The Science of
Shipping
A Sociological
Treatise
Table of Contents:
Introduction:
Chapter 1:
Shipping: What Even is It?
Chapter 2: Shipping
in a Fictional Context
Chapter 3:
Shipping in Real Life
Chapter 4: Frivolous
Shipping
Chapter 5:
Anti-Shipping
Chapter 6:
Self-Shipping
Chapter 7:
Shipping Versus Predicting
Chapter 8:
Shipping Versus Arranged Marriages and Match-Making
Chapter 9:
Massive Multiplayer Shipping
Chapter 10:
OTPs: Your Reason for Living
Chapter 11:
Shipping Outside of Romance
Chapter 12: When
is a Ship Successful?
Chapter 13: The
Morality of Shipping
Chapter 14: How
to Become a Shipmaster
Afterward:
Bibliography:
Introduction:
One day, I was browsing through those hallowed halls
of intellectual discourse known as “Tumblr” when I encountered a word used in
an unfamiliar context. The post referenced two characters, their names
forgotten in time’s misty portal, who the author of the post declared they
“Shipped”. Unsure what this meant, I wrote it off as simply another piece of
internet slang I did not understand and, in all probability, did not want to
understand. How wrong I was!
Arthur
and Hazel, characters from the Disney film The
Sword and the Stone,
are one of this author’s favorite fictional ships.[1]
This all changed when I went to college. Once there, I
found a real-life application to shipping. Part of the reason I did not make
such a connection earlier undoubtedly stems from my homeschooled upbringing. I
did not associate with many people, and those I did associate with had no
interest in dating. Indeed, an entirely separate study could well be composed
on the agamogenetic quality so prevalent amongst homeschoolers versus their
public-schooled counterparts, but such is not the purpose of this study. While
I did attend a community college, I rarely talked with my fellows; thus, I had
little opportunity to consider who might be matched with whom. Additionally,
the students there did not typically engender themselves to being shipped.
Photo of
the average community college student[2]
The big difference in college was that people constantly
surrounded me. As such, I had an unprecedented chance to observe and study
them. While this may sound somewhat stalker like, and, indeed, I make no
apologies for being slightly creepy, it is hard not to observe these things
when you are studying, playing, eating, and doing innumerable other activities
with the same people. College is also the time where many people begin entering
into relationships as they discover new, attractive people. It is such a
common, perhaps even cliched phenomenon that many people I knew swore they
would not date the first year, which led to things like one guy and girl, who
did everything together, refusing to declare themselves a couple until a week
after the school year ended.
The other important event that occurred at college was
my meeting a guy who introduced me to the concept of shipping in real life.
Though the application from fiction to reality should have been obvious, it is
one I had not quite made until he expanded the word to include that domain I
had not thought it capable of encompassing. In Kantian terms, this “First
interrupted my dogmatic slumber and gave my investigations in the field…a
completely different direction”.[4] From
there, I began practicing the art of shipping in real life.
An unquestionable aid in this process was the fact
that my only suitemate of the time was very interested in a girl. However, he
was unsure, as was she, if he wanted to pursue a relationship at that time, it
being his first year. My roommate and I fully supported him entering the
relationship and gave him advice on how to make it happen with varying degrees
of usefulness. While this conflicts somewhat with the definition I will alter
give, this is unquestionably the first instance of my shipping someone. Luckily
for them, it also qualifies as my first successful ship.
Slowly, I began shipping more and more people. Much
like the tagline to the Larry Cohen horror-comedy The Stuff, “Enough is Never Enough”.[5]
Many of my ships achieved success, a track record of which I often boasted. I
thus gained something of a reputation as a shipper, either for good or for ill,
as some of my friends did not like the practice, regarding it as akin to
gossip. They tended to be my single friends, so make of that what you will. In
any event, some of my friends who shared my interest began discussing with me
some of the ontological difficulties of shipping. For instance, can you ship
people in a non-romantic manner? Can you ship someone with multiple different
people at once? And what are the best ways of shipping?
Academia has been rather silent on the issue of
shipping, and thus it has little help for me in these matters. While my major
was never sociology, I always felt it was one I should have done, and I believe
the idea of shipping falls squarely into that domain. For the questions
surrounding shipping fascinate me not only as a participant, but as a student
of human nature. As such, I have elected to conduct this overview of the
concept of shipping, hoping to create a good field theory about what shipping
is, its varieties, the difference between it and similar sociological
phenomena, as well as a guide on methods of shipping for those that seek to
learn more. While I cannot promise a universal field theory, I do believe the
contents to follow offer an excellent guide to a part of human relationships
little work has been done in cataloguing, and that my research in the matter
can be used for the better comprehension of the human psyche.
Chapter 1: What is
Shipping?
Before this venture into the wide and wonderful world
of shipping can commence, terms require definition. However, as of this
writing, modern academia has elected, in an extremely foolish decision it must
be added, to ignore the term “Shipping”, and thus other methods for defining
this titular term must be used. Perhaps the most amusing definition comes from
Youtuber LittleKuriboh, who in his video “What Would Yugi Do?” has the titular
character tell his alternate self, the Pharaoh, what shipping is, saying
“Shipping is where you take two characters from a T.V. show who aren’t
romantically involved in any shape or form and then you force them to become a
lesbian couple by drawing vivid and gratuitous fanart of them for about six
months before you move on to some other show. Lather. Rinse. Repeat”.[6]
This explanation possesses a good deal of humor to it, automatically making it
better than most other terms; however, for the dry academic purposes pursued by
this text, this definition offers little substantial content, and limits the
realm and processes of shipping excessively.
In order to find a better definition, the source of
all internet knowledge must be looked to for answers. This source is, of
course, The Urban Dictionary. The top
definition for “Shipping” on that website is “A term used to describe fan
fictions that take previously created characters and put them as a pair. It
usually refers to romantic relationships, but it can refer platonic ones as
well. (Just think of "shipping" as short for
"relationSHIP".)”.[7] While certainly better, not to mention
providing a good etymology of the word, this definition again limits the realm
of shipping, confining it to fictional works. However, the second definition on
Urban Dictionary offers a far more encompassing definition, saying it is “The
act of one wanting/supporting two individuals involved in a romantic
relationship”.[8] This definition, while
having a vagueness similar to that of Tommy Wiseau’s country of origin, does
offer an expansive look at the concept, and it works as a good initial premise
for what shipping entails.
In most internet lexicography, whatever that means,
“shipping” involves fictional characters. However, the term can be used to talk
about people in real life as well. Obviously this second usage is not as
popular on the internets since far less people will know “Jack” and “Sheila”
than know “Ash” and “Misty” from the television series Pokémans. While
fictional shipping will be discussed, it is not the focus of this book, which
dwells on reality, as this text is as real as it gets.
However, let us return from that intrusive paragraph
that should probably be the one the smart student selects to eliminate on the
ACT and return to that second definition. It raises several questions what
shipping includes and excludes. These questions will not be answered now, since
otherwise there would be no reason to read the rest of the book, and the
faithful reader should get their money’s worth of material. It might now be
brought up that this book is free, so how can one “get their money’s worth”.
