PUNS! Brought to you by the ENFP

Time for another Meyers-Briggs profile.

The ENFP

This abbreviation stands for Extraverted, INtuitive (grasping things with a quick impression instead of looking at every detail), Feeling, and Perceiving (going with the flow instead of planning a lot).

According to the website 16personalities.com:

When something sparks their imagination, ENFPs show an enthusiasm that is nothing short of infectious. These personalities can’t help but to radiate a positive energy that draws other people in. Consequently, they might find themselves being held up by their peers as a leader or guru. However, once their initial bloom of inspiration wears off, ENFPs can struggle with self-discipline and consistency, losing steam on projects that once meant so much to them.

Even in moments of fun, ENFPs want to connect emotionally with others. Few things matter more to these personalities than having genuine, heartfelt conversations with the people they cherish. …

ENFPs need to be careful, however. Their intuition may lead them to read far too much into other people’s actions and behaviors. Instead of simply asking for an explanation, they may end up puzzling over someone else’s desires or intentions.

My Particular ENFP

As it happens, I am married to an ENFP, so I can tell you all about them. I can say with confidence that anything done by my ENFP is, reliably, done by every other ENFP out there. You can rely on me for guidance to this type.

And what I can tell you is that ENFPs make puns.

Puns are my ENFP’s daily bread. When he gets on a roll, he makes them a-grain and a-grain. They are a lot butter than these ones I am making, dough.

Few things are a bigger treat than to have a front-row seat when an ENFP and another type that likes to pun get into a pun volley. I have been witness to a few of these, where they not only stayed on the facial topic, but also kept the puns within the same theme. This kind of art is so ephemeral, I have forgotten all the puns they made.

ENFPs are funny with language. They might have favorite big words:

  • Chick flicks are films that are lugubrious. I don’t like getting all lugubrious.

They tend to give things funny names. See if you recognize these restaurants:

  • Burger Death
  • Dead Lobster
  • Taco Gehenna
  • Taco Jaundice
  • Unterweg
  • Little Squeezer’s
  • Dead Robin

Other nicknames are not suitable for a public blog.

Speaking of which, ENFPs (again, this is based on my extensive expertise) are so into building good relationships that will use mock attacks to do so. For example, my ENFP has occasionally been known to cry out, “Lies!” while a friend is speaking. He once asked me whether I thought he ought to sucker-punch another guy in the lobby at church, because they were friends. (He ended up faking a punch.) Often, these play fights become in-jokes, another category of relationship/humor that the ENFP loves. Once something has a silly nickname, or someone has been accused of something ridiculous, it stays that way forever, or at least until a better in-joke comes up.

My ENFP loves insults that sound unanswerable, for example:

  • If we aren’t supposed to eat animals, how come they are made of meat?
  • If you have a little more time, I have a few more pearls to cast.

Neither of these is original to him, but he uses them frequently.

But as a counterpoint to all the linguistic virtuosity, you get utterances like this:

  • Did you load the one thing? (the dishwasher)
  • Have you seen that one kid? (that’s your son, sir)
  • We need to get the thingy. (You got me on this one. The taxes? The lotto ticket? Another chicken coop? I don’t know, but it’s urgent.)

ENFPs are the type most likely to use words like whatsit, thingamagig, dealybob, and doohickey. They are very smart, but they can’t always slow down to locate the precise term. In Southeast Asia, we learned the term ano, which can literally replace any part of speech. My ENFP still uses it occasionally.

ENFP’s gifts make him the perfect trip planner. He is great at throwing together a spontaneous weekend jaunt to go on a hike or see a local (or not-so-local) site … and get eight people to join him. And he will be punning all the way.

O Come, All Ye Faithful Is Much Better in the Original Latin (a repost)

Adeste fideles, laeti triumphantes

“O come, all ye faithful, joyful and triumphant”

Venite, venite in Bethlehem

“Come, come into Bethlehem”

Natum videte, regem angelorum

“Born see, the king of angels”

Venite adoremus [3x]

“O come, let us adore him” [3x]

Dominum

“The Lord”

Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine

“God from God, light from light” *(these are direct objects, so the subject and verb are coming up)

Gestant puellae viscera

“A girls’ innards carry” (the subject and verb, and by far my favorite line)

Deum verum

“True God” (and still the direct object)

genitum non factum

“Begotten, not made”

Refrain: Venite adoremus, Dominum “O come, let us adore/The Lord”

Cantet nunc io, chorus angelorum

“Sing it now, chorus of angels”

Cantet nunc aula caelestium

“Sing now, heavenly court”

Gloria, gloria in excelsis Deo

“Glory, glory to God in the highest”

Refrain: “O come, let us adore/The Lord”

Ergo qui natus die hodierna

“Therefore, who is born on the day of today”

Jesu, tibi sit gloria

“Jesus, to you be glory”

Patris aeterni Verbum caro factum

“Word of the eternal Father made flesh”

Refrain

See how the Latin is actually more direct/efficient than the English? Kind of shockingly so?

