v. sad

I can't get my Seeker Season 1 DVD right now. I had to cancel my pre-order, for the time being. I held out against doing that as long as I could; sacrificing other things, but...

It's a bad time of year and the money just isn't with me right now.

I'm all bummed. Very much so.

Being an Intimate subtype Five is bizarre

Being acutely lonely.................being acutely "most-people" avoidant/dismissive

Fantasizing about the 1 connection you want...in all its impossibilities........probably making the possibility of connection to someone who could actually be the right one...nearly impossible...or it never goes anywhere or gets off the ground because its comparison to what has become the perfect fantasy is stunningly painful and flawed, in contrast.

I figured out a major Something that gets in the way of possible "good" intimacy*, recently [*meaning, 'good enough/perfectly adequate' - isn't that a sickening phrase?  Does anyone else hear the loud resounding gong of "Settling!!" in their mind when they read this?].

It falls into that "acutely painful" {to an Intimate Five) category:

It's when you feel the beginnings of that feeling like you could kind of fall in love, with this person; all the chimes are ringing, within you...all the right feelings and bells and whistles are going off, one by one, that lead you to falling deeper and deeper "in love"...and then, like the Speedbump from Hell, you hit that thing.  That something that just makes you lurch in your dreamy feelings, halt, worry, take stock, re-evaluate...etc.

I know this is a common experience in the human romantic world...I guess it's a matter of what the thing is... like, how severe or "minor," and according to whom.


The sad and bad part is that for me, it takes very little.  Always has.  Very little for me to stop, cast doubt, and give up.

I've often read that Fives are very sensitive; and if it's true that I am one, then I can certainly vouch that it's true.  It takes very little turbulence of whatever the particular kind of Five is sensitive to, for a Five to disappear out of that person's life, and scram.

How sorry and how true this is of me.

Even if I feel that I love someone with my whole heart, sometimes, if I sense some Speedbump-from-Hell [it's relative, remember] sort of incongruity betweeen us which my mind or heart or maybe (it's my) self-confidence can't get over, I find myself over the course of time slowly becoming emotionally disengaged from that person.  It's like...automatic.  I would, if I could, get over it--and I would, if I could, stay emotionally invested; sometimes I dearly wish to.
But I can't stop what my heart does.

I am not cold; it hurts me, really deep inside where they don't know about it and can't see.  But my heart does something I can't control and just sort of numbs out- freezes out -the pain.  The very hurting makes my heart divest myself of them so that it feels less and less.  I know that doesn't make sense.
[It's "ice" pain, not "fire" pain:  Pain that is like fire keeps burning and burning, and feels hotter and more painful as it goes on; and it consumes (the person) as it goes.  But pain that has the qualities more of ice is most acutely painful and shocking at the beginning; and as it goes along it numbs and tingles/fades away.  It probably leaves just as great an amount of devastation (to the person), but that devastation is not felt or perhaps fully perceived by that person- not for a long, long time afterward.]


I imagine...
I had an imagination, of something like this, and wondering how it would go:

What if...what would happen if, right when that time, that moment [the big scary Speed Bump] happens, the person I love, who loves me in return, were to stop me, and speak to & allay my fears about that 1 thing?  To talk me down from that irrational precipice, of self-rejection (because I am turning down/denying myself, of that love...not feeling I can be a match to it, or "fit," in that person's loves, likes...their world)...what if they stayed me with their eyes and with their hand [or arms or lips or anything else <:} ♥], and told me that I was an unshakeable part of their heart, their love, their life...and that they could never divest themselves of my presence and of that love [me], in their life?

I have had.
One.
My best friend.

Unfortunately my best friend is not marriageable [nor boyfriend-able]... <:)  ...But she still matters most to me, I think, above all other living human beings because she was that person, for me.  (More people can be that person...it's a multiple-residence title.  They'd be another one of 'that person.')

Anyway, when it comes down to it, I don't know if this thing in me is just crushingly low self-confidence or insecurity about being loved and "up to it" [= being 'enough' for another person?], or if it is a part of Five-ness, or if those two things are one and the same.

Please, someone who cares about Enneagram Fives (Sexual or Intimate or Romantic subtype, whichever you fancy in name) out there, you would really be helping so many Fives by delving thoroughly into this subtype and their struggles with intimacy.  Very few Enneagram authors either deal with this type of Five in any way that does us justice, or they dissect Five like a bug, analyzing our intimacy & romantic patterns from a dry, scientific, detached observer's point of view, acting like we are not creatures of feeling...but merely of behaviour and habit.

*At some point remind me [Self?] to post up some of the better Sexual/Romantic/Intimate Five links to sources who actually have worthwhile things to say about it.....




1/31/2010 update:

So, finally- I apologize! -I've been meaning to do this for a long while, now:

Here is the link to the publication which contains the very best Intimate Five (or Sexual Five) description I have and probably will ever have read: The Inner World of a Romantic Five, by Val Brown. It is an article, a ways down in the document (the direct link is a PDF document)- so you'll have to skim through to find it. But it's a gold mine.

Inner darkness, Inner light, Being human, Being different

For the past half a day or so* I've had Tori Amos' The Waitress in my head...no reason/idea why. {*I actually first started this post on 29th Sept 2009, FWIW}

So I want to kill this waitress
She's worked here a year longer than I

If I did it fast, you know that's an act of kindness


But I believe in peace
I believe in peace, Bitch
I believe in peace
I believe in peace
But I believe in peace
I believe in peace, Bitch
I believe in peace


I want to kill this waitress
I can't believe this violence in mind
And is her power all in her club sandwich


But I believe in peace
I believe in peace, Bitch
I believe in peace
I believe in peace
But I believe in peace
I believe in peace, Bitch
I believe in peace


I want to kill this killing wish
There're too many stars and not enough sky
Boys all think she's living kindness
Ask a fellow waitress
Ask a fellow waitress

It's just a plainly fun-dark little song, if you're in the mood for it.  Well, I don't mean that I think it's particularly meant to be fun - but for those like me for whom it just kind of is, it is.  (Did that make any sense?)

Of course I don't think Tori was without her usual sardonic humor when she placed that line in there about the club sandwich.  >:}  (Although *smiles at Tori* she could have also really believed it.  Which is why I love her.)

What's funny for me is that though I know that, blah-blah-blah, 'we all have these feelings at one time or another,' -really, some of us truly, truly know we really mean it when it goes through us.  And that's what scares, surprises, and amuses us.  We know we mean it more than Joe Blow across the street and in the next cubicle, when he says he feels sentiments like that.

It often makes me want to stop the person and say, "No, you don't really think you mean it.  You're not even anywhere close to thinking you mean it, are you?  You're just claiming that.  It feels more exciting that way.  Gives a little lilt to your juices, and raises some eyebrows & excites some who are listening.  And you get off on that.  Come on - even just a little.  True?"


I know the people who mean it and those who don't.  I couldn't even tell you how it is that I do.  But I remember distinctly the first time I heard another "live" person voicing out loud a dark threat/desire, and knowing, deep down to my bones, that it was true.

The funny thing was, we were in a setting that doesn't lend itself to such darkly truthful proclamations, aloud [a work lunchroom, surrounded by passers-by and randomly placed seated people, as well as a group of our friends].  And I knew she knew that, for that precise reason, everyone would take her words as her usual braggadocio and tough "don't mess with this woman" talk.  We were all used to it from her before.

But for one, this time her threats were over a subject which I knew she was in no way messing around about; and two, I felt the difference.

Her words were the same - a lot of edge; very fearless, and tough; but I felt it in her tone and read it in her voice, and saw it in her eyes.  She wasn't grandstanding, bragging, or boasting.  She was serious.

