#ex 626

In reorganizing my nonhumanity and the way I present it, I've decided to reconsider my own stance on being fictionfolk. I have said for a while that I am Experiment 626, and therefore already have a foot in the fictionfolk community. But the way I understand myself as Ex 626 is not the same as other fictionfolk I see. I don't believe in past lives or reincarnation or in the multiverse. Not in the way that would allow for the common fictionfolk framework to fit onto, at least. It's been difficult for me to get into the fictional community for that reasons. I can't see myself in many of my peers, so I've just been reserved to ignoring it outside of the occasional gifset or screenshot onto my tumblr blog. See, when I look at Ex 626 I see myself, just like I would see myself in a mirror. I recognize that face and body as my own. I don't feel like Stitch, though. I don't long to be that shape or want others to see me as him. It's a one-way connection. So even in that way, I am less intense that the majority of introspective fictionfolk I see. But to say that my identity isn't rooted in fiction or that I am not fictionfolk isn't wholly accurate, even if you take Stitch (and Xenomorphs and potentially the Minotaur) out of that equation. There is a deeper layer there that I've been dusting off along side everything else I've been excavating within me. I am fictional in the sense that I believe fiction is necessary for me to understand myself and that fiction-making is the natural result of self-expression. 

Before I get into how I am fictional outside of fictional 'types, I need to explain the framework I'm working with. A lot of this is directly inspired by "The Glass Menagerie" by Tennessee Williams. If you haven't already read "The Glass Menagerie", you can do that for free on the internet archive. "The Glass Menagerie" is considered a memory play, it is the home of a man as he remembers in. However there are scenes in the play that take place when he is not in the house and therefore could have never been apart of his memory. What is the point of these scenes? Why is our narrator not in them when this is specifically a play about his memory and his understanding of events? Is the audience to simply make room for this in their suspension of belief and go with it for the sake of the narrative, or do these scenes exist as non-literal fictions that the narrator makes up of his home in order to make sense of everything else? There is, of course, the possibility that another family member could have explained situations to him, but there is still the fact that this is a play about the narrators memory and understanding, not another family members. A popular reading of this play is to assume that these scenes are a fiction that the narrator makes up in order to help himself make sense of these relationships and events. In order to process what was going on in his life and articulate this experience to the audience, the narrator conjures up fictions and passes them as realities. It ultimately doesn't matter if these scenes are real or fake or given to him some other way. They illustrate what the narrators understanding of his family to the audience.

The use of fiction when attempting to portray reality is not uncommon in literature. There are textbooks on this topic, but it's not just limited to fiction or narrative writing. There is a sentiment within the humanities that many of us ("us" being generally anyone who enjoys literature, theory, philosophy, and other things in that vein) are crafting fictions more than anything else. Since philosophy can only exist in extremes (and therefore not in the real world), everything to do with philosophy and theory exists in a fictional projection of our world. Feminist theory may be derived from real world experiences, but the theory itself is a fiction crafted. The theory as it exists in its original, fictional state can not be perfectly applied to the real world. We may have bodies taking steps that actualize ideas that fall in line with the theory, but because philosophy can only exist in extremes that the world simply can't meet, then the theory in its whole entirety can never be perfectly applied. This is not to say that the theory is wrong or inaccurate or that it's not worth taking seriously. It's really important to take fiction seriously. Philosophy has always been explored through literature and fiction. What is Plato's Ideal State if not a fancy world building project? And any fan of Science Fiction can tell you just how real fiction can be. By crafting fiction, the sci-fi author is interacting with "What-If's" and/or trying to comprehend and communicate lived experiences in order to make the audience think or better understand the world around them. 

