![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigouMaybe I'm a dork for this, but I find submission guidelines for romance publishers to be among the most hysterical things out there. (Fantasy submission guidelines are a close second.) Thing is, it only just occurred to me recently that an awful lot of them require the hero/love-interest to fit the qualities of Alpha. Very hawt, capable, intelligent, very... Alpha-ey. This seems to hold true regardless of which gender is attracted to the Alpha, just as long as the love interest is Alpha-ey.
That got me to thinking (you knew that was coming): when have I ever known any Alpha-like personalities? Well, there's my (non-related) brother, for starters, and the notion of being in a relationship with him makes chewing glass look like a great way to spend the afternoon. Let's just say LEO + ALPHA and leave it at that, shall we? Because his wife is a freaking saint, and knows some secret I don't possess for dealing with that Alpha-ey-ness. Like, maybe, massive ocean-sized reams of patience.
I dated a few Alphas, in my time, but never for long. Although come to think of it, I do find it rather intriguing that (in hindsight and with the years to look back) it does say something about our societal biases that the Alpha-women I've known somehow ended up with this label of 'spoiled rotten' (with the second adjective not always so in-cheek), while men with the same qualities are strong, assertive, powerful. Yeah, well, now I can say they were all Alphas, not necessarily spoiled, or maybe it's that Alphas do have definite gimme-gimme spoiled self-centered qualities and it's high time the boys get slapped down for that along with the girls. It's not attractive in any gender, really. Except in fictional genders, I suppose.
Chatting over dinner with CP about this, and we threshed out the conflation of Alpha versus Type-A. I'm not convinced that the fictional template for an Alpha is really a Type-A, because the Type-As I've known are all control freaks, micromanagers, constantly under stress, unable to relax, while an Alpha characteristic is that when they're in control, they relax substantially, not tense up. An Alpha is capable of delegating; they're the boss who'd say, "do it, don't bother me with the details, get it done, by 2pm tomorrow" -- less time if they're a less-understanding Alpha, but still: they demand, they expect results, and they don't necessarily care about the details. Those are for the lesser folk scurrying about to please them. (That, I think, is where the 'spoiled' impression comes from.)
In modern romantic plot (or subplot), the Alpha most often ends up butting head-first against a Type-A (usually the protagonist, to some degree). The Type-A is expressed towards the negative as a control freak or workaholic, or towards the positive as a take-charge or strong-work-ethic, but it's a personality that, perhaps, is more likely to get its unstoppable force derailed suddenly by an immovable obstacle like the Alpha -- a personality/trope more likely to say, "slow down, take it easy, I'm in charge, now." That, I figure, is a Type-A fantasy, maybe: for once, to not have to stress about all this!
Thing is, the majority of the Alphas I've ever read may be sexxy-hawt for the first month or so but when I think of having to live with one day in and day out, I'd probably end up putting his/her head through a wall. (But that's with acknowledgment that I'm not exactly a personality that does well around Alphas in the first place, not for being Type-A so much as just plain competitive.)
So then I started thinking about the characters I've written that I think are sexy, and where I might have read other characters just as sexy. (I'll admit that I find Thorn, in Francis' The Black Ship, to be incredibly sexy, right along with Linda Hamilton's character in Terminator 2, but I won't say more because such things say far more about me than about any fictional character.)
What I realized is that romance tropes are busy using dog-pack labeling for love-interest tropes: the dominant (strong, powerful, assertive) alpha, the submissive (loyal, supportive, stand-back) beta, the nurturing (compassionate, sensitive, expressive) omega. 'Cept that what I find sexiest are cats.
(Okay, considering how much of a dog-like person I consider myself, maybe this is another route to saying a lot more about me than about fiction so let's just IGNORE I SAID THAT PLSKTHXBAI.)
By that I mean the people I've fallen hardest for hold the same traits I find myself writing in the (often supporting role only, oddly) characters I also find the sexiest: most often, characterized by this kind of innate self-contained... I wouldn't say disinterest, nor lack of passion. But a lack of fireworks about it. Still waters, as my mother would say.
CP: Basically you mean the strong and silent type, like Sam Elliot. Aren't those still around in romance?
Me: But I don't know if that fits. [Character] is strong, and reticent, but he's also a prankster.
