Textually Frustrated.

All names are tentaitve.

Series 1
The Anarchists

Prisym
Age: 18
Occupation: Thief
Element: Light

Summary: Brother of El, Prisym loathes the Monarch government; a rebellious nature inherited from their anarchistic dad. Years of pilfering their outlets and wounding their men came through harsh words when El revealed his plans to join a Monarchy-sponsored tournament. His brother’s dissent spurred Prisym to prove now, more than ever, that this government is not what El wants it to be. He seeks to bring anarchy to the state. At all costs.

Breakdown: Prisym is a polar opposite to El’s core values. He is cynical and somewhat introverted; represented by his unwillingness to join or encourage El’s actions. With a hatred for society and an inability to trust others, Prisym represents myself at my most cynical. He, like myself, is at a loss at the way society conducts itself, and believes the only solution is violent anarchy. However, like El, he remains passionate about the few he does love. Despite his exterior, his love never falters. His storyline’s climax in the final season of the series is symbolic of my hope that i can also defeat my most introverted values.

Pluto & Charon
Ages: 34, 34
Occupation: None (Exiled)
Element: Ice/Death

Summary: The most notorious products of the era before the Monarchy (tentatively referred to as “The Ministry”), the twin siblings of frost were the pride and joy of the Ministry’s most prestigious campus (where they obligatorily recruited citizens to military training at a young age). The duo, known for never fighting alone, were fierce and brilliant in their skirmishes. In return, they offered their undying loyalty to the government that made them who they were. But as their skills grew, their assignments slipped in morality. After watching the era they gave their sanity to vanish, the duo were exiled from the planet, being both hostile and unbeatable.

Breakdown: The duo represents my interest in those who are mentally unstable, and perhaps the fear of what I could become as a result of overthinking. Their loss of sanity in the midst of their loyalty means they continue to believe the Ministry was correct, which deflects any self-blame. Prisym sympathizes with this, and also fears take responsibility for his own antisocial behavior. Sharing this problem, the three saw it easy to help one another, and shift the blame onto society instead. 

Perhaps quietly, Prisym wishes to avoid their fate, and sees befriending them as a way of learning how to. This is my own cynicism attempting to correct itself, despite my failures to control it.

The duo’s climax occurs in a battle between them and Kelly (a primary target of their revenge). It represents my belief that a committed love for someone is what can definitively prevent my own mental instability.

This theme (of love/devotion for another conquering tragic flaws) is a constant theme throughout the story.

Noir
Age: ??
Occupation: Mercenary
Element: Shadow

Summary: Noir is a ruthless mercenary for hire, known for using the socially-stigmatized shadow-type, but does not remember how he gained the type to begin with. Forced into the underbelly of the planet’s society, where the thieves and gangs thrive, Prisym recruits him for his plans. Noir joins, intrigued by Prisym’s promise of helping him disocver his origins. They believe the Monarchy will offer the chance at solving Noir’s most important puzzles: who cursed him, and why must the shadow feed on the life of others to maintain his existence?


Breakdown: Considering the shadow-type a social/physical curse, Noir represents the feeling of being born into a world I never chose, under circumstances I’ve never asked for. His struggles are mostly to do with his loneliness (brought on by his type), and the belief that he is the only one of his kind. The latter is quickly challenged, which represents my growing evidence that I am not the only one who struggles with unsolicited circumstances. His climax occurs when he finally faces his kin, and achieves the closure he had always wanted. This closure represents my hope that I can eradicate the toxicity of my own loneliness.

Furthermore, the theme of struggling with a fate you never chose is a reoccurring theme in the story, most notably in the second series.

i used to play-act to myself. i think everyone’s done this as kid; just kind of imagined you and a series of crudely thought-out characters in some fictional world a lot more exciting than the living room you were actually standing in.

one of these little stories stuck around. even while i was a teenager i was still charmed enough by this universe to act it out once more. making it bigger and the characters brighter. the story became quite it’s own monster.

since then i decided to develop the plot and removed the more childish fixtures. if i’ve been imagining a story for 14 years, and i consider myself a writer (or something), well shit; write it.

it’s a sci-fi fantasy set on a planet tentatively titled “Angel”. it’s scenery is based on a futuristic take on medieval times. the best comparison, and a big influence on it’s setting, is the look of Asgaard in “Thor”: it blends a barbaric viking style with a flair that i can only describe as “galactic”. the characters all contain powers based on elements. this power is granted from an energy that stems from the planet, and only their bodies are built to accept and utilize the energy (with a few exceptions).

and they — i can’t even be poetic about it — fight like dragon ball z. 

