do you ever think that the type of the artist of a song or book you have become obsessed with has the same type as you?
i've only read a couple of the stories out of chaucer's canterbury tales but when i read them i felt this very deep sense of connection to what was being said in them. i read the wife of bath for a class and i ended up in a bit of an argument with the rest of the tutorial group including the professor who seemed set on the idea of chaucer as a woman hater. she brought up arguments like "but he describes her as being married at the church door rather than inside the church, which means she was irreligious, and must have been an object for ridicule to chaucer's audience", but actually, weddings did not take place inside churches at this point in history, as wedding was not yet a sacrament (i found this out in my research). i also heard later in popular news about some study that had been done examining the wife's sexuality and finding that she was in fact chaste (disclaimer: i use this word as a linguistic relic to describe a way of being that i do not personally endorse as inherently valid). i just knew, when i read it, that chaucer was producing early feminist literature, that he was all about equality, and the more research i did the more i discovered that made sense in those terms, even if the criticism i was reading violently disagreed with the notion of chaucer as feminist. later, when i tested on mbti, i saw chaucer on the list of famous people who had been typed as mbti. not that we can type chaucer for sure, but i don't know, i guess it seemed significant to me.
i have this problem with avril lavigne. i have listened to some of her songs a lot: like, over a thousand times. the thing is, i don't like avril that much. she annoys me, and i don't really agree with some of her beliefs, and i don't appreciate that she has become such an economically successful artist without having learned criticism of the history of her form. but there's something in her songs that validates me somehow. i have listened to these songs so many fucking times that i am starting to think avril might possibly be infj. i think the messages are sometimes deeper than they seem. i'm willing to consider the possibility that i've listened to these songs so many times that i've started to read things into them that aren't there, but that doesn't really explain why i have listened to them so many many times in the first place, when avril herself annoys me a bit.
other times i have read a book that everyone thought was awesome that i didn't like at all. the great gatsby bored me out of my brain. i could not warm to fitzgerald at all, i couldn't admire him for having written it, i felt like i kind of hated him, and i hated his book, for no real reason that i could think of, except that it seemed like a pointless story about stupid assholes. or sometimes i have been able to appreciate the content of the work without really relating to it on a deep personal level. when i read the waste land, i was like well - eliot is a cool writer and all, and i am deeply fascinated by the art value of this, but it just doesn't "speak" to me in the same way as some other things i've read. same with pound for example - i'm fully into his artistic product, the integrity and innovative features of his art values, i just don't relate to what's deep inside it.
so, just wondering, if anyone else has any ideas on this.
i've only read a couple of the stories out of chaucer's canterbury tales but when i read them i felt this very deep sense of connection to what was being said in them. i read the wife of bath for a class and i ended up in a bit of an argument with the rest of the tutorial group including the professor who seemed set on the idea of chaucer as a woman hater. she brought up arguments like "but he describes her as being married at the church door rather than inside the church, which means she was irreligious, and must have been an object for ridicule to chaucer's audience", but actually, weddings did not take place inside churches at this point in history, as wedding was not yet a sacrament (i found this out in my research). i also heard later in popular news about some study that had been done examining the wife's sexuality and finding that she was in fact chaste (disclaimer: i use this word as a linguistic relic to describe a way of being that i do not personally endorse as inherently valid). i just knew, when i read it, that chaucer was producing early feminist literature, that he was all about equality, and the more research i did the more i discovered that made sense in those terms, even if the criticism i was reading violently disagreed with the notion of chaucer as feminist. later, when i tested on mbti, i saw chaucer on the list of famous people who had been typed as mbti. not that we can type chaucer for sure, but i don't know, i guess it seemed significant to me.
i have this problem with avril lavigne. i have listened to some of her songs a lot: like, over a thousand times. the thing is, i don't like avril that much. she annoys me, and i don't really agree with some of her beliefs, and i don't appreciate that she has become such an economically successful artist without having learned criticism of the history of her form. but there's something in her songs that validates me somehow. i have listened to these songs so many fucking times that i am starting to think avril might possibly be infj. i think the messages are sometimes deeper than they seem. i'm willing to consider the possibility that i've listened to these songs so many times that i've started to read things into them that aren't there, but that doesn't really explain why i have listened to them so many many times in the first place, when avril herself annoys me a bit.
other times i have read a book that everyone thought was awesome that i didn't like at all. the great gatsby bored me out of my brain. i could not warm to fitzgerald at all, i couldn't admire him for having written it, i felt like i kind of hated him, and i hated his book, for no real reason that i could think of, except that it seemed like a pointless story about stupid assholes. or sometimes i have been able to appreciate the content of the work without really relating to it on a deep personal level. when i read the waste land, i was like well - eliot is a cool writer and all, and i am deeply fascinated by the art value of this, but it just doesn't "speak" to me in the same way as some other things i've read. same with pound for example - i'm fully into his artistic product, the integrity and innovative features of his art values, i just don't relate to what's deep inside it.
so, just wondering, if anyone else has any ideas on this.
