an example of Te

[Joy]

It's difficult to give examples of Te because it's so dependent on the situation, but I've realized that a conversation I had with someone about a fantasy novel might not be a bad example of Te dominance (plus unvalued Si).

I was saying that fantasy novels sort of annoy me because they put so much focus on the aesthetics of a situation. Even the wording is aesthetic. I was saying how I just skim over all of that useless stuff. I was disappointed because I've read almost half of the book and all that's really happened so far is that the character figured out that her dad died/was in trouble, decided to go find/rescue him, went to his house, found out she had a title/position she didn't know about, got trapped there by enemies, and crashed a plane.

The things I listed ("the character figured out that her dad died/was in trouble, decided to go find/rescue him, went to his house, found out she had a title/position she didn't know about, got trapped there by enemies, and crashed a plane") are the purely Te aspects (the external dyamics of objects) of the story thus far.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I don't like when they over-explain stuff in books, but I do really enjoy aesthetics. (which is why I'm a big porn/art addict) I don't think they are pointless or 'weak' like you seem to, they add flavor, atmosphere and ambiance. Yeah the story is kinda what you said, bluntly, but who wants to tell a story like that?

I don't like in books when they describe a living room for two full pages. We get it. It's a living room.

Plot-heavy books bore me, I much prefer dialogue and characterization. If you get me to like the characters, then you can use a mundane or cliched plot. But if you don't like the people in the story then it's like what's the point?

Most writers take the 'show, not tell' advice way too far. I actually like telling better than showing.

[Joy]

Whether I like the characters or not is the most important thing to me, too. However, plots with cause and effect relationships that don't make sense irritate me.

[The Exception]

Whether I like the characters or not is the most important thing to me, too. However, plots with cause and effect relationships that don't make sense irritate me.

I agree here.

I most prefer stories where things logically flow and there are no loose ends. Endings that are open to interpretation irritate me as well as just randomly introducing some new character without it being clear how they fit into the scheme of things.

[Brilliand]

I recall one ending that irritated me - the protagonist was in a hopeless situation, cornered by a powerful dark cleric and about to die... it seemed hopeless... and then, in an event completely unrelated to the story so far, someone far away who hadn't been mentioned in the story at all banished the goddess of darkness, and the dark cleric lost all her powers. I could only figure out after the fact what had happened because I had read other books in the series, and even so, I had no idea that the story was set in the time period just before the goddess of darkness was banished. Also, it kinda made the whole struggle up until then meaningless.

Interestingly, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is exempt from the rules of cause and effect and relevance; it's understood from the beginning that things will happen for no reason.

[Jarno]

The things I listed ("the character figured out that her dad died/was in trouble, decided to go find/rescue him, went to his house, found out she had a title/position she didn't know about, got trapped there by enemies, and crashed a plane") are the purely Te aspects (the external dyamics of objects) of the story thus far.

just a very effecient way of summarizing. but that's probably Te indeed.

[krieger]

I recall one ending that irritated me - the protagonist was in a hopeless situation, cornered by a powerful dark cleric and about to die... it seemed hopeless... and then, in an event completely unrelated to the story so far, someone far away who hadn't been mentioned in the story at all banished the goddess of darkness, and the dark cleric lost all her powers.

Deus Ex Machina - Television Tropes & Idioms

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

writers are too ideal. empower the weaklings and fags when they haven't earned it yet, its not 'real' enough for me - and i don't mean just describing stuff. the worlds they always explain are always how things should be, not how things are. I like writers who tell how things really are and how people really are, no frosting of bliss or grand ideals or pretentions. that's what a writer's job should be imo. so, then realistically evil will win most of the time, but not to be so fatalistic as to have nothing to say....

they are notorious for being far-fetched and buffing people up to be better than how they really are, it's really really really really irritating. You can't relate to these people. That's why I actually enjoyed buffy season six and seven. THIS is how buffy fans and people were REALLY like- slow suicide mama's boys who were too afraid to leave the house, joss saw right through us, and he did empower the 'potentials', all the real guardians of humanity like me and you, but he gave us hell before that and that's how it should be. Drag me down so you can swoop me up. When Buffy pointed at Willow, telling her she was 'more powerful than all of them combined' it felt earned. And the sweet spot is she did it all from her own living room too, so it was like....we were there. And we felt the spell too. God that man is brilliant. ( blowjobs him )

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

a writer can't help but be ideal as the ideals come out of writer's lived experiences, how they falled and failed and triumphed, in small ways- so they are our natural encouragers, and stuff- they actually have a huge responsibility. Don't blow it....resist the urge, resist the urge you have inside to give the shy loser nerd the one with the power, the cliched dream boy, the really smart person that is a social outcast loser but can secretly hurl a bunch of fireballs if they just had a little bit of encouragement......don't go there yet, wait it out as much as possible, delay your own gratification from mary sue-ness.

I don't hate mary sues for mary sues sake, anti-sues are just as bad. People have their strengths and their grand importances, let them have em. Just be.....try to make it relateable somehow, idk. I notice most writers though like try to make lower middle class to be upper middle class though, there is a difference....

[Marie84]

I think this is just related to undervalued Si rather than Te. A lot of people in Si quadras rather like descriptive writing, at least that I know of. But I can understand why Se/Ni types see it as tedious

[717495]

I like descriptive writing that keeps it brief and makes the story flow.

[ArchonAlarion]

I am more interested in the way the author "fills out" the world. I need the fantasy world to be "realistic" as in the pieces within the story context consistently effecting eachother throughout. When the author begins explaining the system of currency, what is being served at every feast, and a detailed map in the book, you know you're reading Si/Ne fantasy

Si fantasy writing is like Harry Potter, Lord of The Rings, and Song of Ice and Fire (and the Chronicles of Narnia imo) for popular examples.