(i was eight, okay)

i gauge the story’s length as though it were a television series. as such, the story (chronologically) is 2 series long (3 seasons for series 1, 4 seasons for series 2, 12 episodes a season), and a shorter story that can more or less be considered a movie. it contains 26 relevant characters. it’s first-person omniscient: it’s narrated by the main protagonist in both of the series but still provides a look into other characters’ actions (but not their thoughts), as well as the protagonist’s opinions about them.

in the first series, the plot revolves around a trio; a thief (the main protagonist), a young boy alien to the planet, and a fierce bounty hunter. they seek entry, for personal reasons, into a tournament. this introduces them to the constitutional monarchy (who sponsors the tournament) which runs the small planet, this kicks off a series of events in which they slowly realize their world is not what they think it is.

in the second, after a decade, the now older and jaded characters once again find themselves in the strange happenings of this planet, leading to an intense climax that alters the universe as they knew it. 

because i’m still in the stages of cleaning up plot points, i haven’t gotten to actually write many pages of the story, but there are plenty of files documenting the details of it. 

and i’ve already realized just how deeply this story has been woven. not just into my creativity, but even into my psychology. realizing this, i decided to start expanding on what the characters are actually expressing about myself, to get a better picture of what they’re meant to be like. 

so in the following days, i will begin posting a synopsis of each character, and what they psychologically represent. i hope you like it, because i’ve never shared this with anyone before.

we neglect just how much pain is required to make a person attractive to us. as in, for someone to be attractive, they’ll have to have endured a certain amount of emotional/physical toil. it varies from person to person, but generally if you’ve gone through more shit, you will be seen as more attractive.

i don’t think people are naive. i think they’re aware of this. but only in glimpses. and then this sort of sadistic standard for beauty is tucked away when we’re wrapped up in how much we like someone. 

and then we wonder why shit’s fucked up. 

i’ve noticed a strange habit in the way men approach doing things in general.

by “doing things”, i don’t mean simple daily habits. i mean things that define someone’s legacy. things that will make or break your life’s success. as much as men have a tendency to preach objectivity, they take an oddly spiritual approach to these matters.

ever notice how often they mention “heart” or “soul”, or just exemplify how much all-around desire’s involved in what they do or what someone else does?

it makes it very clear that men operate on the basis of not just results, but what effort was made in the field someone is trying in. whether or not their “soul” was in it. there is, of course, several ways to interpret this. but we’ll look at just two.

the first is the negative spin. i believe the reason why men make such an emphasis on effort over result is because they have experienced wretched failure despite truly caring to succeed. but their failures came not from a lack of care, but simply because they weren’t good at what they were doing. this indicates a sort of denial; that despite failing, they want to be rewarded as though they’ve succeeded, simply on the merits of their effort. 

this is objectively stupid if the end result produced nothing good. this means that at the core of every man is a desire not necessarily to succeed, but simply not to disappoint.  not even necessarily fail, just not disappoint. if a man comes out of an effort feeling like they’ve disappointed whomever they strove to please, then they’ll accept it as a failure. this, too, includes themselves. if they’re disappointed in themselves, then they might as well have not done anything.

the positive spin is that men are especially inclined to “win” at all costs. this is the passion we see men express more boldly then women. let’s use hip-hop music as an example, since it is one of the few artistic fields where all the artists are encouraged to brag. it goes without saying male artists will write about both financial, sexual, and lifestyle successes, and rarely do they mention their lowest moments. female rappers sometimes do this, but often they express moments in their lives, not necessarily the financial or sexual result of those moments. 

this is because men make such an “effort” at what they do, placed so much into doing it, and succeeded. then, when they have succeeded, they will be more than prepared to express the rewards of their “efforts”. this even comes out in day-to-day purchases, for example, how men are more inclined to buy high-end technology and equipment, while sitting or sleeping in hand-me-down furniture, and a sweater that remains a week unwashed.

i don’t think i have to explain how chicks differ from this.

what this ultimately manifests is the patent “manly” personality. stoic facial reactions, monotone voice, and words carefully placed, speaking mostly when they need to or if it’s helpful. this is because a man’s persona is dedicated to avoiding disappointment, and this is best executed if all efforts, even the smallest things like talking, are sparingly made. this is also why we view those who talk often as “confident”, because they speak constantly and unabashedly, meaning they believe they will not disappoint in almost anyway.

it is all, however, a bit sad. it reminds me that we were all kids once. and that as much as we tell ourselves we’re removed from that time, men still, and always will, look for that approving pat on the head.

there is a clash between social status and desire. the two do not intertwine often; if ever they do, it is out of my own cunning with which i make them fit. but by default, they naturally conflict. i want to do what is socially suicidal. but i don’t want to commit social suicide.

i am aware this issue is not my very own, and i wonder just to what end this is limited to. if it’s american culture, and i think it may just be, or if it’s an everyday human experience. to feel what it is you cannot have, then act as though you do not feel it.

the dichotomies of the human experience, though exciting, have grown weary. i have been crafting my own set of rules for a while, now. i’ve thought it best to follow them. they disagree.

i don’t.

an affable “fuck you”, so to speak.