Everyone else at our table laughed.  One of my best friends, closer to me, laughed nervously...I noticed.  She said "Yeah.  You don't really mean that, S.*  You're not serious," followed by more nervous giggling.  [I'm pretty sure my friend was sensing what I was in her vibe, too, but would not consciously let herself admit it, fully.]

I gave a sidelong look at my friend.  My face was dead serious.  I let her (and S.) go on.  There was more exchange of that nature:  S. bragged and proclaimed her intentions, my friend kept eyeballing her, chuckling nervously, and denying that she'd ever follow through with it; that she didn't mean those kind of words.

I just stared back between S. and my friend.  Finally, I gave S. a serious stare, met her eye to eye, and keeping my gaze at her, said sideways to my friend:  "No.  She's serious."

My friend did some more nervous chuckling and psychological denial [she's quite an Enneagram 6], while S. and I locked gazes and exchanged meaning, eye to eye.  S. would look at me for a while, but wouldn't maintain solid eye contact after a minute, just going on (with more proclaiming).

Every time my Type 6 friend would try to deny S.'s serious intentions...well, for a few times, after that (maybe twice), I locked gazes with S. and just stated very seriously, again, "No.  She means it."

S. would always lock gazes, back.

 It was funny.  But kind of tingling-excitement-feeling inducing in me, also.  Because I knew by the stares and the looks we exchanged that S. really did mean what she was saying, and part of her "stare-but-not-too-long"-back routine was due to her surprise/shock/fascination/discomfort with the fact that I was right under her skin, and knew it [her real feelings/sentiments] for a fact.  Without having to doubt, without having to ask.
And,
Staring at them unafraid.


I kind of bet she wondered, if I meant what I said, why it didn't bother me.  Why it didn't appear to.  I got the vague impression that that bothered her; or unsettled her, somehow.  Not because she was grandstanding and it bothered her that I (mistakenly) took it seriously...and not because she wasn't getting the {shocked, scandalized} reaction that she wanted - even if she was serious...but simply because I saw her realness, and...wasn't rattled.


(It's funny how it rattles those who are on the edge, like that.)

It made her nervous to be seen, when she thought she usually could count on not being taken seriously.  In fact, getting to know her over the course of a couple of years, I kind of think that it was part of her kind of maladapted social pattern, or way.  I think that one of the few things that allowed S. to actually take some human solace in relating to other people, and express any of her true/inner self at all, was being able to really express and relate her feelings - out on the edge and frequently extreme as they were - due to counting on the habit people have of poo-pooh'ing that kind of extreme talk, especially when interlaced just right with humor and extreme braggadocio for the sake of shock-humor...as well as the occasional weaving/peppering of lies, with a sly grin, just to play with people.


*names/initials changed to protect anonymity & privacy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Anyway:  Me too.

That is, I'm familiar with what is serious and how it's serious - dark stuff like that - because I've experienced some of these things, internally.


Inner experiences are weird.
They can't exactly be shared or related in a way that translates to another.  Not directly.  But I think we relate to another's inner experience through peripherals.  Through language.  Word choice, when venturing through certain subject areas.  Sentiment choice, in music, art, literature.  Evocation.  Things that evoke a certain similar tone, or feeling...patterns emerge there.  Between people.

And the people who share similar kinds of inner experiences often discover each other through the shared peripherals.
[I know this is kind of a Big "Duh!" statement...so many stereotypes, to mine.  Think of the categorizers 'emo,' 'goth,' military kid, PK (preacher's kid), war wives, veterans, soccer moms...lists of 'sets of people' that go on and on.]


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I know some of darkness.  And it is part of me.  I wonder, many days, if it was always meant to be.  I feel strangely about it, about its presence in me, and my relationship to it.  I can't really say "to," as it's embedded in me.  Now, anyway.

(I'm going to dance around it, today, yes...more descriptive/concrete details...because it would get too long.  But I'll say a bit more, still, here.)

I say "now, anyway" because at one time {and yet, still, now, also...there's a weird anomaly of the 'linear-in-time/space' earthly human life-status quo, for me, happening in this} I felt like one of the most "innocent," kind of unspoilt, pure souls in this world.  -I don't mean naïve, or a rube.  On the contrary: I felt wise.  Well, knowledgeable.   In a deep-soul sort of way that I couldn't understand or explain...and seeing with the great simplicity of wisdom the world's problems, and how silly and childish they were [promise you: nothing's changed; they still are, under all the apparent haze], and my heart really broke for adults, who couldn't seem to detect how clear and simple it all was.  They'd really seemed to have lost their way.

(I still think/know this.)

I remember reading C.S. Lewis {The Chronicles of Narnia} when I was really young [single-digits] and then I had words for it all.  Someone put words to everything I thought, and felt, and knew.  Someone knew the words to what I understood.  [I am forever in his debt.  Well, or, God's.  God brought those books to me, I really believe; or else I'm afraid I would have gone insane with the weight of a Knowing that no one else in the world seemed to acknowledge.  I am in both their debt, for my life.]

I somehow, internally, knew what God was like, knew His heart and mind, when I was little.  There is nobody who taught me the things that fell into place like pieces and made me suck in deep breaths of  tear-laden "Finally!"'s when I read Lewis' work.  No one had ever talked to me about anything deep, eternal, or that esoteric, religious, or spiritual.  We didn't talk or live that kind of stuff, in my native family.

The only place I knew of the longings and thoughts within me was: within me...and in Lewis' books.


I just realized it's going to get harder and harder to explain where, and how, then, darkness came in, from this point, without an incredibly long autobiography-post.  Aargghh....

If I do it [now] "the short way," I'm going to sound like a fruitflake.

How about for this time I just do one of those awkward "after the jump..." kind of dealies, state that - you know - and then just JUMP, and promise that what got jumped over will be back-filled at a later time and as another installment of the story?
Yup.

<<>>


The aftermath [ of having the experience of having been touched by "darkness" (for lack of a descriptor less cheesy but more accurate) ]:


I'm just...I'm a blended person.  A dark side and a light side of a coin, that I both understand equally.  Their dichotomy scares me.  It scares me the way they are miles, worlds, personalities apart--such opposites; no ground between them, no space to share and nothing at which they would not war...and yet, they reside, both, within me.

I know one thing, from my experiences:  I know which one I want to "win."  I know which one I will ultimately cast my allegiance to--which one to which my allegiance already has been cast; and that it's that one that I want to, and will, support.

It is the one that already had my heart, before any knowledge of the other touched me, knew me, or began.  It is the one that has my heart.  My heart doesn't have any feelings involved with the other.  Only when the one side (the darkness) threatens the other - then my heart cares.  Nothing will be put under threat, that it loves & guards.  [Those are like its words.  They're a warning.]


As for the other - the one (side) that is just a part of me, but that I don't care if it lives or dies with my physical body, when I leave here - I guess my feelings about it are this:

I'm glad I understand it.  More than that - (and this is crazy, rationally speaking - because in many ways it caused so much harm, and definitely much pain) - I'm glad that it touched me...close enough to stay & remain a part of me; to split off a new chunk of its own territory, which is just as "me" as the other, before.  Because without being IN something you cannot understand it from a place that really matters.



There's an irony and a beauty in all of this.

Those who didn't know the light prior to meeting the darkness (and still haven't known the light), know only darkness.  They may be like me, having some vague [or for some, better]  inkling of some kind of hope, somewhere out there to be had, in humanity - and for some longer than others, it may be a lifelong search or vague pining feeling or hope, that they do or don't attempt to chase down or feed.  But they definitely...and ever-increasingly, over the course of life...know the darkness and have ever more opportunity to see it, witness it, and meet it.  And for it to leech in and grow in them, claiming and familiarizing chunks of them with itself.  As this happens, they find something's kind of choked off hope.  And bad things happen and deteriorate within a person when Hope starts to die.