CP: Of course there's got to be a sense of humor. Otherwise it's not strong and silent, it's just a brick.
[CP likes to make fun of me for having had an immense crush in grade school on Oliver Reed, after seeing him in Oliver Twist. "I didn't know you liked them that hairy." HAHAH. Sheesh. Then I started going on about, "OMG he looks so young!" and suddenly someone started getting cranky. CATS, I'm telling you, freaking CATS.]
Except the analogy doesn't really work perfectly -- this unnamed-type I'm thinking of isn't like a housecat, with that "you may pet me now" kind of attitude, which is much more Alpha-ey: setting limits, and expecting them to be observed. This unnamed type is more like a stray dog, someone who shows up, is all friendly and easy-going while around, gets some lovin', gets something to eat, and then moves along when the time is right. Very self-contained, and in that sense, perhaps not that threatening (on the outside) but not one easily threatened, either.
ETA: besides, most people don't think 'dog' when they think 'alpha' (in the genre sense), plus using dog, cat, even fox gets definite connotations. Someone being 'catty', or being a 'horndog' or calling someone a 'dog' to mean s/he's ugly, or calling someone 'foxy' to mean they're sexy/attractive. So after minorly lengthy consideration, I hereby suggest delta, to keep with the greek letters, and because Δ is often used to represent change and uncertainty, in the sciences. That fits, to me -- and it sets the rank far enough outside the best-known 'alpha, beta, gamma' but most deltas wouldn't give a damn how they're ranked, anyway.
Much more of a love 'em and leave 'em type than the Alpha, I think -- but not in the actual physical sense necessarily. (A Delta, I think, would feel strong emotional attachments for a long time afterwards; the difference is that they don't seem to make any assumptions on those attachments, but carry on their own way without apparent distress over it.) Maybe the biggest contrast is that the Alpha-ey type is the one most likely to declare "you're mine," while this the last phrase you'd hear from a Delta -- although that in itself may be because it's also the last phrase a Delta-ey type ever wants to hear, him/herself.
There's another quality that I think is integral to the fictional Alpha, which is that upon getting past the armor and/or showy outside, that being 'let in' is a sort of encompassing all-for-all-time, how to put it... to be let in by an Alpha is to risk being consumed.
The Delta type never goes that far; it sticks around only so long as the door remains open. Just in case. It doesn't consume, because it's not one to ever let anyone into that secret heart. Glimpses here and there, and any lover learns to live with knowing that, if nothing else, the lover is closer than anyone else will ever be. Or maybe I find that sexier because I find the action of active choice to be sexy, somehow: to be naturally drawn towards leaving means staying is constantly reaffirming that one chooses to stay.
The character who is seeking a home and finds it, isn't nearly as attractive to me as one who isn't seeking a home, and finds it anyway, while still feeling the lure of elsewhere -- and may even then bring the lover along.
Now I'm wondering what it'd be like to throw an Alpha in the same room as a Delta. Probably rather anti-climatic, given I'd expect the Delta to simply be out the door so fast you'd see smoke trails in the wake. Heh. Dominate that, yo.
That got me to thinking (you knew that was coming): when have I ever known any Alpha-like personalities? Well, there's my (non-related) brother, for starters, and the notion of being in a relationship with him makes chewing glass look like a great way to spend the afternoon. Let's just say LEO + ALPHA and leave it at that, shall we? Because his wife is a freaking saint, and knows some secret I don't possess for dealing with that Alpha-ey-ness. Like, maybe, massive ocean-sized reams of patience.
I dated a few Alphas, in my time, but never for long. Although come to think of it, I do find it rather intriguing that (in hindsight and with the years to look back) it does say something about our societal biases that the Alpha-women I've known somehow ended up with this label of 'spoiled rotten' (with the second adjective not always so in-cheek), while men with the same qualities are strong, assertive, powerful. Yeah, well, now I can say they were all Alphas, not necessarily spoiled, or maybe it's that Alphas do have definite gimme-gimme spoiled self-centered qualities and it's high time the boys get slapped down for that along with the girls. It's not attractive in any gender, really. Except in fictional genders, I suppose.