The conclusion to the three-part essay.

Like anyone else, women are subconsciously aware of this situation. They can discern the dishonest reactions, and how people are reacting in false kindness to them. It’s appreciable to be treated kindly, but it becomes patronizing when it is a lie. Essentially, women are patronized throughout their entire lives.

As such, they seek out honest reactions to their behaviors; they are innately attracted to people who will blatantly acknowledge the times when they’re wrong, and only quietly celebrate when they’re right. If they do at all.

This is what we consider “douchebags”; they are effectively rebels of dishonesty, and refuse to cater to the deceitful standards of our society.

And women appreciate this, because they need it; living for years in a psychological panic room stunts they’re awareness about life, people, and themselves. After all, us humans have too little time to spend it being misguided.

Furthermore, the law also explains their idealistic philosophies. They’re more likely to be dreamers and optimistic. This is because their world is being viewed through their physically lovely prisms; when the world appears to be treating you with kindness, you will assume it contains only more kindness. And if you cannot discern the half-truths of it all, then you will be optimistic.

This is not to say that being pessimistic is the real option. But to say that being pretty will make you misappropriate the love the world has to offer. It has love, but not as much as you would be assuming.

This is where I most empathize with women, as they often spend their first 25 years operating on this ideal. I say 25, because somewhere around this point their physical beauty begins to wane; wrinkles seep in, the body slowly gains in weight, and your voice is not the high-pitched squeals of joy it used to be. Suddenly, you are not pretty, and the world begins to care less about you. And you don’t know why, or if you do, you will live in denial about it. 

Unfortunately, few offer the absolution of reminding women that their beauty is temporary, and that they must craft other charms to maintain their social status. If they don’t, they will be shunned.

This is also why women scramble to be married, and, socially, you are stigmatized if you’re a single female at 30, whereas a man is allowed to be single during any age. 

And, again, why they appreciate “douchebags”. It isn’t merely that they remind women how it is they’re flawed, they also challenge them to become something more than a walking perfume ad. They challenge them to survive in an emotional environment where their beauty is worthless. It makes women stronger for it.

Sadly, women (And most people, really) mistake excessive abuse as necessary honesty. So it isn’t always a positive. 

But an honest person, at the right time, may be all a girl needs to save them from years of isolation and mental decay.

Thus, chicks are fucked up. They complain too often, express too much, and leave themselves psychologically stranded in the end. 

And, like all flaws, it is not their fault. 

It is the result of a society that insists on lying for the sake of kindness, while stunting psychological growth, and pretending everything’s fine all the while. And it’s in these times of bullshit where that “douchebaggery” is much appreciated. 

 This is part 2 of a 3 part essay. The last entry will come tomorrow. 

In general humans are keen on nurturing things that seem adorable and frail. We may not necessarily respect its existence, but we do sympathize with it. This is pretty obvious in a lot of ways, from the Internet’s obsession with Boxxy (Who makes similar videos as this youtuber, but is infinitely more renowned because she’s “cute”), to our strange adoration of murderous baby animals (like hippos, even though they’re considered Africa’s most feared animal).

Applying this to women, females have the strongest physical resemblances to these cute things. Their voices, eyes, faces, and, at times, their bodies look more adorable to us than anything a man can grow into. And while yes, straight males obviously find chicks adorable, straight women also adore themselves too. Straight males cannot say the same about other males.

And so begins the fuck up.

As a girl grows up, what she is witnessing, without knowing, is people actively altering their honest feelings to accommodate for how cute and frail she is.

Applying this logic makes the flaw clear; being a female means the world will not give you an honest response. They will skew their opinions of you, your experiences, and your actions, treating you nicer than they would normally, just because you’re a girl. 

This especially applies to very attractive women, again for obvious reasons. It is also why “uglier” girls often have social crutches beautiful women do not, like being funny, or more aggressive. This is because being beautiful provides you with positive responses. Simply existing is all you need to get what you desire. But if you’re not beautiful, you have to create another means by which to impress people. We will do anything to attain social success, and this includes compensating for all that we lack.

