#protometa

[incurablehumanist]

"but why are all supernatural's monsters/creatures/beings always just trussed-up humans it's so unimaginative" unless you consider that within the rules of this universe the only playing field that matters is earth, and the most valuable pieces are always human (their bodies, their souls, their will). if you want to beat the game you have to play by its rules, using the materials it provides. even in a universe with a so-called god (more on that later) he is still forced to exist on a human scale in human form because the only way he can be a part of the universe he (supposedly) created is to be that which he (supposedly) creates. all there is is humans, things-that-were-once-human, things-that-inhabit-humans, and God. and if the old sayings are true and humans really were made in God's image then at what point does "god" stop being Other and Unknowable and start being just a different kind of human. stay tuned while I question the very notion of god's existence in the supernatural universe despite us having met him on several occasions.

[incurablehumanist]

you may be wondering why I made my blog header a random children's playground, well dear reader it's not just any children's playground it's the location of the heaven portal (the only heaven portal as of S9) in the show supernatural, a show which repeatedly uses playgrounds and parks to represent humanity and earth as a whole, such as in instances of the inhuman becoming human/earthbound, including scenes where characters (human or otherwise) express their humanity (namely their heart, their will, or their connection to other people) or else have that humanity questioned/challenged, all of which ties directly into my reading of supernatural as a fundamentally humanistic text. in this essay I will–

[beat-shobon]

15 i wish to know


15. Relationship status

Single. (´；ω；｀)

[deemnfic]

as always, eshu has already answered the thing.

yourstoadore check out the posts linked below--i strongly recommend!

eshusplayground replied to your post “Hi! I personally think you have a really firm grasp on Regina as a...”

http://eshusplayground.tumblr.com/post/94282168245

eshusplayground replied to your post “alwaysatrombonist replied to your post:Hi! I personally think you have...”

I remain convinced that Regina is an INFJ that learned to hide her F and mask it as T in order to protect her vulnerable feelings. But for more INFJ stuff: http://eshusplayground.tumblr.com/post/94282168245

[deemnfic]

alwaysatrombonist replied to your post:Hi! I personally think you have a really firm...

Dee, try answering these yes/no questions for Regina. I got INTJ (moderate, slight, moderate, strong) but idk of that’s right cos I only really saw S1. humanmetrics.com/cgi-win…

Juju you're a GENIUS because this elucidated a conflict that I didn't name before:

I think Regina in her Evil Queen persona and Regina as herself would be two substantially different types.  Especially when it comes to the Thinking/Feeling portion.  Also the Introvert/Extrovert.  Like, while Regina (True Form) would strike me as thoroughly introverted, she created a persona that reads as an extrovert but didn't actually allow her introvert self any air to breathe.  How do we detangle that.  And when we look at thinking/feeling, I mean--here's this brilliant strategist who will lose her damn mind and toss strategy to the wind when the people she loves are in danger or when she hits That Point in being hurt.

Regina is complex, yo.

So I did the thing and also got INTJ, but distinct x 2 and moderate x 2 with the most likely switch happening on Thinking/Feeling.  I will take it.

[deemnfic]

Hi! I personally think you have a really firm grasp on Regina as a character, so I just had a question- what would you classify Regina as, according to the Meyer Briggs's system?

First: thank you!

I'm going to confess something SHOCKING for a psychologist: I am a n00b when it comes to MBTI.  Like, even the centers I work with require all of us to get inventoried and I'm still like "yeaaaaaah whatever."  Part of this maybe comes because for the both of last two dimensions of the MBTI, I myself fall into that really rare 'either-or' category, so I'm just like UGH WHATEVER I'M ALL THE THINGS SO WHY DO I CARE ABOUT WHAT ANY OF YOU ARE.

SO with the knowledge that were I to say anything, I'd be talking out of my ass, let's open this to the public.  Pick one dimension of the MBTI, say where Regina would fall on that scale, and explain why.  Prizes will be given to those whose answers please me.  And by prizes I probably just mean a virtual pat on the head.  And by 'please me' I really am referring only to answers.

[beat-shobon]

have a feel better ask from a fan. feel the wind blowing from me

Thank you very much.

[deemnfic]

i was thinking of why i hate the rebooted batmobile (as one does) when i suddenly stumbled on the reason i can't get as hype about superhero movies as i did when i was a kid.

the batmobile i grew up with was a slick, stylish, dangerous vehicle.  it probably made zero technological sense, but it was the single bit of clearly visible refinement allotted to batman.  batman, you know, bruce wayne, playboy billionaire who owned the finest of everything and had it all custom-made, to boot.  either his batmobile was self-designed, or he had a vehicular genius on his side.

the batmobile reboot... is a military cast-off.  the bat suit is a military cast off. batman is reshaped into this paramilitary entity. batman isn't smart, he's just rich; he buys enough technology to monitor all of gotham's communication (but still misses the important stuff). he drives around in his big hulking tank of a batmobile, literally crushing other cars beneath him.

the batmobile isn't the pinnacle of wealth and design anymore; it's just an expensive behemoth. batman isn't batman, he's a walking, talking ad for the the NSA, all associated Feds and militarized police.

and that's essentially the purpose of all the superhero movies that have come out.  all of our heroes have become military assets and poster-children.  even when their opposition is human, and American, all these villains are framed as "rogue" elements, or "corrupted" elements.  any depiction of the "establishment" is lighthearted and for humorous contrast--tony stark versus 5 star generals, for example.

... maybe i'm looking at my childhood with rose-colored lenses, but the heroes whose stories i devoured back then would be marching in the streets with us, not suiting up in riot gear against us.