Those who never knew the darkness in any real or full sense - from within -  after first knowing the light, do not have the light fully.  They hold in their hand a little lit match--unaware, in a pitch-black room hung with a thousand unlit candelabras.  They can see their feet; they can see their palm in front of their nose; they can see their hands, to feed themselves...how is there anything else they need?


But those who knew the darkness before they knew the light - once they find the light or it finds them - suddenly have hope.  A Different hope.  This one doesn't go away or evaporate upon closer examination, or dissipate when the dark gets a little more forceful; it's of its own.  It's a thing alive of its own.  Over time they see it, more and more, as it grows within them lighting new spaces and acreage within them that they did not even know they had access to, or could have a part of.  And the light becomes a thing beautiful beyond life, to them.

And those that started, knowing the light, but who find themselves pitched headlong, sometime in life, into the darkness so that they know it, too - know it as well as the deepest despair experienced by those who began life from there and only saw it get worse - they find themselves, inevitably, forced to the precipice of a decision.  Was the light they saw, felt, and held a lie?  They can decide that - and let go of their Hope.  Perhaps there's another light source out there in the world...some knowledge, some wisdom... something...that's better than this lie(?) was.  And off they meander.  [But it doesn't get better.]
 -Or-
 They hold onto their little lit match...until the last dire second; until the pain of the flame that licks their fingers forces them to let it go.  It falls to the ground, burning a few bright more seconds; then, blackens to embers.  Their heart thumps hollow in their chest for second, after second, after second.  The quiet's like Death.  But then, they remember something they were told once, about the source -

And this is where what is called "faith" is made or broken.

Basically, the internal battle must be waged over whether they really have faith in the Source (from which light comes), or whether their knowledge of the light consisted only of what they could hold with their own hands.  ...When it was out of their power (...then what)?

For those like this who have an experience of grace, or faith...or perhaps some of both (I think it takes that) - they receive back the gift of light - but this time, find they have it fully.  Because they know what it means.  They have tasted it, not just held it prettily between two fingers.  They feel its beauty in a true and heartfelt way...because now they've felt the shaking absence, the questioning, the fear, of feeling alone and abandoned in darkness.



The irony in all of the above is that neither type of person, whether they start out life with knowledge of the light, or with its absence, is in an advantageous position relative to the other; and that neither truly knows or has the light.  (Not in a way that will truly hold them or guide them, or keep them safe from darkness.)


Both require an experience of grace (to gain that).


The beauty is the correspondence of each having to go over to "the other's side" - to exchange places, with each other.  The one knowing only absence of light and sitting in darkness must go the places he may have derided, before - to the paths and gathering-places of people he once certainly knew to be phony, or "faking it" when they spoke of having the light.  And the one thinking he already "had" the light must go to the dark places without it, stripped and barren, and feel lost, & feel confusion, and abandonment - in order to see the truth that the 'light' that he was bearing was primarily a prop, of his own concoction, more than it was anything like the real light.

Both must cross over; both must experience the other's side in its true reality.

{ I find that...wonderful.  With shivers and *all*.}  :}


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~






"The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned."
"For unto us a child is born, to us a son is given...And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

- Isaiah 9:2 & 9:6


"In the beginning was the Word*, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not overcome it."

- John 1:1-5
[*this is a name for Christ in the Bible]
 

"When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, 'I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.'"

- John 8:12

My prayers out to earthquake & tsunami stricken Indonesia

I will be praying for you today.

You are not alone or forgotten.

♥

Doing my Fall Project "Homework" This Weekend...

I haven't gone away; just being a good girl, and instead of tweaking [too much] with my blog this weekend, I'm doing my 'homework' that I need to do if I'm going to deliver up some meta-analysis and micro-analysis on Seeker, before the end of summer hiatus.

I've already put pen to paper (or keystrokes to word processor) on it; gathering the ideas in rough form as they feel like being spit out from my brain.

And homeworking.  (Which means:  Sitting and re-viewing episodes, with active viewing in mind, not merely passive - for entertainment purposes.)

I'm having fun at it.  :)

And kind of enjoying holding material back, only to blow it out onto the blog in beautiful, cascading form, to strike awe and wonder into the hearts of all who visit, when I finally do.  ...Hold your collective breaths...!
{Self:  Megalomania much?  >:D }

Shameless desire

Have I mentioned that I can't wait for my Legend of the Seeker Season 1 DVD to come, yet?

I haven't???

I can't wait for it to come.  Seriously.

I hope there are some nifty extras like cast interviews and (especially!) perhaps, their audition clips---That would be FABULOUS!!

OH OH...and an outtake reel!!!  A blooper reel!!  Ohhhs....!

Who is five years old right now?  I is five years old right now!!1!!

squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee !
squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee !
squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee !
squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee !
squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee !
squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee !
squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee !
squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee !
squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee !
squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee !
squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee (!!!)


I am so glad that Bridget and Craig love their job so much; it makes it that much better and more fun to be all excited about it from the outside [of things], too.  They're excited; we're excited...it's like one great big ol' love-fest of excitement around here.


Think of it; the DVD goodness....

Just imagine looking at this:

And this:

And this:

And this:

And this:

And of course some of this:

{Mmmmh...yums yums yums yums yums!!}

And absolutely, this:

 And this:

And totally some of this:

And this:

 

 

With some of this ~{Wizard!hugs}
~ thrown in, for good {Awww...} measure:





.....as much as you want.



Yep, before October 13th (or whenever my shipping speed finally gets it here...:(  ) rolls in, I'm going to squee myself to death.  No, no...that'll be when it does arrive.  Though perhaps before.  Antisqueepation, you know.

And to think, a few weeks ago I was above being so giddy.

Newest, Exciting Miscellany

Whellll !

I've been tweaking around with the blog's format and prettying it up [I hope], as well as pondering the whole bees' nest of Post Ideas that have been floating around in my head for some weeks, now.

Fomenting.

I like the word fomenting.

Ah; I just looked that up in my handy-dandy dictionary, and the word 'fomenting' slightly connotes stirring up trouble, such as incitement [like, toward riot].  Well, I wouldn't mind if these thoughts & plans I'm brewing end up a riot...just perhaps of a different kind!

But as this inner fomentation goes on, I realize I've slowed the posts.  However--I think that's O.K.

  DO NOT be discouraged !...yet !

The reason not to worry?

Whenever I foment, good things are happening, beneath the surface.  Not unlike a volcano, before it erupts--except this is in a good way.

As I mentioned before, via the web I'm now all the way through Season 1 of Legend of the Seeker.  I have been for more than a couple of weeks, now.  And ever since, a meta-analysis of sorts has been congealing, in its diffuse fashion, way within the folds of the ol' grey matter, up there.  My brain is stoked, basically; excited by the end of all things [er...conclusion of Season 1], and fired up with all the possibilities of meta-analysis and overarching themes--while at the same time, I'm still reeling over so much of the micro-details and little, bit-part, exciting things that I've noticed, want to go over again to pick apart & notice, and want to share and point out about several of the last individual episodes.

While it is not my intention to do [-nor ever was-] a full episode-by-episode review, I feel I may end up going over a lot, regardless, before the end.

The end of what, do you ask?  The summer.  Well, "the summer" as in:  That time period when TV shows go on their hiatus and we watch re-runs for x months of the year.
I have until November 7th [Hark! All ye! -SEEKER premiere!].

Before that date, my brain had better cough up what it's fomenting, or I - we - are all lost, dear ones.
Okay, you will be lost less than I.  You have other options.  I get that.  I'mma big girl.


SO...it's like Fall Project time here, in my neck of the woods.  Which is why you may see it be a little slower posting, until my project comes due.  My brain is a little overstimulated and glutted with all of the information and excitement that's come with its concluding the first Seeker season.