The answer to that question can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnOsKz8p1GI
TRANSITION! Perhaps the most unusual thing about
shipping is its mere existence. To belabor the point, an uninformed discussion
of poetry shall now commence. When one examines the great poetry of the world, particularly
that involving love (aka all of it), shipping as a theme is utterly absent.
Poets talk at length about their own search for love (When shall I find love?/
When? When? When?...), their desire for it (I want your love/ I shall catch it
like a dove) (whether this can be included in a definition of shipping will be
discussed in a later chapter), their lack of love (My love is gone/ like a
running fawn), and their heartbreak (Wah!). No poetry, however, involves the
author hoping two others will become an item. At most, they might express their
wish someone will find a sort of vague, unspecified love at some point (I hope
now without me you do well/ and upon love’s path one day again sail). Some
poetry congratulates the love existing between two people already (Thou art now
wed/ What more can be said?/ Of thy love most red/ and weighing in like led),
but this does not qualify as shipping. There is no poetry involving two
specific people in the author’s life who have little in the way of a
relationship who he hopes will enter into one. Thus, the time has come:
You
two, whom I do hold so dear,
What
you think of my thought, I fear
Will
be to scorn and mock it much
As
for their shoes I mock the Dutch,
But
you two together, a finer pair never
Could
beat the love you would have together,
So
join now, together as one,
And upon love’s track run
Love, especially in fiction, tends to be a one-sided
sort of thing. Most poetry and songs tend to be about one’s own relationship
with another. It is all about one’s desire to love and be loved, or else the
failure of that pursuit, as is often the case. However, there are few love
songs or poems about anyone other than the self. There are certainly pieces
about two people getting together, but this is all fiction. Romeo and Juliet are
not real people Shakespeare hopes will get together (as far as is known, and,
if true, it is a sad ship). Few are the poems about actual people, not already romantically
involved, who the author hopes will get into a relationship.
Time then for another uninformed opinion. One of the
obvious reasons shipping has risen to prominence is the rise of Romanticism in
the popular mind, and not the actual Romantic movement of people such as Byron
and Coleridge, but simply the idolization of romantic love. With this concept,
love becomes seen as the tantamount achievement a human can attain. In tandem
with this is the relatively new conception of marrying whomever one wills. In
an arranged marriage situation, there can be no possibility of a relationship,
except an adulterous one, between anyone other than the two already promised,
so shipping would be a waste of time.
However, with this new-found freedom and stress of
people to choose romantic partners in addition to the greater regard for love
held by many, it is unsurprising people should begin hoping two people will get
together for the sake of love. It is from this instance one of the earliest,
most famous, and unsuccessful shippers emerges, the titular character in Emma by Jane Austen. Emma refers to
herself as a “Match-maker”, which is different from shipping, but has a good
deal of crossover. To her, social rank is rather unimportant, and she pairs
characters together based on rather small criteria, an important consideration.
With romance seen ever more as the ideal of life,
despite a seemingly endless list of counter-examples, it becomes unsurprising
shipping should have attained such a high level of prominence. Most people tend
to want their friends to be happy, unless one has become excessively unhappy,
causing them to desire all their friends to be as miserable as they are.
Because of this, one wants one’s friends to have the best things in life, be it
that a good job, a nice house, a happy outlook on life, and, of course,
romance. Thus, people seeking to pair up their friends with people, hoping they
will gain love to make them happy cannot be considered highly unusual, though
some of the people doing it certainly might be.
Shipping then becomes an incredibly unselfish act, as
it does not involve the “self” at all. Unselfish acts are rare in human
behavior, and thus shipping becomes something rather special in the grand
scheme of things. Yet now that the psychology and some of the general ideas
behind shipping have been discussed, the time has arrived to delve into the
gritty details of shipping, such as they are.
Chapter 2:
Fictional Shipping
The focus of this work is not on fictional shipping,
but upon the real-life applications of shipping. However, since the term
originated in fiction, some of the elements therein deserve to be discussed
(Also the page count must be hit). Since fictional shipping and real life
shipping have many crossover elements in terms of ideas that require
discussion, the focus of this chapter will be on those areas where fictional
shipping is unique from its reality based counterpart.
The most noted thing is the difference in scale
between the two. Only so many people can know Jack and Sheila; However,
millions of people know and love characters like Batman and Catwoman (Who since
the initial writing of this work are now nearing canonical status). Thus, the
sheer mass of people who can ship fictional characters is necessarily greater.
In addition, there is a far greater ability to
promulgate one’s ship if it involves fictional characters. One can make posts
about it, write fanfiction, or draw fanart to prove to others why the ship is
so perfect. If one did this in real life, they would be considered incredibly creepy
(Which is a shame), yet people who do this between fictional characters are
celebrated (Unless they are just plain freaks, though sometimes this simply
adds to their popularity). Shipping among fictional characters therefore can
involve a greater range of creative expression of desire for the ship.
Another fascinating aspect of this is shipping between
fictional works. Shippers often do not feel bound to pair characters from the
same universe, such as the aforementioned Batman or Catwoman. One example is a
ship involving the character of Jon Snow from Game of Thrones and Elsa from Frozen
(Because why not?). This ship has no chance of ever occurring (It is to be
hoped) due to the many major differences between the two mediums; still, the
ship is made. While some might argue this can occur in real life, claiming you
can ship two friends who have never met one another, this is debatable and
shall be debated in a Buckley-esq display of riveting analysis.
Another interesting quality of fictional shipping is
there tend to be less boundaries. The orientation of the characters involved in
the ship tends not to matter, such as with the popular ship between Captain
Kirk and Mr. Spock in Star Trek. Both
characters are canonically heterosexual, but this does not deter the many
shippers. This also tends to cross more significant taboos, such as a certain
ship from the show Supernatural, and that is the end of that story.
Fictional ships also have an advantage of being near impossible
to defeat, because the story always continues. Characters rarely die in media,
so the shippers can always hope. It is only upon those rare occasions where a
character dies, or enters into a different relationship that proves
substantially better than the ship that the ship sinks.
Thus, fictional shipping possesses several major
differences from shipping people in real life. It is of a far greater scale,
has greater variety, and has greater modes of expression than its reality based
brethren. This is the progenitor of shipping, and therefore should be respected
as a vital part of the history of the science, even if much of it is disgusting
(ly beautiful).
Chapter 3:
Shipping in Real Life: It Takes Two
Steve walked to class one day with his usual swagger
that reminded all the girls of Mick Jager. As he strutted like a cool cat, he
espied Jack and Sheila talking to one another. It was not the first time Steve
had seen them together. Steve has conversed with them a few times, and while
they are always inclusive, it is fairly obvious he was a unicycle awkwardly
conjoined to their bicycle. Both were sarcastic, witty people who had more than
a casual interest in watching the films of Sergei Eisenstein and creating busts
of George Harrison. Steve thought to himself “Man, those two always be hanging.
I bet like together they’d be a beautiful painting. A Jackson Pollack”. Steve
then moved on, as he had better things to do.