The next step is my belief that there will never be a true projection of the self. I think that every body is so deeply nuanced and complex that no matter how many labels, terms, or identities you put on to someone, none of it will ever be able to really capture the essence of someone. There will always be approximations, assumptions, and gaps to fill. That's not a bad thing, but it's just a thing that is. I say I am a lesbian, and someone knows what that means for the general population. But that term does not fully grasp what I am. We can get closer, and I'll say that I'm an aromantic lesbian. But that's still not fully accurate. Quoiromantic lesbian. Okay, but then that all intersects with gender in weird ways. Quoiromantic futch she/he lesbian. But then there are nuances with my sexuality that might be considered on the ace spectrum. And what about the origins of all of this? What about the development of it? Does this label represent how being futch isn't a fashion thing, but rather my complex relationship with butch/femme dynamics? And there is no discussion about my deep desire for a socially accepted third gender. Or my interesting desire to be altersex. But I hate all terms about being altersex and not cis but also not anything else and there are so many words but no matter how many I tack on, I will never be able to fully encapsulate my whole self or identity into a form that is digestible and understandable for anyone else. I change daily, I have no idea if the version of me that I project right now will be the same tomorrow. The odds that I publish this, look back in a week, and disagree with it are not zero. And I fully believe everyone to be like that. There isn't anything wrong with trying or wanting that, it's important to have a way to articulate about the things that are important to you. I just simply think these tools have limits and that the mind is so complex and ever-changing that there will always be a limit as to how much we can communicate about our inner worlds. 

The fiction I talk about here feels far away from the fictionfolk community, but I don't think it is. We can connect "The Glass Menagerie", fiction-crafting, and the complex innerworkings of the individual. If we can never fully or accurately communicate our sense of self and if we know the best way to explore complex ideas that will never be realized in full in shared reality is though fiction, then why shouldn't fiction be the easiest way for to explore ourselves? For a lot of us, that's exactly what we do. We latch on to stories that are dear to us, we write and talk about and emulate things in fiction that help us communicate with each other. So many of us explore concepts and ideas in the fiction we craft ourselves. These imaginary realities, these little fictions, are the best tool that I believe we have when it comes to sharing ourselves in their rawest forms. 

So much of myself was explored through a fiction that I created nine years ago. It unearthed things, it solidified my identity as nonhuman. Through it, I've explored my own emotions about death, about spirituality. My connection to evolution and my love for wetlands and... everything. I have to limit myself, here, because this fiction that I have created is the basis in which I explore every aspect of myself. Gender, sexuality, morality, my own interpersonal relationships with others. How I feel about politics, the environment, the food I eat. I've created a sieve through which I push everything through. It is a world that was made for me and let me outline my nonhumanity with chalk. I can not overstate how impactful this fiction has been to my identity as a whole. It is no coincidence that those who know about this fiction understand me better that I understand myself and that I do not tell many about it. It's one of the most intimate things I can do with someone. It is not perfect, as I have said that I don't think you can ever perfectly project a full identity, but it is the most powerful tool I have. And I think that others would agree, that there is a very real intimacy that comes with sharing these fictions we've crafted. Even if they're not all connected or complex like mine are. Sometimes they're just simple stories. A lot of times I think people would call this OCkin. And I don't think that's inaccurate, but I do think it's sort of a small scope to use when talking about such a pervasive part of many of our lives. 

Almost my entire sense of self has been explored and solidified through fiction. I explore more every day. It's a thing that I do and it's how I've always worked. There were fictions before I made my current one and sometimes there are different ones on the side. In the future, I will come up with new ones. You can not separate the use of fiction from my identity and you also can't get rid of its residue on the projections of myself. The process of pushing myself through that sieve leaves a mark that will be there as long as I continue to use fiction in this way. My whole self is constantly being examined through fiction, and therefore I consider myself to be fictional. Because fiction as a tool to understand myself is so pervasive and important to me, you can't separate any part of me from it. Such a large chunk of my understanding of myself exists purely in fiction and will likely never leave that fiction. In this way, I consider myself to be fictionfolk.

Now, I don't see this same sentiment very often. Maybe this is common and I'm just missing out! It's fully possible. Maybe this is well understood within the community and I simply haven't caught on. I'm not sure. But it's one of the reasons why I've been so hesitant to interact more with the fictionfolk community. I feel like our understanding of what it means to be fictional is so different and I don't know how to bridge this gap. It's taken me a long while to figure out how to articulate the way all of this connects, and it still has a few holes in it. But I think I'm going to call myself fictionfolk more from now on, because the use of fiction in identity formation has simply been too important for me to look over. Part of me fears that this will be like a (very) watered down version of the "metaphorically/philosophically physical nonhuman" thing, but I also trust that I have mutuals and followers and peers that will direct me away from that if this is the case. 

I hope this makes sense. I hope I've gotten my point across. And I hope I will stop thinking so much about being fictional now, because it's been chewing at my brain for a while. But who knows, really. I may come back to this tomorrow and rewrite all of it. 

Thanks for reading.