There is seriously much gold to mine.  *glints in eye*

For anyone hoping for material that broaches walls past my one current TV show lovbsession, I think there is hope lurking in the wings for you, too.  My brain foments that-a-way, as well.  So long as you don't mind your psychology and personality theory tinged with Seeker [because I am nowhere near over it]...you'll live.

Fun with 'Seeker' Anagrams! -or- I, WordNerd - Pt.1

Have you heard of anagrams? I hadn't, once upon a time. Here's what they are:

anagram (AN-uh-gram)

noun: A word or phrase formed by rearranging the letters of another word or phrase.

verb: To rearrange letters in such a way. To anagrammatize.

And at the same site as that definition links to, you can play with and enter your own names, phrases, & whatnot for the Internet Anagram Server to serve up hours of fun madness for you!

Here's a sampling of my blog name's results [I've chopped it] so that you get an idea::

for "KatLan Stew":


187 found. Displaying all: -Some.
Ankle Watts
Ankles Watt
Anklet Twas
Anklet Swat
Latte Swank
Wattle Sank
A Stalk Newt
A Walks Tent
A Talk Newts
A Walk Tents
A Tanks Welt
A Stank Welt
A Tank Welts
Lank Sat Wet
Lank Tats We
Lank Stat We
Lank At Stew
Lank At Wets
Lank At West
Stalk Tan We
Stalk Ant We
Stalk At New
Talks Tan We
Talks Ant We
Talks At New
Talks At Wen
Walks At Net
Walks At Ten

_____________________________________________

There!  Now you appreciate both what anagrams are, and how much of a mixed bag a computer program which finds them can serve up at you.

Often in order to find something worthy or funny, you have to scan through them and rearrange which words you want first, or maybe take the plural 's' off of one of the words, to add it to another.  Either way, the Anagram Server is doing the hardest of the work for you.

_____________________________________________

And now...KatLan Stew's
Fun with 'Seeker' Anagrams!

Anagrams for:"Legend of the Seeker":

Threefold Geek Seen

Hero Legend: Eek!-Fest

Geek Defense - Her Lot

_____________________________________________

Anagrams for: "Mother Confessor Kahlan Amnell":

Heels Charlatan Menfolk Morons

Sacrament Flesh - Halo, Loner Monk?

All Flesh Sacrament, Hero:  Monk On

Nook, or Sacrament Flesh? Man Hell.

Flesh Manacle.  No Hormonal Treks.

--what Zedd tried to warn Richard about Kahlan

Thanks, Romeo-lorn Flesh Manacle!

 --what a sarcastic Richard might say to Kahlan if she boffed, & accidentally confessed, him.

Nonchalant Seeker:  Hmm...Sofa Roll?

--Richard plotting

Seeker Nonchalant As Of Roll.  Hmm.

--Kahlan's after-deed thoughts

Seeker:  Nonfatal Collars, Hmm, Hon?

 --[book]Richard's suggestion to Kahlan  -or- Richard's *interested* response to K's suggestion of Rada'Han funtimes

_____________________________________________

Anagrams for: "Richard Cypher":

Charred Chirpy

--lols. :)  I couldn't help it; I just think it sounds hilarious.

Rich Her Cry Pad

--AWWWWWs!

I Hard Cry Perch

--Yes he is.  <:)

Chap Rid Her Cry

--*Nice chap*

_____________________________________________

Anagrams for: "Seeker Richard Cypher":

Derriere Hacker. -Psych!

--lols.  This one was just one of the best, period.

Creep Shirked Archery

--what jealous old Hartland buddies might say

Archery? Heck, Reprised.

--Richard's reply

_____________________________________________

Anagrams for: "Zeddicus Zu'l Zorander":

Curried?!  Dazzle!  Zounds!

--something Zedd might say, when excited, eating.

Crazed Sizzled Duo Urn

--something Zedd might have buried the remains of Kieran & Viviane in, if he'd roasted them with Wizard's Fire

Rid Crazed Duo's Nuzzle!

 --Zedd's mantra while obsessed with infiltrating the crypt to perform a 'Zeddicus interruptus'

Sizzle Our Zen, Add Crud

--pouty Richlan-speak for: Zeddicus interruptus BAD!

I Add Crud; Zero Nuzzles!!!

--what Zedd might bark back at them

A special thank you to the Internet Anagram Server for its contribution to this post. ♥

The Glamourous Life of An Actor -OR- Horrible Questions I Can't Help But Ask

Ummmm-kay:

Today's question does have to do with Legend of the Seeker...of course; and this horrible thought came to me watching episode 3, Bounty.

The scene:

 [The bottom version is how it appeared in-episode; but I'm giving you the flipped version on top so you can see their faces without craning your neck.  Aren't I nice?]

The very first question is for Bridget:  And it's embarrassing.  For silly and pointless reasons [as if a Google search can't see around shade-boxed text when its 'bots crawl the web, and drag it out for God and everybody to see in bold, jumbo font (if it wanted to) anyway]-- I am going to shade-box it, like folks do for spoilers.


1.  Bridget--in Bounty, where you guys have to hang upside down because the three of you get caught in a rope trap, how the heck did you keep the cleavage in???  My first thoughts were of this, being a girl, and eminently aware of the laws of physics of such matters.  Wonderbra nuthin'--that would not (alone) do the trick....  I was trying to imagine myself in that position and had horrible visions of Super Glue; barbed-wire edged bras with teeth that bit into...you know...; and/or, male-kind's favorite solution to any trouble that ails you:

Duct tape.

{I am going to have some keen nightmares tonight; I can already *cringe* feel it.}

2.  Trying to ponder this, my second thought and wonderment was:  Hey, wait a minute...wouldn't Kahlan's dress be falling over her head, too?
But then I thought:  Okay, it is within the realm of reasonability to figure that the rope trap caught the bottom hem of Kahlan's woods-dress, and neatly snugged it around her ankles.  Okay: given.


3.  But THEN, I noticed everyone's hands [and arms]...when you're hanging upside-down, your arms are going to naturally just flail down below you (over your head, that is)...not stay clinging to your side.  Everybody's arms were nearly stock-straight at their sides.

I had a moment of actually wondering if you all weren't really hanging upside down, but that it was a camera trick.  [Because the producers couldn't really be that cruel, could they??  I mean, your ankles & legs/feet would really start to hurt (no matter what you were hanging from)...and...you'd kind of start feeling like you wanted to pass out, after a time, wouldn't you?...and...the boobages problem!?!]

But everyone's hair was hanging down, per gravity....

And finally, I saw a clip online of cast interviews, where it shows the three of you in that very scene...and we get to see that you all are, in fact, hanging upside down.  Very much so.  [Poor guys!]  [Or, wait a moment...they didn't have stunt doubles do that, did they?  It is very hard to tell exactly who you're looking at, recognizing them & all, when they're hanging upside-down....  Hmmm.]

So, if there's a question here in #3 at all, I guess, it's:

a) what in the world reason for the direction to hold your arms at your sides, pointing toward your feet, and not letting them fall over your heads (per gravity)?

b) were those stunt doubles, being filmed, that I saw?
Edit:  Okay, I got a closer look and can see that it was indeed the three of you [re-posted with pic, above].


Final commentary:

That has to be one of the funniest scenes I've ever seen!  I hope you guys can take heart [if those weren't your stunt doubles] that it was well worth it.  Classic!  :D

Legend of the Seeker: Craig Horner

Alright.  There is something that HAS to get straightened out regarding Craig Horner.

And I would like you to think a minute on these things, first:

1. [The show's] Editing/Editor(s)
   
2. Viewer population demographics (possibly what the majority is, or is likely to swing toward)
3. the Role.  What is being played/portrayed, in any given instance.