What Steve has just done is an example of shipping in
real life. He has seen two people and made the judgement that they would be
better together. The story also demonstrates several key aspects of shipping. One
of these is the shipper must know both of the people he or she or it ships. It
should be obvious that one cannot ship two people one does not know (though admittedly,
some still try this). Neither can one ship someone they do know with someone
they do not, because then one would never think to ship those people (unless
they were akin to Bruce Lee and thus some sort of wizard, if so https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVUEbJk59Jc
However, this raises a question of how well one must
know the persons involved for it to qualify as a ship. Could Steve ship the two
if he just knew Sheila as” that girl who sat behind him in class and never said
anything”, having no knowledge of her personality? Shipping necessarily
requires a certain knowledge of both and desire for each to be happy. If Steve
has no knowledge of Sheila, he really just hopes Jack will get a girlfriend,
not knowing if any compatibility exists between them.
The question then becomes how much does one have to
know a person to ship them? The answer is not very much. Steve merely needs to
grasp the basics of the personalities of the two to ship them. He needs to know
just enough to determine if he believes they would be compatible, and even if
this is limited, and perhaps even wrong (as is the default scenario), Steve can
begin shipping the two.
This brings up another important point. All ships need
to be done with goodwill, even if the will is stupid. Whether this discounts “Anti-Shipping”
will be discussed later. The ship might be a terrible one in truth; Jack and
Sheila might be a terrible couple (They might kill each other over who is “Best
Girl” in Eromanga Sensei), but that
does not matter so long as Steve thinks they would be a good couple. As long as
Steve is certain in this belief, he still has a legitimate ship. If Steve
should begin thinking that perhaps they would not get along so well, he has
effectively stopped shipping the two. The ship must result from the notion that
these two people in a relationship would result in greater overall happiness
for the two of them. Whether or not it would is irrelevant, it is simply the belief
that matters, as indeed ships are largely simply built out of the belief of the
shippers, who want to see reality conform to their desire for two people to
live in perfect harmony, much like ebony and ivory. Nietzsche, in his text, The Will to Power, gives a description
of this thought process when he writes “every specific body strives to become
master over all space and to extend its force (--its will to power:) and to
thrust back all that resists its extension”.[9]
Nietzsche here describes the feeling of someone seeking to cause existence to
fulfil his or her or its desire to bring two people into romantic contact.
Next, Steve could not want Jack to get a girlfriend,
think Sheila was not the best option, and still ship it. If he did, he would
have allowed his feelings for Jack and wanting to see him happy override his
sense of wanting the greatest possible happiness for both people. This is one
of the most widespread problems when it comes to shipping. It would be rather
like thinking it good for a child to eat a whole jar of cookies because one
wants the child to be happy in the moment. It will, however, end up harmful to
the child (cookies kill), and if one knows this, they are harming the child
while trying to do an act of love. To use a more popular idea, it is comparable
to the ever-popular question “Does this dress make me look fat?” If, for the
sake of friendship one lies and says no, one might be nice, but one has ceased
to be an objective critic of fashion.
Shipping thus requires an element of integrity. One
cannot allow one’s feelings for those they are considering shipping to override
their objectivity regarding people (though this is something of a Sisyphean
task, but then again that just goes to teach the absurdity of life as Camus
would say). One may even be wrong, and the two they have decided not to ship
are actually a great pair, but this does not matter, for what matters is
belief.
Shipping then is a highly relativistic concept, and
depends only on the desire of the shipper to see reality conform to his desire.
There are no objectively good or bad ships (unless again you are one of “those”
supernatural fans); there are simply ships in which one does and does not
believe. Who knows if the relationship is a good one? but what matters is one’s
own belief (to badly paraphrase Oprah, there are so many ships out there, how
can just one of them be true?)
Chapter 4:
Frivolous Shipping
There are two major errors novices at shipping tend to
commit. The first is confusing shipping and “Predicting”, a difference that
will be discussed in a later chapter. The second is “Frivolous Shipping”.
Frivolous shipping is the practice whereby one ships people for rather silly
reasons. Here is an example:
Steve saw Jack.
Jack was wearing his fedora as he did most days because he was a freak. Steve
thought most people looked like idiots in Fedoras, and there was no “but” to be
added on to that. Later that day, Steve saw Sheila wearing her Pittsburgh
Pirates Baseball cap, a trademark of her fashion that showed she was a
masochist. Steve thought about this, how both Jack and Sheila wore hats all the
time. Suddenly it seemed so obvious! They should get together because they both
wore hats! They could then go, get married and have many hat wearing babies
together and stay away from normal people. Steve decided he shipped it before
chasing after a squirrel for a noonday
meal.
The above is an example of frivolous shipping, as
Steve’s reasoning is quite superficial. Frivolous shipping tends to occur in
instances wherein two people share an unusual trait, such as being unusually
short or tall, having a strange colour (Word
says the preceding word is misspelled because it hates British people, who do
not exist) of hair, liking a similar fandom, or smoking the same type of blunt,
etc. The thought that these two people who share an unusual trait would be
perfect for each other tends to occur naturally in the human mind which likes
to group people up based on arbitrary differences (hence why Hitler thought the
Slavs would make great servants). The film The
Lobster while a deeply flawed film, presented an amusing commentary upon
this with the idea of a resort wherein people get married for arbitrary
reasons, such as one couple getting together due to their supposed sharing of
nosebleeds.
While numerous implications can be drawn from these
observations about the human capacity to divide up its members (like how anyone
not responsible for the creation and proliferation of dank memes is a “normie”),
the question of chief concern to this study is whether or not this is an act of
shipping. Again, this goes back to the thought processes of the shipper. The
shipper must believe these two people will increase their total happiness by
entering into a relationship. Looking at the example above, it must be asked if
Steve truly believes that by beginning a relationship, Jack and Sheila will
increase their net happiness. In the above instance, Steve’s earnestness with
regards to this would seem somewhat in doubt (Though his sense of fashion is
not).
This marks the essential problem with frivolous
shipping, it tends to not be serious. Actual shipping often involves a great
deal of cognizant thought, proper consideration, and an interest in seeing both
people happy. With frivolous shipping, this becomes something off a problem,
since often there is no real interest in increased happiness, or even a desire
to see the ship set sail. Frivolous shipping often amounts to little more than
a joke on the part of the pseudo-shipper. It thus has no place in the annals of
shipping.
Indeed, there is something of a danger in this type of
shipping, for often it can reinforce a certain level of separateness among
people. How so? What is so wrong about shipping people based on the criteria
mentioned above? Well, such things might not seem so harmful at the outset, yet
what if one, as the author did, attend a school with a low diversity level?
Would it be considered such innocent fun if one were to ship two people because
of their being members of the same racial minority? Such thinking becomes
dangerous, and while it might seem innocent at the outset, it can often times lead
to a shift in the way human thinking occurs. Habits that may appear innocuous
can soon lead to more destructive ways of thinking. One must remember that
shipping is like a children’s card game: serious business
The beginning shipper makes the mistake of frivolous
shipping rather easily. When looking for people to couple, outward, slightly
exaggerated signs can often be the easiest to grasp. However, as demonstrated
above, such is not true shipping. It lacks the goodwill that is so central to
the concept of shipping and instead embraces a mode of thinking that can lead
to destructive practices, fostering separation instead of the truly inclusive
act that shipping represents. Thus, shippers have a moral responsibility to not
fall into the dangerous trap of frivolous shipping. For these reasons, the
definition of shipping must include the caveat that shipping must not be made
for frivolous reasons. Failure to do so may well lead shipping to becoming a destructive
act, and any time this occurs, it is a blight to the entire practice. It is the
responsibility of the master shippers then to not engage nor foster this sort
of shipping, and instead, hold to the highest ideals of the practice.