Chatting over dinner with CP about this, and we threshed out the conflation of Alpha versus Type-A. I'm not convinced that the fictional template for an Alpha is really a Type-A, because the Type-As I've known are all control freaks, micromanagers, constantly under stress, unable to relax, while an Alpha characteristic is that when they're in control, they relax substantially, not tense up. An Alpha is capable of delegating; they're the boss who'd say, "do it, don't bother me with the details, get it done, by 2pm tomorrow" -- less time if they're a less-understanding Alpha, but still: they demand, they expect results, and they don't necessarily care about the details. Those are for the lesser folk scurrying about to please them. (That, I think, is where the 'spoiled' impression comes from.)
In modern romantic plot (or subplot), the Alpha most often ends up butting head-first against a Type-A (usually the protagonist, to some degree). The Type-A is expressed towards the negative as a control freak or workaholic, or towards the positive as a take-charge or strong-work-ethic, but it's a personality that, perhaps, is more likely to get its unstoppable force derailed suddenly by an immovable obstacle like the Alpha -- a personality/trope more likely to say, "slow down, take it easy, I'm in charge, now." That, I figure, is a Type-A fantasy, maybe: for once, to not have to stress about all this!
Thing is, the majority of the Alphas I've ever read may be sexxy-hawt for the first month or so but when I think of having to live with one day in and day out, I'd probably end up putting his/her head through a wall. (But that's with acknowledgment that I'm not exactly a personality that does well around Alphas in the first place, not for being Type-A so much as just plain competitive.)
So then I started thinking about the characters I've written that I think are sexy, and where I might have read other characters just as sexy. (I'll admit that I find Thorn, in Francis' The Black Ship, to be incredibly sexy, right along with Linda Hamilton's character in Terminator 2, but I won't say more because such things say far more about me than about any fictional character.)
What I realized is that romance tropes are busy using dog-pack labeling for love-interest tropes: the dominant (strong, powerful, assertive) alpha, the submissive (loyal, supportive, stand-back) beta, the nurturing (compassionate, sensitive, expressive) omega. 'Cept that what I find sexiest are cats.
(Okay, considering how much of a dog-like person I consider myself, maybe this is another route to saying a lot more about me than about fiction so let's just IGNORE I SAID THAT PLSKTHXBAI.)
By that I mean the people I've fallen hardest for hold the same traits I find myself writing in the (often supporting role only, oddly) characters I also find the sexiest: most often, characterized by this kind of innate self-contained... I wouldn't say disinterest, nor lack of passion. But a lack of fireworks about it. Still waters, as my mother would say.
CP: Basically you mean the strong and silent type, like Sam Elliot. Aren't those still around in romance?
Me: But I don't know if that fits. [Character] is strong, and reticent, but he's also a prankster.
CP: Of course there's got to be a sense of humor. Otherwise it's not strong and silent, it's just a brick.
[CP likes to make fun of me for having had an immense crush in grade school on Oliver Reed, after seeing him in Oliver Twist. "I didn't know you liked them that hairy." HAHAH. Sheesh. Then I started going on about, "OMG he looks so young!" and suddenly someone started getting cranky. CATS, I'm telling you, freaking CATS.]
Except the analogy doesn't really work perfectly -- this unnamed-type I'm thinking of isn't like a housecat, with that "you may pet me now" kind of attitude, which is much more Alpha-ey: setting limits, and expecting them to be observed. This unnamed type is more like a stray dog, someone who shows up, is all friendly and easy-going while around, gets some lovin', gets something to eat, and then moves along when the time is right. Very self-contained, and in that sense, perhaps not that threatening (on the outside) but not one easily threatened, either.
ETA: besides, most people don't think 'dog' when they think 'alpha' (in the genre sense), plus using dog, cat, even fox gets definite connotations. Someone being 'catty', or being a 'horndog' or calling someone a 'dog' to mean s/he's ugly, or calling someone 'foxy' to mean they're sexy/attractive. So after minorly lengthy consideration, I hereby suggest delta, to keep with the greek letters, and because Δ is often used to represent change and uncertainty, in the sciences. That fits, to me -- and it sets the rank far enough outside the best-known 'alpha, beta, gamma' but most deltas wouldn't give a damn how they're ranked, anyway.