Finally having gotten through the last episode of Season 1, and having had a chance to watch Craig develop the role of Richard (or portray Richard's development, as possibly planned by the writers), I was struck--somewhere between a re-viewing of Listener [ep.5] and for every episode from Sacrifice [ep.10] thereafter--by the realization that all of the not-really-complimentary online babble about Craig's acting was, in fact, mistaking not liking his [or 'the'] portrayal of young/immature/beginner-Seeker Richard, and those qualities that young, "puppy" Richard had--for Craig's acting quality or skill in general.

Everyone who talked about it seemed to think that somewhere "after Denna" [ep.8] Craig 'grew up,' or matured, as an actor.
After doing careful watching and discerning, and especially after seeing something in Listener [far before Denna] that I hadn't caught or paid enough attention to, before, I re-evaluated the similar opinion I'd had.

Watching later episodes solidified it; it really helped.

Craig's got acting chops.  Fine ones.  Watch Listener, and watch it carefully.  Then move on ahead from just about Sacrifice onward, and compare that.  Watch him.  One of the things that I mentioned above is not going to be working in his favor.  Actually, two of them, sort of; conjointly.

One of the reasons that it's harder to catch Craig's skill and his finer moments is -in my opinion- unfortunately, editing.
Though there be many, many women like me watching LoTS, I still think the young(ish) male population is larger, by a bit.  And Bridget is undeniably lovely; not to mention riveting and skilled at keeping you emotionally invested and kind of captivated.  And savvy TV producers who know their majority audience and what that audience wants to look at are not such fools as to not take to good advantage such excellent catnip an asset.
I think I was watching Conversion, and admiring Craig's beautiful expression when Kahlan finally shakes out of the Con Dar [it's several seconds' worth, but it gets broken up]--and I couldn't help but notice:  Gosh, the cameramen favor Bridget!  I mean, we know that this episode is kind of Kahlan's thing--well, a little more so, anyway--it's Con Dar-pivotal, so that makes its theme quite a bit Kahlan-centric [even though major things are happening for both Richard & Kahlan, in this episode; it matters (I think) both more to us, and to Richard, even, what's happening in that dungeon torture-room with Kahlan than what becomes of this particular chance at killing Darken Rahl]

I was amazed, once I started paying attention to it [primarily because I noticed some fine acting by Craig and was trying to focus on it and take Richard's reactions in], at how the camera totally lingered over Kahlan's face.  And kept going back to it.

I know her reactions are important, and we want to see what's going on in her, but I really had a desire to see it more balanced, after more watchings.  They did pretty good- that is, they lingered on Richard's face and reactions a little more than they usually do -but I don't think it was balanced.  Craig really shined, here, and I wanted to linger over his face longer, and absorb that [what he was doing, there. (-It was heartbreaking...!)].  You can really see his [Richard's] fear, and how much he loves her.  I'm getting all verklempt thinking about it.  <:}

[If you haven't ever noticed how good he is at getting the ol' tears in the eyes, you need to pay more attention.  Again, each time I keep going back for repeated viewings of specific parts, I just keep noticing it here and there, more and more.  Again--I don't wish to insult or harp on anybody, or cause argument or malcontent/division--but, pay attention to perhaps the editing choices.  If it cuts away or loses Richard, right when Craig is doing something kind of special--but it's not getting focused on.]

The thing is, as I first wrote, above, there is probably a slight to moderate (or greater?) male-viewership majority, still--and I don't think very many [in the heterosexual population thereof, anyway] men want to linger long moments over the male lead's face, & absorb his emotions.  Supposedly that's girly stuff.  [NOT.  But... ahem.]  They would appear [and I get this from reading male viewers' blog & online commentary, okay?] to want to mainly see the male lead whacking on legions of baddies.  And 'progress the plot.'  [ Yatta, yatta.  Men and their always wanting to progress the plot.  "It did/didn't progress the plot; whah whah whah...!"  Bleh.  ;)  Do you know how boring you are?]

So I think the production team is just being attuned to this.  And as far as that [still probable] male-majority-viewership goes, any Bridget is good Bridget...so it doesn't matter if Kahlan's being all emote-ey, or kicking ass, or doing whatever...just keep the camera plenty on her, and you'll have rendered that population more than reasonably happy.

Anyway, I wanted to make this point solidly, because I feel quite certain that Craig's had the shorter end of the stick, through most of Season 1.

And seeing his portrayal of Richard as Richard "grows" through the first year has convinced me that the first handful of episodes were being played as a young, immature Richard- deliberately.  And you can say that you didn't like how 'puppy Richard' was portrayed [or perhaps written], but what you are viewing [I think] was a characterization choice; not a reflection of Craig's acting skills.


I think Craig has proven that.

Edit: See what he has to say here, in this interview.  I think this confirms it:

 "What’s great is in 22 episodes, I can take him from boy to man."

Regardless, 'young Richard' is no more.  :)  We get to see Craig be cool.

Craig, you've earned my respect and I will very much enjoy watching what you have to do with Richard as time goes on.

Props! and hugs,
KtL

A Richard/Kahlan video for your viewing pleasure

Found another extremely well-made and beautiful video...this one's Richard/Kahlan 'shippy.

{Please let it get to {2:04}-that's where the song hits its stride & is good! Even I love & have this song, but don't love it until then.}




:)  Only the best for you, Precious.




*Song= My Skin /Artist= Natalie Merchant /Video artist=Elyoon64

Hearting Bridget Regan again: Her love & portrayal of Kahlan

RE: This:

"...I have fallen head over heels in love with Kahlan and that’s what makes the job so good..."

in an interview at SFUniverse.com.

--Meeee tooooo!!

Except, you know, I am loving her Kahlan even more than book-Kahlan.  Maybe it's because I'm better at seeing a character interpreted, than picking up an interpretation from a book.  I had a hard time loving book-Kahlan; maybe because honestly my first exposure was the TV show, seeing Bridget "be" Kahlan...and then I picked up books 1 & 2.  For some reason it was harder to love book-Kahlan, afterward.

There was something missing from her, for me.

I'll figure out what it is, over time, I'm sure, but for now, I can list these as differences [strictly my personal take & opinion]:

• the quality of Kahlan's vulnerability & toughness

 Having started with Bridget's K., when I started to read Wizard's First Rule, book-K. seemed, well...I don't know...awfully...wimpy.  Like, immediately terrified and clinging to Richard.  And very unabashed about verbalizing her fearfulness/vulnerability.  [I could quote passages for examples, but I'm not going to.  If you've read the book, I think you'll be able to bring them to mind.  If you haven't, you're going to have to go read it; I can't help you.]

As much as book-K. is supposed to be this worldly-wise Confessor who's seen it all, and learned some of the harshest realities and survival instincts from her great war-general [king] father...and as tough as she demonstrates she has the capability of being in Stone of Tears, the beginning chapter(s) of WFR are strange and make Kahlan seem as if she's pandering to the masculine protectiveness thing in Richard, for some bizarre reason.  If you've read through Stone of Tears and then go back to this, it doesn't seem to fit.

Knowing that Kahlan is braver and tougher than that [as shown in numerous examples in the books later on], it makes me respect book-K. a little less.

(I kind of feel about it the way I did about girls who went all "girly" in high school...only when there were boys around.

Blech.

Then they reverted back to being respectable, fairly normal human beings when the boys left.  I never could respect women who lost their identity in the presence of the opposite sex....)

I know that this probably isn't what book-K. is supposed to be doing, in those first few chapters; but I can't help how it strikes me & the impression it left.