I think because the original Latin version had so many syllables, to translate the lines into English, additional words had to be added, and sometimes even new ideas such as “Yea, Lord, we greet thee,” which is how the fourth verse begins in English and is one of my favorite lines in that version.

When God Is in the Dative

This post is for language nerds.

Gloria in excelsis Deo.

Angels We Have Heard on High

gloria – nominative singular, “glory”

in excelsis – preposition in with ablative plural object excelsis, “in the heights.” (–is is an ablative plural ending)

Deo – dative of Deus. The dative case is for indirect objects; hence “to God”

Mini Reviews

This book was recommended to me by The Geeky Jock, who has since dropped off my feed.

The author is a wilderness writer, and like many wilderness writers, he can write lyrically about the Canadian forests, giving you a sense of eerie beauty, and then he can turn around and be funny with the hardships that he and his hiking partner have to go through. In this book, he’s on the hunt for “the Traverspine demon,” a mysterious creature that, according to historical records, terrorized a remote outpost in Labrador. It sounds like a Sasquatch (which Shoalts, oversimplifying merrily, says is only attested in the Pacific region), but it leaves cloven footprints.

Shoalts and his friend push on through conditions that would have made this Bigfoot buff turn back, such as days of impassable brush. They don’t find the creature, but they do find a theory. Shoalts, a materialist, decides it was probably a combination of sightings of a wolverine, and moose tracks (both animals were rare in the region at the time). His theory is pretty convincing. He undermines his case a bit by dismissing the Greek centaurs as people’s first sighting of a man on a horse, while ignoring all the other, harder-to-dismiss chimeras that populate Greek legend.

Jack Reacher, drifting through town as is his wont, stops to help out a random guy who’s being bullied, and once again ends up stopping an international plot basically single handedly. He then has a gratuitous affair (not graphically described) with a female character he will never meet again, before leaving town.

Also, Nazis. (Not very creative, guys. Do better.)

One thing I like about the Reacher books is that I’m never worried about him. No matter how outnumbered or apparently outgunned he is, I know Reacher is smarter, quicker, and has more martial arts and military skills than his opponents. But, at the same time, he consistently gets into situations where any sane person would be worried, and I know I should be scared for him. In that way, these books strike a good balance. I’m neither terrified nor bored.

Heartbreaking novel about an American ex-cop who has recently moved to rural Ireland. Super well-written. Very evocative of the landscape, the weather, and the people, including the way they use the English language. For example, they say things like, “He’s after leaving for work” instead of “He just left for work.”

Felix Francis has carried on the beloved institution of “racing thrillers” written by his jockey father, Dick Francis. All novels by Francis (pater and fils) take place in “the racing world.” Sometimes the main character is a jockey, sometimes a trainer or an owner, and sometimes the connection to racing is looser. All are written in the first person.

In this novel, the main character, Chester, very profitably runs a “syndicate.” He buys racehorses and sells shares of them to wealthy people who want to participate in the lifestyle. So each horse has multiple owners, but Chester is the main owner, and the one who liases with the trainers and jockeys to plan out the horses’ careers. Chester is less of a tough-guy character than the typical Francis protagonist. He’s also older and more established than Franics main characters usually are. His children are grown (just), and his wife is aging and losing interest in their marriage.

Syndicate had less action than previous Francis books I’ve read, and considerably less violence (though Francis books do vary a lot in this regard). It is not as tense as the cover makes it appear. I also wasn’t too impressed with some of Chester’s choices. All in all, this wasn’t the strongest Francis novel I’ve read, though it was on-brand. Three stars.

An indispensable reference book. Neither easy nor fun to read. I’ll be reviewing this in greater detail later.

This is such a cute human thing

It’s an older Asian couple taking each other’s picture in front of a teepee, in Yellowstone.

I also saw a Pakistani family doing the same thing, which was also super cute.

I can’t remember who it was, but one commentator I listen to pointed out, in response to the move to take American Indians out of team names and products, that American Indians are famous all over the world.