Much more of a love 'em and leave 'em type than the Alpha, I think -- but not in the actual physical sense necessarily. (A Delta, I think, would feel strong emotional attachments for a long time afterwards; the difference is that they don't seem to make any assumptions on those attachments, but carry on their own way without apparent distress over it.) Maybe the biggest contrast is that the Alpha-ey type is the one most likely to declare "you're mine," while this the last phrase you'd hear from a Delta -- although that in itself may be because it's also the last phrase a Delta-ey type ever wants to hear, him/herself.
There's another quality that I think is integral to the fictional Alpha, which is that upon getting past the armor and/or showy outside, that being 'let in' is a sort of encompassing all-for-all-time, how to put it... to be let in by an Alpha is to risk being consumed.
The Delta type never goes that far; it sticks around only so long as the door remains open. Just in case. It doesn't consume, because it's not one to ever let anyone into that secret heart. Glimpses here and there, and any lover learns to live with knowing that, if nothing else, the lover is closer than anyone else will ever be. Or maybe I find that sexier because I find the action of active choice to be sexy, somehow: to be naturally drawn towards leaving means staying is constantly reaffirming that one chooses to stay.
The character who is seeking a home and finds it, isn't nearly as attractive to me as one who isn't seeking a home, and finds it anyway, while still feeling the lure of elsewhere -- and may even then bring the lover along.
Now I'm wondering what it'd be like to throw an Alpha in the same room as a Delta. Probably rather anti-climatic, given I'd expect the Delta to simply be out the door so fast you'd see smoke trails in the wake. Heh. Dominate that, yo.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 18 Jan 2009 04:38 am (UTC)*bricked*
Seriously, I see the type you mean, but yeah, I can't name it either. It wouldn't be "the lone wolf" (to keep with canine analogies) because those have a sense of being all misanthropic and suspicious of the rest of the world.
Kinda makes me think "dingo" -- both because it's a funny-sounding word, and because the animal itself looks like it should wear a bandanna around its neck and be called Sport or Lucky and play frisbee, but it's in fact capable of surviving without a master to open the canned food and likes to go trotting off into the wilderness and woo freedom. The problem with "dingo" when I think about it more deeply is that it only LOOKS friendly and fun, and that it could and would kill you if possible, which makes it not fit the type anymore. Alas.
Also in French there's an association between dingo and dingue, which means crazy and potentially dangerous, which I can't remember ATM if English also shares. Hn.
/useless!
no subject
Date: 18 Jan 2009 04:43 am (UTC)Hrmm, no, I can't think of any associations with dingo in English that would indicate craziness. Though dingoes do get treated as "pack animals" just as much as dog/wolf set-up -- that dingos still need their own kind, don't they? That pack-element is a hallmark of most canine species/types, after all.
Thing is, I can't think of any domestic animal (one in which we have enough interaction as humans to anthropomorphize to some consistency) that fits the qualities, except for cats. Although cats, as they interact with other cats, are often that standoffish, leave-me-alone-I'm-fine, self-contained quality, especially if introduced in adulthood.
In other news... your icon is truly disturbing.
no subject
Date: 18 Jan 2009 04:53 am (UTC)Yeah, hrrm. While technically I know that a dingo is a pack animal, I don't know why but I just don't associate them with packs. u_u;
I don't think there's any animal out here that is friendly and curious but also doesn't live in a group unit... Maybe foxes? They can and do stay in mated pairs + kids sometimes, but they can also be alone just fine. But I also associate them with being small and kind of fearful, though it might be just me. I read a book once where a woman talked about rehabilitating animals, and she was saying something like foxes are a species that needs almost zero time between living with humans and returning to the wild -- one day they'll be well-used to human behavior and human=food, and the next they'll have disappeared back into the wild. But that was so long ago, I can't be accurate. x_x
no subject
Date: 18 Jan 2009 05:08 am (UTC)Still gonna have to go with 'fox' having too much of a feminine connotation -- that is, aligning it too closely with one gender instead of crossing both. Given that, I'll see what folks think of 'delta' then, as extension of the greek-system used so far.