--> In contrast, Bridget's K. is somehow more vulnerable, while wearing it less.  Does that make sense?  From Bridget's K. I get a sense of a woman whose 'toughness' comes out of the strength of the courage of the heart; out of conviction:  Right and wrong; good, bad; moral and evil; righteous and just vs. corrupt and unjust, or what's twisted, in the purity of its values.  Her courageousness seems to come out of righteous anger and the disregard of the need of sparing or protecting her own life.

(While this is the underlying theme for book-K., I can see it come out, more visibly & obviously, in Bridget's K.)


Underneath this, in the show, as we get to know some of Kahlan's background more, we can see that there is a lot of history, and reason enough for a lot of vulnerability.  [Especially thinking of the episode Listener; ep.5]  I find Bridget's K.more vulnerable because she's full of heart; but bears up under it [its vulnerability] proudly.  It takes a very special person for her to let be seen just how vulnerable and on-her-own she does feel.
Contrast to book-Kahlan who is nearly flying apart at the handles by Ch.1? 2? to a complete stranger (as Richard is, at that point) grabbing his lapel and [though gritting her teeth,] nearly crying and telling him she's "scared to death" (or something close to this) of another quad.  {This was at Richard's brother's party.}


As for the vulnerability of Bridget's K., I feel like we're let in to see it more slowly, over time.  She takes her time to really let Richard see much of her vulnerability, in particular.  Perhaps it's how they're writing the series, but in the show they really start out with Kahlan kind of being a guide (in more than just a "trail-finder" sense of the word) to Richard; she almost kind of raises him into the Seeker he's destined to be, in a way, at first.  Whereas in the book you get this turn-around where you feel like Richard metaphorically (and literally) takes her by the hand, and is the 'leader,' early on.  Even though Kahlan is supposed to be quite a few legs up on him in both experience, knowledge, and understanding [basically, all things], once they are into the Midlands.*

*Hmm...these thoughts are leading me more and more into reminders of what's been said by other [female] book readers: subtle sexism, kind of.  At least when Richard's character is around (i.e., Kahlan's not apart from him, even if in the presence of other males).  It kind of makes me think this interaction habit, then, is one of Terry Goodkind's romantic "male hero = protector-to-heroine/love interest" fantasies.   :(   Bleh.  S'fine if that's what floats your boat for you, Terry, but you can't expect the rest of us [especially the women] not to get bored.


Anyway, all that aside, another quality Bridget I think brings in, to Kahlan, is showing her heart through a penchant to worry.

I don't remember really reading 'worry' type thoughts in book-K., apart from the persistent fear that Richard would find out her 'secret,' and that she felt it was such a bad thing (what she was).

Bridget's K. doesn't seem to share really that same quality of worry about her powers--not in the sense that what she is is something shameful, or bad--more just that what/how that limits what her interaction/relationship to Richard can be, and how he might take that, will make things awkward and also affect him.  I don't quite get the same sense from Bridget's K. that she has this background fear that what she is is something horrible/shameful.  Ah!--Stigma.  That is the word I am looking for.  That she doesn't feel such a sense of bearing some kind of stigma for what she is; only the awkwardness she feels about it in relation to Richard.  You kind of get a sense that Bridget's K. takes Confessorship [new word] in stride, more; she's fairly used to & comfortable in her skin (again, outside of Richard); whereas book-K. wears it a bit mantle-like, like a martyr about it.  Kind of "I hate it; look at me do my job...!"

Bridget-K.'s reservations about her powers (outside of Richard) seem to have more to do with the moral weight/burden of how to use her power, when, why, how often, and all of the repercussions.  It's not quite the same quality as book-K does, as 'sensing yourself as' something "terrible."  Bridget/show-K. doesn't internalize it.  Only the moral magnitude of it [which book-K. does as well, but, plus the additives].

Oddly enough, Bridget's-K. only really senses a real 'horror of herself' when she comes under the Con Dar; book-K. doesn't react this way to going into the Con Dar at all [that I recall...].  She's too pissed about Richard's supposed murder.

While on the show Richard's life was only threatened (that Kahlan knew of), she didn't think he was already dead--and while I suppose that makes the circumstances precipitating the Con Dar a little different--it still does not change the fact that what freaked Bridget's-K. out was the loss of a feel for herself, and of control; and book-K. did not have this.
That's a distinct difference.

Though I can understand the lack of care for what one may do, when in a rage over one's loved one's death, and can understand book-Kahlan for this, and her mentality--somehow I like Bridget's Kahlan better for being horrified over losing control over a power she knows bears so much weight; magnitude. -That eradicates and obliterates souls & lives.  It makes her more likable to me, as a person.  I can empathize with her in that.

You get the sense that while protecting innocent people and protecting lives is important to both, in Bridget's K. it seems to touch Kahlan's heart, more.  (Perhaps I needed to get further than book 2, but I kind of don't think so.)  For some reason it still kept feeling to me that book-K cared, but was a little removed, inside, at least in a heartfelt (rather than moral-indignation feeling) sort of way--and again, I kept mostly feeling that it was righteous rage combined with doing her duty; and sort of the 'burden of her birth.'


More (maybe) later, as this is already pretty long, but,  in short, I can admire the character of Kahlan Amnell for how Bridget is interpreting her.  I feel like she brings out all the best that Kahlan is, or should be--and that she's interpreted well--by a woman (which I think is key; & really important).  I love her moral strength, and heart, and lack of self-concern.  The only emotion that she allows herself 'selfishly' is to have a vulnerability where Richard is concerned; to love him, and be deeply in love with him.  And even that, I feel I can believe, she would sacrifice, if she had to, for the need of the world, and so many people who had no other hope than her coming through, and bringing the Seeker to the fulfillment of his goal.  She wouldn't sacrifice the hopes of so many for her own happiness.

I know you love book-Kahlan, Bridget...but -[forgive me]- to me, book-Kahlan is a little whiny.  And a little resentful/selfish, and a bit of a martyr.

You're doing her the way she'd want to be.  :)
Don't worry; we can still see she's human (or, Confessor-human).  I can just like her more, this way.

Legend of the Seeker: "Rahl's kitten"

I am unwholesomely enthralled with this idea;  it's a revelation to me.

Legend of the Seeker: "Fever" "Rahl's kitten"
[Episode 21]

>:}

I am a little sick and twisty, you see.

But I can't get over the concept:   Rahl's kitten.

LOL!

-Please know that I have a cat, and I love her.  I do not find animal abuse funny in any sense-

But, for those of us with a sick sense of humor, when in the context of imagination/fantasy/suspension of reality, Darken Rahl and his kitten...even his dead kitten...are... cute.  Or something.

For Darken Rahl, that is.  As played by Craig Parker.  (Certainly not envisioning the Rahl in the book.)

For Craig Parker's own {still twisted} take on Rahl, I can even see Rahl still playing with his kitten, post mortem.  Thinking he loves it.  Carrying it around with him everywhere he goes, a bit like Linus [from Peanuts] and his blanket.  Caressing its little head affectionately.  Or something.

A little sad, a little frightening, a little uncomfortable; a little cute.   ...Like Parker's Rahl.

Thoughts on Instinctual types II

I have a friend who self-identifies as a Self-Preservation subtype.

I'm going to withhold for now what her Enneagram type is, solely for the reason that I think it might distract from the conversation.

What I find difficult to understand about my Self-Pres friend is what she wants.  In life.  She strikes me as restless.
(I think I'm restless, inside, too, but in a different way.)

Her restlessness feels to me like almost a nervous restlessness.  Not that she's nervous, and that's what makes her restless, but rather that her restlessness eats away at her, with something like an anxious urgency.  I tend to find myself feeling a little bit on the edge of restless and dissatisfied with I'm-not-sure-what when I'm with her, too.  But I'm pretty sure it's not my own.  When I leave, I feel fine, or, I get back to my own brand of  partial restlessness, part patient understanding.

