Tales retold and made to fly
Sep. 24th, 2006 03:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flyingskullEzra Pound (I think it was him... hope so... anyway) said that every story has already been written: the purpose of a good writer is to write it anew. Or similar. Anyway this could very well be fanfic's banner, well-written fanfic, of course, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mistful's fanfic in particular.
I'm thinking of IYHARM, yes, and wasn't that a GREAT re-telling? Actually it was, I wasn't being ironic or anything, it was a superb retelling, I love it. But I'm also thinking of QOM, because to me the retelling of the characters is the retelling of the story.
It seems to me that, no matter what is said about plot, worldbuilding and style - all basic things in writing, it's lovely when they coesist but it can be nice with just two or one of them - the driving force behind storytelling as an art form is characters. When a writer can make her/his characters people, then plot, worldbuilding and style have to follow. I said storytelling as an art form, because the world is peopled by scribblers, some of whom make lots of money, but I'm talking about the GOOD writers here.
All stories are plot-driven by definition: they are, after all, stories. But the good - and excellent - writers write people who, exactly because they are who they are and evolve according to their selves, can't help getting there, wherever it is that the plot needs them to go. Somistful writes stories about real people who, because they are human, hence complicated and damaged in a myriad of ways, can't help but go where she wants them to go. I'm not presuming to know her particular writing technique, but that's not important to the reader, or even the careful critic.
Reading her stories through time I know without a shadow of doubt that she's growing by leaps and bounds as a writer and that her characters are more and more becoming people, until here, with QOM, there's not a single 'character' talking, acting and walking through her plot. These are real people at the core, so much that – even though her premises are wildly IC – the original characters are but pale shadows of hers.
This is how it should be! we cry, and not because the plot is enthralling – and it is – or thrilling – and it is – or tight and perfectly paced – and, boy, is it! – but because these are people and we want to know what happens to them; we want to know if they will resolve their several conflicts, if they will be able to grow and evolve, if they will perchance kill one another. This is true mastery of the art of writing, this is the core of what literature is all about. And, as if this were not enough – and it IS, but we're greedy, we readers – her multilayered and intense prose scintillates with wit, irony and benevolence. Oh, and coruscates with quotations and allusions of the subtle and unsubtle variety.
And worldbuilding invariably follows. Only in that particular world, with those particular mores, those particular variation of reality and physics and stuff can those particular people make the particular choices that will take them where they are supposed to go.mistful is using someone else's wordlbuilding, but she mends it with implication, allusion and an occasional shock of start reality. She is, in fact, writing it anew.
She creates a maze of mirrors and reflections of mirrors that sucks us in. We see Draco through Harry's eyes - of course, tight third POV - but, at the same time we see Harry seeing himself reflected in Draco's eyes. We could maybe be kept at a distance by this device, but we aren't, we're in, deep and foundering, just as our little freak and his beloved enemy are: we're looking for ourselves in them, they're looking for themselves in others' eyes... maybe our eyes, the readers' eyes.
This works for every single character, too, not just the protagonists. Look at Narcissa, single-minded loving mother with a core of ruthlessness that should perhaps be chilling - she disregards everyone's safety to ensure her son's - but that's how Harry sees her, or better, needs to see her until... until we see her die through Snape's eyes as heard through Harry's ears. See? By reflecting reflections into reflections - both meaning of reflection apply here - we can solve the puzzle, or go as near to solving other people as we're going to get in real life.
Gaiman - of whom more later - said that sometimes what we don't get explained in a book is more fascinating that what we get explained (let's taken as read that this is periphrasis based on memory). We'll never completely know another - maybe not even ourselves - but all the little mysteries fascinate. I personally like Narcissa in canon, but I'm utterly fascinated by this complex and intelligent heroine. She isn't going to sacrifice herself in a cliché bout of dying for her child, but she does because she really has no other choice than silence. She knows she's dead anyway. She tries, because she wants to live, but at the very end she becomes Antigone, so much bigger than life in silent contempt of her executioners.
Look at Snape caught in ungentle tenderness; at Ginny (whom I cordially detested... okay I still do in canon) caught at the edge between childhood and young maturity; at Hermione who's afraid of coming out of her head, so to speak, and confront her shaky ethics, but who tries so hard to matter; at Ron finally growing up; at Lupin hiding behind a passive aggressive not-snarl... look at them all. The kernel of all they are is in canon, yes, but it's nothing more than a hopeful latency, given meaning by the eagerness and imagination of readers. Inmistful's stories - particularly QOM - the eagerness and imagination of readers is better employed to probe the little mysteries of self and life.