I thought about Pi, but after that wacko movie with the guy with the drill and the Illuminati, that would be totally the wrong connotations.
no subject
Date: 18 Jan 2009 05:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 18 Jan 2009 05:11 am (UTC)So I just realized, what might fit better is to call the types delta to mimic the greek-letter style, but also in the sense that Δ, mathematically, is used to represent change and uncertainty.
no subject
Date: 18 Jan 2009 03:45 pm (UTC)A mind is a terrible thing.
no subject
Date: 18 Jan 2009 08:38 am (UTC)The story had two Alphas -- one with a serious side of SM and pretty much yeah, invoked the response you described, what with throwing the Delta into prison or locking him up in various ways -- Delta was forever escaping. The other one was marginally better (IOW no SM), and pretty much kept the Delta by feigning weakness/injury, then when the Delta sort of came close enough to check, SNAP. I admit I laughed my ass off at that point.
no subject
Date: 18 Jan 2009 08:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 19 Jan 2009 10:40 am (UTC)Part 1 (http://baka-neko.livejournal.com/157932.html) is here -- I'll eventually sum up part 3.
no subject
Date: 20 Jan 2009 01:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 20 Jan 2009 01:34 am (UTC)I'll get around to the next part erm, sometime soonish, in the meantime you could always check the chinese bl tag?
no subject
Date: 18 Jan 2009 11:41 am (UTC)I've seen him deal with Alpha types. I've seen them deal with him. More often than not, I saw him work them and they didn't even know it. Their domination, even if just in friendship or social group, doesn't work on him. He's around, because he wants to be. As soon as what he wants isn't there, *poof*. He would frustrate the Alpha types, but was so funny and laid back, they didn't dislike him at all. Of course, it didn't hurt that women adore him, so he was a good guy to have around...keeps the girls relaxed.
As far as the guy I am talking about goes, Alpha types, he can't stand them. Has zero respect for them. He can't stand pushy people or those who try to force their wants and ideas onto others. He just disconnects. Now, the still waters thing, yeah, holds true. You know what happens when a Delta guy is in a room with Alpha's being pushy and Beta and Omega guys are there, and don't fully want to go along? They turn to the Delta guy and watch what he does. If he says ok, then discussion over, if not, half the guys leave when he does. If there are women there, Delta guy turns to them and says, "Hey, you ladies wanna ?" and takes the girls with him as he goes. HA!
Even back in my wild days, a choice between free party items and dealing with the Alpha crap, or running the night with that guy and maybe getting some smoochies, I followed that guy. YUM!
no subject
Date: 19 Jan 2009 06:34 pm (UTC)BWAHA. Ahem. Yeah. Reading & nodding, here -- and what I find most amusing is that the Alphas I know, upon meeting a Delta, have one of two reactions. The rarer is when the Alpha feels jealous about the Delta "moving in on" the Alpha's turf (usually a person), and hits the roof. More often, though, the Alphas I know just about fall all over themselves adoring the Delta, think s/he is just so cool, and yet seem blissfully aware that the Delta can (and does) disconnect so easily.
I think, too, it's that Deltas are a type of Alpha -- but one that doesn't dominate externally. I'm just not sure how to express it. If Type-A tries to control everything, and Alphas pick their battles on what to control, a Delta only controls him/herself and lets the rest go.
I totally always followed the Delta, given the option. Heh.
no subject
Date: 20 Jan 2009 12:59 am (UTC)"...a Delta only controls him/herself and lets the rest go." I think you expressed it pretty well. Thats it exactly.
You are right, in that its a type of Alpha. Its the disconnect that makes them seem more self contained than other people. Self contained people often seem stronger than most others. Alpha affects of strength, the inner sort, are often easy to see in a Delta type. The main thing that a person can use to tell the difference, I think, is that a Delta type doesn't play the power games an Alpha does. They don't want/need that affirmation, thus, they have no desire to actually lead much of anything. They will compete and enjoy it, but lead and control, not so much.
You are also right on the two reactions. My Alpha ass, got twitchy as hell around that guy. He knew on at least some level, Delta guy was a threat when it came to me. The other Alpha guys, no such threat and they thought he was awesome. That was always fun to see play out.
no subject
Date: 20 Jan 2009 01:06 am (UTC)The other thing I'd add to the original post is that the "and silent" part of the equation doesn't always fit Deltas. I've known plenty who are quite extroverted -- although they tend to get the label of "playboy" while the quieter ones get the "still waters" label. It's still someone who comes, goes, regardless of whether s/he is drawn to people as a talkative person or would rather be the silent one in the corner.