Not to get off on a side conversation, but I kind of feel that the solace I have and that she seems to not have has to do with my having found my spiritual grounding; I've found the path toward what I am looking for, and, imperfect and meandering though my travel on it might be, toward home, I know, from the heart, I'm on it.  I've had my heart's questions answered...the deepest (most) of them...to my satisfaction.  It is a HUGE thing.  Anyway, my friend doesn't have that.
I wish it for her.  But that's not the point.

I'm trying to see how this relates to her Self-Pres-ness.  I'm also trying to compare what I experience with her to the other probable Self-Pres types I've known.

Ah: Here's one (I think):  I often feel like the Self-Pres types I know are looking for something, in the real world, that they can do, acquire, make, create, achieve--that will bring them something they feel they are seeking, or longing for, inside.  Perhaps a state.  Maybe they are looking for a state; I'm not sure.

But when I think of my Self-Pres type friends, I think of or see it as a lump of clay in their hands.  They know they can do something with the clay; they know the clay has near-unlimited potential uses; and whatever it is they feel they need to have, in life, they feel that they can bring it about from that clay--that thing, that substance.  The stuff of the real world that they can shape, that has form.

Even essence, or spirit.  I almost get the sense that they think that if they do just the right thing with that clay--create just right, use just right...arrange it just right, or show to others just right, or whatever...if they just do it, out of it, magically, will come even spirit or essence.

And that they spend perhaps even their whole lives, pursuing that idea.

I think that's where my friend's frustrated.  Maybe, if I've hit the nail on the head even just a little, that explains it.

I'm a Relational subtype, so I come from this bias:  An answer from an unfulfillment comes from a source.  [I'm deliberately recalling here my sense of the longing, my feeling of it, before I'd really call myself a Christian]  Somewhere, some Source has the answer, and it's like either They're hidden, or They're hiding "it"; but I know They're out there.  I just knew, had the sense, that somewhere, out there, there was...like a 'Person' (not an actual human-person), who would give me the answer, or yield to me the answer...eventually.  If I kept chasing it, dogging after it enough.  Pursuing the 'Person,' the Source.

I knew I could find it; it was like he was leaving a trail.  Little hints and clues of the answers my soul was chasing, here and there...always leading ever onward--somewhere.

But what I wonder is:  Is this sense of the 'what' you're pursuing, for your answers, in life ~ to your life questions ~ dependent on the Instinctual bias you come from?  So that I don't hurt my brain, today, I'm going to skip trying to put any thoughts or words to what Socials pursue, or see, when the shape of their longing takes form in their eyes.  It's too hard for me {Social-last}.

But I wonder if my sense of having to pursue something that I very much felt as a "person," a personality- that Source- comes because I am a Relational/Intimate type.

Maybe I'm full of it, today.

I have no clue what Self-Preservation types feel or see, in their soul's quest.  I was just speculating.  I wonder if I'm not too far off; but I really wish I could get feedback or confirmation from experienced Self-Pres types.

dammit. squee.

I do not like to publicly squee.  It is embarrassing.

I {sigh} am squeeing over LoTS: "Sanctuary," the end, fireside conversation of Richard and Kahlan.  Mostly Kahlan talking.  I swear in the last few episodes before Sanctuary and including it, Richard has, compared to Kahlan, seemed nearly asexual.

LOL  -Pardon me!  It's just that...hmm...I don't know if Bridget is acting it more...um..."wanting"...than Craig is; if that's how it's being directed or written, or just something lacking in Craig's expressions...but either way, I'm beginning to think Richard a little bit of a eunuch!  It's a wee bit disappointing.

So my 'squee!' tonight, watching "Sanctuary" was mostly thanks to the Bridget/Kahlan half of the expression of sentiment/wanting.  Maybe Richard was just feeling distracted with his nose in the Book of Counted Shadows.  He had that furrowed brow thing going on; always a good indicator that he's distracted by some aspect of his mission.  But why does he always have to be, just when Kahlan decides to let loose a tiny hint of pining/longing???

Ah... nope, I just realized that it's a writers' game:  They're doing this to us.  Because whenever it's Richard who's feeling all express-y and luuuurve-y, Kahlan is Miss Nothing-But-The-Mission.  It's supremely aggravating.

Perhaps they're doing us a favor, because should Richard and Kahlan be um...sympatico, turned-ON...at the same actual time, place, and mood/setting, several viewer spontaneous combustion fatalities might happen at the same time.  Near misses keep us only halfway there; just shy of explosion.  <:o  :D   It is probably a kindness that they are doing us, trying to build up the threshold of our squee to explosion ratio a little bit at a time.

Anyway, I have 2 episodes left to watch for Season 1, and it was just finally good to see Kahlan outright own some of her...well, wanting.  I mean, we know she does...they've written it in (just) enough, and Bridget has done an awesome job of showing the simmering of the conflict of that, below the surface, to make sure we catch it, in Kahlan...but it's just a tremendous relief...it's NICE...to see Kahlan actually let loose a little, in this episode, and admit it, outright.

DRAT Richard/Craig for being so sexless in this scene!  ARG.  Okay, I know Craig can act it (the lust stuff), so it must have been directed/written as it was.  I swear, it was like Richard was all "sympathy/concerned"-face, with his "I know what you mean..."  It was like he was playing the part of a sympathetic girlfriend sitting at the campfire...  he practically did "woman"- face!   >x{

Here, Richard...you're not using that;
*borrows boy parts*
-lend them to Kahlan, would you???  lol

~ naughty..sorry ~   :)

In awe of Bridget Regan

I'm not sure I need to write any more than the post title, but at the risk of sounding...I don't know what...:

I've watched ahead, now, online, some of the summer reruns that haven't re-run yet for my first-time-viewingness, and I'm up to "Cursed" (ep.19).

The rest of the post I'm writing to Bridget, letter-style:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dearest Bridget,

First of all, I was blown away at the hilarity of "Mirror," not just the writing, the dialogue, but how funny you and Craig can be!  I was so proud of both of you.  I could not stop laughing.  [Ah- that reminds me; Bruce, too!  I thought I'd die at his wailing, as Bianca, with Zedd's appearance/body, to her husband.  SOOO funny!]

Bridget, you can mug!  You have the best plastic face when you want to really ham it up.  I had no clue you had such a comedy bone in you....that is great!.  :)  You totally gave me the creepy crawly ickies doing the jail cell door bit, coming on to the guard...I actually felt the need to go bleach my eyes, it was so good [bad good]!

Then from that, [I watched these in one weekend] to "Cursed" {the one with the calthrop, & Kahlan's 2nd Con Dar, where she accidentally attacks the princess}-- and you just sob on command?!  I kind of hate to admit that you broke my heart, though I know it's a compliment to you.  :)  "Good job!" is an understatement.  "Quit that.  I hate you" comes closer to my true sentiment.  ~Which you've gotta read with a fake pout on my lips, but with pride {for you} in my eyes.

Similarly [back further] in "Sacrifice," when Kahlan is fighting within herself over the choice of the Mother Confessor's ultimatum to her to hand over the male Confessor baby to ultimately be drowned, or watch Richard be roasted by the confessed Zedd--I want to tell you that you did a perfect "confessor's face" [Re: the books], and it was gorgeous, the perfect transformation you did on your face...from torn/heartbroken, to pulling the pain inside, off the face {and yet we can still see it...how the hell do you do that?!? -Translate that?!}, and we watch your {Kahlan's} face cement, go stoic...just as her eyes spill over and her tears fall.  Did you plan that?  Face blank as eyes overflow?  How???  HOW???  Forgive me, I am hating you again.
Though I love you, really (for that).

I would forgive you if you kind of aided the tear thing along, by whatever means necessary...but, honestly, I'm thinking you didn't.  Because of "Cursed."  Those were real, your face and your sob was real, and it broke my heart.  You killed me.
So I totally believe you are capable of doing (unaided) what I just described in "Sacrifice."

