Chapter Text
Essek conceptualizes his sense of attraction in an experiential framework. He experiences different sensations as a result of his sense of attraction, which is centered upon himself, and largely acknowledges it as decoupled from other people. Another way his sense of attraction could be represented is with a hunger/appetite/craving model for each 'type' of attraction. Both of these are typical frameworks present in the Kryn Dynasty and are easily put to word in Kryn Undercommon.
Figure 1: A representation of Essek’s sense of attraction
Due the frequent use of terms such as ‘romantic’ and ‘in love’ in Common conversation and literature*, as well as internalized propaganda regarding the reproductive habits of short-lived races (humans in particular), Essek has several preconceptions regarding how senses of attraction are conceptualized within the Dwendalian Empire. He assumes those of the Empire, including Caleb, experience their senses of attraction in a uniformly prescriptive and relational framework. This means their senses of attraction involve two or more people, the subject (that is, the one internally experiencing the attraction) and the object(s) of the attraction, and experiences of attraction conform themselves to the prescripted type of relationship the subject and object(s) inhabit.
Figure 2: A representation of Essek’s sense of attraction mapped onto the ‘default’ Common framework
Mapping Essek’s sense of attraction into this assumed Common framework proves quite tricky. Parts of it may even seem contradictory without further expansion.
Caleb’s actual sense of attraction falls in line with a presential, ambient framework.
Figure 3: A representation of Caleb’s sense of attraction
His sense of attraction is centered on himself and describes how (not what) he feels towards others, regardless of who happens to be physically around. Though this framework can readily conform into the dominant prescriptive framework of Common, it is more accurately described as a sliding scale between presence of attraction and absence of attraction, regardless the ‘type’ of attraction. If asked how he conceptualizes his sense of attraction, Caleb would likely default to describing it in the Common framework, albeit with a little difficulty regarding ‘maybe’ cases.