The “We Treat Girls Nice ‘Cause They’re Pretty” law also explains the common belief that chicks seem to appreciate “douchebags” more than “nice guys”. 

Beginning with the “douchebags”, let’s break down what exactly that implies. It is often a guy (Or girl, in some cases) who seems to “disrespect” the girl by making harsh criticisms or dismissing her emotions. Often, they’re contradicting our standard means of reacting to women, which is to respect their feelings and respond carefully. 

“Nice guys” are considered to follow these standards, giving women not only this respect, but also putting them first above all else, irrespective of whether or not the girl’s actions are objectively retarded.

Before we proceed, we have to erase any negative associations on anything. Clear the “good things to do”/”bad things to do” Venn diagram that often muddles our perception of life.

This is part 1 of a 3 part essay. The next two entries will come tomorrow, and the day after.

When scrutinizing others, we use a set of steps to make a complete evaluation of the person’s flaws. This begins with the observation of the mistake, then a personal understanding about that person’s logic. Finally, we settle on a conclusion, usually of our own subjective origins, and not from an objective truth. 

While I make an effort to promote equality in all things and strive to break gender/race acknowledgements, it would be stupid of me to suggest there aren’t legitimate differences. There is a reason why, for example, Anglo-Saxon music is melodic, whereas African music is rhythmic. 

And, in this case, why women are fucked up in ways men cannot be.

The truth is that there is a repeated set of patterns women undergo. While my peers shun the idea of generalizing entire groups of people (at times, myself included), culture itself is based on a repeated set of actions by a group of people. It depends on stereotypical routines in order to establish itself. People do things, and they do them the same way. All the time.

With this established, let’s return back to the “scrutiny” bit.

During the steps, we just assume that a personality is this static thing born from nothing, and made immediately as we saw it. Really, it is a growth spurted over years of experiences, viewing life and reacting to it. It repeats this process to establish itself, exploring what it is and isn’t, until the personality settles on a philosophy, and hoorray, you have a stubborn adult.

But what role does their gender play?

In many cultures, women play the same role. The caretaker, the family person, the housewife, the nurturer. There’s also the artist or the muse. Finding the common denominator in these roles, you’ll find the following traits:

Expressive - To properly care for a family, you must be willing to exclaim beliefs without hesitation. Letting emotions, both yours and others, known. The same applies to being a muse, artist, or diva (Of course, as in any art form. Also, this is why all blogging sites, including Tumblr, primarily consists of women).  

Confident - In synergy with “expressive”, confidence is required so that one doesn’t feel ashamed in expressing themselves. Their feelings are their feelings, and they should find nothing wrong with it. If they were shy, they wouldn’t express it. 

Empathetic - The need to care is a vital part of being a female, or, at least, the roles they’re boxed into by society. You cannot nurture without empathy, and you cannot create without a passion for a subject.

These three traits are quintessential to being female.  Without one of these three, in most societies, you stand to be questioned in many ways (Be it your sexuality or your sanity in general). 

So if these are the standard traits, how did they come to be?

The thing we don’t consider is how a person evolves according to what the world shows them. In most societies, women are treated with care and are granted a sort of pass on things that would not be acceptable for a man. 

For example, females are prone to complaining more often. This is because we don’t immediately disapprove of women complaining; in fact, we seek ways of easing her anger. When a man complains, we question his resolve and perhaps his masculinity as well. Thus, women complain more than men, because society reacts positive to one, and negatively to the other.

Why do we that?

Because females are pretty.

There are hints. Whispers of harmony between people, through the cracks of awkward bus rides and shit retail experiences. They come through in the form of surprisingly delightful conversations, or a compassionate New Yorker providing directions. It would appear, despite our greatest efforts to maintain cynicism, that there is a subtle sense of love between us.

But what is cracked? If there is a crack, there is a flawed infrastructure. What is it?

It is the ruse. The most clever ruse.  That life is a process of innumerable toils, sufficing only with calculable riches. That it is a game of effort and reward, and we must reinforce it.

Unfortunately, I can’t check the veracity of my words. What I can attest to is that I have shortcomings that I insist on compensating for. That every action of mine is a roundabout apology for how much of an asshole I am.

Because this is the case, even my opinions, as correct as I think they are, are only so because if they were true, they would serve to make only my life better. In short, my scrutiny exists solely to serve myself.

And yes, I do think we all do this. Every day.

Perhaps that is the most objective truth in life; our conclusions about it will always be tailored solely for us to appreciate. Maybe life’s objective mysteries are unsolvable, because our egos won’t allow solving.

But it’s much more fun when I ignore that.