Relatable fictional characters

Eight wrote:When I first came to this forum, I was very serious in my posts. I was trying to have discussions about the mental illness/personality disorders within my family with people-on-the-ground and not mental health professionals.

It was my first forum experience. After some time, a member I admired PM'ed me and suggested that my posts would be better understood in the spirit in which I was offering them if I'd start using emoticons or 'lol' or something to show my emotion.

I didn't like emoticons at all, and I had never once written "lol" in texts, so I balked. They just seemed... well... silly to me.

But eventually I saw that they were helpful to me in reading others' posts and deciphering their intent.

So I reluctantly started.

Still use them where I think what I'm saying could be misconstrued.

But they do seem like a take-away feature. And their overuse has cheapened them for everyone. And they are... come on... kinda silly. And I feel silly using them.

I'll pull back now, naps. Don't want to offend your fine sensibilities

Why not do what pleases you, instead of what pleases naps, or the person who PMed you?

ElephantEyes wrote:Why not do what pleases you, instead of what pleases naps, or the person who PMed you?

I do.

My process is to first consider what was said to me if I think it has any merit at all.

From that, I decide and do as I wish.

I thought the person who PM'ed me was correct. My overall posts were serious, so when I was teasing or joking, it wasn't coming across accurately. So it pleased me to change.

I was joking with naps, as he was with me. We understand each other. It pleases me to tell naps to go jump in a lake, or sit in his sweltering hot apartment without ever turning the a/c compressor on so that he eventually melts.

Eight wrote:
I was joking with naps, as he was with me. We understand each other. It pleases me to tell naps to go jump in a lake, or sit in his sweltering hot apartment without ever turning the a/c compressor on so that he eventually melts.

You can also pass his home address on to Divido Erik...I'm sure naps is always up for a friendly surprise visit from his favorite person.

ElephantEyes wrote:

Eight wrote:
I was joking with naps, as he was with me. We understand each other. It pleases me to tell naps to go jump in a lake, or sit in his sweltering hot apartment without ever turning the a/c compressor on so that he eventually melts.

You can also pass his home address on to Divido Erik...I'm sure naps is always up for a friendly surprise visit from his favorite person.

LOL

SweetSlumber wrote:Are there any fictional characters you can relate to/find similar to you?

Lots. I get really immersed in certain characters.

There's something about about tragic competence and intensity that really speaks to me. Jason Bourn, Jessica Jones, aspects of both Franky Doyle and Bea Smith, Marcus Aurelius, Carrie Mathison (even though she annoys me to no end). Lots of others.

Eight wrote:I like the writing style of both Dazz and gately/courtier. Both, for different reasons.

When I read gately or courtier, often I have to work. Their thoughts can be complex and their writing styles add to the complexity. I like to think that they've taken time to search for just that word I'm reading to convey their meaning, and I like that they approach an issue from multiple vantage points, or perhaps the same vantage point but yet a few inches to the left of the previous thought. But I can get tired of reading them. It is like my current reading of Wallace, an author that gately re-introduced me to -- his wording is wonderful and his imagery can be exhilarating to me yet he can also tire me -- I take him in bites and get filled up fairly quickly.

Dazz's writing can serve as a counterpoint in it's directness and simplicity. His points are often wellmade, though also often without finesse or elegance. I don't have to work hard reading Dazz. He doesn't tire me out. But he's also crass and insulting in a way that gately/courtier/others like them are not -- all can point out something critically (and I appreciate that when reading the observations of others) but gately/courtier just poke you and sometimes obfuscate their meaning so that it can be taken several ways; Dazz just smacks you upside the head.

I write much the same as I speak when not conciously dumbing things down, adding a few rhetorical devices and stylistic edges here and there, so it's always a weird thing to hear about density. Things are a lot more complicated inside my head; each point is attempted in as few words as possible, extensions to which are made for reasons of specificity, which I adjust depending on the audience. Posters like crystal have strong language comprehension, so I don't go to any extra effort to make the reading any easier.

It should be mentioned that reading is a developable skill, not a natural ability. If an average-level reader were to slog away at something like Gravity's Rainbow for six months, studying each word and concept they didn't fully understand as they went along, they would eventually finish to find writing like mine or even Wallace's extremely easy to understand. There's often just as much onus on the reader.

I was chatting to a guy two days ago who seemed pretty switched-on, this Buddhist-ish philosopher dude new to the rehab, and without thinking much of it I started to speak the exact train of thought I was having (we were talking about the challenges of quitting cigarettes), which he was smiling and nodding to at the time, but later on when I started up the conversation again, he said: "hey, look man, I think you and me think about this stuff differently...I can't really put it together like that, your brain must be going a million miles an hour, and you can speak really fast sometimes...I'm finding it hard to keep up with you". Granted his suboxone had just been reduced, but it's part of the reason I come back to forums like this: I can be myself.