You, love, are lethal.  (Acting chops-wise.)  As Kahlan is "ass-kicking" lethal (as well as in other ways), you are the actor's equivalent.

I'm rather riveted.

Awesome.

Rock on.

Much, much respect {and big hugs},
KtL

Note:  This reminds me, I promise a post for Craig, soon, to follow.  I have gained much respect with more eps/viewing, and want to let him know.  I am hoping maybe one or the other of you will meander by...who knows...?  And maybe get a chance to read it.  Regardless, others should know!  :)

Thoughts on Instinctual types

I've been thinking about the Instincts, in regards to my life, and the way I can't understand some types of other people.

The Instincts are pretty easily observable operating in day-to-day life, amongst friends, coworkers, family...at least, I find.

What isn't easy at all is understanding and fathoming the entire perspective shift operating throughout life from an instinctual orientation that's not my own.

Someone {one of the Enneagram author/researcher types}once said that the Instincts were perhaps a stronger and more important and fundamental difference between people than even their Enneagram type.  I think I'm starting to come around to that thinking, myself.

My biggest mystery is Socials.  It takes a big leap of the brain for me to keep my head in that perspective- well, firstly to entirely encompass the Social instinct's perspective, really- and then retain it, as I envision going about life, and various activities of the day.  It's hard work.  It feels like homework.  It takes thinking, for me, at every step.
Which is one of the first reasons why Social is not my first or even second instinct; and a good hint that it's completely dead-last.


I can understand Self-Preservation...mostly.  It's not as hard to wrap my head around; I "get" it, and it's not as hard work to envision how going through a day as a Self-Pres type might be.  I still have to stop myself and think, but it's more like the work you do trying to remember to step lightly on a sprained foot, each stride...you have to do the work of remembering, but the remembering is easier to retain and it's easier to engrain the temporary new pattern in your mind.

My Instinct is the Relational.  The Intimate [also called Sexual] instinct.  It's hard for me to imagine that other people don't go through life - in fact, the week, the day, the hours - swinging from the magnets' pull of attraction, longing; a soul-thirst sort of interest in one thing or another; fascination.  Or the desire...the desire to get under the layers of other people; to really know them.  [Even if not wanting to be so known, pursued, or probed themself...as is my case- the Five.  And perhaps the other Withdrawn triad types...well, the Nine, maybe, anyway...Okay- and some other, non-Withdrawn triad types would probably feel various aversions to that, too.]

I want to 'know' while being hidden...coccooned; until I'm ready to come out, or reveal.  But it takes a lot for a Five to feel that safe.  My therapist used to say that being around me at times was like being around a fearfully cautious baby, testing out a stranger...they need to feel you out [feel you literally, like touch your face with their hands, in a baby's case--which is what she pantomimed, while she said this], know that you're safe...that you will hold still and not frighten them while you're being explored.  If you've held very still and gentle and haven't frightened them, but have exhibited absolute trust in them, allowing yourself to be explored and known- the will settle down in your lap and be ready to place their absolute trust in you; to be intimate with you.
I think this is a very good description of a Five in love & in intimacy of any kind.  Maybe the Intimate subtype Five, in particular...maybe not.  Couldn't say.

So ~ anyway, as an Intimate Five you can see I'm at a catch-22.  Yearning for intimacy; for immediacy of knowledge, to the soul level, of the other~ in another word, a simpler word, closeness;
at the same time, fearing letting the littlest bits out, of my soul, of things dear to me, for fear that in those things not being shown love, or being valued, I will feel eradicated & destroyed, bit by bit.

Fives are very fragile, in that way.

--Not if you don't matter to them!...
but if you do..........

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyway, like I was saying:  I seem to be surrounded by what I see as Socials, in life, and they bug me.  Well, not that...but just...they seem to have taken over the world.  ;)

To my eyes, Sixes mimick Social-ness.  Almost all Sixes that I've known, whether their primary Instinctual subtype was Social or not, have seemed like Socials or seem to have a huge social component.  Even my best friend- who is NOT (I don't think!) a Social subtype--and she's a Six--is so much more preoccupied with the Social realm, and aware of it, involved in it, and worried [lol...see: Six--worry!] about it.  She Twitters.  >:p   Apparently.  *facepalm*

[Twitter strikes me as an overtly Social-type activity.  Much the same as Facebook, etc., etc.--all of those things.  Yes, to answer the probable unasked question: I searched my soul a lot and hesitated, 'ere I first began a blog.  (All I'm saying is, a blog, though more like a little bit of a further-apart cousin, can or cannot be, depending on what you make of it, something akin to Facebook & Twitter and the like.  They're not un-related.)]

So many popular {ugh...'popular' -itself a Social instinct idea} pastimes and things that spread and get advertised and talked about and taken up are things that Socials like.  I guess they go hand in hand; Socials like to do certain types of things, and the types of things that Socials do and habits that they have naturally lead to stuff getting 'advertised,' for lack of a better word.

Which also leads to my suspicion that Socials must make a lot of babies.  >:{

I can't see why not...what kinds of things do babies and children lead to?  Well, let's see:  Being a first-time mom (or dad) is kind of traumatic and scary, no matter how stoked you are about it--so you naturally tap in with other people who have been there, or ARE going there, before you or with you--and you can share notes and cry or freak out on other parents' shoulders.  And what is that?  That is socially connecting.

Socials (mostly) like social connection.

A little further along, what do you do with your baby(ies)?  At some point you're probably going to need sitters or daycare or early ed. of some kind...so you take them to other little groups of people you must connect with in order to get the proper care taken of your baby(ies).  -There's more.

Even later still...what's next?  School.  And activities.  And teams (of this and that), or clubs/groups.  Which requires you to meet and connect with teachers, and coaches, and scout leaders, and soccer moms, and more other parents...and more, and more....!

Good heavens, it's a frigging non-Social's nightmare!

But Socials eat it up.  It makes them feel whole, and complete, or something.  [I don't know.  ?!?!  Go ask them!]


So anyway...even if they're not, by the prospect of all this, highly motivated, even--at the very least, they feel no aversion (to making babies), for these reasons.

So you see why it's not so far beyond the pale for me to hypothesize that Socials are probably the lead baby-makers, and that their interests also tend to take over a society...by dint of the nature of their interests & likes combined with their social nature, alone?

Of course, all this goes to pot if there is no basis for believing that the Instincts are somehow hereditary.  If they are not, then all that we have are one set of Instincts' likes and interests being much better advertised and spread around by word of mouth than the other two Instincts'.  But not necessarily a population explosion of Socials, even if they do like baby-making:  If Instinctual type isn't hereditary, they'd theoretically be having as many little Relationals and Self-Pres's as they were little Socials.

*squeezes eyes* Please, God....................!

For whatever reason I've heard some others say that as far as being free (think 'unfettered') with their sexual lives goes, though, that Self-Preservation types excell.  Not that they are promiscuous; again, use the word unfettered to lead, on this one.  In the sense that Socials have certain types of fetters psychologically restraining parameters of their sexual lives and activity, and Relationals [aka Sexuals]--because one's primary Instinct is the most 'fettered' up with ' issues,'--are a conflicted group, surrounding that life area...and absolutely do not necessarily have more sex, despite what their primary Instinct's name might suggest to one's mind.  [This is all according to what I've read & heard from others.  None of this bit on the attitude and living out of their sexual lives of the Instinctual types could I verify or inform on, from my own info.  I just don't really have any.  Well, except that I can affirm as an Intimate subtype that I agree that, as one, it's not about sex, it's about intimate/deep personal connection and bonding, and the hangups of connecting or not connecting, each time & under each new circumstance, and with each new/different person.]