Very thought provoking, thank you. Your rant made me laugh uproariously at points, but it also bothers me in some ways. I'll see if I can pinpoint them.
I think that most otherkin are like humans. Not *always* grand inexplicable things shining like the sun...but quite often they are just people, like a human but different genetics, physical form, cultures, mythologies, language, and sometimes different abilities (here or remembered). Occasionally there's a species, culture, or individual who shines like the sun--those happen amongst humanity as well. And often enough there are those amongst humanity so terrible to behold that average humans can't encompass their actions in their mind, can't wear their shoes for even a moment to justify their actions--just like there are those amongst otherkin & otherkin phenotypes. It seems to me that when a campfire story is embellished, the candle may become the roaring fire sweeping across San Francisco in the early 1900s...perhaps we shouldn't try to be the myths because maybe they're all overexaggerated?
There's a difference between beings who just so happen to not be human, and the monsters of the collective consciousness, real or imagined, which filter into mythologies and cause people to cower in fear, sacrifice virgin daughters, or put up charms over the cribs of their sleeping infants.
That's not to say such monsters might not exist. If an otherkin were once such a creature, what would it matter? They are rendered down to a fairly human average (despite any possible traces of other blood some may claim) by living here, breathing the air, eating the food, wearing the form. At that point, it's all illusions of grandeur, and you might as well just face the facts that you're not everything you thought you once were, and you're just simply not likely to get back there anytime soon. And then, just to be contrary, stretch yourself beyond the theoretical limitations of the flesh, world, species, body that binds you to this lifetime, and be everything you can possibly be and more.
You asked, so I will answer: I am not a myth, nor a legend. I'm just another poor incarnated sucker on the corporeal side of the wheel of life. I try to make ends meet, I try to make and keep friends, I help people. If I have any moments of shining glory, perhaps they are when I bring life into the world, or help ease a life passing from it, and making the journey between a little more comfortable, soul-by-soul, along the way.
Mostly I want my freedom, to be left alone and not restricted by anyone's definitions, while at the same time doing my part to help others and to try my best not to hurt anyone along the way, and apologize like heck when I screw that up. The rest, all the labels, are just what I have found comfortably and succinctly define what I am so that in just a few words someone who knows what the labels mean will have half a clue what interests me in life.
This article really, really needed to be written. I commend you for writing it.
This is a big part of why I've hesitated from saying "I'm surely a Foo Bar!" I consider myself loosely fae, and partly BECAUSE people often see me as inexplicable and incomprehensible . . . That, at least, is a big part of what convinced me I'm not entirely human. But there's a difference between being not-human and being Hot Sh*t. One doesn't necessarily equate to the other.
Having certain tendencies is one thing (I'm a packrat, but that doesn't make me a dragon) having shards of this and shards of that is another, and perfectly valid, I'd say (this may apply to those of you who have lots of different memories) . . . and then there's hosts, etc . . . But I'd agree that forms should not be collected like shiny pennies. Question yourself; question your questions.
Like Crisses I am slightly "bothered" by some of the things you said, but I think that is probably the reaction you are after.
From a personal POV, relating to my own identity, I am completely confident about what and who I am (ok, we'll just ignore Ash for now!), and have been secure in this identity for over 15 years. The reason I chose the term "elf" was because it is easier for other people to understand. If I call myself "Aloryan" they say "what's that?" and I have to go into oft-repeated descriptions of what my species and culture is like. At the end they say "Oh, you mean an elf".
In the end, labels shouldn't be for ourselves, they are tokens of convenience by which we explain ourselves to other people. When a stranger asks you "What do you do?" they are not interested in knowing about your job. They want to know how rich you are, where you live, whether you are below or above them on the social ladder, whether they should be seen talking to you or not. Labels carry lots more information than can be carried in one word.
I think it would be very difficult to get by in life without labels, unless you are a person who doesn't interact with others at all. The other purpose of assigning labels to oneself is to make it possible to find companionship among like-minded others. The community of "Aloryans" is very small since only a few people identify with the place. The community of "elves" is much bigger.
I don't believe that these labels have any magical power but I do think that they have the "power" to selectively reveal to others what we want to show them.
Actually, if I asked someone that type of question, I would probably be genuinely curious about them as a person, and be looking for ways to understand them, or at least part of them. I don't care whether my conversational companions are ditchdiggers or financially independent; I care whether they have intelligence, insight, compassion, and well developed communication skills.
Hmm. Or else I'd be stuck in a social situation where I thought small talk was appropriate. I which case I would probably be quite bored.
I agree, in general - labels are a convenient short-form for communication purposes.