Chapter 5:
Anti-Shipping
Since it has become somewhat customary at this point
to begin these chapters with a short anecdote, let it be so here:
Steve had been eating at the cafeteria, much to his
shame. Sitting near him had been Alfonso and Sheila. Alfonso was a very serious
character, often talking about his political views which steered sharply to the
right (thus instantly making him a terrible person). Cars, guns, and long legs
enthused him greatly. Sheila, on the other hand, regarded most things with a
light nonchalance. If someone asked her about politics, she would say she did
not care much, but thought Bernie was a “cool guy”. Her interests drifted on
the artistic side, and she had a great love of nature and music. Alfonso had
been discussing a recent political scandal, going on at great length about it.
Sheila had engaged him occasionally, often with a degree of mockery which
served to only make Alfonso carry on in a louder and more robust manner,
flapping his arms as though he was Icarus reborn, and Sheila was happy enough
to try and melt his wax wings with her burns. Eventually, the two had departed.
Steve considered the two for a moment and then a rather amusing thought
occurred to him. He thought how entertaining it would be if these two actually
entered into a relationship. “A match made in hades”, he thought, rather
bemused by the thought of the two being a couple as he delved into a slice of
cherry pie before promptly dying of food poisoning.
The anecdote is an example of anti-shipping.
Anti-shipping essentially involves taking two people the shipper regards as
being the worst match possible and pairing them up. This naturally does not fit
in with the definition of shipping. The shipper most certainly does not believe
this will increase the net happiness of the two people in the couple, but
rather it is all about the amusement of those who consider the possibility.
This harkens back to a line from Camus, one of his
more famous ones to not involve all the women in his life. He speaks of
Sisyphus, cursed by the gods to forever role a boulder up a hall and Camus says,
“One must imagine Sisyphus happy”[10]
what this has to do with the concept of anti-shipping is simple that much like
Sisyphus, who is in a miserable situation for the amusement of those above him,
the Greek gods, the designee, such as Alfonso in the example above, is imagined
in a terrible situation for the amusement of his fellows. The fact that Alfonso,
like Sisyphus, could ever be happy in such a situation is fundamentally absurd
and therefore leads to a great deal of laughter on the part of the
anti-shippers (If you think the Camus connection is nonsensical, please direct
your attention to the far wall and state at it for the rest of your life).
The question becomes then is this a practice that the
average shipper should practice (that repetition is intentional, so it is
artistic, not poor writing)? Surprisingly, yes. For in many ways, the best way
to learn is through doing the opposite. By seeing what people do not share in
common, and which people would be terrible for one another, it makes discovering
the opposite somewhat easier to grasp. While anti-shipping should never be
confused with shipping itself, it nevertheless remains an amusing activity that
can increase the experience of those who are attempting to learn to ship. Anti-shipping
amounts to sarcasm of the imagination. Many consider sarcasm the lowest form of
humor, yet it has a capacity to highlight certain truths in an amusing fashion.
In this instance, anti-shipping can often reveal the truth about people.
Additionally, while one should not discuss one’s ships
with those who are in the ship, one can freely discuss anti-ships with those
within the anti-ship. By doing this, the anti-shipper can observe the reaction
of the anti-shipie, finding out just why he or she or it might object to it,
and therefore one can learn more about the person so that when the time is
correct, they might ship them with far greater likelihood of success.
Thusly, while anti-shipping is not nearly so grand as
the act of shipping itself, it stands as a handy tool to be used to gain
experience in the art of shipping. Yet its greatest strength remains the
amusement of those who anti-ship, for it indeed is one of the most entertaining
things to do.
Chapter 6:
Self-Shipping
Self-shipping: does it even exist, or is it like
British people, dwelling only in fairytales told to small children? Perhaps a
small story will illuminate the idea self-shipping or perhaps not. According to
reader-response criticism, it is only the response of the reader that matters,
so if the following account is not understood, it is the fault of the reader
and not this author.
Steve sauntered with a sexy strut to class when
suddenly he saw her. Her name was San (and probably still is). She was
unquestionably the most fantastically beautiful girl Steve had ever seen in his
entire life, but looks did not matter to him because he was concerned with
better things, so he totally did not check out her hot body that was like a
back road one bit. He knew her well, and their personalities went together like
Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in The
Taming of the Shrew. He thought of how lovely it would be if they began
dating. “I ship it” he said to himself moved along.
Now the above is an example of self-shipping…is what
the expected response would be. However,
such is not the response given here; since Self-shipping is much like the idea
of life having meaning, a myth. There are generally two claims as to what
self-shipping entails, and thus both of these must be debunked to disprove this
notion heresy.
The first type is much like in the example above. What
Steve is doing is not “shipping”, but “crushing”. He has a crush on San and
wants to get with her like Will Smith wants to “Get Jiggy wit it”. Some might
ask why crushing and shipping cannot be interchangeable in this situation; why
can Steve not be crushing on San and ship it at the same time?
The answer is that self-shipping necessitates
abandoning the objectivity that is requisite to being a true shipper. For love
blinds people (literally), and when one is blinded, one cannot be an effective
shipper (not to say blind people are not capable of anything, which they are).
This makes the concept of self-shipping impossible, for one cannot, no matter
how well intentioned, approach the matter with the stringently unbiased
attitude demanded by the field. It would be rather akin to writing a review of
one’s own work; the biased perspective makes it worthless (much like both the
reader and writer of this piece).
However, this raises a different question (not “why am
I reading this?”). Every once and a while, one encounters a person they like a
good deal, but do not love. From every outward sign, the two should begin
dating, having similar personalities, interests, hot bodies, etc. all. Yet for
whatever reason, one does not want to actually date their seeming match, but
admits if they did, they would probably be a fantastic couple. Could one
self-ship in this situation, since one would not be blinded by love?
While this situation is tempting as an alternative
definition for self-shipping, it also fails to qualify as true shipping. For shipping
means actually wanting the two people being shipped to get together. While it
certainly entails believing the two would be a good match, it is equally a fervent
desire to see that match come to pass. This mode of self-shipping does not
contain that desire, being merely an idle thought, which, while perhaps pleasant
to the thinker, brings with it no passion to be carried out.
Therefore, the concept of self-shipping is impossible.
If one is crushing on the person they self-ship themselves with, then they
cannot be objective about the scenario, and thus they cease to be shippers. If
they can remain objective, then they no longer have the desire to carry out the
ship, and thus it ceases to be a ship. Thus, self-shipping does not exist (in a
manner akin to substance in this book).
Chapter 7:
Shipping versus Predicting
Herein lies a discussion of a most ontological nature
(whatever that means). One of the biggest mistakes a novice shipper can make is
to confuse “shipping” with “Predicting”. It is an easy trap to fall into (much
like bourgeoisie culture), as the two bear a strong relation to one another;
however, this creates a problem when the concepts are married to one another,
because then that is incest, and that is not cool. In any event, here is one of
those delightful stories that are so delightful:
Steve looked at Jack and Sheila, who were sitting on a
couch together watching The Godfather
starring Will Farrell on Jack’s highly advanced Linux computer. Steve had been
observing the two for a bit, and he realized all the signs were there. What
those signs were Steve could say, since that is the subject of a later chapter.
