooler than she believes they are and fails.

The reason: She's a girl. Like maybe I want to live with a guy best friend to not be like other girls. (Um what.)

Similarities:

• We like cosplay? (I wouldn't mention it in my interests though.)

Differences:

• Dark hair
• Very extroverted
• Obsessed with superheroes.
• Likes video games.
• Embarassed about her nerdiness.
• Lies easily.
• Lives with a guy.

That's about everything the reader can observe about her personality and I really find myself in none of that. Um, I guess it's clear enough how biased you have to be to think this is my self insert.

Leonardo

He's an artist, and a suspect, from a mystery play I wrote in high school and put together with my drama group.

The story: Hannibal Casanova has died in more than weird circumstances, so his children summon two quirky detectives to solve the case. The suspects are quickly narrowed down to the lazy son Leonardo, headstrong daughter Melody, and the scared neighbour boy Pablo. One of the detectives seems to be more interested in competition than the murder and the other one doesn't seem to be doing anything, except talking to her cat.

The reason: He's an artist. "The writer always writes their self into the story."

Similarities:

• Enneagram 9

• He can paint.
• Introverted

Differences:

• ISFJ
• Paints abstract art and landscapes. (I don't like either.)
• Has glasses, brown hair, and likes to wear a ponytail.
• Has an alcohol problem. (The drinks I have in a year can be counted with one hand.)
• Rich
• Gay, and has a boyfriend.
• Extremely unaware of what's going on around him.
• Very slow speech, repeats himself a lot.
• Usually incredibly slow to react.
• Unambitious, cares about very few things.

Someone started it and then people kept saying he was my self insert because he's an artist. (I'm not even a real artist!) The irony is, there was actually a character a lot more like me, yet she's never been accused of being even similar to me. Interesting.

These comments were from the less condesending side, but not completely free from it because people kept insisting that I was ”never free” from the fact that I'd always write a character who represented me, no matter what I did. Eeh. How many of those people actually knew anything about writing, I'll let you guess.

And no, he's not an artist because I have artistic inclinations. He's an artist because he needed a job his father would dissaprove of, something he's passionate about but sounds like what a rich, status conscious and old-fashioned farther wouldn't stereotypically want his son to be. An artist, specifically, was a style choice, it suited the tone of the play the best. It was merely a plot device. This is not a story about art in anyway.

Mimosa

Another comic I made in high school, for an art history class.

It's about a girl who is fed up with everything at school, except art. She goes to the art class to paint every break, neglecting her friends, and at home she draws and sleeps, neglecting her homework and little sister. One day she finds a weird medallion in her bag and when she opens it she's taken on a journey through art history and she learns a thing or two about herself, and her art, on the way.

The reason: She's an artistic high school girl.

Similarities:

• Enneagram 9
• Artistic

Differences:

• INFP
• Really long hair, I've never had that long hair. Also her hair is light brown.
• I've never worn anything as short as her pants.
• I was never that stereotypical art student who went to paint every break.
• I've never fallen into a slump like hers with school work.
• She can't dance.
• I've never been part of a clique of ”the cool kids” like she is in the beginning.
• I don't think I could ever be as careless about consequences as she is.

It's the ART, again! And no, this time she isn't artistic because I am, either. It's because the subject of the story was art history. I didn't want to write about a character who knows absolutely nothing about it, because I wanted to fit character developement into a 40 page comic. It was better to use the character's strenghts to overcome her weaknesses rather than put her into a completely random journey into something she has no interest in.

In the end, I guess I should be happy that only the unbiased comments have had any truth to them. Well, that sounds pretty probable, anyway.

I guess what I wish is that people would actually think about what they are claiming and where they're coming from when they say stuff like this.

Self-irony?

What do you think about self-irony? I think it can be totally great! But what about when people say or post these kinds of things and label it as self-irony:

”What can you do when you're as dumb as me?”

”Don't blame me, blame my genes.”

”You can't expect me to do math with this gabbage as my brain.”