Starlight at Nightfall, Dan {the errant philosopher}
You have some very good and powerfull points here. ( and dully noted as such will be some required reading for some students of mine.) I am glad someone chooses to rant on this subject. Ok so I KNOW I am otherkin of some kind, to much of it fits to say otherwise, but if no one minds I don't want to be a myth (or human for that matter) and as of yet I can not claim a race, for which I am glad. You have a good point about not beliving everything we think (ok so I am paraphrasing please don't kill me) I learned early (thankfully) to take everything I thought I knew and consider about 90% of it over avtice imagination, 5% of it just plain wronge and maybe get something close to the truth out of the rest. Harsh maybe but it kept me alive and sane when the world I was in wasn't. Just a thought to add to your rant, after all heavens know that the life of a myth is a hard path to follow.
I very much agree with alot of what you have to say here. I don't always agree that it's always applicable. (Sometimes people just ARE the avatar of Joe Deity, although one has to realise that there often is more than one of those around. Kinda dime a dozen the more the Gods in question are active. *giggles*)
In short, I do agree with the statement, and I don't think you were trying to say it's impossible or "DROP ALL MYTHOS TITLES/LABELS NOW!!!" I do think you are basically saying THINK first. Make sure this is what's going on. Introspect!
I have strong ties to mythology. But, I have thought about it, and thus far it holds true. However if it turns out not to, all I can do is say "Hey! I did think this out, and everything was pointing that way, I double and triple checked." After that, I have a lot more exploring about myself to attend to, and perhaps only in moving on and taking that as a temporary given will I be able to get to a level where I can look back and see things more clearly should I be wrong.
But, I hear ya. If I'm not hearing what you're sayin', you can always clarify. You know where to look.
I do agree that most of the otherkin titles have a basis in myths and that they are in fact myths. I also agree that we must choose our titles carefully and that choosing a title for every quirk and and part of our mind and psyche can be disastrous and lead to the half this, half that syndrome. However, this discussion fails to describe furries, who are not entirely mythological. Some furries are people who are in spirit, mammals from Earth, such as rabbits and dogs. It also fails to describe anthromorphs,some of which are not mythological creatures who are from Earth, such as horses and lions. Also, there are creatures who are not from Earth, such as Aliens and some Dragons, also known by me as Alien Dragons. I do agree that before someone chooses an Otherkin title, they must look at the true myths for that creature, such as what the true meaning of that creature is. I also agree that a person must look very carefully at his or her self and carefully chooses a, and by that, I mean a single, title that best describes all of his or her quirks to his or her psyche added together. I also agree to the question about whether or not we want to be a myth or not. And, I also agree that human BODIES are not all bad. However, some HUMANS, even though they have human bodies, are bad, personality wise. I do not agree, however, that Otherkin choose pretty big titles or labels, because some of them choose specific titles that match them perfectly, such as Dark Fae, Alien Creature, and such. Well, if you disagree with me, please post your disagreement(s) or e-mail me at mccords4@bellsouth.net. I would prefer it if you e-mail me. Thank you Otherkin for being here for me and others who need you!
Of course the article does not address Furries. 1) not all furries are otherkin 2) not all otherkin are furries and this one was specifically about mythological phenotypes 3) it never claimed to :)
Nonetheless, if you have bright shining truths about any of these other phenotypes, I'll gladly read what you write :)
As for "picking ONE true label" -- it is possible to be more than one, but it must be carefully thought through (and one can be multiple (cf. http://www.kinhost.org/ regarding being otherkin and multiple). And some people choose the label with qualifications, as you pointed out with "Alien Dragon" ...lol. "I'm kinda like a faerie but I'm mean and carry a very sharp pionty stick and like to suck blood." is legit ;) It does *not* (necessarily) make one a faerie/elf/vampire. :)
Labels....well with some of us it's not like we have much choice. I've had 3 people in different circumstances who could see my trueform describe it to me. I've seen flashes of my trueform myself at times. I don't know what else to call what I am without using the term Gryphon. I have a gryphon mindset, I don't really think like a human. And to be honest being stuck in the form for now is really irritating. I'm not going off on some grand pooba trip, I'm not trying to identify with mythology....I just use what term I can to identify what I am. I'm sure most 'kin feel the same way.
Excellent read, required reading for all newbie otherkin if you ask me. Despite the controversy, I agreed it with most if not all of what you said. Bravo, and keep up the good work.
"(We)are rendered down to a fairly human average (despite any possible traces of other blood some may claim) by living here, breathing the air, eating the food, wearing the form..."
Very true. Almost by necessity, we'd have to be, simply to function in a very human culture, especially in this age of few myths. To be a "person" in this society is limited to being human, unfortunately.
