3 ms·

I think people are missing that this is humor. Its approach to the truth is not direct. It lays out a humorously extreme position and challenges us to articulat

by dkarl 2y ago

I think people are missing that this is humor. Its approach to the truth is not direct. It lays out a humorously extreme position and challenges us to articulate where, presumably somewhere in between the Vulcan rationalism it's so easy to project on the internet and the abject surrender the piece portrays, the truth really lies. It challenges us to figure out, to what extent can we deny these things about ourselves? Surely the entirety is an exaggeration, so which parts are untrue, and to what extent? If you don't approach it in that spirit, you waste your time reading it. And no, you don't have to be a genius about marriage to write something like this, but you would have to be a genius at marriage to read it and not feel in any way implicated.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
TeMPOraL 2y ago
If that's what it was trying to do, it failed, because the "humorously extreme position" is actually a real experience people have - or at least have with their partners, or see other couples that seem to have it.
- jancsika 2y ago
  Yes, and you wrote it more succinctly than I did in a sibling comment. :) The specific problem as I understand it: marrying/dating a narcissist will spiral into utter toxicity 100% of the time. In that case the protagonist's difficulty separating reality from their own subject experience isn't something abstract to reflect upon. It's instead something akin to an evil demon charming them to butter them up for abuse which is made permanent through eternal gaslighting.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  I couldn't tell if it was humor, sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek, or just weird fiction. Talking casually about one's "enemies?" It's definitely not normal to have enemies. I certainly don't have any. Warlords have enemies. Extreme politicians have enemies. Am I just lucky? Or just super non-confrontational? I couldn't relate to a single word of this.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    Years ago, I could've written the exact same words you did. But that was when I spent most of my time around friends and colleagues in interest-based circles. Since then, I've mostly been dealing with a more diverse, varied selection of folks - in-laws, their cousins, their cousins' cousins, friends, neighbors, kindergarten parents - and I discovered some people actually seem to think in these terms. So I can relate - not through my own feelings, but through observation of others. > Am I just lucky? Or just super non-confrontational? Questions I've been asking myself for a long time now. And recently I learned that, apparently, these days my flavor of "super non-confrontational" might be indicative of being on the spectrum. I'm having a hard time accepting this - but then it sure would explain a lot of fiction (and journalism) to me. Characters having enemies, whom they just hate for nondescript or flimsy reasons, seems like a basic building block of fiction. I always assumed it's an exaggeration, a kind of literary super-stimulus - but maybe this is how most people think? Wouldn't be the first for me - it took me until ~30yo to discover that aphantasia is a thing, and that I have it, and that all those people in my life who insisted that long scenery descriptions are the best (because "they let imagination bring fictional words to life", or sth.) weren't just screwing with me.
jancsika 2y ago
> I think people are missing that this is humor. I see that it's humor. But what is the joke? 1. Light-hearted: A struggling people-pleaser exaggerates his wife's little foibles-- which seem big to him-- for comic effect. 2. Dark: Struggling people-pleaser unwittingly married a bona fide narcissist who has nearly completed molding him in her image. Either one would be humor. But the piece never really sets the tone (is she really badmouthing people at parties? Is he?) and so it comes off as wishy-washy.
- dkarl 2y ago
  We can't know how much of this is true in the author's marriage, so a reading that hinges on figuring that out doesn't take us anywhere. The reader is not playing the role of the author's marriage counselor. I think we're supposed to read it for our own reaction, our competing reactions of recognition and denial and the resulting conversation in our heads. The piece is ridiculous. It's ridiculous because it's an exaggeration. But it's also ridiculous because we're ridiculous.
drivingmenuts 2y ago
The humor is a bit too subtle for comfort or enjoyment.

by dkarl 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

TeMPOraL 2y ago

If that's what it was trying to do, it failed, because the "humorously extreme position" is actually a real experience people have - or at least have with their partners, or see other couples that seem to have it.

jancsika 2y ago
Yes, and you wrote it more succinctly than I did in a sibling comment. :) The specific problem as I understand it: marrying/dating a narcissist will spiral into utter toxicity 100% of the time. In that case the protagonist's difficulty separating reality from their own subject experience isn't something abstract to reflect upon. It's instead something akin to an evil demon charming them to butter them up for abuse which is made permanent through eternal gaslighting.
ryandrake 2y ago
I couldn't tell if it was humor, sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek, or just weird fiction. Talking casually about one's "enemies?" It's definitely not normal to have enemies. I certainly don't have any. Warlords have enemies. Extreme politicians have enemies. Am I just lucky? Or just super non-confrontational? I couldn't relate to a single word of this.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Years ago, I could've written the exact same words you did. But that was when I spent most of my time around friends and colleagues in interest-based circles. Since then, I've mostly been dealing with a more diverse, varied selection of folks - in-laws, their cousins, their cousins' cousins, friends, neighbors, kindergarten parents - and I discovered some people actually seem to think in these terms. So I can relate - not through my own feelings, but through observation of others. > Am I just lucky? Or just super non-confrontational? Questions I've been asking myself for a long time now. And recently I learned that, apparently, these days my flavor of "super non-confrontational" might be indicative of being on the spectrum. I'm having a hard time accepting this - but then it sure would explain a lot of fiction (and journalism) to me. Characters having enemies, whom they just hate for nondescript or flimsy reasons, seems like a basic building block of fiction. I always assumed it's an exaggeration, a kind of literary super-stimulus - but maybe this is how most people think? Wouldn't be the first for me - it took me until ~30yo to discover that aphantasia is a thing, and that I have it, and that all those people in my life who insisted that long scenery descriptions are the best (because "they let imagination bring fictional words to life", or sth.) weren't just screwing with me.

jancsika 2y ago

> I think people are missing that this is humor. I see that it's humor. But what is the joke? 1. Light-hearted: A struggling people-pleaser exaggerates his wife's little foibles-- which seem big to him-- for comic effect. 2. Dark: Struggling people-pleaser unwittingly married a bona fide narcissist who has nearly completed molding him in her image. Either one would be humor. But the piece never really sets the tone (is she really badmouthing people at parties? Is he?) and so it comes off as wishy-washy.

dkarl 2y ago
We can't know how much of this is true in the author's marriage, so a reading that hinges on figuring that out doesn't take us anywhere. The reader is not playing the role of the author's marriage counselor. I think we're supposed to read it for our own reaction, our competing reactions of recognition and denial and the resulting conversation in our heads. The piece is ridiculous. It's ridiculous because it's an exaggeration. But it's also ridiculous because we're ridiculous.

drivingmenuts 2y ago

The humor is a bit too subtle for comfort or enjoyment.