Anyway, I’m here at Yellowstone with the fam and it’s very international here. Languages I heard in the space of a few hours:

  • Hindi (? – pretty sure)
  • German
  • Mandarin
  • Korean
  • Spanish
  • British English

They all came to see Old Faithful, the geyser. Even more faithful than old faithful were the people. We all came at the time it was predicted to blow. We all sat quietly, as if at church, except that occasionally someone would say, “It’s starting! It’s starting!” – and it would be a false alarm.

When Old Faithful did demonstrate its power once again, we all raised our phones in unison, and faithfully recorded it.

The human kindness continued the next day at this lookout point (veiwing Grand Teton peak), reachable by tram from Teton Village. 10,450 feet in the air, we faithfully offered to take each other’s family photos in front of the panorama, exchanging phones and then giving them back.

Human beings can be faithful, and kind, for a couple of days while on vacation.

The One who made the mountains is faithful forever.

The Eloquence vs. Coherence Alignment Chart

This was inspired by me leaving comments in a feverish state, and realizing that such a chart probably existed and I was in the wrong quadrant possibly. Characteristically, when I made the chart I forgot to put “fever” on it, but clearly “I have a fever” would go in the upper left quadrant, which is by far the fullest.

I hasten to point out that this is all in fun. Except for the dig at Karl Marx.

Goodbye to the Chubby-Girl Genre

Hi, everyone. I still have a low fever plus the muzzy head and joint aches that go with it, so this post should be … interesting.

Within the last week I finished the book above. If the Shoe Fits is a sort of very loose Cinderella re-telling. The heroine’s name is Cindy. She has a stepmother and stepsisters. They are not hostile to her as in the original story — they are actually quite affectionate — but they are gorgeous, thin Hollywood babes, very much in the T.V. world, and Cindy is plus-sized, so there are some hints that things were a bit rough in high school. The handsome prince is the heir to a fashion empire. Cindy has just graduated from fashion school, with a special interest in shoe design. As you can see on the cover, the author does manage to get her into an outfit that parallel’s Disney’s Cinderella. And yes, there are crystal-covered shoes at one point. (No, she does not lose them, though I was waiting for that.)

O.K., those are the similarities. Now, the differences. This book takes place in the fashion world and in the world of reality T.V. Cindy and Henry must get to know each other while they are both contestants on a show that is obviously The Bachelor (a show whose producer is actually Cindy’s stepmother). So, all of this is pretty different from a fairytale.

A Sensible Story of Chub

If the Shoe Fits was written by Julie Murphy, who is also the author of Dumplin’. I have not read Dumplin’ but I did see the movie. This book, I would say, has the same strengths and weaknesses as the ones I noticed in Dumplin’.

First, the strengths. Both books feature a romantic heroine who is fat. In both cases, the amount of self-pity that gal displays is very low. This is so refreshing. Plus-sized girls need role models who are not whiny and self-obsessed. Dumplin’ is in high school, so she has a few more issues with her weight than Cindy does, and it’s shown how this leads her to be unfair to her naturally thin best friend. Cindy notes that she has gotten catty comments and the like, and it’s hard to find a variety of clothes in her size, especially in the fashion world, but for the most part she’s confident and she displays no envy or hostility to the more Barbie-like women who are also contestants on the T.V. show. Finally, in both books there is an attractive male romantic interest who seems to really like Cindy or Dumplin’, and this is accepted as a matter of course. There’s no insulting discussion along the lines of, “I like you even though you’re fat because …” blah blah blah. Is this unrealistic? Maybe. But remember, this is a romance genre, so it’s a fantasy for women. Also, some guys are attracted to women who would consider themselves fat (correctly or incorrectly). Finally, whenever one person says to another, “I like you even though …,” I would say that’s a red flag. Unless it is Mr. Darcy speaking, it probably means the “even though”-er feels superior to their prospective romantic partner, and expects that they will be able to treat them badly.

The Less Sensible Part

So, those are the strengths of each book. The downside? Both books have a subtext that being fat is just like being gaaay.

In Dumplin’, the heroine has warm memories of “Dolly Parton parties” that she and her beloved aunt used to have. Later, she finds out that her aunt was longtime friends with a whole bunch of drag queens who are also huge fans of Dolly. The drag queens, and their theatre, are a safe space for Dumplin’ and they help her prepare for the beauty pageant. So, a major theme of Dumplin’ seems to be that drag queens are kind, safe people who make great mentors. We have found this not to be true.