I for one have no problem referring to the various myths to help understand who I am and how others understand me. When taken in their entirety, from numerous sources, they do usually tell a fair story that does us justice. Altho I can relate to (and even feel homesick from) the Elves portrayed in, say, Tolkein, I also know they are being seen through a fictional haze that distorts them (us) somewhat.
We do that to ourselves, for our own protection in many cases and out of incomplete self-knowledge in others, and that's probably true of any intelligent being that exists. Complete self-knowledge is impossible and I can deal with that; I'd rather be able to grow than be a god.
(note: this is barely coherant and i apologise for it) the somewhat glib answer to "why do we choose the labels we do?" is that myth has a basis in history and history has a rather large place in memory. there is no reason not to discard the term elf and starting to call it - depending on the type - "tall thin humanoid with pointy ears" but that is somewhat clumsy when our *human* cultural upbringing has handed us a term which will encompass this description and be understood by most of the western hemisphere. in short - it is as good a name as any. the paragraph of "so much light - it must be the sun" reminds me of the story of the man living in a cave and watching shadows against a wall, though i cannot recall its origin. the difference between ourselves and the man in the cave, though, is that we are largely aware that there is an outside of the cave and all we are knowing now is echoes. i have chosen the label of dryad for myself. it is not mythologically accurate. the race i recall were not all female, not all redheads, not sexually voracious or inclined to interact with other species, did not attach to one tree life for life, and only humanoid is we chose to manifest as such. but dryad is a lot easier than saying "chameleonic and non-corporeal tree spirit of some kind". there is a level on which our labelling is pure practicality. however, i do agree that some labels are very easily taken up, especially by younger kin, teens who feel like outsiders and need somewhere to fit. the last thing kin who are upset at not feeling human need at that point is more uncertainty. although one group i would urge to question a lot more are the younger elves. i'm not saying there necessarily aren't just a lot of elves out there, but it's a label taken up very quickly by a lot of people on the basis of being slightly mystical lovers of nature. "elf" sounds nice and is a lot easier than struggling through all the other slightly mystical nature loving species they could be. none of us can claim mythological status, but i think maybe the author does most of us a diservice if they think that is what we are attempting. i think most kin are aware that there is more out there than what we currently are. the difference for me between my kin aspect and a real dryad is the difference between sugar-water and rum. i think the man in the cave thing was plato. and to plato, there are real true perfect things and there are echoes. and we are echoes. but we are still echoes *of* something. everyone needs to be defined. if we cannot entirely call ourselves human then we must be allowed to call ourselves something.
This is an artical that badly needed to be written. I myselff am still struggaling through my awakening, and steriotypes and images brought upon by sociaty does not make an already duificult stage any easer.Names and labels do have strong meaning, and their is usually some truth to the legends.
very well put, i must say it was well thought of and put forth in a matter that catches the mind as well as the humor. i hope to one day be a full otherkin, for it does sound familiar to my perceptions of my feelings. bravo on the rant.
Of course the article does not address Furries. 1) not all furries are otherkin 2) not all otherkin are furries and this one was specifically about mythological phenotypes 3) it never claimed to :)
Nonetheless, if you have bright shining truths about any of these other phenotypes, I'll gladly read what you write :)
As for "picking ONE true label" -- it is possible to be more than one, but it must be carefully thought through (and one can be multiple (cf. http://www.kinhost.org/ regarding being otherkin and multiple). And some people choose the label with qualifications, as you pointed out with "Alien Dragon" ...lol. "I'm kinda like a faerie but I'm mean and carry a very sharp pionty stick and like to suck blood." is legit ;) It does *not* (necessarily) make one a faerie/elf/vampire. :)
Actually, if I asked someone that type of question, I would probably be genuinely curious about them as a person, and be looking for ways to understand them, or at least part of them. I don't care whether my conversational companions are ditchdiggers or financially independent; I care whether they have intelligence, insight, compassion, and well developed communication skills.
Hmm. Or else I'd be stuck in a social situation where I thought small talk was appropriate. I which case I would probably be quite bored.
I agree, in general - labels are a convenient short-form for communication purposes.
Starlight at Nightfall, Dan {the errant philosopher}
Well put at times. We all want to be something we are not, and we all want what we do not have. Be it playing a board game (red or blue? which color is better?) or selecting the little check boxes when we create our account, we all wish that we could be more. Sadly, usually we cannot. Natural human nature stops us from being truly happy. Why not be myth? It is unexplained, which is extremely appealing to many. Why not be classified into an extremely general category? It gives us freedom to wake up each morning and view ourselves differently than the day before. Your opinion was strong and well written. -CVXI