Coming back to Gaiman - yeps, been re-reading Sandman obsessively of late. Needed to ponder on basic things like life, death and personal mythology - I think he said.... ah-HA! Found the correct quote. Here it goes:
I learned that writing could, in and of itself, be beautiful. (He's talking about Delany's Einstein Intersection. If you haven't read it, DO) I learned that sometimes what you do not understand, what remains beyond your grasp in a book, is as magical as what you can take from it. I learned that we have the right, or the obligation, to tell old stories in our own ways, because they are our stories, and they must be told.
He could have said that about QOM, really. There's a quality of writing in there that resonates deep within me, just as Gaiman's writing does. There's a calm fearlessness about farce and tragedy, there's risk taking, but nothing frantic about it. It's true storytelling and I'm celebrating it with this piddly new icon stolen blatantly from The Last Hero by Pterry (ill by Paul Kidby) only this time we'll remember the singer as well as the song.
Thank you Maya.
mistful's fanfic in particular.I'm thinking of IYHARM, yes, and wasn't that a GREAT re-telling? Actually it was, I wasn't being ironic or anything, it was a superb retelling, I love it. But I'm also thinking of QOM, because to me the retelling of the characters is the retelling of the story.
It seems to me that, no matter what is said about plot, worldbuilding and style - all basic things in writing, it's lovely when they coesist but it can be nice with just two or one of them - the driving force behind storytelling as an art form is characters. When a writer can make her/his characters people, then plot, worldbuilding and style have to follow. I said storytelling as an art form, because the world is peopled by scribblers, some of whom make lots of money, but I'm talking about the GOOD writers here.
All stories are plot-driven by definition: they are, after all, stories. But the good - and excellent - writers write people who, exactly because they are who they are and evolve according to their selves, can't help getting there, wherever it is that the plot needs them to go. So
mistful writes stories about real people who, because they are human, hence complicated and damaged in a myriad of ways, can't help but go where she wants them to go. I'm not presuming to know her particular writing technique, but that's not important to the reader, or even the careful critic.Reading her stories through time I know without a shadow of doubt that she's growing by leaps and bounds as a writer and that her characters are more and more becoming people, until here, with QOM, there's not a single 'character' talking, acting and walking through her plot. These are real people at the core, so much that – even though her premises are wildly IC – the original characters are but pale shadows of hers.
This is how it should be! we cry, and not because the plot is enthralling – and it is – or thrilling – and it is – or tight and perfectly paced – and, boy, is it! – but because these are people and we want to know what happens to them; we want to know if they will resolve their several conflicts, if they will be able to grow and evolve, if they will perchance kill one another. This is true mastery of the art of writing, this is the core of what literature is all about. And, as if this were not enough – and it IS, but we're greedy, we readers – her multilayered and intense prose scintillates with wit, irony and benevolence. Oh, and coruscates with quotations and allusions of the subtle and unsubtle variety.
And worldbuilding invariably follows. Only in that particular world, with those particular mores, those particular variation of reality and physics and stuff can those particular people make the particular choices that will take them where they are supposed to go.
mistful is using someone else's wordlbuilding, but she mends it with implication, allusion and an occasional shock of start reality. She is, in fact, writing it anew.She creates a maze of mirrors and reflections of mirrors that sucks us in. We see Draco through Harry's eyes - of course, tight third POV - but, at the same time we see Harry seeing himself reflected in Draco's eyes. We could maybe be kept at a distance by this device, but we aren't, we're in, deep and foundering, just as our little freak and his beloved enemy are: we're looking for ourselves in them, they're looking for themselves in others' eyes... maybe our eyes, the readers' eyes.
This works for every single character, too, not just the protagonists. Look at Narcissa, single-minded loving mother with a core of ruthlessness that should perhaps be chilling - she disregards everyone's safety to ensure her son's - but that's how Harry sees her, or better, needs to see her until... until we see her die through Snape's eyes as heard through Harry's ears. See? By reflecting reflections into reflections - both meaning of reflection apply here - we can solve the puzzle, or go as near to solving other people as we're going to get in real life.