Ni fantasy writing is like Neil Gaiman, Tim Burton, and Alan Moore (Lovecraft? never read him)

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Yeah I love me some Neil Gaiman.

[717495]

Si fantasy writing is like Harry Potter, Lord of The Rings, and Song of Ice and Fire (and the Chronicles of Narnia imo) for popular examples.

Ni fantasy writing is like Neil Gaiman, Tim Burton, and Alan Moore (Lovecraft? never read him)

My writing style is more like the Ni authors, but I like reading from all of these authors.

[Gilly]

Lovecraft is more Si, imo.

[ArchonAlarion]

Yeah I love me some Neil Gaiman.

He's okay. Can get a little wtf sometimes and I feel his event timing is off (from what I've read).

lol supervision ftw.

Lovecraft is more Si, imo.

idk. His stuff seems intriguing, but I've never looked into it.

[Creepy-female]

I am more interested in the way the author "fills out" the world. I need the fantasy world to be "realistic" as in the pieces within the story context consistently effecting eachother throughout. When the author begins explaining the system of currency, what is being served at every feast, and a detailed map in the book, you know you're reading Si/Ne fantasy

I'm interested in the way the author fills out the world too, but I disagree with you on the system of currency, feast, and map shit. You're going from thought process to defining interest which most certainly not Si. Those kind of books are written by nerds with too much time on their hands. I mean this is obviously my subjective opinion so don't be offended but who the hell cares enough to make an intricate map of their fantasy world and stick intricate little elven names on it. I mean if you want to make maps and such why not sell them as promotional items or extras but don't have the presumption to stick a map in my face in the goddamn beginning of the book when you haven't proven to me you can even keep my attention by your writing, which includes being relatable and being interested in making sure your reader will be interested. There's a balance between self expression and presenting it to others, or else people would just go around publishing their diaries all the time. Well they kind of do and I realize I'm a hypocrite lol. So what is my point here. Oh yeah. Socionics.

Ok so relatable and how the world works right?

a) Well normally I don't tend to seek out people who are extremely interested in how currency works. I mean a passing explanation can be interesting if the author can keep your attention. But when I pick up a fantasy book it's to read fantasy, not an economics lesson. They have textbooks for that.

b) I've read Brian Jacques before and it's like STOP TELLING ME THAT THE MICE AT THE ABBEY ARE EATING HUCKLEBERRY FILLED HERB SCONES IN GREAT DETAIL. I enjoy properly placed detail, however I do not appreciate being placed smack dab in a boring worldview (unless that worldview is realistic). It is not realistic that the badgers are now arguing over the pumpkin jam in a scottish brogue, therefore I do not give a shit. On the other hand "Just because you have the mental capacity of a teaspoon doesn't mean we all do, Ron" said Hermione waspishly and Harry very nearly choked on his custard." is a more realistic reference to food. I make food and eat it and eat other people's food but do not enjoy discussing the qualities of it constantly. I enjoy interacting with food silently. Sometimes shit like "The little princess gave hot meat pies to the beggar girl" is acceptable and makes me think of walking down a rainy London alley dressed in rags with wet wooden clogs like the stereotypical dutch people. But please do not over analyze food, it has a time and a place. Please do not discuss the latest recipe with me as a means to pass the time, and if Baby Woodsquirrely Burpy is stealing from the pantry yet again, I'm going to poison myself.

c) I already covered maps.

So what it all boils down to is that Si-ers will choose details that are personally relevant to them, and your examples are not applicable in general, although this could be excused by you saying that they are just personal examples of the scope of writers you have been exposed to. But to me fantasy writing is not all about the feasts and the maps and the fucking currency. My idea of a good fantasy is a relevant realistic personal journey that takes place in a fantasy world, but people have the same attitudes and such as reality. This is why I appreciate Diana Wynne Jones, because even though her characters live around magic and shit it's all taken for granted and they all have lots of problems and she details Howl's hedonistic charming narcissism in a way that is reminiscent of dealing with a real person. So it's like the fantasy world didn't save people from human nature, which is reassuring in a morbid way. But I realize that detailing my personal preferences only highlights the fact that my annoyance with you is exactly what I'm engaging in. The whole thing is annoying!! but acceptable because I have my own personal preferences and sometimes like that I have the freedom to live along side of other people with different dislikes without being hounded for it. So this is not meant as hounding archon, so seriously don't take offense, but I hope you can see the theoretical inconsistency I'm trying to reference, anyway?

Si fantasy writing is like Harry Potter, Lord of The Rings, and Song of Ice and Fire (and the Chronicles of Narnia imo) for popular examples.

Ni fantasy writing is like Neil Gaiman, Tim Burton, and Alan Moore (Lovecraft? never read him)

But I do think that if you discard authors based on their inclination to describe feasts and such, you're going to be missing a lot of Si writers. It's more about the cadence and structure and not so much the actual content. But like the type of cadence and structure where the difference is so blatant that if you were reading the same experience by different POVs, you'd wonder if it was the same experience. Given, of course, that they did not come to similar conclusions about life, etc, based on different processes. And also I would want to take into account that once writing has been filtered by someone's cognition it doesn't exist in objective form anymore, ie, a Si valuing reader could read "Ni writing" and gain more information/meaning/value/an unique perspective from it, and vice versa. I mean it'd be nice if all writing was accepted the way it was intended to be? Or maybe not. But it's like people could fall into the trap of over identification of some writing and incorrectly construe it as some type indicator. I am not exempt from this tendency.