In If the Shoe Fits, we have Jay.

“Jay?” Henry calls.

A beautiful person with short, perfectly edged lavender hair, a manicured beard to match, razor-sharp eyeliner, and nude lipstick rounds the corner. Jay wears a flirty skirt with a cropped sweater topped with a trench coat and platform sneakers.

“This is Jay,” says Henry.

“Follow me,” says Jay as Henry helps them down from the stage.

So, Jay is a basically a very lost and confused young man whom the author insists on calling they throughout the entire book.

I realize that what I’m about to point out is well-trodden ground, but I’m going to tread it again.

How do I know Jay is a young man? He has a beard, and he’s “beautiful.” If Jay were a young woman who had been taking testosterone, he would be overweight, balding, with acne, and the beard would be scraggly. So, my instinct is that Jay is a young man. I pictured him that way as soon as the character was introduced, and I continued to think of him as “he” throughout the book.

As a mom, I really feel for Jay. I’d like to just give him a hug and a cup of tea, and introduce him to some genuinely good father figures so he can see there’s nothing wrong with being a man. Jay needs Jesus. And yes, I realize all the real-life Jays out there would howl with indignation if they were to come to this blog and see me say that. They can only interpret “You need Jesus” as a condescending slam, not a genuine expression of love and concern. People have been reacting that way to the name and message of Jesus for 2000 years. I don’t know who needs to hear this, but just because that is your reaction right now, doesn’t mean it has to be that way forever.

Second well-trodden point: go back to the quote above and look at Jay’s outfit. A flirty skirt with a cropped sweater – already sad on a man – but the trench coat and the sneakers take the outfit to a whole new level. That level is chaos. Jay has selected for himself an outfit that screams, “I have no idea what’s going on or what or who I want to be, and I want you to admire this chaos and join me in it.” Yes, this book does take place in the fashion world, which is notoriously in love with the weird … but Cindy describes a number of her own outfits throughout the course of the book, and they all make sense. No matter how creative Cindy gets with her outfits, they are integrated, coordinated, works of art, because Cindy knows what she is: a woman.

Finally (the most well-trodden ground of all) despite the author’s best efforts, it doesn’t really work to use the pronoun they for a character we already know. (They in the singular is fine in English, when it’s referring to an unspecified or unknown individual. When we have already met a character, that person is no longer unspecified.) For example, at one point Jay leads a group of dignitaries into the boutique, and then a little later they hop down from the counter they were sitting on. (Were all the dignitaries sitting on the counter? Or just Jay?)

Just Gotta’ Do It Myself

As someone who wears plus sizes, has a belly, and has in the past been fat, I like the idea of these chubby-heroine books. This is especially true since the majority of women in the U.S. are what the fashion industry considers plus-sized. But sadly, I think I’m done with the genre. The last chubby-heroine book I read tied confidence in a plus sized woman to female empowerment, and female empowerment to abortion, with a side advertisement for “spouse-sharing.” The one before that, a murder mystery, was tame by comparison, but it did include a bunch of little digs at white girls. I’m done.

I guess I will just have to write a chubby heroine into my own books … oh, wait, I already have!

Magya is a short, curvy mother of four who stepped out of the shadows to grab her own romantic subplot in my book The Strange Land. She was pregnant when her husband was tragically killed. Another member of the tribe stepped in to care for Magya and her children, and he found himself falling in love with her as she went through pregnancy and grieving and the hardships of a Siberian winter. He spends the year sitting on his hands so as not to bother her, and by the next year, they are married.

Sari is also a mother of four and a larger lady, but her story, in the same book, is much more tragic.

Don’t go to my novels just for the chubby girls, of course. Go for the survival and the demons and the dinosaurs. But don’t be surprised if you encounter all kinds of women – and men – along the way. That’s what happens when we just write about life.

You Don’t Need the Apostrophe-S

Why don’t you need the apostrophe-s? Because English has a category for showing possessives without it … and it’s a rather large category.

  • fairy dust
  • bear claws
  • tiger tracks
  • baby poo
  • chicken feathers
  • lettuce leaves
  • castle battlements
  • Lady Chapel
  • Loch Ness Monster
  • angel wings
  • devil horns
  • cow horns
  • deer antlers
  • child care
  • Jerusalem stone
  • Christian ethics
  • dandelion fluff
  • mustard seed
  • computer screen

… O.K., o.k., … maybe it’s only allowable when the person or entity possessing the thing is acting as an adjective describing what type of thing it is.