Gaiman - of whom more later - said that sometimes what we don't get explained in a book is more fascinating that what we get explained (let's taken as read that this is periphrasis based on memory). We'll never completely know another - maybe not even ourselves - but all the little mysteries fascinate. I personally like Narcissa in canon, but I'm utterly fascinated by this complex and intelligent heroine. She isn't going to sacrifice herself in a cliché bout of dying for her child, but she does because she really has no other choice than silence. She knows she's dead anyway. She tries, because she wants to live, but at the very end she becomes Antigone, so much bigger than life in silent contempt of her executioners.
Look at Snape caught in ungentle tenderness; at Ginny (whom I cordially detested... okay I still do in canon) caught at the edge between childhood and young maturity; at Hermione who's afraid of coming out of her head, so to speak, and confront her shaky ethics, but who tries so hard to matter; at Ron finally growing up; at Lupin hiding behind a passive aggressive not-snarl... look at them all. The kernel of all they are is in canon, yes, but it's nothing more than a hopeful latency, given meaning by the eagerness and imagination of readers. In
mistful's stories - particularly QOM - the eagerness and imagination of readers is better employed to probe the little mysteries of self and life.Coming back to Gaiman - yeps, been re-reading Sandman obsessively of late. Needed to ponder on basic things like life, death and personal mythology - I think he said.... ah-HA! Found the correct quote. Here it goes:
I learned that writing could, in and of itself, be beautiful. (He's talking about Delany's Einstein Intersection. If you haven't read it, DO) I learned that sometimes what you do not understand, what remains beyond your grasp in a book, is as magical as what you can take from it. I learned that we have the right, or the obligation, to tell old stories in our own ways, because they are our stories, and they must be told.
He could have said that about QOM, really. There's a quality of writing in there that resonates deep within me, just as Gaiman's writing does. There's a calm fearlessness about farce and tragedy, there's risk taking, but nothing frantic about it. It's true storytelling and I'm celebrating it with this piddly new icon stolen blatantly from The Last Hero by Pterry (ill by Paul Kidby) only this time we'll remember the singer as well as the song.
Thank you Maya.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-02 09:20 pm (UTC)Oh, likewise! :D I'm extremely flattered that you feel I'm someone you can discuss with as an equal, actually. :)
> BUT, in the spirit of friendly discussion, I propose we amend the pillars
> to five.
Hear, hear. One can have as many pillars as one wants. =]
> It's a myffic number, is five.
It's my favourite number, actually. I always felt that it was a nicely reliable and trusthworthy number. Multiply any other number, and you have no idea what you'll end up with (very sloppy, that. =]). Multiply the number five with an odd number, however, and the last digit will be five, and if you multiply it with an even number, the last digit will be zero. You know where you stand with the number five. =]
Mythic? Hmm... I know it's a significant number in some metaphysics, since it might stand for four earthly elements and the soul. Does it show up in myths, too?
Say, did you ever read The Illuminatus Trilogy? Now there's one of the few books I suffered my way through the first time and then reread with glee. Normally, I'm more faithful in my literary antipathy. =]
> Because, y'know, it's good when one doesn't notice style: it generally
> means it's doing its work, but style defines the quality of storytelling.
Hee. I guess I see what you mean. :) Certainly I notice it when someone is using the "wrong" style for a story (for the purpose of parody, usually).
I believe that the next new book I read, I'm going to try to pay attention to how the author says things, not just how he says them. Given that that's likely to be Blue Like Jazz, a gift from my otherwise nice but rabidly religious friend, I could probably use the distraction. =]
> I have a nagging doubt you read style as a 'conscious art' thing or
> something equally abstract.
Hmmm... it's possible that I on some level regard carefully crafted prose as "showing off," yes. Which isn't a good thing, because style does influence my enjoyment of a story, as I said... I must ponder.
(*grins*) Did I mention that you always make me reconsider things, too? :)
> A good writer should evoke places and people: give the reader a few
> salient images and the reader will do the rest.
Pratchett! :D And yeah, I notice that both in my own writing in what I read. The descriptions you enjoy the most are the ones that just sketch it out.
> POssibly falls alseep instead of shutting down, but you get my drift.
Consider the drift duly gotten. See, when I was a lot younger and dumber, I used to love the works of a certain gentleman named Robert Jordan... =]
> Ain't it great? Also cool and all kinds of positive things?