Suffice to say, he knew the signs, and he saw them on full display. Steve did
not like this. He felt Sheila was far above Jack, who he regarded as something
of a dork. In short, he did not think it a good match, yet he saw it was going
to happen regardless. Thus, Steve had no choice but to pull out his bille and
try and forget the whole thing.
Now is the above an example of shipping? Of course
not, as shipping means wanting a couple to get together and Steve most
certainly does not want the two to get together. While this difference may seem
obvious to this text’s enlightened readers, there are many who fail to grasp
the subtle difference between the two. Indeed, even if Steve was completely
apathetic towards the concept of them entering into a relationship but realized
that it would happen anyway, it is still not shipping; since he still is not
actively wanting the relationship to occur.
Instead, this is simply the process of predicting, of
seeing two people starting to enter into a relationship and being able to
declare it so without having a vested interest in it. It would rather be like
predicting who will win the presidency of Iceland, one might know how it will
probably go, but unless one lives in that land of greenery, one probably does
not care. Predicting is not necessarily hostile towards the idea of two certain
individuals getting together. One might indeed think “good for them getting
together” but there is no passion present, and this is one of the most vital
parts of shipping (as shown with such perfectly panache prose in the previous
chapter).
Predicting is essentially the relationship equivalent
of “left-hand writing”.[11] It
engages most of the same faculties and powers of reasoning as shipping, however
there is no passion at play within it. This is the main issue with predicting;
either one is ambivalent about the couple, or one dislikes it, which certainly
goes against shipping. The only real benefit it gives one is that if the couple
in question does become an item, the predictor can say “I totally saw that
coming”, which while certainly nice, is of no real value (except in Molossia,
where this can be exchanged for a signed photograph of President Kevin Baugh).
Predicting then is a rather unfortunate side effect of
becoming a good shipper. It means seeing numerous couples one does not like
forming, and there is little enough one can do about it, except try and
sabotage them, but that is not a very nice thing to do (unless one wants to).
In any case, one must make sure to not confuse the passion filled endeavor that
is shipping with the relatively passionless procedure that is predicting.
Chapter 8:
Shipping versus Arranged Marriages and Match-making
Time to examine one of the finer distinctions of
shipping. The question this time is whether or not “Shipping”, “Arranged Marriages”
and “Matchmaking” encompass the same field. But first, an example:
Lord Steve had been called in by his wife, Lady Steve.
She informed him that they were now in possession of a daughter, Marry. Lord
Steve examined Mary with mostly satisfaction. After surveying the child, Lord
Steve went to the estate of his friend, Lord Jack. Lord Jack had himself
recently had a child brought into the world. Lord Steve spoke “Lord Jack, let
us cement our friendship by bringing our two households together. Let my daughter
and your son be promised to one another.” “Aye, it would seem an excellent
match to mine eyes. Let it be as you have said” replied Lord Jack. The two men
shook hands and then got drunk to seal the bond.
Now was the above an instance of shipping? After all,
both might easily think the match will lead to the overall happiness of the two
children, thus it should doubtless count, correct? The primary answer is no
simply because there is no way at this point to accurately judge whether these
two are actually compatible (unless, again, one is a Bruce Lee-esq wizard, but
again, it is well known what occurs in that case). At this point, since the
children have not yet manifested personalities (unless they are wizards), so it is impossible to accurately match them. Therefore,
this cannot be considered shipping since shipping to a great extent involves
matching people based on personalities. Matching people based solely on their
birth puts it into the realm of frivolous shipping, and therefore it has no
place in the realm of serious shipping.
However, some strawman of this author’s own invention
might posit that if this type of matching took place when the two children were
late teenagers, when they had developed personalities, then this would qualify
as shipping. While such would certainly fit better, assuming in this scenario
the parents were matching based on personality as well as birth, it would still
not qualify as shipping, since the parents would actively be working to make
the match happen, and shipping is, essentially, a passive act wherein one does
not try to influence the couple in any way other than psychic energy (Or really
dumb hinting)
This same logic applies to matchmaking. Many imagined
strawmen might see matchmaking as shipping brought to its fruition. Shipping is
the mental art and matchmaking its physical extension, much like how performance
is the natural outgrowth of writing. However, there remains a distinction. To
understand this, one must look at the roots of shipping in fandoms. Fans of shows
and movies know that no matter how much they ship, they will doubtless never
see their ship sail; it is simply their desire to see it pass that motivates
them. In a similar way, shippers of actual couples should not seek to cause
their ships to actually occur. At such a point, they have stopped shipping and
are instead matchmaking, an entirely different act. One would not call a
theoretical physicist and an experimental physicist the same thing (well maybe
one might, but only because of blatant stupidity); and likewise, one cannot
call a shipper and a matchmaker the same thing.
Such is the difference between shipping, matchmaking
and arranged marriages. Arranged marriages tend to be less about making people
love one another and more about the various benefits such a match would bring
for the matchers, who care little about the total happiness of the people
involved. While matchmaking tends to be all about the happiness of the people
being matched, it takes an active role in the whole affair, seeking to make the
ship happen through action. This is not what shipping is, and therefore a
distinct difference arises betwixt the two. One is action, the other inaction
with the desire to see some action, whatever that means.
Chapter 9: Massive
Multiplayer Shipping
This chapter has an interesting title that may or may
not convey the actual message of it. If the reader believes this chapter is
about polygamy, and its relevance to shipping, here is the short of it: While
this author does not endorse polygamy, he cannot think of any argument why this
should not be included under the definition of shipping; therefore, it
qualifies as a rather low form of the art (but #loveislove guys (except when it
is Supernatural (Not to offend any
fans (But offense is totally meant (in a nice way))))). However, such is not
the actual question that the powers that be (Wilford Brimley) decided needed to
be discussed in the course of this treatise. Instead, the question that this
author is trying to convey in a rather poor manner is best illustrated by the
following righteous example:
Steve saw Jack and Sheila sitting in a tree,
doubtlessly nesting. He totally shipped that as they were utterly (moo) perfect
for one another and nothing could dissuade Steve from that opinion. About an
hour later, after he had been hanging out with his friends Billie and Mary Jane,
Steve was walking when he saw Mordecai and Sheila flying around together and
laughing. Steve decided he totally shipped this as well.
How can this be? (https://youtu.be/B8-eiBqri0U?t=5) Is it possible to ship people in different ships
simultaneously? Can this be said to be part of actual shipping, or simply
something foolish amateurs do when they lack the proper techniques to ship well?
On one hand, the art would appear harmless. There are sometimes several people
who might match well with someone’s personality, and they might work equally
well in ships together. On the other hand, should the shipper discard these in
favor of his, her, its favorite; in essence, must the shipper pick a side?