I've known Alphas who play the "and silent" part, but I've also noticed that Alphas -- when they do speak -- expect people to listen. While a Delta speaks and people listen and the Delta's always just a little surprised by that. (A Delta is also more likely to end up possibly in charge of something with no real idea just how that happened, I think.)
Weeeee, I like categories!
no subject
Date: 20 Jan 2009 01:31 am (UTC)Even the young Delta's I have known, don't project a look at the door. When they decide to go, they get up and do it, right then. No inner struggle, totally in the moment.
Perhaps thats a key. Delta's have swift reactions to a moment and have little problems dealing within it. Quick thinkers who work out a complicated issue, in double time and then act. They don't waste a lot of time on idle speculation, if action is called for.
I also think the Delta surprise of being looked up to or in charge, stems from their lack of want to lead, so don't really imagine others would think they should. Sure, they'll do it, but its not something they look at as a goal.
As an aside, in the more modern, global, progressive business model, Delta leaders, are exactly who are needed. They have zero problem working in groups, giving kudos to those who do the real work and shutting down those who do not. They also have no problem dumping plans and ideas that are jut not working out, no matter how much money or time have been put into them. They tend to be non-traditional thinkers. Coming at things from more than one level, before deciding if its worth more effort to see play out.
no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2009 11:04 pm (UTC)Personally, I've always liked badgers (back to the animal analogies, here). No clue where I'd fit in your categories, there. I'm usually avoiding such social gatherings at all cost, sitting somewhere with my knitting & watching other people interact, or talking with one or two close friends at most. Ugh, I hate parties.
Just finished reading the "Dogs" chapter of Temple Grandin's new book, "Animals Make Us Human". She says that most of this "Alpha Dog" stuff comes from wolves who have been forced to live in artificial groupings, not natural packs. Then they do form such hierarchies. (Hm, much like the modern office, I suppose.) But in the wild, basically wolf packs are made up of Mom, Dad, some older siblings, and this year's kids.
You see a lone wolf when that wolf is setting off in early adulthood to form their own packs. Otherwise, not so much.
On to the "Cats" chapter next...
no subject
Date: 19 Jan 2009 02:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 19 Jan 2009 06:38 pm (UTC)Actually, Type-A and extroversion... hrmm. I dunno. Always makes me think of a favorite quote: "She'd be a lot happier if she wasn't trying so hard to be happy all the time." The Western cultures do see extroversion as a sign of 'health' or 'normality' and right up to mild social anxiety really looking (to this untrained observer) as just strong introversion -- but that's okay, there's drugs for that now! Cripes.
no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2009 11:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 24 Nov 2009 01:38 am (UTC)It's good to see someone pointing out that extroversion isn't a sign of good mental health any more than introversion is a sign of poor mental health. Different levels of extro/introversion are normal for different people, and what is healthy for one person may be a sign of serious trouble in another. (I know my own extroversion goes overboard when I'm not in a good state.)
Being outgoing is also not at all the same as being happy, of course, just as being happy and being mentally healthy aren't always compatible.
no subject
Date: 24 Nov 2009 04:37 am (UTC)Hah, same here: when I start acting like a strong extrovert (although usually it's only for a very short duration), it's a sign I'm really thrown by the environment, ie being around a whole lotta people. I don't think any but another [loud] introvert might get the notion of being loud to drown out all the extroverts as a way to create a bubble around one's self. Lord, what fools we humans be, etc.
As for commenting: no, go right ahead and comment wherever. I don't disable comments on posts in the archive, so even if it's four years old, I'll still respond on the post -- though more likely than not, the older the post, the greater the chance I've revisited the topic again to take a look from another angle. Though I guess you've realized that by now if you've been reading back entries, eh?
no subject
Date: 24 Nov 2009 06:34 am (UTC)Thanks. I haven't read all the comments on the posts I've read yet, but I'm really enjoying exploring.
I'm a very extraverted person naturally -- but it goes to a very uncomfortable place if I'm not well. My mother is like you, though: a natural introvert who behaves 'extravertedly' when she's not doing well.