Yes, yes, yes! :D
Oh, since you're sceptical to genres, maybe this will interest you. See, I've read the most genre book in the universe. It's quite amazing, there is nothing in there that's not genre. No "one author's take on the genre." No "comment on the genre." It's just genre! ^_^;;
As such, while this is technically a review, there is not very much to review about this book. Instead, I talk a lot about the fantasy genre at its worst. You may find some things you agree with. :) (http://baeraad.livejournal.com/28662.html)
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-02 09:22 pm (UTC)Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-08 10:57 pm (UTC)What's this shite, luv? Of course we're equals! We're both human beings who are not afraid to voice our opinions. What more 'equal' do you want? Hm?
Mythic? Hmm... I know it's a significant number in some metaphysics, since it might stand for four earthly elements and the soul. Does it show up in myths, too?
'Course it does. For the same reason you so brilliantly point out (i.e. the even/odd easy combination) and because the Egyptian Calendar Year was made up of 12 thirty days months and 5 FIVE in-between days which, of course, were holy as anything. 12 months plus 5 days makes 17 which, of course, is a bad-luck number in subsequent patriarchal christian/hebrew/islamic cultures. the other bad-luck number, 13, comes from a matriarchal calendar as well. The 13 twenty-eight days months of the Lunar Calendar (plus a Cardea or Hinge day). The best calendar ever, loses one second every five years. :p
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-09 04:38 pm (UTC)Well, when you put it that way... =] Still, I'm slightly in awe of just how well-read you are, of how many and, good lord, how advanced books you can make casual references to. Shakespeare is one thing, but someone who has read ancient Greek playwrites is surely in a division above mine. :)
I'm certainly not going to put down my own favourites (Have you read Martin yet? Read Martin! ;) Except, okay, if the budget is tight this month I agree that Pratchett comes first. :D). I will argue to the death that each of them has either skill or originality or both. But it can't be denied that all my favourites are modern authors, and what is more, they're all modern genre authors. I have a lingering feeling that my perspective is a little narrow.
I do try to learn, and to broaden my horizons. You've been very helpful with that. :) But I still have that nagging suspicion that I have no idea what I'm talking about sometimes. ^_^;
Not that I let that stop me, mind. If everyone waited until they had a clue before opening their mouths, the world would be a very silent place. ;)
'Course it does...
Hmm, interesting... 0_0 Where did they have the Lunar calender?
12 months plus 5 days makes 17 which, of course, is a bad-luck number in subsequent patriarchal christian/hebrew/islamic cultures.
Say, you know a lot about this stuff. Would you say that the Egyptian culture was also pretty patriarchal? I know they had goddesses and priestesses and such, but that doesn't have to mean very much. And I can't help it notice that the most famous story out of Egyptian mythology is about a woman going through a tremendous amount of work on behalf of a husband who couldn't find his backside using both hands. =] Heck, she even had to knock herself up, because he wasn't equal to the task - and still he's supposed to be the hero of the story.
That Osiris, he knew how to get the maximal credit from the minimal effort... =]
Seriously, the impression I'm getting is that the Egyptian men considered themselves to be much holier and more important than the women (though that might strike both ways, I guess; Christianity uses women as a symbol of grace and divinity, it just doesn't like them to actually do anything or decide anything). But that's a gut impression. Could you tell me what the informed opinion is?
the other bad-luck number, 13, comes from a matriarchal calendar as well.
I did hear somewhere that it used to be a lucky number before it became an unlucky number, yeah... I suppose that's along the lines of old gods = new demons, such as poor old Shaitan getting turned into Satan, huh? =]
Funnily enough, in the first setting I constructed, I decided that the people in it had a 13-month year with 28 days per month. It just seemed so much more logical. =]
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-14 12:58 am (UTC)I love myths - that's why I love Gaiman, y'know? - but I love ancient cultures best so yeah, I've read a bit about them. Ancient Egyptians changed froma a matriarchal society to a mixed one to a patriarchal society, true, but they never saw the need to change the calendar which wasn't the best around, but which they liked because of the five day Intercalar Festival thingie. That's where the Phoenix is born as well, y'know? Every fifty year they had to adjust teh calendar so they added a Day of the Phoenix the old calendar died and was reborn of its ashes. All very symbolic and myffic, y'know?