It is something of a delicate matter; however, there
is a solution. Some might well declare this idea of “massive multiplayer
shipping” an example of “doublethink”, holding two contradictory ideas in one’s
head simultaneously, which often has the side effect of destroying a person’s
freewill, but that is beside the point. In any case, they (whoever “they” are) say
wanting the same person to be with multiple people is an example of this
“doublethink”, and therefore, it should be refrained from (yeah, a preposition
ends that sentence, what of it?).
Thus, the argument hinges upon the central question of
whether one can want multiple and self-contradictory couples to arise. The
answer is yes because all follow a similar train of thought; wanting one or
more people to move from a state of inaction to one of action, caring not for
the direction so much as simply action occurring (and shipping is all about
action if you know what this author means). As an example, say Steve has no job
(Steve Jobless). Steve wants a job and has applied to be a computer technician,
a librarian, and a fast food employee. He desires the first job the most
(because he is a loser), then the second, and finally the third. He desires each
job and hopes for each, even though getting one would mean not getting the others.
His primary interest is moving from a state of joblessness to one of
employment.
This is similar to the idea of shipping a person in
multiple ships. One wants another person to enter into a state of dating,
exiting a state of singleness. The shipper, however, sees several candidates
who he/she/it thinks would make good matches with the one he/she/it is
shipping. Therefore, he/she/it ships all of them. In one sense, the shipper is
allowing his/her/its desire to see this person in a relationship override the
more delicate faculties of shipping; however, he/she/it still remains within
the realm of shipping. He/She/It does, it is almost certain, have an order to
these pairs, and as long as he maintains this, the shipper maintains some level
of credibility.
Shipping a person in multiple ships is honestly the
mark of the amateur. The amateur shipper cannot determine who to ship a person
with, lacking the necessary faculties to narrow it down or else realize what
the one true ship should be. The amateur shipper allows his/her/its eagerness
to override his/her/its better sense regarding shipping. In this manner, it is
an extremely sloppy act done by those who have little idea of what they are
actually doing when it comes to shipping. However, at the same time, there is
nothing that prohibits it as being a part of the art of shipping. It certainly
qualifies, and indeed, can work well as a teaching tool for the amateur as he/she/it
gathers greater insight into what it means to ship people and what to look for
in ships. However, the professional veteran shipper must discard this childish
act (One Corinthians 13:11).
Chapter 10: OTPs
Oftentimes, one can have many ships occurring at once.
Ships here, ships there, ships everywhere. However, every once in a while, one
ship rises above the rest to attain the paramount pinnacle all other ships
endeavor to reach, yet like Sisyphus (remember him?) never seem able to reach.
This phenomenon is known as the “OTP”.
“OTP” is an acronym, meaning “One True Pairing”. The
definition is a fairly simple one: The “OTP” is the one ship that, for whatever
reasons, the shipper wants to occur more than any other ship. The OTP makes all
other ships seem like dinghies compared to its HMS Titanic proportions.
A good analogy (or is it simile? (Or is it metaphor?))
be to consider the idea in terms of friendships. One can have many friends and
have a genuine interest in fostering those relationships; however, one
typically also has a best friend, one who transcends the very bounds of the
name “friend” and becomes something closer, something better; a brother or
sister in deed if not name. This is similar to the concept of the OTP; one can
still have many ships and still genuinely care about them, but they are just
not quite as special as the OTP.
There are many reasons to cause a ship to elevate from
its rather humble initial status to the exalted state of being “OTP”. One can
be the people involved. If a shipper has two very good friends that he/she/it
fells would be simply perfect for one another, he/she/it may easily become more
invested in this relationship than in any other, and as such, begin to ship it
more and more than any other, causing it to develop into an OTP.
Another reason for the appearance of an OTP is simply the
behavior of the couple in question. If a certain couple conforms to the idea
the shipper possesses of what the perfect couple should act like, the shipper
will doubtless believe in this ship more, thus creating an “OTP”. The ship
embodies everything the shipper finds fair and wonderful about the entire
concept of love. For just a little while, all those tales of perfect love seem
to live and breathe, embodied in the forms of these two specific human beings.
Whether the couple behaves in a way harkening back to chivalric ideals, to 1940s
Hollywood musicals, or to Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone in Crazy, Stupid, Love, it matters not so long as the shipper finds it
conforming to the ideal.
A final reason an OTP can form is the circumstances.
If a ship faces particular adversary, perhaps being a forbidden love (Not the
Winchesters from Supernatural!), or one
in which one part of the ship is being particularly stupid, or one in which the
couple faces various socioeconomic restraints imposed on them by a corrupt,
capitalist society; these sorts of circumstances can make the ship seem like an
underdog, causing the shipper to care far more about it then he/she/it would a
normal ship.
Thus, OTPs can emerge from the people involved, the
behavior of the couple, or the adversarial circumstances of the ship. For the
shipper, these serve to make “OTPs” are the most important ships. Indeed, when
these ships come to pass, it makes every failed ship in the shipper’s past a
thing of nothingness compared to the overwhelming joy of seeing an OTP realized.
Chapter 11:
Shipping Outside of Romance
So far, much of the above text has been written with
the intention of placing boundaries about the concept of shipping, giving a
highly opinionated opinion about what is and is not shipping. However, there is
one area that has been largely ignored up until this point. Simply put, must
ships be romantic in nature?
“Well what else would they be” the reader who likes to
ask convenient questions might well ask. After all, is not the entire concept
of shipping built upon love? (similar to how this city was built upon rock and
roll)? Romance is where shipping’s foundation in fandom lies, and the romantic
ideology is the perspective much of this book has been written from. Yet now it
is time to pull a Slavoj Zizek and examine this unexamined ideology. Is it then
possible to ship someone in a manner other than romance?
Before such illuminatingly enlightening questions can
be answered, it must be asked what the alternative to shipping can be? Well, assuming
shipping has to involve love of some sort, the different types of love must be
examined. First there is Eros, romantic love. Obviously, this applies. There is
also Ludus, which is a playful love such as in the early stages of a relationship,
which obviously can be thrown into the usual romantic connotation of shipping.
Then there is Agape, an unconditional love which is impossible for humans to
do, so that does not work. Next is Pragma, long standing love, but since this
requires the love to have already started, it does not work for the purposes of
shipping. Then there is Philautia, the love of the self, which, since shipping
requires more than one person, does not count.
However, there is one final type of love. This is
Philia, the “friendship” type of love. The ancient Greeks valued this type of
love the most (is something a cheesy video vlogger would say), and oftentimes,
it is friends which can prove the most valuable relationships in life (except
for the relationship between the individual and Charlie Rose…and God), and
indeed, a good romantic love is rarely, if ever, found without the presence of
Philia.
So, can one ship people as friends? At first glance,
this concept does seem to fit the definition of shipping as it involves two
people entering into a relationship which will bring them mutual happiness. Thus,
the idea appears to fit within the concept of shipping without any undue
obstrufication. It means looking at two people who perhaps do not know each
other and deciding they would work well as friends due to their interests or
personalities.
Really, the only thing preventing this from being a
part of shipping is common usage[12].
Few, if any, use shipping to mean two people entering into a friendship. Thus,
there becomes some difficulty from an ontological standpoint of
lexicographically including it.