I don't think this is self-irony. It's self-pity. These are just excuses not to try your best, because they imply that you are not responsible of your shortcomings. It's the world that is to blame, you're just a victim. If you're powerless to begin with, then obviously it's everyone elses' mistake to expect anything from you.

I don't think this is self-irony either:

”Life is so much more interesting when you're as crazy as me.”

”If I didn't do stupid things, I would never have any fun.”

”I'm not insane, you just don't understand my genius.”

I guess, in the right context, these could mean a healthy notion that your flaws and strengths are connected. But usually those things are phrased differently, they aren't overly simplified like these. In fact, these usually imply that the negative side of a trait doesn't exist, that it's all positive and other people just don't see it. It's an ego thing; when you can't admit a flaw, you make it an ”identity”.

I think self-irony is something that shows you don't take yourself very seriously. And all of these phrases do the exact opposite.

Real self-irony would look something like this:

”Haha, I wonder who left the fridge door open again?”

”If my room was any messier, I wouldn't find my bed.”

”I'd deserve a medal for my efforts at being late.”

Self-irony implies that you actually admit your flaws but don't think they're too serious to laugh at. It's supposed to make others find them funny as well, not pity you because the world doesn't excuse your flaws, or envy you because your flaws are somehow better than theirs. It's supposed to say something along the lines: ”I know I messed up, and I'll try to do better, but at least we've got something to laugh at.”

Um, random morning thought. This may sound like it had a specific trigger, but I don't think it did.

I always end posts so well. (Even though that's not irony but sarcasm...)

Good day!

(Yes, those are Hetalia characters.)

 

RANT: Theology is not studying God!

Shocking, isn't it? I mean sure, there must be some fault in me for having too high expectations when I started studying theology but still. It SHOCKS me, how many people can't tell the difference between things you can and cannot study scientifically, and which discussions belong to a university and which don't.

You can't study God. You can't do research on God. It is not a statement for whether or not God exists. You can't do scientific research on things you can't empirically prove as a cause of observable data. It's not some kind of effing courtesy thing we need because people have different beliefs! Even if everyone on earth agreed that ”God” existed it wouldn't change anything because there has never been a clear definition of ”God” that would make what we define as scientific methods a way to figure out when this thing called ”God” is the cause of something and when it's not!

This is not about putting anyone's beliefs down. This is not exclusive to religion. You also can't study ”love”. There's no agreement about what it is. If people decided to call a process that happens when a certain hormone does certain things in your body ”love”, as I assume some have, then you could say that it's possible. But that doesn't satisfy people, because what they usually think of as love is characterized by experience, and you can only compare experiences so far.

It's the same with psychology. You can't actually study a human mind, a person's consciousness. We don't know what it is and can't point where it is. You can study behaviour, cognition and things like that, assuming they have some common cause. For some reason people just seem less aware of this with psychology and make so much more noise about it in theology. You can't point ”Hey, there the human mind is going, right there on the side walk!”. You can't put it in a jar and do tests on it.

It's the same with God. You can only study the content of religions, people's views on what deity is, historical figures, and things like that. That's what theology is about. It's a vast field of different sciences, including anthropology, psychology, literature, history, philosophy, sociology and so on. What makes it theology is that it focuses on the phenomena under the name of religion.

And that's why it's really irritating when people constantly have to use the university, a class, or even a seminaire for preaching and debade on whose beliefs are right! Sure, you can do it in the caffeteria during breaks, even if it's really loud and disturbing for others, but please, leave it there.

STOP giving your input on how relevant studying theology is for someone based on their religion.

STOP shaming people during class because they have different beliefs than you.

STOP making assumptions about people's every single belief based on their religion.

STOP saying that someone is unfit to do research on a certain subject because of their religion.

If you have personal issues with certain beliefs, and can't present them in a constructive way, without harrasing others, please leave them out of scientific discussion.

End of rant.

Comic Diary #4: The Abominable Ace

While watching the new Sherlock episode, The Abominable Bride, my brain basically translated "the talk" scene straight into this...