As for Egytptian men... well... it works both ways donnit? There's this spectacular Ancient Egytptian novel, and yeah, it's Fantasy, The Tale of Two Brothers which I'd highly recommend if I didn't know how hard it is to read nowadays. Possibly a translation has been published but I've no idea. Then there's lots of papyri (am NOT going to type papyruses! YACK) about life and death and everything, so we can know quite a bit about Ancient Egyptians. I repeat, mum's a librarian in the Bodleian (Oxford famed library) so I have access to lots of odd info.
Perfect calendar= 13 28 day months with an extra day to symbolise the Hinge the year turned around. "THE" famous 'a year and a day' of fairy tales. Lost less time than our current patriarchal hysterical calendar in a year. *g* It's way more logical than most calendar of ancient AND present times. It's, of course, a Lunar calendar, hence made by women o horror of horrors!
Am stewing on things and life and things and dead people, so won't be on much, but will be back as soon as stew is done. Mucho love.
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-16 09:54 pm (UTC)I did sort of guess you'd been born into a family of literate people. If your middle name is what your email says it is, it's a bit of a hint. =]
I guess I'm from a family of big readers too, though rather eclectic readers. Not that it took any prodding that I can remember to make me start devouring every book in sight as soon as I learned to read. Is there such a thing as reader genes? =]
So shutup as my friend Mick used to say.
I will commence shutting up immediately. =]
There's this spectacular Ancient Egytptian novel, and yeah, it's Fantasy, The Tale of Two Brothers which I'd highly recommend if I didn't know how hard it is to read nowadays.
As in, it's in ancient Egyptian? ^_^;; Or is it just that the translation is very old English?
(come to think of it, I've seen "very old English," and it might as well be ancient Egyptian for all that I could make out of it... ^_^;; Let's hope for a new translation, then. :D )
Anyway, I'll put it on my list. Beneath something of Delany. :)
Though right now, I'm in the mood for something Gothic, actually. Autumn has arrived in force, and it's done something to my temper. I want looming towers and ancient mansions and dread secrets and melodrama! :D
I considered Jane Eyre, but decided, based on the plot summary I found, that I'd read five pages and want to strangle the heroine. ^_^; I'll see if the message board crowd has any suggestions. And otherwise, I guess there's always Lovecraft. He's got dread secrets and melodrama all over, if I remember my high school reads of him properly... =]
Then there's lots of papyri (am NOT going to type papyruses! YACK) about life and death and everything, so we can know quite a bit about Ancient Egyptians.
I have a great big book on ancient Egypt, which I bought to do research for a novel I had planned (it crashed and burned, but I'm proud to announce that it wasn't for lack of worldbuilding. ;) ). I keep thinking I should read it all sometime, but there's so many other great big books lying on top of it. I'm much better at buying books than on reading them, as it turns out... =]
But that said, I have actually read a bunch of stuff on Egypt, though mostly I think I skimmed it looking for references to Set. There is one god in all the myths and religions of all the world that I feel I have something in common with... =]
"THE" famous 'a year and a day' of fairy tales.
Oh, so that's what that's all about.
Am stewing on things and life and things and dead people, so won't be on much, but will be back as soon as stew is done. Mucho love.
Uhm... good luck with that? Tell me how it turns out? ^_^; I'll be ready to welcome you back once you're done stewing. :)
Much love back. (*HUGS*) :)
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-17 10:22 pm (UTC)Yep, am Jane Austen Something, my bro is Sean Yeats and my sister is Fleur Ronsard. Two poets and a novelist. *G*
Tale of Two Brothers is of course in ancient Egyptian, but I've read a fairly modern (I think on or about the 1960s) translation. Unfortunately that's not in print anymore. :(
Something gothic...
Are you going classical? In which case Frankenstein is your best bet, or anything by Poe. If you're going contemporary, may I suggest Reginald Hill's Dialogues of the Dead? I know it's labelled as a thriller, but it really ain't, it's gothic and how! Lovely characters, lovely worldbuilding, lovely style and a hell of a wow plot. Oh, and I wouldn't spit on the theme (hidden) as well. Or The Stranger House also by R. Hill which is actually more chilling just because it seems so much more innocuous and airy.
Stew is still bubbling, I feel I have to post something about my dead, but I also feel I shouldn't. You know how it is...
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-19 06:17 pm (UTC)I read Poe in high school and didn't like him much. I picked up some of his short stories anyway, and find I like him a lot more now. Either I've become a more advanced reader (one might hope) or else it's just because he is exactly what I'm in the mood for right now. Lots of insane, scholarly aristocrats and dark deeds and horrors from beyond the grave. :D I think his sense of humour just leaves me scratching my head, though.