As such, it may be helpful if the idea of shipping
friends was put under a different name “Friendship” would seem obvious, however
this author has something of a preference for “Fellowship”, due to the less
common usage in everyday conversation decreasing confusion. Thus, while
shipping friends certainly counts as a type of shipping and perhaps should be
used more often than it is; using terms such as “Fellowship” for the sake of
clarity is useful for distinguishing the two branches of the same artful tree.
Chapter 12: When
is a Ship Successful?
At some point, ships cease to be ships (they become
boats). This much should be obvious to even the amateur shipper (unless they
are just kind of stupid). At some point, whatever the shipper was hoping for in
the designated relationship occurs, and as the relationship cements more and
more, the shipper gradually loses interest in the ship and moves on to other
things, beginning his/her/its metaphorical fanart on another show as
LittleKuriboh might say.
The question then is when does a ship cease to be a
ship? At what point does it go from being a ship to simply another couple that
goes about following Genesis 1:28? Is it when the members of a ship first
declare that they are dating? Is it when they have been dating for several
months? When they are engaged? Married? Dead? Undead zombies? These are rather pertinent questions for
determining when a ship is over (but “Don’t dream it’s over”).
Perhaps the easiest thing to do is work backwards. Is
a couple still in ship mode once it is dead? No, obviously. How about once they
are married? While this is better, and indeed there is a chance it might end,
at that point the relationship is as cemented as it will get, so there is
little point in continuing to ship it. How about engaged? Trickier since the
relationship is still in a state of flux to an extent, however at that point
the couple have shown a fairly definitive interest in one another and have made
the promise to promise to spend the rest of their lives together, so this shall
be discounted.
So then, a ship ceases to be a ship somewhere in the
dating phase of the relationship (unless of course one is courting, which is
totally different than that sinful dating). Yet the question remains as to
where in the relationship the term “ship” ceases to be, and instead, transforms
into a couple. Does it happen after a good long while of dating where the
people involved are seriously committed to one another, after a few weeks with
the people deciding to keep seeing each other, or does the ship end as soon as
the dating begins?
These are all questions of a metaphysical substance
which are rather difficult to answer; however, a good attempt shall still be
made. In the humble (and usually wrong) opinion of this author, who has
committed years to fieldwork in the realm of shipping, the ship ceases to exist
once the two people in the ship decide to date each other exclusively; thus,
actively pursuing a relationship with one another. Plenty of people can go on a
date (unless they are losers!), but that can fall apart quite quickly. Yet once
the two members of a ship begin to date exclusively, they have committed to the
idea of finding love together.
Now obviously this can still mean the couple will
breakup into a thousand fragments (much like this author’s heart at the end of Maid Sama!), however at that point, if
one was to continue shipping the two, it would be a contradiction in terms. For
shipping is wanting two people to get together based on the assumption that it
will increase their mutual happiness. If, however, the two begin dating
seriously and then cease to date, it proves their mutual happiness was not
increased by dating, and therefore, the ship has been sunk in this scenario.
There can, of course, be other reasons for couples to
break up than the fact that mutual happiness was not achieved. In many cases,
happy couples do break up for various reasons (and one can find many of them in
bad romance novels (except Twilight
because that stuff is legit(so much so, that it is unable to quit))). For the
majority of cases though, once a committed relationship begins, then the ship
is finished because either it has come to pass forever, or else it was just a
garbage barge of a ship.
Chapter 13: The
Morality of Shipping
In the course of the preceding chapters, the term “shipping”
has been given shape and definition out of the typically globulus blob it
typically exists as in the typical minds of many typically typical people.
However, there is an underlying question to all of this that should be
addressed now that an actual definition to work with exists. Simply put, should
one ship? There is a great temptation at this point to quote Hamlet and his
overwrought question, however as this is a book of startling originality, such
cliched practices shall be refrained from being practiced. So instead, a quote
from the great James Thurber shall be used “You might as well fall flat on your
face as lean over too far backwards”[13].
Now, at first glance that quote may seem entirely unrelated to the question of
this chapter, and it is, but the bibliography needed to be padded out, so it
was actually of immense importance to the work as a whole.
Speaking of the whole, the whole concept of shipping
rests on the answer to whether one should or should not ship. After all,
shipping can be rigorously defined, but in the end, its morality determines if
the previous twelve chapters were more of a warning against practices, or else,
a call to action in Cambellian terms. Is this text Seduction of the Innocent, or else Your Best Life Now? Such questions dance at the edge of all this
wondrous discussion.
But enough dancing (This author does not want to
offend his Baptist readers after all) around the question with cute stories and
magical little jokes (Thought what this author deems a joke rarely agrees with
the public conception of jokes). In any case, there is a question of morality.
Well, first the antithesis to shipping being moral must be examined;
essentially, why is shipping immoral?
Some might declare “shipping” gossip. There is a chance
of this if one begins blabbing about ships as this can lead to people begin to
assume things that are not true (Granted, most people do that anyway). The
shipper might not mean for them to assume such things, but given the imperfect mode
of communication that is human language, there is a certain inevitability to
this. However, this problem would seem solved by simply not telling others
about a ship, except perhaps one person, so that when the ship comes to pass,
the shipper can rightfully declare that they called it, which is of great
importance to do.
Discounting psychic magic, it can be safely assumed
that so long as one does not start yakety-yacking about one’s ships, there is
no external damage caused by shipping as it tends to follow the fifth book of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.
The question becomes one then of the internal damage shipping might cause.
Essentially, does becoming a shipper change one in a bad way?
It may sound a bit silly at first, but there is
something to this. As one becomes more and more obsessed with shipping, an unhealthy
view of romance could develop. It is easy as one ships more and more to become
more and more preoccupied with the idea of love, to see romance more and more
as the answer to people’s problems. This problem becomes especially dangerous
when one factors in the cultural obsession with romance. After all, where do
happy films always tend to end? Two people in a relationship (see: The Bee Movie). The happy ending. Who is
this author to stand against the entire weight of cultural narrative from the
past few hundred years? (In answer: the best there is at what he does, and what
he does is ship people better than anyone else on the whole dang planet).
This then is the great danger when it comes to
shipping. It may lead to a skewing of values on the part of the shipper. To
quote Derrida, “Seeing romance as the paramount goal in life will only make you
a miserable plebian”.[14] Thus
the shipper must not begin seeing romance as the best thing in life as it will
only make the shipper miserable.
With that little spiel aside, do these things mean shipping
should never be practiced? No. For in many ways, shipping is a demonstration of
people at their best. The introduction risks repetition in this section, yet it
is rather necessary, for shipping demonstrates people loving in a way they
rarely do. Wanting people to get together is a rather unselfish form of love.
So often, love is all about the self, and one gratifying the various desires of
that self. Yet in shipping, this is not the case. With self-shipping eliminated
from the entire definition, the very idea of shipping forces it to be an
unselfish form of love; a desire to see others in love, and therefore, it is to
be hoped, increasing their happiness in some regard.
The more one ships, the more one loves others without
loving the self. In this manner, shipping is actually an excellent practice for
getting one to think of those besides oneself and instead considering others
and what they might want. Is there a danger? Certainly, all things carry danger
if done improperly. Yet when done right, not seeing romance as everything, but
as simply one thing, then shipping takes on a beautiful role in shaping the
mind of the shipper to consider things not based around the shipper’s own wants.
