Twinks In The NHL, An Introduction of Discourse

Writing a guide that will begin a discussion of twink/bear discourse within the NHL community is not a task that I take lightly. Some may say that this article is unnecessary, or perhaps patently ridiculous. I do not believe such interjections are true.

This is a complex project, one in which I will outline my argumentative case for twink representation in the NHL. I hope that this first venture into a particularly salient aspect of the League, one which has not been fully explored up to this point, will allow us to better consider twink/bear discourse as we move forward. I do not claim, nor do I wish, that this text becomes a seminal touchstone which all other analysis is based upon. Rather, it is my hope that this piece allows other authors and theorists to understand the importance of discursive analysis in their own twink/bear discourse.

First, before I begin a substantive exploration of twink representation, I would like to discuss the particular factors I will use to validate my claims. I believe it is important that our consideration of what, exactly, separates a twink from a twunk is approximately similar. I will use the chart I developed specifically for this text as pictured below, which I title the Sleuth (SLTH) alignment chart.

Figure 1: The Sleuth (SLTH) model.

My quadrants are guided by four characteristics: smooth, hairy, lean, and thick. While I will tread cautiously into both the "twunk" and "otter" quadrants, further exploration into the other three quadrants will likely have to wait for a future time. I wish to develop a contextualized, argumentative analysis of the spaces surrounding the twink first, without becoming unnecessarily engrossed in other quadrants of the Sleuth chart.

Now, I completely accept and understand criticism that my axes are reductive, or perhaps even essentialist. It is not my desire to make claims that bears are, and will always be, thick and hairy. However, I believe that in some circumstances it is necessary to make broad claims under which we can then focus on particular points; it is only then that we can attempt to encircle a given space, and describe ways that it can be reaffirmed or subverted. Prior scholars have called this project "strategic essentialism," and I incorporate it here despite its possible setbacks. It is with my failing on this matter that I hope future scholars will consider and expand upon it, creating a quadrant or spectrum of twink/bear discourse that will become the standard upon which our discussions develop.

Thus, as we move towards the core of this article, it is perhaps best to state two questions which I believe will guide the rest of the text. Are there twinks in the NHL? If so (and that is quite a rhetorical "if"), how can we differentiate between twinks, twunks, and otters?

The answer to the first question is, quite obviously, yes. In any population of men, there must eventually be a twink: the NHL is no different. The second question, however, maybe more difficult to answer. There exist many examples of twinks in the NHL, regardless of whether or not we are willing to view them as twinks. It is certainly true that some players who are twinks do not view themselves as such, or that a player which I label here as a twink would not be considered so by others.

I argue that this is not necessarily a matter of scholars being correct or incorrect in their views. Rather, we can consider the subjectivity of the twink. Like many things, the nebulous category of "twink" may be described better as a spectrum. There are certainly thicker twinks who are not twunks, and hairier twinks who are not otters. I would like to complicate our thinking of twinks, twunks, and otters as a singular space. Rather, consider the following visualization:

Figure 2: The otter-twunk spectrum.

Clearly, this complicates the supposed certainty which I have presented in the Sleuth model. I believe this secondary figuration is an important addition to the discursive elements I outline in this text.

It is certainly not a perfect visualization; I cannot argue that it is. However, I do believe that this is a launchpad into our future considerations of twinks in the NHL. It is possible through this first foray that we can, perhaps, mark the paths that we have took and that we can continue to take.

It is perhaps in the best interest of this path of study to stake a claim in real world examples of NHL twinks at this moment. However, this is not the direction that this text will take. Indeed, it is largely outside the scope of this project. My hope is that as scholars interpolate my introductory findings into their own research, we can begin the project of determining the exact coordinates of those in the NHL.

As I have mentioned before, I do not claim that this text is a foundational piece, one that completely and accurately lays out the groundwork for twink/bear discourse in the NHL. For example, I do not consider the position of the hunk in my SLTH model, and my current research does not include a space for them. Certainly, some readers and scholars will have issue with the way that I have argued my case here. I openly invite scholars to interact with my piece, to dissect it, to locate the gaps in my discourse. I wish only to begin a discussion of the twink in the NHL. Let us further our understanding together.