I'll try the other two you mentioned too, I think. Clearly you know what I'm after here. :)
Stew is still bubbling, I feel I have to post something about my dead, but I also feel I shouldn't. You know how it is...
I'm not sure. If you mean you worry no one wants to hear your problems, let me assure you that I do. If you mean it's a matter of discretion and someone might not want you to tell anyone, let me assure you that I wouldn't dream of asking you to betray a confidence. If you mean it's something personal enough that you don't feel comfortable sharing, then I can respect that.
Not really having a clue of what the issue is, that's really all I can say... except hope you work it out. And (*HUGS you*). :)
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-24 02:40 am (UTC)Nah, it's personal but not THAT personal, it's just...
Look it's hard to explain, I'd like to write about them, but at the same time I feel I shouldn't. Bit of a conflict, see? And DO read Reginald Hill. Get out of the Fantasy Cage and learn that spiffy chilly horror and sweeping major themes can come in ANY package. Y'know, I'm starting to think you're a bit of a genreist or a bookicist or something. :P
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-25 05:09 pm (UTC)Y'know, I'm starting to think you're a bit of a genreist or a bookicist or something. :P
I am no such thing! ^_^;; I'm just naturally inclined towards specialisation rather than branching out. =] I mean, as far as fantasy goes, I know the ropes. I know you don't touch Goodkind with a ten-foot pole if you value your sanity, I know that no matter how bad your budget at the moment, you make sure to get your hands on the latest Pratchett, and I know that if a blurb mentions a miss-matched group going on a journey to find a magical gadget, it's going to be derivative crap and I should stay away. =]
If I started reading something else, I'd be in unchartered territory. I could by all means chart it, eventually, but not before having to wade through extensive amounts of crap in order to learn where the good stuff was found. =]
But I will read Reginald Hill. Promise. ;)
Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-08 10:58 pm (UTC)Re: HUGZ!
Date: 2006-10-09 03:06 pm (UTC)I was threatened with a Hawaii shirt once, but what with the Devil looking after his own and all, the threatener was unable to find one. Whew. I was spared the dread touch of (*shudders*) colour. =]
Actually, I suppose I do own at least one shirt with a Golden Retriever on it, so possibly the rule is not quite so absolute as all that. But then, I understand you're a cat person, so maybe that's no real help... =]
Shirts
Date: 2006-10-14 12:46 am (UTC)Love dogs as well, but yea, am a cat person. Possibly am a werecat. Don't know for sure. You can't even begin to imagine what it means not being able to wash and wash for a werecat. 'orrible.
Anyway, loved your essay, if I didn't make that clear enough before. You've got a pellucid quality I can't resist. PURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
Re: Shirts
Date: 2006-10-16 10:33 pm (UTC)I'm a bit partial to white myself, actually. I've been thinking of putting together a couple of all-white outfits as a change to my normal, all-black outfits. Just to freak out everyone who's gotten used to seeing me wear only those. I wonder if it'd take them a moment to realise it was me? =]
hello Vanity
We have a friend in common, it seems. Vanity is such a fun vice. And it requires no special equipment other than a mirror. :D
Really, I didn't use to be this way, I'm almost certain. ^_^;; I use to be all intellectual and "looks, pah, such nonsense." But give me a thinner face and longer (and cleaner) hair, and all of a sudden I'm Narcissus. Disturbing. But we're pretty much stuck with our faces for life, so we might as well appreciate them, I guess. =]
Possibly am a werecat.
Really? Very cool. :D I've read about that sort of thing, and it gave me that nice "the world is a very interesting place" feeling. :)
Hmm, you do have a number of cat-like traits. Hating to take orders, inclined to wander far and wide, graceful but with claws should claws be required... yeah, I can see it. :)
Personally, I seem to be... I don't know, human plus. Ten gallons of human in a five-gallon container. There was a time when I felt like some kind of space alien, but eventually I concluded that the reason why I didn't fit in was that most people weren't as human as me. Which really is their problem, when you think about it. ;)
Well, just possibly I feel a certain kinship with chimpanzees. Their entire way of being seems so comfortable. =]
Anyway, loved your essay, if I didn't make that clear enough before. You've got a pellucid quality I can't resist. PURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
(*BEAMS*) I'm glad to hear that, and you are most kind to say it. :D