It is for these reasons the author is forced to come
to the conclusion that shipping is, in fact, a moral and beautiful thing to do (but
that’s just like, my opinion man).
Chapter 14: How to
Ship So Well Your Head Explodes!
Now that shipping has been rigorously defined from the
ground up using only logic, and it has been decided that it is a good thing to
do (a real good thing), the obvious task now is a how-to guide on how to ship
well. Since this is the final piece of the puzzle (a la National Treasure), I feel free to break from the constraints the
third person places upon me to address the reader directly for this crucial
portion (And probably the only section anyone actually cares about). In my time
in the field, I have acquired numerous tricks and methods for shipping, which I
hope to share with the reader now. Many of these crossover with “Predicting” to
be sure; however, they can also be used to find good ships as well. These are
not full proof, and will fail from time to time (unless I am doing them because
there is no one in your whole army who can beat me). Yet for the majority of
times, they should prove fairly effective (Unless you are just kind of stupid,
which is admittedly true of most people reading this).
First, if two people make out excessively, it may well
be time to begin shipping them. Making out is often an expression of affection
in most cultures as detailed by Professor Oak[15].
Therefore, if you see two people making out, ship it (if you want).
On a slightly more serious note, an excellent way to determine
if a couple is interested in each other is simply proximity. Two people hanging
out with one another is certainly not a definitive sign they are interested in
one another; however, if you are observing them hanging out with one another
all the time, so much so that they are ignoring others about them, there is indeed
an excellent chance they are interested in each other. If they are walking
together, sitting together at meals, studying together (especially when they
share no classes), then these are early warning signs that it may be time to
begin shipping it.
Another element is obsession. Let us say you are in a
group with two people specific people. However, it soon becomes clear they are
the only ones really in each other’s sphere (Michael Crichton). They only seem
to be talking to and listening to each other. They may talk to others and whatnot,
but it is clear where their primary interest lies. This is another sign.
The next sign comes not from the couples themselves,
but from the behavior of one member of the duo. When you talk with one member
of the ship and they mention the other person a few times, that is evidence. This
shows that the person is on the other person’s mind, something common when
people are in love. This is especially true if the person brings them up in a
context that does not make a ton of sense for them to be brought up in (Yeah, I
ended that sentence with a preposition again, who cares?). For instance, say
someone is talking about how many geniuses there are around and someone pipes
up “Yeah, like Sheila” that could be a sign. This of course does not confirm
that the other person is interested, but it shows at least one person is
interested.
Another instance can be if when two people are
together, one begins doing something out of character. For instance, suppose
there is a fellow named Gary who is in a group talking with you and a few
others (for the sake of argument, we will say you have friends in this
scenario) and there is this girl, Emelia, there. Gary is normally a fairly
reserved chap, but he suddenly begins spouting all sorts of wild jokes, (All
eyez on me as 2-pac might well declare). Gary is obviously attempting to attract
attention to himself, but for what purpose? Ah! Well, obviously to direct the
gaze of the fair Emelia upon him. Most people decide their chances increase if
they stand out or appear better than they are. All relationships are
essentially about fooling the other person into thinking you are someone you
are not for about six months until they figure it out, at which point you hope
Stockholm syndrome has kicked in (Oops, I did it again).
Another instance can be if one of the people asks the
other to do favors for them. This shows a level of trust exists betwixt the two
that they feel confident enough to allow these people to do stuff for them (This
is especially to be noted if they are a
fairly independent person who does not like to rely on others). “Very
interesting” as the Nazi from Laugh-in
would say. Sometimes, this can simply mean they are really demanding; yet just
as often it can point to signs of romance.
Really though, being able to figure out which couples
to ship boils down to one simple maxim. “If people are acting unusual around
one another, they are probably in love”. It may seem simplistic, and it
certainly is, yet it is something that seems to work every time.
Of course, that was all about predicting actual
couples, but how do you decide if you should ship it? Well friend, that is up
to you. You have got to go with your gut on this, and if you think those two
look darn fine together, go for it! (Rocky
V), if not, well, don’t do it (Thin
White Lines!). You will be mistaken several times in this endeavor. You
will fail (Unless you are me). However, in the end, you will begin to see the
fruits of your hard work. And through practice, persistence, and all that other
garbage, you too can be an excellent shipper. Or maybe not. Some people are
just stupid and cannot figure it out. Do not be that person. Or I will kill
you. Just kidding, but maybe not, Except yes. In any case, go forth and ship
it!
Afterward:
Why are you still reading this? Also, I finished this
before Max Landis and his Jepsen work which inspired this was released. More
like downtoyourknees, Max!!!
Bibliography:
Just look at the stupid footnotes down below!
[2]
Kern, Gabriel. “Sassy The Sasquatch Bucket Hat T-Shirt Design.” Digital image.
Tee Punlic. 2013. Accessed July 7th, 2017.
https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/861938-sassy-big-lez-show.
[3]
Photographer and Title unknown. Documentary. Accessed July 7th, 2017. http://www.documentary.org/online-feature/strike-pose-truth-or-dare-25-years-later
[4]
Kant, Immanuel "Kant and Hume on Causality", The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/kant-hume-causality/>.
[5] The Stuff, Movie, directed by Larry
Cohen (1985; New World Pictures.).
[6] What Would Yugi Do? By Little Kuriboh. Performed by
LittleKuriboh. YouTube. March 3, 2010. Accessed July 11, 2017.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3-HgwwVT7M.
[7] Aiya. "Shipping." Urban Dictionary.
March 6, 2005. Accessed July 11, 2017. http://www.urbandictionary.com/de fine.php?term=shipping.
[8]The_PJO_Fangirl. "Shipping." Urban
Dictionary. August 3, 2015. Accessed July 11, 2017. http://www.urbandiction ary.com/define.php?term=shipping.
[9] Nietzsche,
Friedrich. The Will to Power. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New
York: Random House, 1968.
[10]
Camus. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2011. Accessed July 19, 2017.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/camus/.
[12] Whether or not usage is a
qualification for inclusion in a dictionary is a rather complex and divisive
topic. See Wallace’s Authority and
American Usage(http://wilson.med.harvard.edu/nb204/AuthorityAndAmericanUsage.pdf)
for a better understanding of this, if not an uncomplex one.
[13] Thurber,
James. Some book. Probably appeared on a page. Published a while ago.
[14]
Derrida, Jacques. Love and Loveliness: An
Investigation into the Mechanics of Romance as Described by Fyodor Theophilus
Eisenstein. Allen and Kazan: New
York, 1947. Pg. 1968.
[15] I
kind of just stopped trying to be accurate with these footnotes, could you
tell? But it was actually a satire of Wallace and his need to be excessively
footnotey, so there is nothing wrong with my improper citation that may or may
not have occurred, nor are any made up citations I created for this in any way
problematic and indicative of my incredible laziness, which does not exist by
the way because I am a very active person who will work really hard at
something as evidenced by the hours of work I put into this piece of garbage.
Are you still reading this footnote? Haven’t you been able to tell there is nothing
of substance in this footnote? You should probably go back to the prose so you
can get through this thing a little faster. Go on already!
No comments:
Post a Comment