Okay, so after this it probably needs to be said that I do recognize everyone's right to interpret fictional characters however they like. And in the case of Sherlock Holmes it's definitely justified since Doyle did once say it was okay to go ahead and get him killed or married or whatever. So yeah, you have the right to interpret him as gay, straight or anything else. And I have the right to interpret him as ace.

(I have to admit though, that in some cases a small voice inside me does ask: Do you absolutely have to? If the original Sherlock Holmes says he's never been in love, is it really necessary to figure that it must mean pretty much anything else except what he says? Yes, as an aromantic asexual I am biased, because that narrative is far too familiar to me from real life. But maybe that's partially why I find him a good representative. No matter what he says in the stories, people will think it's not the truth. That being said, I repeat: You have the right to do it. I just don't have to like it.)

Naturally, I'm not saying that Moffat is doing anything wrong with interpreting him as straight. It just bugs me that he claims the reason for that is that an asexual character wouldn't be interesting enough. Come on, that's the dumbest reason I've ever heard! It only sounds to me that Moffat doesn't have enough imagination. Or know anything about asexuals. Asexuals not having those (apparently essentially so much more complicated) motives that non-aces do is just an excuse. And I only want to say two things. One: It's okay not to have an excuse. Everyone can do what they want and ideas don't always have to be that rational. Two: Asexuals are every bit as complicated and interesting as anyone else. Even when it's about sex and relationships. If you don't get it, it's not really that hard to find out.

That aside, I think The Abominable Bride was a good episode. Even if the series could've done without it, I think it's something the fandom definitely needed. Because it can give such nostalgic feels to all long-time sherlockians and it can bring the newer ones, who aren't familiar with the original, a step closer to where this all is coming from. The old and the new are mixed in it in a way they never have been before. I think it's been done really well, there's definitely a huge amount of thought behind it. There's so carefully crafted interaction between so many versions of Sherlock. I need to see it again to dwell on the details. And yet it never fails to be meaningful for the new series as well.

Hardly anyone of the characters of Sherlock is what I understand the original ones to be like, but even so, I can't wait for the next season.

MBTI Stereotypes

Because they deserve every face-palm they get.

I haven't yet made a post about the MBTI personality theory which I'm obsessed with. I figured I'd start with putting the general stereotypes in a nutshell because they're still out there and no good. Other people have probably done it better before and I'm still no typology expert, just your common enthusiast, but I feel like putting down the images people seem to have going around, and which I find ridiculous, unfair, harmful and totally biased. Not helpful to anyone who is really trying to understand the system and use it to understand other people better, not bash them.

If you're unfamiliar with MBTI, and interested, go visit Personality Café or something: http://personalitycafe.com/forum/

It doesn't really make sense for me to try to explain the basics in this blog.

Sometimes the stereotypes seem to have a seed of truth in them, by which I mean they are overly simplified and exaggerated descriptions based on general tendencies associated with certain cognitive functions and combinations. Others, however, don't even seem to be based on reality but misunderstanding the functions and dichotomies entirely.

It seems these stereotypes often come to life because some people internalize one-dimensional type descriptions/dichotomies, look for people who resemble that description, form some kind of an archetype about them and settle with typing people according to superficial understanding of their external behaviour, not taking underlying processes into account.

In the most unfortunate cases, people already have a bias against certain kind of people and because of it, start matching all of them with one/few personality types and then begin to see the whole type in a negative light. And of course, some people only seem able to type people with no views or traits opposing to their own to the same personality type with them.

In typology forums this shows in threads with a (sometimes direct, sometimes indirect) message like: ”Why are all ISFPs emotionally biased about everything?” or ”Don't trust an ESFJ” or ”ENTPs are useless trolls” and crap like that.

It's like some people really consider stuff like this relevant:

Feelers are emotionally biased crybabies and incapable of coherent thought.

Thinkers are cold sosiopaths and incapable of love and empathy.

