a question

[adrienmundi]

Do you perceive me as angry? Do any of you worry that I am likely to go off at any given moment, unleashing a tirade of which you will bear the brunt? Has this changed in any way over time?

Comments

[theinnocence.livejournal.com]

i think you worry too much about what people think

[sassysmile.livejournal.com]

no.

[k-navit.livejournal.com]

No and no to the first two -- can't say to the last. This might have something to do with only having text commo with you -- can't say about how the face to face, body language, day to day thing goes, but nothing in anything you've written that I've read has given me the impression that you do "anger" in the way its being treated in your question (I would argue for varieties of anger, you know, some of them justified -- but not that you do the lash-out-and-die kind).

[http://users.livejournal.com/_amaranthe_/]

I think at times you get extremely frustrated but I have never considered you an angry person.

[aesthetic.livejournal.com]

No.
As a matter of fact - in complete sincerity, I look forward to the rare occasions you do "go off"...

[laughingwoman.livejournal.com]

if i worry that you should "go off", i worry more that you focus it inwardly rather than outwardly...

and this hasn't changed over time.

i'm just very attuned to people's levels of self-recrimination (a cross my boy bears as well).

[servingdonuts.livejournal.com]

Do you perceive me as angry?

Yes, in the sense of Billy Joel's "Angry Young Man". But not constantly, not even primarily. And certainly not violently, or even particularly offensively.

Do any of you worry that I am likely to go off at any given moment, unleashing a tirade of which you will bear the brunt?

Nope. You're certainly capable of unleashing tirades, but 1) I don't see you as a ticking time-bomb or as having a hair-trigger, 2) I don't recall having born the brunt of them in the past and don't forsee it in the future, and 3) even if 1) or 2) weren't true I still wouldn't worry about it.

Has this changed in any way over time?

Other than us not actually being in each others' presences as often as we used to be, nope.

[servingdonuts.livejournal.com]

I think so too, but I don't think she worries about what we think about what she thinks about what people think.

[adrienmundi]

Sure, this is true, but I also acknowledge that my self perception is sometimes less than accurate, particularly as it relates to interaction.

[adrienmundi]

That's often my response when the subject of anger comes up: "Trust me, what you're receiving is nothing like what I experience of my own anger"

And you remain spooky, in a good way.

[adrienmundi]

Now I'm curious as to why?

[adrienmundi]

Thanks.

[aesthetic.livejournal.com]

I love passionate things.

To see someone "go off", sincerely, is positively beautiful to watch...

[adrienmundi]

I wasn't familiar with the Joel song, and had to go look it up. Do you mean to include the scornful dismissal that it looks like Joel intends? (Not that I think you do, but being unfamiliar with the song in general, I feel extracontextual in understanding)

[servingdonuts.livejournal.com]

Ah, right, sorry; please don't read too much into the context. In fact, ignore the song specifically, since I didn't intend to suggest that you are the subject of the song and thus the target of the author's scorn (or by potential implication, mine). In fact, just replace what I wrote above with:

"Yes, in a sense and to a degree. I see you as someone that can become righteously angered and express that anger more freely (and more eloquently) than most. But that's merely a facet of your personality, not its defining characteristic (in my eyes)."

The key point is that there is a difference between righteous anger and a general attitude of hostility, surliness, bitterness, frustration, etc. Opening the occasional can of whoop-ass on someone or something isn't the same as leaking toxin everywhere you go. My thought in referencing "Angry Young Man" was to denote the first kind of anger as opposed to the second kind.

[adrienmundi]

Fair enough. As I wrote, I didn't assume you meant that, but wanted to be sure I was getting what you intended in your allusion.

[adrienmundi]

OK, thanks.

[adrienmundi]

Extremely, yes: thanks for the input.

[laughingwoman.livejournal.com]

spooky in a good way?

clarify (because i think it might portend something warm and fuzzy, which i like).

[adrienmundi]

You seem to have a spooky amount of insight into my head, which is quite welcome.

[champignon.livejournal.com]

no. i have never perceived you as angry or likely to go off. at least not outwardly. you have always seemed far too self-controlled to be in danger of really "going off"

[adrienmundi]

I worry that as the cooling rods of superego are removed, a China Syndrome of angry id may follow.

[ultran-ego.livejournal.com]

Not particularly.

[fierce-rabbit.livejournal.com]

No.

Your posts seem to me to be mostly "pensive," which is neither a bad nor angry thing.

[grrlreloaded.livejournal.com]

No. No. I think you're less angry or potentially angry than you were, say, 10 years ago.

[adrienmundi]

That's an interesting and needed perspective: thanks.