For whatever it's worth, seeing as we're circle-jerking, your posts are a pleasure to read. It's really more to do with the ideas being communicated than the style of communication, but posters like yourself and naps and Quoth all add a degree of sophistication through being mindful of the reading experience. Crystal is more ideas-orientated, but just as readable.


@naps: On my phone so cbf quoting you: poetry and abstractive-prose aren't really ignoring correct usage; they harness and manipulate the lexicon for artistic reasons while being totally conscious of the rules being broken, manipulation which falls under the infinitely broad category of style. 'Correct usage' really only relates to being effective. Because an artist's intentions are more varied and complex than simple thought-transmission, language as an artform is as pliable and subjective as any other form of art. But that doesn't delegitimise rules as they apply to basic prose.

gately wrote:I write much the same as I speak when not conciously dumbing things down

I've been giving this some thought and it's not entirely accurate: less 'dumbing down' than being casual, fitting in with whoever I'm speaking to and whatever we're talking about, the same as most articulation-mindful people. Nothing special, really. But it's good to speak in more detail where possible.

fiveintime wrote:There's something about about tragic competence and intensity that really speaks to me. Jason Bourn...

I read somewhere recently that Courtier said he was really into Jason Bourne for awhile and imagined himself as him. I know you've done the same in past years.

Somehow, the two of you, both using Bourne as a fantastical device, just amuses me.

You and I were talking, in rough ways, about this at a coffee shop this week. You said that, still, fictional characters affect you more deeply. I was telling you that used to be true for me, but for many years now, I find real-life people to affect me far more deeply than constructed characters. There is something about real life that has a much stronger pull for me now than do bigger-than-life fictional people.

Hmm, I just sat with that phrase I used... bigger-than-life. I think that's a piece of it. For me, at this stage of my life, there isn't anything that's really bigger than life. Life itself, and real people living it, are far more extraordinary and compelling than is any fantasy or fictional creation.

As I said, gately returned me to David Foster Wallace. I am reading him now. And delving into this life. Such a mind. Such a heart. Such an exquisite and fragile and sturdy and uncompromising stance he took to life and his writing and his being. Such a struggle to deal with his emotional and psychological issues and put himself forth in his writing. A humbleness that wasn't weak at all and yet it was. I found that I have some connections in real life with his widow which was a huge surprise; I've thought of contacting her some time if that seems good and right. His life, because it's real, and his death, because that is also real, are draws to me. To me, Jason Bourne has nothing on DFW.

Reality is more enticing to me than is illusion, and I'm intrigued by the crossover of the two.

What if we flip this around?

What if some of the fictional characters we see on TV are based on people here? I've seen characters in movies that have used some of the exact wording that people on this forum have used and some of the ideas that have been discussed have made it onto the screen. I've also had people ask me questions directly.

As this is one of the first forums that pops up if you're searching for info on psychopathy it's almost inevitable that people looking for info or inspiration would come here.

gately wrote:It should be mentioned that reading is a developable skill, not a natural ability.

I read the whole thing--just quoted this part for context. I'm with you, for the most part. I even appreciate complex, stylistic language, if it serves a purpose. I love the artsy, playful feel of Lolita. It takes more time to read, but it's also what adds depth to the characters. In a way, all we really are to each other is a bunch of writing on a forum, so our "flesh and blood" is a combination of what we say and how we say it.

When it comes to complicated ideas, though, I appreciate simplicity. The more complicated the idea, the more skill it takes to make something simple, and the better it is to read.

Eight wrote:Reality is more enticing to me than is illusion, and I'm intrigued by the crossover of the two.

It's all the same to me. All of the fictional characters I relate to are just reflecting aspects of who I really am. It's less of getting lost in a fantasy, and more like gazing into a psychological mirror. I often find it easier to see myself clearly when I see myself in someone else.

justonemoreperson wrote:What if some of the fictional characters we see on TV are based on people here? I've seen characters in movies that have used some of the exact wording that people on this forum have used and some of the ideas that have been discussed have made it onto the screen.

Any examples come to mind?

I just finished binging all five seasons of Wentworth, which was maybe obvious since I mentioned two of the main characters a couple of posts earlier. It's a little off topic, but I gotta say--Joan Ferguson is a hell of a fictional psychopath. There's been a lot of half-assed portrayals in media, and they did a pretty good job with this one. Certainly better than Dexter's moralistic autism.

I hardly think most pwASPD are anywhere near like her, but it felt like a pretty good portrayal of what obsessive, high-function psychopathy could look like.