Sensors are dumb and incapable of independent thought.

Intuitives are clumsy and incapable of doing physical tasks well.

Rather than rambling more about how untrue those stereotypes are, I'll get to the type-specific ones. If you're purposely creating one-dimensional comedy characters or something, then you might have some actual use for these but in typing real people they are seriously useless. But the more people are aware of them, the better. If you don't personally need to be reminded of this, maybe you can still find what I've gathered kind of hilarious. :D Or enraging...

I'll have my fictional characters starring as their types. Because fun.

ENFJ

All ENFJs are manipulative, backstabing goody-two-shoes who wrap everyone around their little finger, never say what they mean or act authentically. In conflict situations they always side with the majority. They want power but not the responsibility.

INFJ

All INFJs are crazy conspiracy theorists and prone to mental illnesses. They're detached from reality and live in a dark world inside their heads. They're ineffective in any sensory environment and mess up everything they touch.

ESTP

All ESTPs are reckless thrill-seekers who never think about the consequenses of their actions. Their life is all about dumb stunts, sex and motorcycles. Anything abstract or ethical receives no response from their brain.

ISTP

All ISTPs are like ESTPs but antisocial, so they prefer playing video games, building useless objects and breaking things apart just to be able to put them back together. They never use whatever abilities they may have for any useful purpose.

ESFJ

All ESFJs are dumb blond barbies who blindly follow whatever rules and morals they have grown up with. They want to please people only so that everyone would love them, and the moment you turn your back on them they're already bad-mouthing you.

ISFJ

All ISFJs are spineless door-mats whose life revolves around one person (their lover, usually). They have no morals, personality, or passions of their own, they need someone else to complete them. If their love isn't reciprocated 24/7, they become obsessive stalkers.

ENTP

All ENTPs do nothing but troll all over the internet 24/7. They talk inexplicable amounts of nonsense, and get nothing done. They're opportunistic freeloaders who can go to ridiculous lengths to escape all and any kind of responsibility.

INTP

All INTPs do nothing but sit alone in their room coming up with useless theories, wondering about trivial things, fancying themselves as the most intelligent personality type and comparing themselves to Einstein, while never coming up with anything anyone could really use. Have troubles remembering to take their weekly shower.

ESFP

All ESFPs are foolish party animals who live only for having fun. They have no abilities, no sense of responsibility and no direction in life. They are entirely useless, except maybe as a clown if they get lucky.

ISFP

All ISFPs are either hippies who smoke weed with ENFPs, or artists suffering from frequent emotional breakdowns, which they actually enjoy. Incapable of surviving among ”normal” people.

ENTJ

All ENTJs are narcissistic, abusive chiefs of some sort who wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they couldn't order people around as they please and take their anger out on their subordinates.

INTJ

All INTJs are sosiopaths or narsissists who care about nothing expect themselves and their One True field of science. They think they're perfect, and that every brain fart they let out is an objective fact. They think everyone wants to be them.

ENFP

All ENFPs use drugs, prefer one-night-stands to relationships and wish to live their life running around naked on a field while chewing flowers. They're incapable of keeping a job. Sometimes they might get serious but OH HEY A BUTTERFLY.

INFP

All INFPs want to be INFJs and a half of them pretend to be. They're the weakest and most emotionally biased personality type, they're all emos who do nothing but watch gore anime. They never leave their room but manage to fancy themselves as world saviors/figthers of justice.

ESTJ

All ESTJs are meatheads who gain a sense of power by ordering people around according to someone else's (ENTJ's) orders. They fancy themselves as the alpha male (all ESTJs are male of course) and their self worth competely shatters and they turn berserk, if this fact is questioned.

ISTJ

All ISTJs are complete robots. They're the people ESTJs order around. They're blind to everything except following the majority. If someone else didn't give them instructions and orders they would just rot and die.

…Gee, I wonder why some people think MBTI is about as useful as horoscopes?

Imagine if your average people where really like this. What a world it would be.